New Santer et al. Paper on Satellites vs. Models: Even Cherry Picking Ends with Model Failure

October 18th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

(the following is mostly based upon information provided by Dr. John Christy)

Dr. John Christy’s congressional testimonies on 8 Dec 2015 and 2 Feb 2016 in which he stated that climate models over-forecast climate warming by a factor of 2.5 to 3, apparently struck a nerve in Climate Consensus land.

In a recently published paper in J. Climate entitled Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data, Santer et al. use a combination of lesser-known satellite datasets and neglect of radiosonde data to reduce the model bias to only 1.7 times too much warming.

Wow. Stop the presses.

Part of the new paper’s obfuscation is a supposed stratospheric correction to the mid-tropospheric temperature channel the satellite datasets use. Of course, Christy’s comparisons between models and satellite data are always apples-to-apples, so the small influence of the stratosphere on the MT channel is included in both satellite and climate model data. The stratospheric correction really isn’t needed in the tropics, where the model-observation bias is the largest, because there is virtually no stratospheric influence on the MT channel there.

Another obfuscation is the reference the authors make to previously-published radiosonde comparisons:

“we do not compare model results with radiosonde-based atmospheric temperature measurements, as has been done in a number of previous studies (Gaffen et al. 2000; Hegerl and Wallace 2002; Thorne et al. 2007, 2011; Santer et al. 2008; Lott et al. 2013).”

Conveniently omitted from the list are the most extensive radiosonde comparisons published (Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer and W.B Norris, 2011: The role of remote sensing in monitoring global bulk tropospheric temperatures. Int. J. Remote Sens. 32, 671-685, and references therein). This is the same kind of marginalization I have experienced in my previous research life in satellite rainfall estimation. By publishing a paper and ignoring the published work of others, they can marginalize your influence on the research community at large. They also keep people from finding information that might undermine the case they are trying to build in their paper.

John Christy provides this additional input:

My testimony in Dec 2015 and Feb 2016 included all observational datasets in their latest versions at that time. Santer et al. neglected the independent datasets generated from balloon measurements. The brand new “hot” satellite dataset (NOAAv4.0) used by Santer et al. to my knowledge has no documentation.

Here is my testimony of 2 Feb 2016 (pg 5):

I’ve shown here that for the global bulk atmosphere, the models overwarm the atmosphere by a factor of about 2.5. As a further note, if one focuses on the tropics, the models show an even stronger greenhouse warming in this layer … the models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately 3.

Even when we use the latest satellite datasets used by Santer, these are the results which back up my testimony.

Global MT trends (1979-2015, C/decade) & magnification factor models vs. dataset:


102ModelAvg +0.214
___UWein(2) +0.090 2.38x radiosonde
_____RATPAC +0.087 2.47x radiosonde
_______UNSW +0.092 2.33x radiosonde
____UAHv6.0 +0.072 2.97x satellite
____RSSv4.0 +0.129 1.66x satellite
___NOAAv4.0 +0.136 1.57x satellite
________ERA +0.082 2.25x reanalysis

The range of model warming rate magnification versus observational datasets goes from 1.6x (NOAAv4.0) to 3.0x with median value of 2.3x for models warming faster than the observations.

Tropical MT trends (1979-2015, C/decade) & magnification factor models vs. dataset:


102ModelAvg +0.271
___UWein(2) +0.095 2.85x radiosonde
_____RATPAC +0.068 3.96x radiosonde
_______UNSW +0.073 3.69x radiosonde
____UAHv6.0 +0.065 4.14x satellite
____RSSv4.0 +0.137 1.98x satellite
___NOAAv4.0 +0.160 1.69x satellite
________ERA +0.082 3.31x reanalysis

Range goes from 1.7 (NOAAv4.0) to 4.1 with a median value of 3.3 for the models warming faster than the observations.

Therefore, the testimony of 2 Feb 2016 is corroborated by the evidence.

Overall, it looks to me like Santer et al. twist themselves into a pretzel by cherry picking data, using a new hot satellite dataset that appears to be undocumented, ignores independent (radiosonde) evidence (since it does not support their desired conclusion), and still arrives at a substantial 1.7x average bias in the climate models warming rates.


233 Responses to “New Santer et al. Paper on Satellites vs. Models: Even Cherry Picking Ends with Model Failure”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. John Hultquist says:

    My regular song is “They make things up.”
    Now I will need a second one:
    “They leave things out.”

    Thanks for the report.
    Dry Side John

  2. John R Smith says:

    hey Doc
    hope you don’t mind a basic, possibly dumb, question from a non-scientist that reads this stuff for entertainment.

    I understand there is little or no warming in the historical surface temp reocord for the CONUS. I thought I saw where even Hansen admits so.

    I recently read that central Eurasia has had 25 years of colder winter surface air temps. Seems like big chunks of the NH.

    And then there’s your sat stuff.

    So where is the warming of global warming?

    BTW, my reading of the history of science is that the most influential were very often marginalized.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      there is *some* observed warming, depending on what dataset you look at. All the datasets require corrections for known issues, but the corrections are uncertain and often controversial. In any event, the amount of observed warming is usually less than that which climate models produce.

    • David Appell says:

      This comment has been repeatedly blocked.

      John R Smith says:
      “I understand there is little or no warming in the historical surface temp reocord for the CONUS.”

      No.

      Temperature change for USA48, from NOAA since 1895, shows +0.97 C of warming.

      • Lewis says:

        David,

        It’s sad to say, but in the Obama years, many have learned the government can no longer be trusted, about anything.

        If HRC gets elected, as the 1st amendment continues to be eviscerated, the ability to question the government will become more of a problem.

        My point is: your source is tainted.

      • David Appell says:

        Lewis wrote:
        “My point is: your source is tainted.”

        Prove it.

        You gave no evidence whatsoever that this is true.

        You just don’t like the data because they don’t say what you want, so you reject it wholesale.

        Of course if it DID say what you’d like, you’d have no problem with it whatsoever.

        So, prove it.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “shows +0.97 C of warming.”

        How much of that is “adjustments”?

      • AndyG55 says:

        And if even a fraction of that warming from the LIA, coldest period in 10,000 years is actually real..

        then THANK GOODNESS.

  3. Rud Istvan says:

    Great post. Been commenting on this new paper elsewhere. Did not fully understand until now how bad the stratosphere fiddle was. And this after RSS heated up the TMT in undocumented v4.0. After all that futzing, 1.7x is still a model failure of the same error magnitude as ECS in CMIP5 compared to EBM observations, 1.65 observed versus CMIP5 median 3.2.

    • David Appell says:

      Rud Istvan says:
      “And this after RSS heated up the TMT in undocumented v4.0”

      Need I remind you that UAH v6 hasn’t been documented or published either?

      • Rud Istvan says:

        Wrong again it has been documented here, and the paper on it has been submitted.

        • David Appell says:

          Documented here??? Are you kidding?

          Blog posts aren’t scientific papers. Anyone capable of reading scientific papers knows that.

          • wert says:

            I don’t know what you mean with “documented”, but traditionally “documented” does not mean anything like “published in Nature”, but rather, “written down somewhere”.

            I’m sure “undocumented v4.0” is actually documented as well, just not published. Don’t worry, pals will soon give some positive review comments.

            Anyway, the issue is not that something is documented or not, the issue is 1.7x model warming even after trying to get the curves match.

