Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998

January 3rd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2016 was +0.24 deg. C, down substantially from the November value of +0.45 deg. C (click for full size version):

The resulting 2016 annual average global temperature anomaly is +0.50 deg. C, which is (a statistically insignificant) 0.02 deg. C warmer than 1998 at +0.48 deg. C. We estimate that 2016 would have had to be 0.10 C warmer than 1998 to be significantly different at the 95% confidence level. Both 2016 and 1998 were strong El Nino years.

The 38 years in the satellite record, ranked from warmest to coolest (and ignoring statistical uncertainty) are:

RANK YEAR deg.C.
01 2016 +0.50
02 1998 +0.48
03 2010 +0.34
04 2015 +0.26
05 2002 +0.22
06 2005 +0.20
07 2003 +0.19
08 2014 +0.18
09 2007 +0.16
10 2013 +0.13
11 2001 +0.12
12 2006 +0.11
13 2009 +0.10
14 2004 +0.08
15 1995 +0.07
16 2012 +0.06
17 1987 +0.05
18 1988 +0.04
19 2011 +0.02
20 1991 +0.02
21 1990 +0.01
22 1997 -0.01
23 1996 -0.01
24 1999 -0.02
25 2000 -0.02
26 1983 -0.04
27 1980 -0.04
28 1994 -0.06
29 2008 -0.10
30 1981 -0.11
31 1993 -0.20
32 1989 -0.21
33 1979 -0.21
34 1986 -0.22
35 1984 -0.24
36 1992 -0.28
37 1982 -0.30
38 1985 -0.36

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 24 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.65 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.41 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.41 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.19 +0.30 +0.21

The UAH global image for December, 2016 (and annual image for 2016) should be available in the next several days here.

The new Version 6 files should be updated soon, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


818 Responses to “Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. jimc says:

    I can imagine what the propaganda machine will make of statistically insignificant.

    • George E. Smith says:

      Well as far as the actual universe is concerned, ANYTHING statistical is totally irrelevant.

      The universe neither knows nor cares about statistics. It only knows what to do with current real time values, and it does what they dictate.

      G

      • AlanF says:

        How much of the heat island effect is elevated dew point because of combustion of fossil fuels?

        • Trevor Marr says:

          The Maunder Minimum does not care about how humans benefit from fossil fuel and oil.

          We simply need the gov’t to issue 2 cards, but you can ONLY sign 1 card.

          Card#1 – I support Fossil Fuels/oil.

          Card#2 – I do not support Fossil Fuels/oil.

          You can only sign 1 card. But in order to get gas, propane, plastic, anything made with fossil fuels/oil, or drive a car, ride a bus, take a plane to the Tropics like our PM does, anything powered by fossil fuels/oil, use a computer, cell phone, iPhone, or even try to buy a banana from another Country brought to Canada via fossil fuels/oil, then YOU must present a signed card #1!

          There will not be many signed #2 cards! THAT will get rid of all the eco hypocrites!

          We need optimization/innovation for the ‘capables’, not senseless subsidization of the ‘incapables’!

          When it gets COLD again, like during the Little Ice Age. Will the Liberals and NDP and Democrats use oil? Yes they will!

      • Richard Chase says:

        Statistical significance is a measure of the likely actual difference between two populations (as represented by numbers) whether you are comparing something “universal” or simply global data sets.

    • No need for a propaganda machine as people have eyes, and most of us can read a graph. Even a fool can see an upward trend, and if things don’t turn around as Dr Spencer hopes, you will need to devise a new baseline.Oh, and forget about weather events that are cold, as these do not determine our climate…the trends and statistics as a whole do, and this can clearly be seen even by the good doctor’s graph.Statistics can be distorted, but arctic ice and glacial melt can’t.

      • Michael van der Riet says:

        Thank you for mentioning baseline. How would you establish baseline? The climate models have convincingly demonstrated that they are unfit for purpose. Not because the modelers are stupid, far from it, but because we know so little about climate science. I say that without CO2, temperatures today would be at least a degree higher. Prove me wrong.

        • Duh says:

          CO2 is a greenhouse glass.

          what you imply about less CO2 would be as nonsensical to say that a glass of water in which i wouldn’t have sprinkled Salt would be saltier than if i did.

    • Ceist says:

      RSS Press release

      Atmospheric temperature measured by satellites sets new record in 2016

      http://images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/Jan_5_2017_news_release.pdf

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Ceist…”RSS Press release….Atmospheric temperature measured by satellites sets new record in 2016″

        That’s because they cooled 1998 off. You can’t trust RSS, they were formed to debunk UAH and they failed.

  2. Harry Twinotter says:

    The chart clearly shows a global warming trend, especially the 5 year average.

    • I assume you mean the 13-month running average…but the trend is only 50% of the trend in the climate models being used to change energy policy. And even half of the very weak ocean warming trend since the 1950s might well be natural. So, “global warming” as observed doesn’t mean what most people think it means.

      • Harry Twinotter says:

        Sorry I meant the 13 month running average.

        But warming is still warming, this falsifies the hypothesis of no warming put out by some. Considering no significant forcings other than greenhouse gases have been found, draw your own conclusion.

        I do not understand how you can comment on data from 1950 when you only have data going back to 1979.

        The surface temperature trend is likely to match the climate models bettter.

        • I was referring to our published analysis of the global-deep ocean temperature changes since the mid-1950s…if you want to talk about “global warming”, that is the parameter and time period most looked to for establishing warming of the global climate system: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z

          Surface data have errors the satellite data don’t have, adjustments much larger than the satellite adjustments, and their global sampling is rather poor.

          • and since I am a “lukewarmer”, I don’t ascribe to any “no warming” hypothesis. I’m not even sure what that means…it’s always warming or cooling…the question is how much of recent, rather benign warming is our fault, and what if anything can be done about it? Conflating non-zero warming with “OMG we have to do something” would be dishonest.

          • steven mosher says:

            Actually the coverage is comparable even better in the time domain, the satellites structural un certainty is much higher, just compare all your versions from the first to the current to see how much your modelling assumptions drive your answer. Our adjustments are actually small during the time period, but go ahead and publish your RAW data before and after corrections for diurnal drift, orbital decay and AMSU adjustments. the fact is you have never published a raw series so that people can compare.

            Go ahead publish the raw data or publish your code for version 6.

            you wont.

          • Harry Twinotter says:

            “adjustments much larger than the satellite adjustments,”

            I beg to differ.

            Anyway, I see where this “discussion” is going. Another time.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Harry,

            No one cares. Go moan, wail, gnash your teeth, and scream “the sky is falling” elsewhere, or whatever you alarmist clowns do.

            The earth is better off a little warmer anyway. And the current minor warming is not unprecedented anyway.

          • JasG says:

            “Actually the coverage is comparable even better in the time domain”

            What an outrageous untruth! Coverage is blindingly obviously inferior for the sparse land-based thermometers combined with well-known inaccurate sea data prior to 2005.

            For the USA (the only area of the world with decent thermometer density) all of the warming trend comes from adjustments. Whether correct or not (and since the biggest one, tobs, is pure pessimistic guesswork then that is unlikely) having all of your trend from adjustments means the data is not fit for policy. For the rest of the world the raw data is unreliable in the extreme and any adjustments could only be guesswork but should probably be more down than up thanks to well-known UHI issues at most locations; the data never having been intended for this purpose.