            1.7x is by the way 1.3K : 2.2K. A lot.

    • MarkB says:

      “And this after RSS heated up the TMT in undocumented v4.0.”

      Maybe I’m missing your point, but this was published at the time of RSS v4.0 release: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1

  4. David Appell says:

    Roy:
    “”Dr. John Christys congressional testimonies on 8 Dec 2015 and 2 Feb 2016 in which he stated that climate models over-forecast climate warming by a factor of 2.5 to 3….”

    So why hasn’t this graph ever been published in any place that is peer reviewed?

    At this point is looks like you guys are actively avoiding that.

    • appell'sajerk says:

      “actively avoiding” as opposed to what, “passively avoiding”?

    • AndyG55 says:

      roflmao..

      Still with your total lack of comprehension of what peer review is for.

      Still, what can one really expect from a low-end fantasy journalist.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Been in front of a congressional hearing..

      That is published for all to see.

      Sorry it got past the Journal gate-keepers.

      • David Appell says:

        Published, not peer reviewed. Huge difference.

        • Phil R says:

          Keep burying your head in the sand. Peer review means (almost) nothing in climate science. Before you ask your stupid passive-aggressive straw man question, I don’t have any peer-reviewed publications.

          Curiously enough, I still accept (notice I did not say “believe”) Newtonian physics and the theory of relativity as models of how our environment behaves, both on an Earth scale (Newton) and a universal scale (Einstein). Oh…, and both were published, but neither one was “peer-reviewed.”

          • David Appell says:

            Peer review means a lot in science.

            It means the results aren’t obviously wrong, and it means the paper meets basic scholarly standards.

            Neither is true for Christy’s graph.

          • David Appell says:

            Phil R wrote:
            “Curiously enough, I still accept (notice I did not say believe) Newtonian physics and the theory of relativity as models of how our environment behaves, both on an Earth scale (Newton) and a universal scale (Einstein)”

            That’s funny, since Newtonian physics and the theory of relativity aren’t the same theories. Nor do they give the same results.

            For some cases, you need special relativity right here on Earth. Examples: a nuclear bomb. Particle physics labs like SLAC and CERN. Without relativity, those labs would blow up.

            And you need even more — general relativity — to get GPS right.

          • Phil R says:

            David Appell wrote,

            “Thats funny, since Newtonian physics and the theory of relativity arent the same theories. Nor do they give the same results.”

            Strawman much? I never said they were, that’s why I listed them separately.

            First, happy to see that you could also cherry-pick parts of a quick comment and clarify something that most, if not all, posters here already know: That relativistic effects are relative (get it?) to special conditions here on earth. however, the key is “special” conditions.

            Second, yes they do give the same results under “normal” earth-scale conditions. When speed is <<<<<< c (e.g., c approaches 0, or the speed of my typing), relativity basically collapses to Newtonian physics (sorry if my jargon is not quite accurate, I'm not peer-reviewed).

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Peer review means a lot in science..”

            RUBBISH

            In climate science, all it means is that pal-reviewed JUNK gets passed the gate-keepers, and reality does not.

            The standards of the junk that gets passed is HORRENDOUS to say the least.

            Eg Mann’s hockey stick..

          • AndyG55 says:

            YOu have two tasks , rotten one

            Provide pics of weather stations in six places,

            and provide pics of birds killed by coal fired power station

            RUN and HIDE, you COWARDLY CRETIN.

          • David Appell says:

            Phil R says:
            “That relativistic effects are relative (get it?) to special conditions here on earth. however, the key is special conditions.”

            That’s false and shows you don’t know the first thing about relativity.

            “Second, yes they do give the same results under normal earth-scale conditions. When speed is <<<<<< c (e.g., c approaches 0, or the speed of my typing), relativity basically collapses to Newtonian physics (sorry if my jargon is not quite accurate, I'm not peer-reviewed)."

            It has noting to do with "earth-scale" conditions. There are conditions on Earth where using Newtonian physics gives an incorrect answer — the obvious example is a nuclear bomb. Another is any high-energy particle accelerator in the world. And every nuclear reactor on the planet. Every smartphone that uses GPS to determine its location.

            All right here on Earth.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Evasion continues, I see.

            You KNOW that you cannot produce pics of those surface station

            and you KNOW that cannot produce pics of birds killed by coal-fired power station

            EVADE.. RUN.. HIDE !!!

          • Phil R says:

            Like a petulant child, DA apparently always has to get the last word in. It has everything to do with “earth scale” conditions. I love it when you defend GHE by saying “everyone knows” it’s a metaphor, or simple and convenient way of expressing something (which, by the way, I agree with in general), yet get so hair-splitting with perfectly appropriate generalizations by others.

            Please let me point out that Newtonian mechanics worked perfectly well for scientists to explain scientific observations for centuries since Newton. Please also let me point out your deceptive strawman references to nuclear boms, particle physics, CERN, and GPS. As I assume you are aware,none of these existed at the time of Newton, or for centuries after. As a matter of fact, quantum mechanics was developed over time to explain, at least in part, observations that scientists were starting to make that could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. But to try to rebut my comment by pointing out that you need special (and general) relativity for special cases that exist here on earth (and that didn’t exist here on earth not that long ago) is a dishonest quibble.

          • Phil R says:

            P.S., It wouldn’t surprise me if you dug down real deep and pointed out I spelled “bombs” wrong.

          • David Appell says:

            Phil R says:
            “Please let me point out that Newtonian mechanics worked perfectly well for scientists to explain scientific observations for centuries since Newton.”

            Only up to a point. Astronomers knew by 1859 that the precession of Mercury’s perihelion was anomalous, and could not be accounted for by Newtonian physics.

            Other than this, Newtonian physics looked right only because scientists lacked the ability to create the energy needed to get to where it failed. This is a perfectly natural progression in the development of all sciences.

            In any case, Newtonian physics no longer suffices for all “Earth-scale” phenomena.

            “As a matter of fact, quantum mechanics was developed over time to explain, at least in part, observations that scientists were starting to make that could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics.”

            The failure to explain blackbody radiation was a failure of Maxwell’s equations and statistical mechanics, not Newtonian physics. Same with the photoelectric effect, and of the ether hypothesis.


            If you reply, can the gratuitous insults.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          you are dreaming David. Unlike peer review in the professions, science peer review has zero performance standards. Professional standards take years to develop to help ensure any level of assurance. Successful peer review in science merely means that who ever gave a positive peer review subjectively had no objections to the material and in the cases where peer reviewers do have objections they may be subjectively ignored by the journal.

          • AndyG55 says:

            This cretin STILL doesn’t realise that in “climate science”,
            is NOTHING but an entry into the climate scam journals.

            Meaningless.. all part of the scam

          • David Appell says:

            Bill Hunter says:
            “Unlike peer review in the professions, science peer review has zero performance standards.”

            How would you know, Bill?

            Ever published a peer reviewed paper?
            Ever gotten comments back on a submitted paper?

            Let’s see you prove that science peer review “has zero performance standards.” This just makes you look ignorant.

          • An Inquirer says:

            David Appell,
            Actually, I have published. And I have gotten comments back from peer reviewers. This I have noticed: the comments were much more meaningful when the paper did not touch on climate change. One time, I absolutely refused to join my colleagues in publishing a paper with climate change implications, pointing out a weakness so glaring that the peer review process would tear it to shreds. I was so wrong. The peer reviewers endorsed the paper, and my colleagues went on to publish it without me.

          • Bob Osborn says:

            David Appell says:
            Unlike peer review in the professions, science peer review has zero performance standards.

            How would you know, Bill?

            David standards are published or like laws they are not standards at all. Perhaps I am wrong David and you can point to some promulgated science peer review standards. If you can’t well you are just simply wrong.

          • David Appell says:

            Bob Osborn says:
            “David standards are published or like laws they are not standards at all. Perhaps I am wrong David and you can point to some promulgated science peer review standards.”

            Peer review goes back over a hundred years. All scientists learn the standards when they are graduate students — peer review means a paper adheres to basic scholarly standards, that it meets the journal’s purpose and format, and that it isn’t obviously wrong.

          • Bob Osborn says:

            David as I suggested I could be wrong that no standards are published.

            A certified public accountant operates under dozens of volumes of promulgated standards specifying a wide variety necessary methods, practices, and disclosures. “Scholarly standards” is extremely vague and “not obviously wrong” implies you can be intentionally wrong as long as you are subtle about it. Further there is very little enforcement and almost all enforcement is via journals and the institutions benefiting from the papers. Obviously if its so brutally wrong that its an embarrassment to the journal or institution they have recourse. . . .I am not aware of anyone else having recourse though. As a result the journals and institutions ignore key issues related to unsupported statements and the lack of inclusive data to even replicate the work. As a result science is served poorly by the current status of peer review. Is it better than nothing? Undoubtedly sometimes it is.

        • Phil R says:

          DA,

          “Can the gratuitous insults.”

          Fair enough.

          “Thats false and shows you dont know the first thing about relativity.”

          You could follow your own advice.

    • Streetcred says:

      From memory, the warmista actively prevent publication of any contrary evidence … appel ignores the Climategate emails.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Maybe you need to calm down David. Even the most avid of disaster bead rubbing scientists who published the report Roy is commenting on is saying that the models are overpredicting warming by 170%. Maybe you ought to let that sink in some before going off?

      The range of error based upon dataset is 170% to 414% which is not a wide range (244%) when you consider the 300% range of uncertainty given by the IPCC for a modeled warming rate.

      What is most disturbing about the validation of the models is there is near zero bracketing of observations. What that statistically means is all the models likely have a common error. From which its really easy to conclude that something that is considered as “settled science” within the modeling group is in fact not settled.

      I realize this is a tough message for a bunch of computer programmers to absorb but what it means is its time to go back to the laboratory. I learned almost 40 years ago that it is not enough to trap energy. Trapping energy is easy. Getting something out of it though requires knowing what happens to it after you trap it. Fact is its harder to hold onto than a handful of slimy eels.

      • John Hultquist says:

        My father, as a young man, had a “trap line.” What he trapped did not get away. Water vapor, and some other gases might better be said to “redirect” the radiation that encounters them.
        Folks ought to use the phrase ‘radiatively active gases’ instead of greenhouse gases because real Greenhouses introduce CO2 as a needed component of plant growth — not to heat the enclosed space.
        The first part of “carbohydrate” seems to be hard for some folks.

        • David Appell says:

          Everyone understands that a “greenhouse gas” is based on a metaphor. Everyone knows not to take it literally.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yes , but the so-called climate scientist seem unable to use the right description.

            If they did.. the so-called “Greenhouse theory” would not exist.

            As it is.. it is just a FANTASY… your stock in trade.

      • David Appell says:

        Bill Hunter says:
        “Even the most avid of disaster bead rubbing scientists who published the report Roy is commenting on is saying that the models are overpredicting warming by 170%. Maybe you ought to let that sink in some before going off?”

        That’s not what the paper says, Bill. Read closer.

        As for how well models are doing, this is updated every month:

        https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

  5. Magoo says:

    David Appell:

    FigTS-14 from the IPCC AR5 chapter 2 Technical Summary shows a comparison of the models to the empirical temperature record if you’re interested:

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=Assessment%20Reports&r=AR5%20-%20WG1&f=Technical%20Summary

    • David Appell says:

      The 5AR is already out of data, because of new data from UAH v6, Karl et al, etc.

      Here are more up-to-date data:

      http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

      • Magoo says:

        Yes I’m aware of that one David, it shows the same thing as the AR5 one with the addition of the El Nino. Surely you’re not trying to suggest the El Nino natural weather event validates the failed climate models, are you?

        • David Appell says:

          Magoo wrote:
          “Surely youre not trying to suggest the El Nino natural weather event validates the failed climate models, are you?”

          Surely you’re not trying to suggest the predominant La Nina natural weather events of the prior 15 years refutes the climate models, are you?

        • David Appell says:

          Again Andy, you’re too juvenile to deserve a reply.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Low end fantasy journalism.. your stock in trade.

            Stick to it and leave science for others.

          • David Appell says:

            You can have the last word, Andy. Go for it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Good that you agree to leave the science to others.

            You know your proper place is in a back pages of a sci-fantasy rag.

          • Phil R says:

            What are you so afraid of? Is your little fantasy world starting to crumble around you?

            I wonder if you’ve ever read some of the earlier papers that are cited as the basis of the GHE and global warming hypothesis. Tyndall’s 1859 study of the effect of thermal radiation (quaintly referred to as “heat rays” in the mid-19th century) springs to mind. Guess what. Published but not peer-reviewed. Does that mean that one of the foundational papers of the GW hypothesis should be ignored?

            Bonus question 1. In that paper, what scientific hypothesis that was commonly accepted at the time that he published his paper but that was later proven to be false did he refer to to explain his results?

            Bonus question 2. Since he explained his results using a commonly accepted but false theory at that time (and in addition, since it wasn’t peer-reviewed), does that negate the validity of his paper?

          • David Appell says:

            Phil R says:
            “Tyndalls 1859 study of the effect of thermal radiation (quaintly referred to as heat rays in the mid-19th century) springs to mind. Guess what. Published but not peer-reviewed.”

            Wrong. In those days, papers were peer reviewed by the editors of journals, who were always experts, or by colleagues they sent the paper to, asking for their opinion.

            Those results are trivial to confirm today:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

          • Phil R says:

            Oh, and refer to a video created in 2009 to answer a question about a paper published in 1859. Nice diversion.

          • Lewis says:

            Phil,

            You have to understand, leftists, warmists, progressives, socialists – all – use current standards to judge historical figures and actions.

            So in DA’s mind, using 2009 standards or information is perfectly acceptable.

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis says:
            “So in DAs mind, using 2009 standards or information is perfectly acceptable.”

            Hilarious. This is a trivial demonstration.

            Do you think the molecular properties of CO2 have changed since 2009? Or the properties of lasers?

  6. Magoo says:

    There’s been an equal amount of El Nino’s and La Nina’s since 1997, so I don’t know what you’re on about more La Ninas. Two of the El Ninos were massive as well, yet still the temperature trend remains near flat:

    http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

    What I AM saying is the trend is flat for the past 20 yrs compared to the climate model projections, and one El Nino doesn’t validate them. The temperature record since 1979 shows more ‘hiatus’ than warming.

    • David Appell says:

      Magoo says:
      “What I AM saying is the trend is flat for the past 20 yrs compared to the climate model projections”

      False:

      20-yr trend for UAH LT, Sept1996-Sept2016: +0.06 C/decade

      20-yr trend for GISS LOTI, Sept1996-Sept2016: +0.18 C/decade.