            Satellite corrections otoh are much easier because accurate calibration is possible at disparate, quality locations and tus accurate corrections can be applied to all the data at once, rather than at each thermometer adjustment being different. ie it is a scientifically accurate and unbiased process which is backed up by other satellite recons using different techniques and also by radiosondes. The land data is only backed up by itself: Regardless of how many others produce a plot it is all from the same sparse & spotty selection.

            Land-based data was only intended as a backup for the accurate satellite data, It is abjectly stupid or politically-motivated-reasoning to pretend they can supplant them. Where else in climate science does anyone argue that satellite data is somehow more unreliable than sparse land-based data? Answer: nowhere!

          • Nate says:

            Jas. Objective observers have noted that the satellite adjustements have had much larger impacts on the trends than the surface records. For example, the most recent adjustment cut the 38y trend of the Arctic in half. Why? Because modeling and asumptions about the atmosphere are required. This track record cannot be ignored.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            stephen mosher…”Go ahead publish the raw data or publish your code for version 6.”

            Go back to your cave, you haven’t the foggiest notion of what you are saying. Publish raw data without corrections for orbital drift, etc????

            Where else in science would you find such raw data? Do you see surface stations sources like NOAA publishing temp max/mins? No…they give you an average.

            They don’t even give you all the data these days. They slash 5000 stations from a global pool of 6500 stations and SYNTHESIZE temperatures for the 5000 in a climate model based on 1500 stations.

            Why do you accept that crud and whine about corrections for orbital decay? Are you going to do that yourself, or is your implication that UAH cannot be trusted?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            JasG…”rather than at each thermometer adjustment being different.”

            As you have implied, without individual thermometer adjustments they would not be able to throw out the cooler ones while emphasizing the warmer ones. NOAA has perfected the art of obfuscating the temperature record by blatantly slashing 5000 surface stations from the global pool of 6500 then synthesizing them is a climate model.

          • Bart says:

            There are 7280 GHCN stations worldwide:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#/media/File:GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png

            That is an average of 27 thousand square miles per station, which would be a 165 X 165 mile square at the equator. What is the weather like 165 miles from where you are right now? Anything like what it is where you are?

            And, of course, it’s worse than this, because the stations are not uniformly distributed, being particularly dense in the US. And, they’ve been anything but uniformly cited over time.

            Yet, this I will say: up until the Karlization of the surface records, the surface data sets significantly agreed with the satellite records. They altered the surface data through nefarious means, and now they want to corrupt the satellite data as well or, failing that, to plant doubt regarding the satellite records’ fidelity. It’s total BS.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Bart, No I would say that the temperature anomaly (above or below average) is often quite similar 165 miles away, because weather systems are often quite large. Any errors from this will be both positive and negative and will average to near 0 when considering the whole globe.

            My question for you is how much of a difference to long term trends do you think comes from poor sampling? Can u estimate the size of the effect? I think you you are assuming it is much worse than it actually is.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Bart…”There are 7280 GHCN stations worldwide…”

            Not all of them are used. I got the 6500 number from an old NOAA site when they were willing to admit to that.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

            Also…try this:

            https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

            All the NOAA and GHCN fudgings are listed and explained.

          • Olof R says:

            The satellite series are much more uncertain than the surface series, claiming something else is just ridiculous..
            The overall trend of the three most recent TMT-products from UAH, RSS and STAR vary from 0.08 to 0.14 C/ decade (indeed with the two latter at 0.14 C). The global surface datasets vary by far less, 0.17-0.18 C/decade.

            Hence, saying that the 95% confidence interval of the annual value in UAH v6 TLT is only 0.10 C, can not be true. It is maybe 0.10 if all structural uncertainty is ignored.
            So really, I dont think it is possible in UAH v6 TLT to tell apart 1998, 2010 and 2016 significantly..

            If 0.10 C should be the typical confidence interval of satellite product, then would 2016 be significantly warmer than 1998 in UAH 5.6 TLT and RSS v4 TTT.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Wheres the proof that nitrogen and oxygen cannot independently absorb and emit energy to space”

            All greenhouse gases consist of molecules with three atoms or more. Only they have the vibrational and rotational states whose transitions are in the infrared.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            So heated to Earth’s surface Tmax temperatures Nitrogen and Oxygen stay warm forever without GHG radiations to space?

            Is that what you believe David A?

          • Bart says:

            Nate:

            The weather varies very dramatically 165 miles from where I am right now. There is snow North of me that far, and summer-like warmth 165 miles South.

            But, as I said, the surface data agreed with the satellite data pre-Karlization. The problem isn’t so much the data as it is the post-processing of the data.

            Olof R:

            “The satellite series are much more uncertain than the surface series…”

            Ridiculous. The satellite series are far more globally comprehensive, and far less altered with dubious “adjustments”. The surface sets have been virtually continuously “adjusted” to reflect the warmist bias. Prior to Karlization, the various sets were in close agreement. What changed was the surface data, and it changed dramatically, under preposterous justifications.

            “The global surface datasets vary by far less, 0.17-0.18 C/decade.”

            Real data vary. Far from being an indication of the surface sets’ worth, this is an indication that they have been manipulated to reflect a preconceived outcome. It’s a “tell”.

          • Olof R says:

            Bart, you obviously don’t have a clue about all adjustments behind a satellite product, and all possible choices that have been done, sometimes completely arbitrary. And please, don’t come with silly conspiracy theories, they have no place in a serious scientific discussion.

            Of course data vary, but it is no good sign if different scientific teams come to widely different conclusion after analyses with the same raw data.

            Further, your belief in the necessity of near global coverage, is very very exaggerated.
            Actually, you can throw away 99.87 % of the spatial information in UAH TLT, only use 18 points worldwide, and still produce a global dataset that is nearly indistinguishable from the original. Watch this chart:
            https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewadExwM3VOaVJBUU0

          • Bart says:

            Olof – please do not insult my intelligence in multitudinous fashion. You know nothing about me. I am well aware of the satellite sensor models and orbit dependencies. The adjustments are not arbitrary to any significant degree. Certainly not to the degree of arbitrariness associated with the notorious “bucket adjustments” to the surface records. Not even close.

            Again, the acid test is, all records were in agreement before the Karlization of the surface temperature record which just happened, mirabile dictu!, to extend the warming just when the models were on the verge of catastrophic failure to track reality.

            It’s not a “conspiracy theory” when they’re doing it right out in the open before your eyes. So please, toss the argument from incredulity (if the alarmists didn’t have logical fallacies galore, they’d have nothing at all).

            You may be idiot enough to believe that cock and bull story. I’m not. And, neither are a growing number of scientists and lay people who have observed the chicanery going on with the surface records.

          • Bart says:

            “Actually, you can throw away 99.87 % of the spatial information in UAH TLT, only use 18 points worldwide…”

            A carefully selected 18 points. I wonder if you have even ever heard of the Intermediate Value Theorem. You can always do this. Always. It shows nothing, because you have to know the points a priori, and you cannot know that.

            Look, this is very simple – more measurements are better than fewer. This is always the case.