      • Magoo says:

        Yes, but as a result of …. wait for it … the current short term, natural weather event known as the El Nino. If you don’t believe me then we can just have another look at FigTS-14 from the IPCC AR5 chapter 2 Technical Summary which shows the temperature record before the current El Nino:

        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=Assessment%20Reports&r=AR5%20-%20WG1&f=Technical%20Summary
        source: page 87, Technical Summary, AR5 (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf)

        Look David, if you’re whole argument is based on a single El Nino that is temporarily skewering the temperature record and is currently in the process of winding down, then you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel and reek of desperation. Does a La Nina prove global cooling or a long term negative temperature trend? No?

        • David Appell says:

          Magoo says:
          “Yes, but as a result of . wait for it the current short term, natural weather event known as the El Nino.”

          Now you’re changing your tune.

          Because earlier you wrote,

          What I AM saying is the trend is flat for the past 20 yrs compared to the climate model projections

          That statement was false.

          And, again, 20-years is too short a time interval to make deductations about climate change.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “And, again, 20-years is too short a time interval to make deductations about climate change.”

            Bulltish.

            Why.. because the top climate scammers said so ???

          • AndyG55 says:

            Frankly you need about 2-3 times the most obvious cycle

            Say 150-200 years

            So yes.. we can all agree there has been some highly beneficial warming out of the LIA, which was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years

          • AndyG55 says:

            If we take top of cycle to top of cycle in UNADJUSTED data.

            We could look at 1940’s either REAL data from USA or Iceland.

            And we have already seen that in the raw data, the temperature was pretty close

            It looks like in the raw un-maladjusted data, there has been basically ZERO warming since the 1940’s.

            Unless of course you want to use the DELIBERATELY ADJUSTED NOAA or Hadley based junk.

            We could look the Japanese surface data, seemingly unaffected by too much UHI.

            Here it is from 1950-1900
            https://s19.postimg.org/xjd7q1cdv/japan1950_1990.png

            There is the step up from the EL Nino in the late 1990’s (which we now know should be discounted for any CO2 warming effect) then we get this

            https://s19.postimg.org/p2dpf47oz/japan_since_1998.png

            As anyone can clearly see

            NO WARMING !!!!!!

            ZERO TREND.

            Note: This data set has two distinct steps in 1946-1949 and 1996-1998 but has basically ZERO trend from 1900-1945 then as above

            Those you want to argue..

            Do your own homework !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        Right across the El Nino.. thanks for proving Magoo’s point.

        All you can ever do to show warming is use those El Ninos..

        …. because that’s all there is. !!

        • David Appell says:

          You whine as much as Donald Trump.

          I’ve said here multiple times that it’s recommended to look at 30-yr trends or more.

          The UAH LT record is almost 38 years long. It’s trend over that time is +0.12 C/dec, easily statistically significant.

          What do you want to whine about now?

          • AndyG55 says:

            From one main El Nino step

            Otherwise basically ZERO TREND

            Again, your PATHETIC attempt at using the El Nino to create a trend.

            But you just keep doing it because you know that its all you have
            .
            And I don’t give a rats what you say about 30 year trends.

            We are in a semi-chaotic cyclic system and because one of the main cycles is about 60 years long, 30 years is probably the very worse period to use.

            But your very limited mathematical knowledge wouldn’t point that out to you, would it.

            What you should do is look at what is happening between chaotic events (El Ninos in this case)..

            .. But that is totally and absolutely beyond anything you will ever be capable of.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You do know that the 30 year period was recommended by someone who KNEW there was a 60ish year cycle.

            One of the AGW propaganda elite.

            At the time it was very advantageous to the propaganda story.. now we are stuck with it.

            But as the cycle has just started to turn.. it will soon come back to bite them.. hard.

          • David Appell says:

            AndyG55 says:
            “We are in a semi-chaotic cyclic system and because one of the main cycles is about 60 years long”

            They [PDO, AMO] aren’t a “main cycle” — not compared to CO2’s forcing change, but in any case:

            60-yr trend of NOAA global monthly = +0.14 C/decade.

            PS: VERY statistially significant.

          • AndyG55 says:

            RUBBISH!

            There is minimal to NONE CO2 forcing.

            You live in an alternate FANTASY world.

            As you KEEP PROVING by ALWAYS going across the El Nino step change..

            ….. the ONLY warming has come from NON-CO2 ocean and cyclic effects.

            You have 2 task which you are COWARDLY RUNNING and HIDING from.

            1. show us pics of those surface stations

            2. Show us pics of birds killed by coal fired power stations.

            RUN and HIDE.. or stick to your low-level fantasy garbage.

          • David Appell says:

            AndyG55 says:
            “There is minimal to NONE CO2 forcing.”

            Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
            http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

          • AndyG55 says:

            One look at CERES data and you can see why the period 2000-2010 is a fortunate period of data to use.. either by LUCK or CHERRY PICKING

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/ceres_ebaf-surface_ed2-8_areaaveragetimeseries_deseasonalized_surface_longwave_flux_down-all-sky_032000to032014.png

            Pity they didn’t take their study a year and a half longer ..

            or maybe they did, seeing as it was published in 2015..

            5 years to process….drop off the last couple of inconvenient years.. (its is “climate science” after-all)

            Also funny that they say ten years is significant, but the 2001- 2015 plateau of ZERO WARMING in temperatures wasn’t.

            Odd that these tiny measured increases in down radiation just happen to coincide with a period of ZERO WARMING , isn’t it.

            Now prove that this feeble 0.2W/m actually caused any warming, when there wasn’t any warming.. that will be fun to watch.

            We live in an atmosphere where convection rules and man’s beneficial contribution to global atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase for many, many years to come.

            GET USED TO IT…

            … because there is absolutely NOTHING you or any of the AGW proponents can do about it. (big smilie)

          • AndyG55 says:

            Also odd that during that period Earths surface strongly strengthened its ability to cool radiatively (by about 1.5 W/m2 or ~1 W/m2 per decade) according to CERES:

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/ceres_ebaf-surface_ed2-8_areaaveragetimeseries_surface_net_longwave_flux-all-sky_032000to032014.png

            (Note, absolute values, negative means LARGER surface heat loss.)

            Not much trace there of any increasing atmospheric retardation of outgoing surface radiative heat, is there?

            Rather the opposite the outgoing radiation increased.. OOPS !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yep two basically zero warming segments with a step between and a spike at the end.. yet to be determined what happens next.

      https://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png

      https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png

      • David Appell says:

        Wrong again.

        The trend of UAH LT v6beta5 up to Dec 1996 = +0.06 C/decade
        The trend of UAH LT v6beta5 since Jan 2000 is +0.10 C/decade.

        And so what? There are El Ninos, and there are La Ninas. That’s why the WMO recommends looking at trends of at least 30 years. = +0.11 C/dec

        The ability of most commenters here to do basic calculations is abysmal.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yes we have notice your incompetence, and manic cherry picking rather than comprehension of what is actually going on.

          And you are STILL relying on those El Ninos, aren’t you. 🙂

          … and yes, we all know why they want to use 30 years starting around 1979.

          • David Appell says:

            Andy, you couldn’t calculate your way of out a paper bag.

            “…and yes, we all know why they want to use 30 years starting around 1979.”

            I don’t. 30 years ago was — duh — 1986.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor David.. your wet paper bag is awaiting you.