          • Olof R says:

            Bart, I said that the choices are arbitrary, not the adjustments.
            Have you ever heard of the Cadillac calibration choice? Goes like this:
            -Look, these two satellites differ by 0.2 C/ decade during the overlap.
            -OK, we pick the one with the lowest trend, and discard the other one “due to drifts”.
            Validation with independent data is obviously not needed for significant choices. However validation would suggest that the choice was completely wrong:
            https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaOEd5TUlTYWlMUW8

            The 18 points are not carefully selected, it is the first try with a regular pattern with one point in each RATPAC region, the first level of averaging for that global dataset. If I use all 85 stations (not in a regular pattern) the global coverage validation looks like this:
            https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaT083ZHdiWHhieTA

            Why these exercises? To make sure that there is no bias involved in this validation:
            https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaNDVmS0t1bjZjQXM

          • David Appell says:

            Geoff, I don’t understand your question. (I don’t even understand your sentence.)

            N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “But, as I said, the surface data agreed with the satellite data pre-Karlization.”

            I doubt it.

            The 30-yr trend of NOAA global surface from 6/1985 to 5/2015, just before Karl et al’s analysis, was 0.15 C/dec.

            The 30-yr trend of UAH v6.0beta2 for that time period is 0.11 C/decade.

            Both have error bars of about 0.02 C/decade (with no autocorrelation).

            And you’re overlooking the *huge* changes UAH also made to their data around that same time:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/remarkable-changes-to-uah-data.html
            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-dataset.html

            In fact, the Karl et al changes were only about a third of the cha

          • David Appell says:

            …Meant to conclude by saying the UAH changes were about three times larger than the Karl changes:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/noaas-data-changes-actually-smaller.html

          • Bart says:

            “-OK, we pick the one with the lowest trend, and discard the other one due to drifts.”

            What is your point? Your target is specifically UAH, but the difference between UAH and RSS is negligible, amounting to essentially a constant offset, which does not matter for diagnosing trends or any other variable behavior

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/rss/offset:-0.09

            You are trying to make a big deal out of a negligible difference in order to cast aspersions. Why are you doing this? What is your objective? Why do you feel your ends justify such dishonest means?

            “The 18 points are not carefully selected, it is the first try with a regular pattern…”

            A regular (by which I assume you mean uniformly distributed) pattern is, in fact, a careful selection. The surface data are not uniformly distributed.

            Again, for the zillionth time, the big difference between the surface sets and the satellite sets is that the former have been manipulated, in real time, right before our eyes. Prior to 2015, there was good agreement between all the temperature sets. Now, they are divergent. What changed? Fudges put in place by NOAA, that’s what.

            You must know this. You must know that you are arguing in favor of manipulating data to arrive at a preconceived answer. So, I must ask again, why are you doing this? What is your objective? Why do you feel your ends justify such dishonest means?

          • Scott says:

            David Appell says:
            January 4, 2017 at 10:03 AM

            All greenhouse gases consist of molecules with three atoms or more. Only they have the vibrational and rotational states whose transitions are in the infrared.

            I am so tired of seeing this egregiously incorrect notion repeated. Diatomic molecules CAN absorb IR radiation. The criterion for IR activity is a change in dipole moment of the molecule. This is sophomore-level undergrad stuff. Many courses probably even teach it at the freshmen level too. I certainly learned it at the age of no more than 20. Easily shown with a quick Google search for IR spectrum of carbon monoxide. In practice, heteronuclear diatomic molecules only have a small impact on the greenhouse effect because none of these species have a long atmospheric lifetime, but this is no excuse for incorrect statements like the above.

            It really bothers me that I’ve seen the above stated by so many AGWer’s. It’s like there’s some sort of talking-point list that they go to in order to get their information and never actually learned the fundamentals. What bothers me even more is that I’ve never seen an anti-AGWer ever refute this poor mistake. Seems like no one actually understands the fundamentals, they just memorize a bunch of talking points. Exactly like the majority of both academics and industrial STEM people…just all work off of memorization and don’t actually understand how the world works. This ends up with people knowing “science” by reading/regurgitating conclusions rather than actually understanding the data/analysis/assumptions. I swear that the number of STEM people that actually understand things, invent new stuff, don’t just memorize, etc is on the order of 5% or less. Outside of STEM that number might even be lower…

            Have a nice day,

            -Scott

          • Bart says:

            Maybe 10%, Scott. Sturgeon’s Law is very general, and applies in STEM fields as well as any other.

          • Ceist says:

            Carl Mears from RSS disagrees with you about errors and adjustments

            “Carl Mears, senior scientist for Remote Sensing Systems, told The Associated Press in an email: “The satellite measurements do not measure the surface warming. They are measurements of the average temperature of thick layers of the atmosphere” about 50,000 feet off the ground.”

            http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d77eaa1018554de2b3582917c84fa620/earths-temperature-depends-where-you-put-thermometer

            “For impacts on human society and the environment, the surface data are more important,” Mears said. Mears said his analysis of his own satellite data has five times the margin of error of ground measurements. That’s because satellites use complex mathematical algorithms and thousands of bits of code to translate wavelength measurements into temperature readings”

            Also: RSS Press release and their published paper on V4
            http://images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/Jan_5_2017_news_release.pdf

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Scott…”The criterion for IR activity is a change in dipole moment of the molecule”.

            You are right that there’s a lot of misinformation about atoms/molecules.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Ceist…”Carl Mears from RSS disagrees with you about errors and adjustments”

            Has it ever occurred to you that the guy who runs the site may be lying through his teeth and has intentionally misquoted Mears? AMSU units measure at different frequencies and one frequency band measures oxygen near the surface.

            He claimed Mears stated that in an email. Yeah…sure.

          • MarcT77 says:

            If different models were used to account for UHI, I wonder how much spread would be found among the different reconstructions from weather stations. Right now, satellite reconstructions consider everything that could affect measurements, therefore they have more temporal instability when better models come out. Weather station based reconstruction do not consider all the possibilities of contammination and they all use the homogenization technics, so they have a little bit more temporal stability.

            I wish there was at least one weather station reconstruction that would attempt to modelize how the diurnal temperature range should change with the increase in CO2 instead of using the homogenized value.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Har – “Considering no significant forcings other than greenhouse gases have been found” is not true. See http://irjes.com/Papers/vol5-issue11/E5113145.pdf

          • Adrian Roman says:

            It was an appeal to ignorance. It should be either ignored or ridiculed, one should not allow switching the burden of proof like that.

            Anyway, a dynamical system does not need a ‘forcing’ to change. What ‘forcing’ makes a double-pendulum flip?

          • Bart says:

            Exactly, Adrian. The massively coupled system driving the Earth’s climate has beaucoups mechanisms for storage and release of energy on extraordinarily long time scales. Far more than a relatively simple double pendulum. This argument from ignorance reveals only the ignorance of the people who promote it.

          • Harry Twinotter says:

            I stand by what I say, and I would not call the attribution evidence present in the IPCC AR5 report an “argument from ignorance”.

            Anyway I will let you dissenters spin your arguments as usual. Some other time.

          • Bart says:

            I don’t care if you stand on your head. It’s a dumb argument. If the IPCC is making it, that makes them ipso facto otnay ootay ightbray.

          • David Appell says:

            Adrian Roman says:
            “Anyway, a dynamical system does not need a forcing to change. What forcing makes a double-pendulum flip?”

            Start your double pendulum (or simple pendulum) and let it run without forcings. Eventually it will come to rest.

          • Bart says:

            “Eventually it will come to rest.”

            Not if it has an external power source, like say one of these gadgets”.