            Cycles, rotten-one….

            Do try to understand why 30 years is such a stupid length of time to use.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Except that your lack of basic mathematical comprehension doesn’t allow you to understand, does it.

          • David Appell says:

            AndyG55 says:
            “Except that your lack of basic mathematical comprehension doesnt allow you to understand, does it.”

            Who do you think you’re kidding? I’m far more competent in mathematics than you are.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ROFLMAO !!!!!

            Now you are REALLY fooling yourself.

            You really have ZERO idea, clown.

            Did you even get out of high school ?

          • David Appell says:

            AndyG55 says:
            “Did you even get out of high school ?”

            Why do you need to write that?

            Last warning: if you can’t control your emotions, you’ll get no further replies.

          • AndyG55 says:

            How PATHETIC can you get.

            Weaselling out.

            RUN and HIDE, coward.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Did you even get out of high school ?

            Why do you need to write that?”

            Because you seem to HUGE gaps in you science and mathematical comprehension.

            Maybe you just majored in creative writing ??

  7. AndyG55 says:

    DA, did you ever find those pictures of the surface stations in the yellow circle, to show us how good they are..

    Or are you going to RUN and HIDE again.

    https://s19.postimg.org/ek13ihsdv/201608_2.gif

  8. MikeN says:

    David Appell, Mike Mann wrote in his book about some long term natural phenomenon that counteracted the Medieval Warm Period in the tropics, suggesting a Pacific Thermostat Hypothesis. This long term negative feedback would mean less global warming than what the models predict.

  9. ren says:

    In 1965 Paul D. Jose published his discovery that both the motion of the Sun about the center of
    mass of the solar system and periods comprised of eight Hale magnetic sunspot cycles with a
    mean period of ~22.375 years have a matching periodicity of ~179 years. We have
    investigated the implied link between solar barycentric torque cycles and sunspot cycles and
    have found that the unsigned solar torque values from 1610 to 2058 are consistently phase and
    magnitude coherent in ~179 year Jose Cycles. We are able to show that there is also a
    surprisingly high degree of sunspot cycle phase coherence for times of minima in addition to
    magnitude correlation of peaks between the nine Schwabe sunspot cycles of 1878 through 1976
    (SC12 through SC20) and those of 1699 through 1797 (SC[-5] through SC4). We further identify
    subsequent subcycles of predominantly non-coherent sunspot cycle phase. In addition we have
    analyzed the empirical solar motion triggers of both sunspot cycle phase coherence and phase
    coherence disruption, from which we boldly predict a future return to sunspot cycle phase
    coherence at times of minima with SC12 to SC20 for SC28 to SC36. The resulting predicted start
    times 1 year, 1 sigma, of future sunspot cycles SC28 to SC36 are tabulated.
    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.03553.pdf

  10. AndyG55 says:

    Latest from WUWT

    Solar farms CAUSING global warming !!

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/18/define-irony-photovoltaic-heat-island-effect/

    Well.. not global.. but if the alarmista can call local/regional UHI warming feeding into the global temp.. so can I.

  11. Christopher Game says:

    Important post.

    It worries me that in perhaps 20 years’ time, it will be evident to all that the warming has been substantially less than that predicted by the models. Then the warmistas will say “Look how our cuts to emissions have saved the planet. We must continue them, now that we have proof of their efficacy and necessity.” Perpetual taxation of the fourth kind?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Christopher Game …”Perpetual taxation of the fourth kind?”

      It’s scary what lies in store if Clinton becomes president. He counterpart in Canada, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and completely out of touch with reality, is already talking about putting a price on carbon.

      He has threatened provincial governments that if they don’t come up with their own prices he will impose one. His environmental minister is an uber-alarmist who has made it a religion.

    • Chris Hanley says:

      @ Christopher Game (7:53 AM),
      That claim will only work if a slowdown in the measured atmospheric CO2 concentration trend can be demonstrated, otherwise significantly less warming than predicted will simply expose Climate Change Inc. as a gigantic fraud, consequences no doubt following.

      • David Appell says:

        CO2 (et al) projections include four RCPs.

        None will come true exactly. But currently we are above RCP8.5.

        • AndyG55 says:

          None will come true !….

          … exactly !

          ZERO sign of any CO2 warming in temperature, sea level..

          or ANY in data what-so-ever.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Chris Hanley, my fear expressed here is not about what is true. It is about what will be said and believed by many regardless of truth, for those drive government action.

  12. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    Dr. John Christys congressional testimonies on 8 Dec 2015 and 2 Feb 2016 in which he stated that climate models over-forecast climate warming by a factor of 2.5 to 3.

    Has any of you ever written about how this graph was made?

    And if it doesn’t included actual forcings, it is worthless. You know that Roy.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      David Appell,

      As nobody has even proposed a falsifiable hypothesis including “forcings”, I surmise you are just trying on the usual GHE nonsense of hoping nobody will ask you to define a “forcing” in scientific terms.

      No GHE. Not even a falsifiable hypothesis proposing such a bizarre notion. Heating a planet after four and a half billion years of cooling, by making sure there is less CO2 in the atmosphere than before?

      No wonder nobody with any sense at all would find it impossible to propose heating by using less of the stuff supposed to provide the heat!

      Or is it more than yesterday, but less than before? What’s the falsifiable hypothesis?

      Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        Mike Flynn says:
        “As nobody has even proposed a falsifiable hypothesis including forcings, I surmise you are just trying on the usual GHE nonsense of hoping nobody will ask you to define a forcing in scientific terms.”

        It’s defined in every climate science textbook I know of. Look in your favorite.

      • David Appell says:

        Mike Flynn says:
        “No GHE.”

        Then explain why the planet is warmer than the Sun can make it.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          David Appel..”Then explain why the planet is warmer than the Sun can make it”.

          It’s actually a lot cooler than the Sun can make it. According to Lindzen, if there were no cooling convection currents the surface would heat to a temperature over 70C on average.

          It’s not radiation that cools the surface, it’s convection and conduction.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Its actually a lot cooler than the Sun can make it. According to Lindzen, if there were no cooling convection currents the surface would heat to a temperature over 70C on average.”

            A rotating planet with Earth’s albedo and no atmosphere has an average surface temperature of 255 K.

            You can’t include convection without including other atmospheric constituents, like greenhouse gases. It’s either all or nothing.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Convection (and conduction) RULES in the lower atmosphere.

            Yep its all or nothing.. so why to you only yap about radiation and think that back radiation, mostly from H2O, can only have anything but a very transient warming effect.

            Easily dissipated by convective and conductive transfers.

            And remember, the ONLY reason clouds form is because they have already transferred a whole heap of energy to cloud level.

            Sorry rotten-appell… but the main function of the atmosphere is COOLING, not warming, and because the whole is balanced by the temp pressure gradient, CO2 acts as nothing but another cooling conduit.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Mike Flynn “I surmise you are just trying on the usual GHE nonsense of hoping nobody will ask you to define a forcing in scientific terms”.

        A forcing is a term from differential equation theory and with relation to climate science it comes from the climate models that are programmed with differential equations. There is no such as a forcing in the real world and using it as such is incorrect.

        The word forcing comes from a forcing function. With a differential equation function, you can apply a forcing function to it, for example a unit impulse function, that forces a certain response.