            The Earth’s climate has an external power source. We call it the Sun.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Start your double pendulum (or simple pendulum) and let it run without forcings. Eventually it will come to rest.”

            Yes…due to the Mother of all Forces…gravity. I still call them forces, forcings coming from differential equation theory and representing fictitious forces.

          • Bart says:

            “Yesdue to the Mother of all Forcesgravity.”

            No, not gravity. Gravity is a conservative force. The culprit is friction, a negative feedback that dissipates energy, allowing the system to descend to its lowest energy state.

            Such negative feedbacks are endemic to the natural order of things – energy always wants to flee through any escape hole it can find. Which is why the notion of aggregate positive feedback from CO2 has always been speculative at best, and completely unsupported by the data.

            But, that’s beside the point. The point here is the Earth, like any complex system in the universe, has a wide spectrum of response modes that can be continually excited by random forcing, and produce non-intuitive behavior when one does not know what they are. Under such conditions, the hubris and utter fatuousness of trying to finger the culprit for observed warming by subtracting out known forcings, and assigning whatever is left to anthropogenic impropriety is sublime in its stupidity.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Gravity produces most of the Universe’s entropy. It is the ‘Mother’ of spontaneous processes that follow.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Adrian Roman “a dynamical system does not need a forcing to change. What forcing makes a double-pendulum flip?”

            You won’t find the term forcing used in physics. It’s a reference from forcing function as used in differential equation theory. Since differential equations are used in climate models, the modelers have dropped the function part and incorrectly tried to apply forcing as a real force in the real world.

            A forcing is a fictitious force that applies only to the fiction in a climate model.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Dan Pangburn… from your paper…”The only way that energy can significantly leave earth is by thermal radiation. Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases(ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation. Non-ghg gases must transfer energy to ghg gases (or liquid or solid bodies) for this energy to be radiated”.

            Where’s the proof that nitrogen and oxygen cannot independently absorb and emit energy to space? Just asking.

            If that’s the case then neither N2 nor O2 will ever warm up or cool down other than through conduction. It is well know that both N2 and O2 both emit and absorb photons of EM.

            The ideal gas law states that PV = nRT. Or T = PV/nR. Therefore the gas temperature is proportional to the pressure with volume held constant or to the volume with pressure held constant. It also states that temperature is inversely proportional to the number of atoms in a volume.

            Therefore you can change the temperature of a gas by changing the volume, the pressure, or the number of atoms involved in a given volume. I am not making inferences from this but it’s obvious that matter as a gas can change temperature without radiation necessarily being emitted or absorbed as described for GHGs.

            If you have warmed N2 and O2 rising naturally to a higher altitude, as it rises it’s temperature will fall due to the lowered effect of gravity (change of pressure). Part of the reason for cooling is that there is less collisions between molecules. However, with reduced collisions how does the atom cool? It must obviously radiate away energy gained due to collisions.

            I am further positing that as N2 and O2 warm and rise to higher altitudes they have the capability of radiating energy to a cooler atmosphere. They may not do it at terrestrial IR frequencies but they have the ability to cool through radiation with no GHGs present or other solids or liquids.

            It needs to be understood that temperature and thermal energy require atoms. The less the number of atoms the lower the temperature. Therefore as you get higher in altitude and gases thin out the temperature drops. As a warmer gas at a lower altitude rises and thins it will cool naturally. N2 and O2 should cool naturally at higher altitudes by radiating away excess kinetic energy they gained from collisions at higher densities.

            To study that deeper, we’d have to examine at the atomic level why an atom cools. Certainly radiation of photons is one way, but why can’t N2 and O2 radiate photons? It’s not right to claim they can’t because they do. They do it at different frequencies than water vapour and CO2.

            Why an atom gains or loses kinetic energy, which is thermal energy is a complex problem. It involves all energy levels in an atom. I think AGW theory has simplified the problem till it has gotten stupid (see link below). There’s no reason why N2 or O2 cannot radiate energy to space at higher altitudes as well as CO2 or water vapour.

            If we are concerned only with terrestrial radiation then I get the point. However, 99%+ of the atmosphere is N2 and O2 and to claim they cannot absorb solar energy and emit to space seems incorrect.

            Atoms absorb energy based on the difference in energy between energy shells. Any EM suiting that difference will be absorbed. Other EM will be rejected.

            I am just posing the question. It seems to be accepted that the temperature of 99%+ of the atmosphere, made up of N2 and O2, has nothing to do with the N2 and O2, and that it can only warm and cool via GHGs.

            I think that’s somewhat absurd and this article poses some interesting questions.

            http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html

          • Nate says:

            Gordon. That article is full of wrong science. And it has been debunked before. His idea that gases like n2 or o2 radiate or absorb in IR range is factually incorrect. IR from the earth measured above the atmosphere clearly shows where co2 and h2o absrbs it and the rest passes through.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Gor Gases absorb/emit at specific wavelengths. That is what makes spectroscopy work. N2 and O2 do not absorb/emit at wavelengths of significant terrestrial EMR (6-100 microns). how does the atom cool? does not have meaning. Atoms dont have temperature, they have velocity which causes temperature (molecular vibration) in walls they impact, like thermometers.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            1/2mv(mean)^2= 1/2kT per degree of freedom for a gas

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Not if it has an external power source, like say one of these gadgets.”

            Then it has a forcing. The original point was involved a lack of forcings.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/#comment-232690

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “A forcing is a fictitious force that applies only to the fiction in a climate model.”

            Nope. In climate science, a forcing is essentially an energy input to the system, usually measured in W/m2. Changes in solar irradiance are a forcing, just as are changes in GHGs and aerosols.

          • Bart says:

            “Then it has a forcing.”

            Of course it does. But, it does not have to be a clearly identifiable forcing. It can be something that happened long ago, and the response is only now fading. It can be something very small and/or random and easily overlooked that happens to excite a resonance. Assuming that something does not exist simply because you do not know about it leads to many false conclusions, and is the reason that argumentum ad ignorantiam has been catalogued as a fundamental logical fallacy since antiquity.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Dan…”Atoms dont have temperature, they have velocity which causes temperature (molecular vibration) in walls they impact, like thermometers”.

            So, in a bar of pure iron, the temperature is decided by atomic velocities????

            It’s understood that no one can measure the temperature of an individual atom but in a gas the average kinetic energy of all the atoms/molecules is the temperature. If you removed all atoms from a container it would have no measurable temperature.

            If you wanted to be silly you could use Avogadro’s number on the estimated number of atoms to determine the average temperature of an individual atom.

            What I’m trying to say is this. If you know the temperature of a gas is the average kinetic energy of all atoms, then one atom must have a temperature. I don’t like the word temperature because it is a human invention based on the freezing point and boiling point of water. Temperature is a relative level of thermal energy. I prefer to think of the kinetic energy of atoms as being their thermal energy.

            The temperature of atoms is related to their kinetic energy and that is dependent on the energy states in which their electrons reside. When gas atoms/molecules collide it is the electrons absorbing energy that raises their KE hence their thermal energy.

            The only other ways an atom can absorb energy is through an electron absorbing EM and through interactions with sub-atomic particles.

            In a bar of pure iron, the iron atoms are bound by valence electrons and the atoms vibrate atom to atom. Some people have modeled them having springs between the atoms. When one end of the bar is heated by a torch, the transferred thermal energy is in turn transferred atom to atom via valence electrons, causing each atom to vibrate more in their covalent bonds.