        With climate models, they have incorrectly presumed that a forcing function representing ACO2 will affect the output of the model, which is a giant differential equation. It’s a presumption based on what they think should happen and the data has proved them wrong.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “There is no such as a forcing in the real world and using it as such is incorrect.”

          Ridiculous.

          “A climate forcing can be defined as an imposed perturbation of Earth’s energy balance. Energy flows in from the sun, much of it in the visible wavelengths, and back out again as long-wave infrared (heat) radiation…. Those gases that absorb infrared radiation, i.e., the greenhouse gases, tend to prevent this heat radiation from escaping to space, leading eventually to a warming of Earth’s surface.”

          https://www.nap.edu/read/10139/chapter/3

          • AndyG55 says:

            “tend to prevent this heat radiation from escaping to space”

            roflmao

            Convection and conduction rules in the lower atmosphere.

            CO2 is just another conduit to cooling the atmosphere.

            The release time in the lower atmosphere is many magnitudes greater than the collision time.

            Nearly all the IFR absorbed by CO2 is immediately passed to other molecules and dealt with by convection.

            Your little links up above PROVE that.

            Very little is radiated downwards.

            Do you dare take a simple experiment to prove that convection rules?

            (After you have completed your other two tasks that you are RUNNING and HIDING from, of course)

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “With climate models, they have incorrectly presumed that a forcing function representing ACO2 will affect the output of the model, which is a giant differential equation.”

          Again, ridiculous.

          The forcing is CALCULATED. That’s what climate models do — numerically solve the PDEs that describe energy transportation and exchange in the atmosphere. See: “two-stream equations.”

    • David Appell says:

      Mike Flynn says:
      “As nobody has even proposed a falsifiable hypothesis including forcings,”

      It’s been measured, and it agrees with the predictions of climate models:

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

  13. AndyG55 says:

    “Stephen Tindale was executive director of Greenpeace for five years. Now he tells Greens that fracking is safe – and an answer to fighting global warming. So end the scare-mongering”

    MORE CO2.. to go along with India, China, Indonesia, Turkey, Poland, Germany

    World prospect for massively increased atmospheric CO2 are looking very POSITIVE (smilie icon)

    • AndyG55 says:

      Looking at weather/winds up in Arctic.

      Still some El Nino stuff hanging about, cant last much longer Only place showing any major remnants is over mid northern Russia. Temps starting to drop.

      Strong winds that were compressing the central sea ice above the Canadian Islands have subsided.

      Suggest we will now see Laptev, Baffin, the Canadian islands and Greenland Sea start to climb.. maybe some growth in Hudson Bay as well

      Barent, Kara, Chukchi, anything above mid to east Siberia may take a bit longer, but when it starts will be strong growth.

  14. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell,

    Still no falsifiable hypothesis relating to CO2’s alleged planet heating properties. Doesn’t exist. Maybe you’ve confused it with the Scarlet Pimpernel – sought everywhere, but miraculously always somewhere else!

    Just as a matter of interest, the Moon shows how hot and cold the surface becomes in the absence of an atmosphere. Tyndall pointed this out over a hundred years ago.

    No GHE. No CO2 heating. If a climate science textbook differs from real science texts, I’ll believe the real science text. If it doesn’t, what was the point of writing it?

    More CO2 – good. No CO2 – very, very, bad!

    Cheers.

    • bobdroege says:

      http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

      from that source, here is a falsifiable hypothesis.

      “Photons in the infrared region of the spectrum have much less energy than photons in the visible or uv regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. They can excite vibrations in molecules.”

      That is half of the greenhouse effect.

      I will allow you to research the other half.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        bobdroege,

        Sorry. No cigar. Photons of lower frequency have less energy than those of higher frequency. Nothing to do with the alleged ability of CO2 to heat a planet. Basic physics.

        Half of an explanation of a supposed effect is pointless. Wouldn’t you agree?

        There is no falsifiable hypothesis explaining the supposed heating abilities of CO2, for good reason. CO2 heats nothing. The GHE does not exist.

        I’m sure you’ve searched high and low. I haven’t bothered searching for something that doesn’t exist.

        I will allow you to keep trying. Still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing.

        Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        Mike Flynn says:
        “Photons of lower frequency have less energy than those of higher frequency. Nothing to do with the alleged ability of CO2 to heat a planet. Basic physics.”

        Atmospheric CO2 absorbs many frequencies of IR. This IR is primarily upward, away from the surface. CO2 then emits this frequency of IR in a random direction, some of it downward. There is a net change in outgoing energy flux, which is global warming. Basic physics.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David Appell,

          What is it that you are disagreeng with?

          Nothing at all.

          You adopt the ever more desperate tactics of deny, diver, confuse.

          Go for it, David.

          Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Mike Flynn says:
      “Still no falsifiable hypothesis relating to CO2s alleged planet heating properties.”

      Wrong. The simplest consequence of the enhanced greenhouse effect is warming. Which is observed.

      Greenhouse theory also predicts stratospheric cooling. (Solar warming predictds the opposite.) Also observed.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David Appell,

        As I said before, still no falsifiable hypothesis . . .

        Keep waffling. Deny, divert, confuse.

        As for science – well, it is only climatology, isn’t it?

        At least you managed to attempt 15 hours of journalism. I didn’t get that far, but I had a senior sub-editor of a national daily leave me a note saying “I’m off for a few days – I’ll leave it to you”.

        Maybe I know more about journalism than you. As to physics, it’s pretty obvious.

        GHE?

        If you say so, David, if you say so.

        Cheers.

        • Confused_Jane says:

          still no falsifiable hypothesis . . . ?

          YAWNING … there are many – here’s one
          https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324v1.pdf

          here’s some more than mentions it
          http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page48.htm

          Now feel free to just ignore it all and carry on doing and saying the same anyway, and I’ll keep on YAWNING

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Confused Jane,

            Still no falsifiable hypothesis.

            You talk of many. Surely you only need one?

            Your links provide none, in any case. Maybe you could cut and paste your falsifiable hypothesis, so others can see what I so obviously overlooked.

            Here’s your chance to call me out, take me down, or whatever nonsensical terms the GHE believers use.

            Go for it. Demonstrate the scientific method in action. Of course you can’t, because the GHE just doesn’t exist in the sense of heating the planet – as in “hottest year EVAH!”

            Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the Earth has actually cooled for four and a half billion years?

            Or maybe atmospheric CO2 is a modern invention?

            Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Mike Flynn says:
      “Still no falsifiable hypothesis relating to CO2s alleged planet heating properties.”

      Wrong. The simplest consequence of the enhanced greenhouse effect hypothesis is warming. Which is observed.

      Greenhouse theory also predicts stratospheric cooling. (Solar warming predicts the opposite.) Also observed.

  15. mothcatcher says:

    I occasionally visit this blog as I have a high regard for whatever Dr Spencer has to say, but I’m a little discouraged at the way the comments go rapidly off track.

    This thread is a good example. One David Appell comes along with a comment which may be of marginal relevance and may be primarily designed to provoke, but certainly might be discussed properly, and then two or three sceptics pile in with increasingly irrelevant rejoinders and David can’t resist to respond in kind. At the end, nobody is any the wiser.

    There must be many like me whose enjoyment of this site is destroyed by the reams of garbage that follow. Most of it should be deleted. I’m pretty fed up. The better contributors will not hang around here in the face this stuff. Dr Spencer doesn’t deserve this. How about we try to keep calm, and keep on subject?