            That vibration is heat and Clausius related the motion to work, heat and work being equivalent.

            Why they move and gain momentum in a gas is a mystery. However, their kinetic energies have already been determined by the distance their electrons have moved from ground state.

            Of course, no one really knows anything about this other than through crude experiments trying to verify the fudged math in quantum theory.

            I was just watching a film of a Feynman lecture. He freely admitted he knows nothing about the reality but I stayed with his math till he started getting ridiculous. I say ridiculous because he and others have had to introduce probability theory to the examination and when they do that, as Planck has admitted, the science can no longer be visualized.

            That’s what troubled Einstein and Schrodinger about quantum theory, that it was too far removed from observed reality.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Gor It never dawned on me that anyone here would not know I was talking about gas molecules as having velocity. As an engineer, I never argue with what works. Kinetic theory of gases works. It says gas atoms (above absolute zero) have velocity and it is expressed as temperature and pressure of the gas. I noticed you never mention pressure. This site has a calculator that relates all this stuff: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/frecol.html Feynman talks about the velocity of molecules giving rise to temperature and pressure in Volume 1, Chapter 1 of his lecture series. (Google Feynman lectures on physics) provided by Caltech.

            It works that gas atoms gain energy and momentum from the energy and momentum of the photons they absorb (and/or contact with vibrating atoms in container walls). I suspect that the observation that gas molecules absorb photons (of appropriate wavelength) has something to do with the equivalence of mass and energy, but IMO I really dont need to know that to research the cause of climate change.

            I enjoyed physics and probably would have gone that way but the pragmatist in me thought I would do better as an engineer (applying physics for the benefit of man). I sometimes quote, or paraphrase Feynman and have seen some of his lectures on line.

            I had a great career working on, among other things, rockets, satellites (including AMSU), nuclear power, even smart artillery projectiles.

            Digging deeper into physics and a smidgeon of QM has been interesting. I have not yet found anything credible that refutes my findings and my assessment does a convincing job of matching observations for all the years of reasonably accurate reported average global temperature measurements.

        • Bart says:

          Maybe 10%, Scott. Sturgeon’s Law is very general, and applies in STEM fields as in just about any other 😉

      • Dr. Roy, based on an observed warming to date of 0.9K, a trend rate of 0.12K per decade would lead to an aggregate warming of about 1.94K by 2100. I notice that you make no mention of whether your 50% comparison is statistically significant in its own right, and given the shortness of the period in the satellite record I suspect that it is within expected deviation from the models. We can certainly say that based on the trend rate from your own data set, the 2K target by end of century will be very close to being exceeded even given that the warming rate does not rise.

        Perhaps we should allow that a moment to sink in. Three, two one…

        That is to say, that if we were to stop adding CO2e to the atmosphere today, then the warming being produced by the gases already in the atmosphere, without adjusting for decay in the concentrations, would put us very close indeed to the RPC6.0 scenario’s outcome. That is a medium-emissions outcome, whereas stopping emissions tomorrow would be a very low emissions scenario. So it looks as if the model results are actually being exceeded to me. Reading off the graph, however (see link), the trend rate looks just about right to my eye.

        Can you point us to model results which show a trend rate of twice 0.12K/decade in 2016? This seems to be an important assertion and I would like to know that we are talking about the same set of predictions.

        https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/scenariotempgraph_0.jpg

        • Robert Austin says:

          “Three, two one”
          How’s about waiting for the present El Nino to finish before making conclusions about trends Dr. Spenser’s data set.

        • Bart says:

          “Dr. Roy, based on an observed warming to date of 0.9K, a trend rate of 0.12K per decade would lead to an aggregate warming of about 1.94K by 2100.”

          You might want to check that math, given that there are only about 8.3 decades left until 2100.

          • FTOP says:

            Better yet, from El Nio to El Nio we have 17 years and .02. This represents peak warming in the 30+ year satellite record.

            Since it is warming that we are worried about, we should use these peaks to extrapolate.

            That is .0117 per decade so in 8.3 decades we should see .09 warming creating an anomaly of .59. Sounds catastrophic to me. /sarc

          • 0.91 + 0.0123894408 * 83 = 1.9383235864 ~= 1.94

            Where problem?

          • “This represents peak warming in the 30+ year satellite record.”

            Of course it does. Arf.

          • Bart says:

            I see. So, you extrapolated a linear trend out to 2100, then compared it to a scenario in which the slope declines over time (light blue line), and pronounced them in agreement? Mmm… no.

            You surely aren’t referring to the gold line, as that one clearly has a slope of about 0.24 degC/decade, which is double the trend line slope over the entire data record.

            My advice – temperatures are currently plummeting with the end of the El Nino. Wait a year, and see if you think there is still a uniform trend.

        • David Appell says:

          There is no scientific reason to linearly extrapolate 40 yr of UAH data to 2100, due to positive feedbacks expected this century.

          • Bart says:

            Yes, those elusive positive feedbacks that have utterly failed to rear their heads. Sneaky little devils.

          • JasG says:

            There is no justification for anything worse than linear extrapolation given that the rate of warming has been steadily reducing for 30 years while the rate of CO2 emissions has increased in the same period because a) the much vaunted but little proven positive feedbacks either are not there or were overcome by unexpected natural mechanisms. If the former then the warming will be the unalarming & beneficial no-feedback value of 1K/century, if the latter then warming prior to the 1998 shift was likely natural too. Nobody now should expect anything.

            With the abject failure of the climate models (which were never fit for the purpose anyway) there is no scientific case for any manmade warming whatsoever. In a less ideologically-motivated field of science the entire effort would have been defunded by now.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”There is no scientific reason to linearly extrapolate 40 yr of UAH data to 2100, due to positive feedbacks expected this century”.

            You don’t have a clue what a positive feedback is. And, you are talking around the subject which is that 2016 is not warmer than 1998 by enough to talk about.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Yes, those elusive positive feedbacks that have utterly failed to rear their heads. Sneaky little devils.”

            The water vapor feedback is certainly real, and it’s been observed:

            IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch2 Figs 2.30 & 2.31 documents positive trends in water vapor in multiple datasets.

            “Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence,”
            Katharine M. Willett et al, Nature Vol 449| 11 October 2007| doi:10.1038/nature06207.
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html

            “Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content,” B. D. Santer et al, PNAS 2013.
            http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract

            “How much more rain will global warming bring?” F.J. Wentz, Science (2007), 317, 233235.
            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233

          • David Appell says:

            The Arctic ice-albedo feedback has been found too:

            “Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice,”
            Kristina Pistone et al, PNAS v111 n9 pp 3322-3326 (2014).
            http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3322.abstract

          • Bart says:

            GIGO studies using models do not confirm positive water vapor feedback, David. What would confirm it would be temperatures rising relentlessly. But, they aren’t. At the current rate they are plunging, we will be back to pre-2000 levels within a few months.

          • Bart says:

            “What would confirm it would be temperatures rising relentlessly.”

            I should have said, a necessary condition to confirm it would be… Confirmation requires sufficiency as well.

          • “There is no scientific reason to linearly extrapolate 40 yr of UAH data to 2100, due to positive feedbacks expected this century.”

            Entirely true. If you have a better way to estimate what the current rate ought to be, go right ahead. Personally, I’d like to see what the models previously predicted for the rates measurable at the end of 2016, but the linear rate is a starting point,

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “GIGO studies using models do not confirm positive water vapor feedback, David.”

            Your excuses are pathetic. You’re a conspiracy theorist. Any result you like is fine, and any you don’t like is because scientists commit fraud or input garbage.

            And you think that’s convincing? It’s pathetic and it’s lazy and it demonstrates little knowledge.

            You aren’t the only honest person in the world, and you have no idea of the quality of data these professional scientists put into their calculations.

            You’re the best example of a pure denier that I’ve come across in a long time.

          • Bart says:

            It’s not a conspiracy theory when they’re doing it right in front of you. Sorry. The climate establishment already blew their credibility. You won’t get it back. Maybe you should read some Aesop’s fables for enlightenment.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Its not a conspiracy theory when theyre doing it right in front of you.”

            Said with no evidence presented whatsoever. As always.

            You’re not qualified to judge the credibility of the climate establishment.

            (And I’m not a part of it.)

          • David Appell says:

            BTW, Bart, why are the input data used in the water vapor studies “garbage.” Specifically.

          • Bart says:

            Putting me to sleep. Straw men are boring.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Eliott…”Dr. Roy, based on an observed warming to date of 0.9K, a trend rate of 0.12K per decade would lead to an aggregate warming of about 1.94K by 2100″.

          The 0.12C/decade trend was derived largely from a recovery from cooling prior to the 1998 El Nino. Show me a 0.12C/decade trend from 1998 – 2015.

          The IPCC has already admitted there was no significant trend (could have been cooling according to error margins) from 1998 – 2012. We’ve had 18 years with no significant trend, how do you plan to turn that into 0.12C/decade?

          • barry says:

            Use. All. The. Data.

            Doing that gives a statistically significant result. Using the data from 1998 to 2012 gives you no result that can be relied on. Not flat, not cooling, not warming.

          • Bart says:

            “Use. All. The. Data.”

            Wrong. Fitting a linear trend to the full set of data is imposing a model of steadily changing temperature upon the data. This is not a stationary system. It is time varying with unknown correlation times, but very likely much longer than the available data record.

            For instance if, as it appears, there is a strong ~60 year cyclical correlation in the system, then 30 years is the worst possible interval to choose to divine properties, because the result will be influenced in the opposite direction in the succeeding 30 year time interval.

            There is nothing wrong with using a shortened data set to give an indication of where things are going. You just have to be cautious about drawing conclusions.

            “Doing that gives a statistically significant result.”

            No, it doesn’t. In order to test for statistical significance, you must have a valid statistical model. Pathetic attempts at divining statistical significance typically assume an AR(1) model, with no prior justification. In fact, the data are very likely at least 2nd order correlated.

          • “The 0.12C/decade trend was derived largely from a recovery from cooling prior to the 1998 El Nino. Show me a 0.12C/decade trend from 1998 2015.”

            It’s the linear trend rate for the entire data set. If you use an exponential fit, for instance, you get a slightly higher rate at the end. I’d be delighted to see ANY method that can yield a fit for the whole data set that does not show unambiguous warming.

          • Ceist says:

            . Gordon Robertson says:
            January 6, 2017 at 4:38 AM
            CeistCarl Mears from RSS disagrees with you about errors and adjustments

            Has it ever occurred to you that the guy who runs the site may be lying through his teeth and has intentionally misquoted Mears? AMSU units measure at different frequencies and one frequency band measures oxygen near the surface.

            He claimed Mears stated that in an email. Yeahsure.

            Gordon, Carl Mears says the same thing in a video interview. Why do you automatically assume someone is lying just because you don’t like what they say?

            Here’s an interview with Carl Mears
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0

          • barry says:

            Wrong. Fitting a linear trend to the full set of data is imposing a model of steadily changing temperature upon the data.

            Skeptics use only linear trend models for the shorter period since 1998. On that basis it does not achieve statistical significance (which is a main point in the OP on a different matter). But statistical significance is achieved with a linear model for the full period by a wide margin. What we can say with great confidence is that overall, warming has occurred over the period. We cannot say anything about temp trends since 1998.

            This is not a stationary system. It is time varying with unknown correlation times, but very likely much longer than the available data record.

            And I’m sure you’ve made this point when a skeptic emphasises the even shorter period from 1998. Right?

            (Answer that question honestly in your own mind. See what you come up with)

            There is nothing wrong with using a shortened data set to give an indication of where things are going. You just have to be cautious about drawing conclusions.

            Too short data sets give little indication. If the slope is near zero, for example, and the uncertainty is +/- 5, then you have no call saying anything about the trend whatsoever. The uncertainty overwhelms any indication.

            Doing that gives a statistically significant result.

            No, it doesnt.

            Yes, it does.

            In order to test for statistical significance, you must have a valid statistical model. Pathetic attempts at divining statistical significance typically assume an AR(1) model, with no prior justification. In fact, the data are very likely at least 2nd order correlated.

            Well ante up, my friend.

            Apply a good statistical model to the data and explain whether and how it indicates a trend.

        • cb750 says:

          You can’t merely draw a line through data points and make an assumption about something in 100 years.

          • “You cant merely draw a line through data points and make an assumption about something in 100 years.”

            You certainly can’t. That’s what the models are for. Hence, I would like to see what trend rate they predicted for the period covered by Dr. Roy’s data. The linear trend extrapolation simply serves to show that the current rates are about right for the simplest conceivable scenario.

      • Greven says:

        Shame UAH5.6 won’t be out for awhile.

        Let’s plugin UAH6.0 for December instead to see how different the two datasets are!

        _UAH_5.6_
        1998 (J-D): +0.42
        2016 (J-N): +0.60

        _UAH_6.0_
        1998 (J-D): +0.48
        2016 (J-D): +0.50

        _UAH_5.6_PLUS_DEC_6.0
        1998 (J-D): +0.42
        2016 (J-N): +0.57

        Gee I wonder what the lower stratosphere looks like… oh I guess there aren’t numbers for December there yet.

        _UAH_5.6_
        1998 (J-D): -0.29
        2016 (J-N): -0.52

        _UAH_6.0_
        1998 (J-D): -0.25
        2016 (J-N): -0.53

        Hmm… quite the cooling trend!

        • Greven says:

          I wonder – hey Dr. Spencer, since you support greenhouse theory… given that total solar irradiance hasn’t appreciably changed, and that TMT & the Tropopause haven’t warned nearly enough to offset the difference:

          Why are 1998 TLT & TLS so unbalanced compared to 2016?

        • Greven says:

          Oh hey UAH 5.6 updated.
          v5.6 Dec 2016 is +0.14 higher than the v6.0 Dec 2016.

          Also, Arctic shows as +0.55 for v5.6 Dec 2016 compared with -0.00 for v6.0 Dec 2016.

          Which is really weird, given that the Arctic was so very warm during December and got above freezing at least in one recording.

          Your data methodology is flawed, Dr. Spencer.

      • cb750 says:

        Can I ask you Dr. Spencer have you considered the process of averaging temp data to actually detrimental to the process of understanding climate? Averages hide anomalies.

        50,50,50,50 avg = 50.

        110,-10,40,60 avg = 50.

        Which data set is an issue? I would imagine averaging the earth’s temps hides anomalies we should be concerned about. Warming won’t happen on a global scale, it will happen locally. And statistically you don’t average unrelated items. Should Britain’s temps be averaged with Argentina’s? Does that even mean anything?