    • Toneb says:

      “There must be many like me whose enjoyment of this site is destroyed by the reams of garbage that follow. Most of it should be deleted. Im pretty fed up. The better contributors will not hang around here in the face this stuff. Dr Spencer doesnt deserve this. How about we try to keep calm, and keep on subject?”

      Agreed:
      The Sky-Dragon slayers in other words.
      Roy has banned ge*an, wi*de and pai*ter.
      Others should follow.

  16. DHMacKenzie says:

    I admire Dr. Roy’s restraint in allowing both drivel and anti-drivel to be published in his comments section, I can only assume as a motivator to the silent majority of his readers to do their own web searches and come to their own hopefully rational conclusions.

    • Lewis says:

      Dearest Jane,

      Being a boss, the one about psychopathic bosses attracted me. No doubt it is true. The question is: what is a psychopath? Merriam says in part, that – ‘he’ doesn’t care about other people-. I will say this, it is difficult to be a boss if you care too much about other people. I care a lot, but am able to discipline and fire. There are those who enjoy lording it over others.

      On the other side, is there a study showing how a large portion of the population doesn’t care to do their work properly or steals (comes in many forms) or are passive aggressive, doing things to hurt the company and others etc.

      People are not perfect. More exactly – we’re not all alike. It seems natural, to me, that bosses are a bit different than the average person, they have to be. If that is described as psychopathic in some then, I resemble that.

      Lewis Guignard
      President
      Tynat

      • Confused_Jane says:

        Hi Lewis, not all those in prison are psychopaths. Follow that thought across to business. The studies however are very sound.

        Check out “snakes in suits” — it is not only about “management” functions and dealing with staff.

        I too was a “boss” and damn well good one both in leadership mngt and other skills. If you’re a psychopath it’s not because you’re a “boss” or an entrepreneur.

        What is that “study” you mentioned about —

        “a large portion of the population doesnt care to do their work properly or steals (comes in many forms) or are passive aggressive, doing things to hurt the company and others etc.” ?

        If you can handle the truth, try this as a taste tester
        http://www.counseling-office.com/surveys/test_psychopathy.phtml

  17. Confused_Jane says:

    And NOAA has also now posted for September with an anomaly of +0.89C, the second hottest September on record after 2015 & the =11th warmest anomaly in the full record.

    Thus the remainder of 2016 would have to average above +0.62C to gain the warmest calendar year accolade.

    (The most recent year with last 3 months average below +0.62C was 2012.)

    The anomalies for 2015/16 and their rankings within the full record are as follows:-
    2015 1 0.82C = 24th
    2015 2 0.89C = 11th
    2015 3 0.90C = 9th
    2015 4 0.78C = 33rd
    2015 5 0.86C = 18th
    2015 6 0.88C = 15th
    2015 7 0.81C .. 26th
    2015 8 0.88C = 15th
    2015 9 0.93C .. 8th
    2015 .. 10 0.99C .. 6th
    2015 .. 11 0.97C .. 7th
    2015 .. 12 1.12C .. 3rd
    2016 1 1.05C .. 5th
    2016 2 1.19C .. 2nd
    2016 3 1.23C .. 1st
    2016 4 1.08C .. 4th
    2016 5 0.88C = 15th
    2016 6 0.89C = 11th
    2016 7 0.86C = 18th
    2016 8 0.90C = 9th
    2016 9 0.89C = 11th

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      confused…”And NOAA has also now posted for September with an anomaly of +0.89C…”

      NOAA scientists should all be in jail for scientific misconduct.

      You do realize that the data used by UAH is from NOAA satellites. NOAA discarded it and Roy and John of UAH received medals for excellence from NASA and the American Meteorological Society for turning the data into data sets.

      That’s not the worst part. NOAA recently slashed 5000 reporting surface stations from a global pool of 6500 and applied the data from the remaining 1500 to a climate model. In the model the data is interpolated and homogenized to synthesize the missing 5000 stations.

      Is it any wonder that NOAA, who reports to the uber-alarmist US Environmental protection Agency, has used climate models with faulty physics to find warming where 2500 reviewers at the IPCC 2012 review found none?

      • Confused_Jane says:

        RE: “NOAA scientists should all be in jail for scientific misconduct.”

        NO< it's you Gordon who should be in a secure mental asylum for the term of your natural life.

        You're INSANE.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Proud to be an Aussie, helping the world’s energy and CO2 supply. (big smilie)

          World coal exporters.

          1.Australia: US$28.4 billion (36% of total coal exports)
          2.Indonesia: $16.4 billion (20.8%)
          3.Russia: $9.3 billion (11.7%)
          4.United States: $5.7 billion (7.2%)
          5.South Africa: $4.3 billion (5.4%)

  18. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “Overall, it looks to me like Santer et al. twist themselves into a pretzel by cherry picking data, using a new hot satellite dataset that appears to be undocumented….”

    Your own data that you promulgate here every month is undoumented!

    At least Santer et al passed peer review.

    • AndyG55 says:

      pal review. !!

      • Toneb says:

        Well go and drag some peeps of the street – sit em down with the paper and ask them to review it.

        Now there’s a sensible alternative.

        Or we could just ask experts in the field to do it?

        Like happens in all of science.

        But of course Climate science is different (rhetorical).

    • David you are in denial and before this decade is out you will have mud on your face for supporting the asinine AGW theory which has no data current or past to back it up.

      By the end of the decade temperatures will be .5c lower then they are today.

      Of course I think you will still be in denial even if that results.

      Currently the Arctic is responsible for almost all of the above average global temperatures which is meaningless as far as trying to show that as a tie in to AGW theory.

      To take it further I have maintained in order to commence global cooling the Arctic will be on the warm side coinciding with a mostly -AO.

      This in turn will promote cooler then average temperatures in the lower latitudes which is much more meaningful since the Arctic regions even if above normal are STILL below freezing.

      Then under that situation is as apparent now the amount of global N.H snow coverage and temperatures at or below freezing will increase which will in time contribute to lower global temperatures.

      Watch global sea surface temperatures as the sunspot number is now going to stay below 40 which when reached will promote lower sea surface temperatures on a global basis.

      Not to mention the cosmic ray count now above 6500 which should contribute to more global cloud coverage and to make this even more significant the earth’s magnetic field is in a steady decline.

      Lol have fun promoting AGW theory given all of the realities I have just ponted out.which

      • COR LOL – HAVE FUN PROMOTING AGW THEORY GIVEN ALL OF THE REALITIES I HAVE JUST PONTED OUT.

        David before you say I am wrong you always fail to mention that I called for global cooling based on specific low average solar parameter values which would have to be attained first following several years of below normal solar activity in general.

        This is now apparently taking place with the sun with the only parameters still high being the solar wind and AP index which are due to coronal hole activity which will in time decline significantly and when this happens lookout below.

        I have unlike you, the historical climatic data record to lend support to what I say.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        “Currently the Arctic is responsible for almost all of the above average global temperatures”

        are you a LIAR or a PSYCHOTIC?

      • bobdroege says:

        At least we have a prediction we can cut and paste to the wall.

        To compare to Hansen’s predictions from 1980.

        I would bet Hansen will be closer.

        But then nobody posts a daily global temperature.