      • But doesn’t your method largely ignore ocean temperatures ? And aren’t ocean temperatures a major factor for analysing weather and climate ? 2016 was still statistically the hottest year on record by your measurements, and the trend is unmistakable.

      • Christopher Winter says:

        In your view, Dr. Spencer, does “ocean acidification” mean what most people think it means?

    • Richard M says:

      Harry, the entire period is parallel to the warming phase of the 60-70 year AMO cycle. What happens to the trend when the AMO warming is removed? Chances are it looks a lot like the cooling from 1945-1980.

      What’s more interesting is pretty much all the warming from the El Nino is now gone. Vanished. Why all the pushing of warming by the media in the last couple of years when it was all just weather?

      It would seem a bigger question is when will the pause return and if it does what does that do to your views on AGW.

      • Harry Twinotter says:

        You ask a lot of rhetorical questions I think. Perhaps you can gather your data and post an article somewhere.

        “It would seem a bigger question is when will the pause return and if it does what does that do to your views on AGW.”

        Silly comment – my views will not change anything. And neither will yours.

        • Richard M says:

          The data speaks for itself. I was just curious if your opinion was driven by data. It doesn’t appear like it is. That would seem to indicate your views are religious in nature.

          • Harry Twinotter says:

            “religious in nature.”

            No, I leave religion to the signatories of the Cornwall Declaration. I stick to science.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Harry..”Silly comment my views will not change anything. And neither will yours.”

          Hopefully we are talking about data, which is right in front of you on the graph above. The IPCC declared 1998 – 2012 as a ‘warming hiatus’. If you can’t see the hiatus during that period you won’t recognize it even if the running average continues to drop and averages out the current EN warming.

          Many people commenting on this blog are in total denial regarding that hiatus even though their gods at the IPCC have admitted to it.

          NOAA, under the guidance of the Obama administration has tried to erase the hiatus retroactively using scientific misconduct.

    • Nate says:

      Three cheers for insignificance!

      Some alternative headlines with significance*:

      Record warmest two year period: .14 higher

      Record warmest three year period: .12 higher

      Record warmest four year period: .10 higher

      * consecutive calendar years, non-overlapping

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Harry…”The chart clearly shows a global warming trend, especially the 5 year average.”

      Harry…look back to 1998 and see what became of that running average the following year, and for the next 18 years. There’s not enough data in yet to see where the running average is going.

  3. Bryan says:

    Thermometers claiming to measure to 1/100 th of a degree?

    Would this anomaly be written as

    0.05 ( + or -) 0.001 degree Celsius ?

  4. Harry Twinotter says:

    Don’t you think the headline is dishonest – why didn’t you say 2016 Warmest Year on Record?

    • because, as I said, they are basically tied, statistically. So to say 2016 is the warmest would be dishonest, since it ignores uncertainty in the measurements: a 0.02 deg. C change over 18 years cannot be reliably measured with any of our temperature monitoring systems.

      • Kevin says:

        Just say “2016 Likely Warmest Year on Record” which would incorporate both the fact that the measurements have 2016 ahead of ’98 but not with certainty.

        • argus says:

          The more I think about it, the more I find Dr Spencer’s headline appropriate. The cooling in December is a pretty big event, and with NASA and others saying for months and months that 2016 would be the hottest year on record, it turns out, statistically, it ends indistinguishable from a previous strong el nino year. His headline may leave super warmers wanting, but it’s certainly not dishonest.

          • MarkB says:

            Assuming you’re referring to Gavin Schmidt’s projections and are genuinely interested in being fair, he’s clearly shown analysis using the GISS LOTI surface temperature data set.

          • John says:

            Although I agree they were different datasets, that to me is all the more puzzling. If you think about how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work, there isn’t a margin for the surface to warm and not the lower tropospheric temperature. All be it, both warmed in this case, but not at the same rate. If anything, the lower tropospheric temperature should show the warming prior to the surface. That leaves 3 possible conclusions.

            1. The method of distinguishing the lower tropospheric temperature is wrong.
            2. There is something wrong with how the surface temperature is measured (then maybe adjusted.
            3. Not enough surface sites to reflect the real climate.

            Of course, it doesn’t even need to be just one of those, it could be all three or it could be two.

            I really hope scientific spending is switched from models to measurements in the near future, as measurements appear to be woefully lacking and until it is solved, the question continues.

        • Ric Werme says:

          I think you could say “likely warmest” if there were only two years with any chance of being the warmest. That may be the case given how far back 2010 and the cluster headed by 2015 are.

          Suppose there was another year that matched 1998, then 2016 could have a 40% chance of being the warmest and each of the other two could have a 30% chance. I.e. 2016 would not likely be the warmest year, one of the other two would be.

          Didn’t Gavin and GISS have to backtrack on a claim that 2015 was the warmest year?

      • I have to agree with Harry here, Dr. Roy. After spending several months adding entirely spurious data points to your graphs to show how unlikely it is that a record will be set, your graph now shows that a record has been set. (You also pointed out at one juncture that just comparing the two peaks would say more about the relative sizes of two el Nino events, I might add.) Now a record has been set and you are not saying, “A record has been set,” or “I was wrong, a record has been set after all.” Instead you are using language designed to give the impression that setting a record is not actually that important after all.

        Technically very true. But it doesn’t look especially ingenuous.

        • Richard M says:

          If everything else was equal it might be useful to note a record. However, with the AMO driving far more Arctic warming it is likely not a record if that effect was removed.

          I wonder what data looks if you removed the Arctic?

          • I wonder why one would want to remove the Arctic?

          • TheFinalNail says:

            “I wonder what data looks if you removed the Arctic?”

            Quite right, Richard M. Let’s remove the Arctic and thus reduce global warming.

            TFN

          • Richard M says:

            Eliott, the AMO is a known long term cycle. If we want to understand the real long term trend in global temperatures (and have some chance to understand the effect of CO2 increases) we must remove other factors which influence temperature over shorter periods. Maybe you don’t want to know the trend?

          • ” we must remove other factors which influence temperature over shorter periods”

            Just removing the region that is warming the fastest – and is predicted to warm fastest – seems a very poor way of doing this. Normally one would correct for the cycle and/or look for further lines of evidence.

        • can I remind you of what I said in the last monthly update?:

          “It should be pointed out that 2016 will end up being 0.03-0.04 deg. C warmer than 1998, which is probably not a statistically significant difference given the uncertainties in the satellite dataset adjustments.”

          But rather than my prediction that 2016 would be 0.03-0.04 C warming, it’s now only 0.02 C warmer. So, I think I’m being consistent.

          • sod says:

            “But rather than my prediction that 2016 would be 0.03-0.04 C warming, its now only 0.02 C warmer. So, I think Im being consistent.”

            Does not look consistent to me, rather biased. You were hoping for no record, so you started to downplay the record before it even occured.

          • He made one little mistake! So what? Our government has made numerous mistakes through the century using terms like global cooling in the 70s. Global warming in the 80s and last but not least climate change to start the 21st century simply because the climate is changing so they didn’t want to embarrass themselves for the past 19 years saying that the earth is warming when the really is none. Even if it is 0.04 degrees C warmer does they really matter. We’re talking about a number less then 0. Not just 0 but less do you realize how small that is. And it’s not like a string of record warm years were broken over the past 19 years like the MSM claims! If that were true i wouldn’t be saying this but it isn’t. 2016 just happened to be warmer then 1998 by 0.04 degrees not one thousand degrees but 0.04 degrees. Face it your man made climate change agenda is going down the drain!