  19. Ross Brisbane says:

    I quote:

    “There is no such Goldilocks layer. ..That can determine out right the accurate rate of warming or act as some refutation of the rate of warming implied by model or by the majority of climate scientists globally who derive this rate from the known laws of physics. We are referring to CO2 gases increasing in the atmosphere and the global warming effect)… The reason is that part of the stratospheric cooling has been due to the impact of CFCs destroying ozone. When manufacture of CFCs was restricted, a regime in which both increasing CO2 and increasing CFCs combined to cool the stratosphere was replaced by one in which decreasing CFCs warmed the stratosphere while increasing CO2 cooled it slightly more. That means the stratospheric trends vary significantly over time, while the Troposphere trends are more or less constant. From that in turn it follows that the Goldilocks layer in one time period is not the Goldilocks layer in the second. In the moderately near future we will have a third regime of near constant O3 (due to the lack of CFCs) coupled with increasing CO2.

    Further, as can be seen in this RATPAC data, the rate of cooling is different in different levels of the stratosphere”

    from Sceptical Science – Comments.

    Yes I am a sceptic of John Christy’s remarks.

  20. ren says:

    Abstract
    We derive two principal components (PCs) of temporal magnetic field variations over the solar cycles 21-24 from full disk magnetograms covering about 39% of data variance, with λ=-0.67. These PCs are attributed to two main magnetic waves travelling from the opposite hemispheres with close frequencies and increasing phase shift. Using symbolic regeression analysis we also derive mathematical formulae for these waves and calculate their summary curve which we show is linked to solar activity index. Extrapolation of the PCs backward for 800 years reveals the two 350-year grand cycles superimposed on 22 year-cycles with the features showing a remarkable resemblance to sunspot activity reported in the past including the Maunder and Dalton minimum. The summary curve calculated for the next millennium predicts further three grand cycles with the closest grand minimum occurring in the forthcoming cycles 26-27 with the two magnetic field waves separating into the opposite hemispheres leading to strongly reduced solar activity. These grand cycle variations are probed by α-ω dynamo model with meridional circulation. Dynamo waves are found generated with close frequencies whose interaction leads to beating effects responsible for the grand cycles (350-400 years) superimposed on a standard 22 year cycle. This approach opens a new era in investigation and confident prediction of solar activity on a millenium timescale.
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina_Zharkova/publication/283862631/viewer/AS:[email protected]/background/4.png
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283862631_Heartbeat_of_the_Sun_from_Principal_Component_Analysis_and_prediction_of_solar_activity_on_a_millenium_timescale

    • doctor no says:

      Arctic sea ice extent as of 20 October is now at record low levels.

      Antarctic sea ice extent is now 2 standard deviations below the mean.

      Try and explain that as “not unusual”.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dr no…”Try and explain that as not unusual”.

        Three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics…M. Twain

        Quoting a study as claiming standard deviations difference does not explain the context in which the claim was made. Were they there, paddling in kayaks among the ice floes with a tape measure? Or did they examine a satellite photo and jump to the conclusion the ice had melted due to anthropogenic warming.

        Did any of them see it melt…and where it melted?

        Till someone tracks that ice, watches it melt, and follows it out of the Arctic and into the Atlantic, I have no interest in their propaganda.

        Mann did a study of Antarctic temperatures since 1950 with an alarmist from Seattle, I think it was Stieg. They claimed warming over 60 years. When the stats were examined it was found that one station had been under 4 feet of snow.

        Mann et al had interpolated results from the Antarctic panhandle to other parts of Antarctica.

        • doctor no says:

          Deliberate stupidity and obfuscation or plain laziness.
          The data is published by the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
          Google it yourself and then come back to me and repeat your claim that it is propoganda.

  21. ren says:

    Nighttime lows will be in the 30s and 40s with gusty wind during the first part of the weekend.
    When factoring in AccuWeather RealFeel Temperatures, it will feel 40 to 50 degrees colder, coming off the record warmth in many places. RealFeel Temperatures will be 10 to 20 degrees lower than the actual temperature by Saturday night.

  22. Olof R says:

    Hello Dr Spencer,
    You say that radiosonde data corroborates the testimony of John Christy..
    I just wonder, why dont you use radiosondes properly? Don’t smear them out in TMT or TLT-layers and destroy their ability of vertical resolution. With radiosondes you can also start earlier, so you dont miss the first big temperature rise up from the cool mid seventies.

    Try this, try to use distinct layers of the atmosphere that make physical sense when comparing with models:
    http://postmyimage.com/img2/588_Ratpaclayersvsmodels.png

    The free troposphere is not warming 3 times faster in the models..
    Not even 1.7 times faster..
    More likely 1.25 times, as measured by the trend. Thus, observations follow models quite well.

    However, the observed stratospheric cooling is much larger than the modelled. Go out and find the reason for that. Is the the increased greenhouse effect larger than expected? Is stratospheric ozone prescription for the models wrong?

    • Toneb says:

      “….Is stratospheric ozone prescription for the models wrong?”

      Have you considered CFC O3 depletion?

      • Olof R says:

        I’m not sure, but AFAIK ozone depletion and recovery isn’t an emergent variable in climate models. It is more a prescribed scenario, like the RCP:s.

    • barry says:

      The period choice of 1979-2015 for comparing model/obs is set by the paper that Santer is rebutting, hence Spencer’s (and Santer’s) deferral to it.

      • Olof R says:

        Yes, but with knowledge of the more long-term changes that radiosonde datasets offer, the period 1979-2015 may appear as an unintentionally cherrypicked period with a lower trend.

        1979-2015 is unbalanced, it starts with a warm period including a strong el Nino in 1983, has one strong el nino in the middle, but stops just before the strong el nino in 2016.
        Including 2016 in the satellite era trends makes a big difference.. When the satellite era becomes 40 years in 2018, it will have an ENSO-wise fair balance..
        The trend 1979-2015 was 0.164 C/ decade for RSS TTT v4. Now, with 9 months of 2016 included, the satellite era trend is 0.178.

        When it comes to cherrypicking, how many of the 102 models used by Christy can match the trend 2012-now of RSS TTT v4,1.135 C/ decade? The period is not freely cherrypicked, it is the period without the pause-making AMSU5 instrument onboard NOAA-15.

    • barry says:

      Oops – Santer is not referring to a study, but to congressional testimony. I assume the 1979-2015 period was mentioned in Christy’s testimony in February

  23. barry says:

    It’s odd to see UAH6.0 referenced by John Christy in his testimony, right after criticizing Santer et al’s use of a different data set that “has no documentation.” UAH6.0 methods are not yet published.

    Someone upthread vouched that there is ‘documentation’ for UAH6.0, but it appears as a qualitative description in a post on this site and has no code etc. You can also find ‘documentation’ for NOAAv0.4 satellite record here. This includes links to research papers.

    Bit of a double standard?

    • Bindidon says:

      As you know, barry, i’m neither a “warmist” nor a fortiori a “coolist”.

      But here, even when quoting the word, you’re shooting yourself in the foot when you pretend one might find a documentation there. It’s all you want but that.

      What might be worth a consistent critique concerning John Christy’s Feb 6 2016 testimony would rather be to question about
      – the strange “correlation” he infers between a handful of carefully selected radiosondes and the satellites;
      – this ridiculous chart on page 3, showing us that correlation, but ending in… 2004 (what immediately remembered me a very, very interesting paper he wrote in 2006 together with William Norris);
      – his even more strange shift from the daily used TLT to the very convenient TMT.