          • Sods mother says:

            Sod, did you remember to take your meds today honey?

          • “So, I think Im being consistent.”

            Well, perhaps. We generally find ourselves to be consistent. I think by the time the November datum appeared it was pretty obvious that a sufficient drop was not likely to appear to prevent a record being set, so this appears to be hedging your bets after the fact, but I could be being unfair. But as I also said a few months ago, I always find the obsession with calendar years a bit odd anyway. I wouldn’t make so much of them, myself.

            As a matter of interest, just how large would the increment have to be to become statistically significant for that period in that dataset anyway? I suspect, and may try to calculate tomorrow if I am feeling sufficiently compost mentis, that it would represent a trend rate higher than we could possibly have cause to expect. You said yourself that the peak-to-peak interval tells us more about the size of the el Nino events than about the underlying trend. It is basically only two data points, closer together than the IPCC’s definitional period of 30 years for “climate”.

            As the trend rate over 18 years would yield an underlying increment of about 0.2K, and given that the trend rate comes from the very same data set, I would surmise that the observed increment of 0.02K is also not statistically significantly different to the expected increment of 0.2K. Which would translate into English as meaning that this small record does not falsify the existence of the trend.

          • Bart says:

            “But as I also said a few months ago, I always find the obsession with calendar years a bit odd anyway.”

            Given that temperatures have plunged exceedingly rapidly in the past few months, and this is likely to continue, I am curious if you really mean this.

            The handwriting is pretty much on the wall. So, while you quibble here and now, you must surely know that any minor victory you might score is going to be totally wiped away in the very near future.

            Are you hoping and praying that the nosedive will abate, and you will be able to claim vindication? Surely, you realize the tenuousness of your perch?

          • “Given that temperatures have plunged exceedingly rapidly in the past few months”

            They always do immediately after a strong el Nino. The overall trend rate is rising. As usual. A few months don’t count for much of anything. At the very least you need a multi-year trend, and much below 30 years is meaningless for purposes of plotting climate. Hence the low statistical significance.

          • Bart says:

            The overall trend rate is rising, as it has been for over 100 years, long before CO2 could have been an issue.

          • Bart says:

            For some reason, a filter is not allowing my longer, more explanatory, comment to go through. Bottom line is, there is nothing new or alarming going on.

      • David Appell says:

        Roy, the two years aren’t “basically tied.” Or “tied.” One is warmer than the other. T(2016) +/- 0.10 C is warmer than T(1998) +/- 0.10.

        I think you’re spinning this hard in order to get the headlines you want.

        • Greven says:

          What you mean he didn’t do that between v5.6 and v6.0?

        • barry says:

          I see comments like this from ‘skeptics’ all the time. Claiming mendacity with no evidence whatsoever. But this time it’s from the other side of the fence, and just as deplorable.

    • sod says:

      We will see how future cooling we be handed. “insignificanrt cooling trend”.

      So has anyone tested how many of the “record colds” that were mentioned in a recent post were in fact ties?

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/12/first-week-of-2017-record-cold-48-states-going-below-freezing/

      Or are ties only interesting when they fit opinions?

  5. Bryan says:

    correction

    0.05 ( + or -) 0.001 degree Celsius ? should be

    0.050 ( + or -) 0.01 degree Celsius ?

  6. Emeritus says:

    Dr. Spencer, what is the difference between 1998 and 2016 with v5.6?

    • Haven’t calculated it yet.

      • Olof R says:

        It will be way larger than 0.10 C, actually closer to 0.2, with other words significant…

        • Emeritus says:

          That was my assumption as well. Large portions of this blog and comments is about if 0,02 is significant or not.

          Dr. Spencer has been forthright regarding that the headline in this blog is a spin. The “warmest year on record” can make a false impression. And I think we all can agree that this matter is of some consequence .

          I find it quiet astonishing that these decisions is made solely by a couple of men without the insight Steven Mosher is asking for another place on this blogpost, and that even before the v6.0 paper is published.

        • Bart says:

          But, with very significantly less breadth.

  7. Oh how the tables have turned. Lmao

    • argus says:

      I believe in the theory of global warming, but were I a bigger proponent, I would feel my position hurt substantially comparing ’98 to ’16, that a strong el nino almost 20 years later is indecipherable. I would feel the “pause” as having gained a lot of traction. Of course the next year or two will tell.

    • There go the puny minded warmest bickering over a teeny tiny 0.02C degree warmer then 1998. turning something so little into to something SO CATOSTROPHIC!!

      • Lewis says:

        Cato strophic? This then is the type picking we see here.
        Dr. Spencer is kind enough to host this blog. He offers observations and opinions. Others, whom we shall not rename, pick on him for his observations. How cute.

        His opinions do not toe a particular line, he, belonging to the lukewarmer church of CO2, is chastised nay, persecuted, for being a non-believer in the true religion.

        In all, I find much of the bickering petty. Of 5th to 8th grade level.

        The facts are simply. Dr. Spencer’s opinions are also simple, as are many who come here, but not all. The earth gets warmer and colder, we are not sure of all the imputs. But, if you are a AGW CO2 true believer, any minor chance to denigrate those who don’t believe is required.

        Bah. Grow up. We can’t control the weather. Warmer is better than colder. Hopefully, CO2 will help the planet avoid the depths of another ice age.

  8. Elliott Bignell says:

    What took you so long? 3rd of January already? A few too many caipirinhas at the fireworks display?

    Happy New Year, Dr. Roy.

  9. Bryan says:

    01 2016 +0.50
    02 1998 +0.48

    Difference = 0.02 ( + or -) 0.01 degree Celsius ?

    Thats just the reading error on a digital meter(plus or minus the last unit claimed)

    What about all the other errors or noise?

  10. OleKlemsdal says:

    Thank you again for interesting data!
    When comparing 1998 and 2016 I find it interesting that the anomaly averages the first quarters (jan, feb, mar) were 0,53 and 0,70 respectively, while the average anomaly the last 9 months were 0,46 and 0,44. Hence, despite a strong la Nina in the autumn of 1998, the last 3 quarters of 1998 were marginally warmer than 2016. Is this due to differences between the Nino episodes, and where does that lead us in to a likely year anomaly for 2017?

    • Richard M says:

      The loss of ice in the Arctic has a much more significant effect on global temperatures in the winter. This AMO driven ice loss is most likely the entire reason for 2016 being close to 1998.

      If the effects of the AMO are removed it is likely 1998 would be by far the warmer than 2016 and 1998 was even transitioning over to La Nina the last couple of months.

      • OleKlemsdal says:

        Yes, AMO quite likely plays a role here. The bottom line, I guess, is that natural factors appear increasingly important and CO2-mediated warming less dramatic than most of the worlds politicians have been convinced to believe.

  11. FTOP says:

    It is interesting how a report can be described by many different headlines. This post could be titled accurately in numerous ways depending on author bias.

    Realist & Statistition, aka, Dr. Spencer
    “2016 Not Statistically warmer than 1998”

    Warmist
    “2016 Likely Breaks Record in Satellite Era,”

    Null Hypothesist
    “2016 ends with Lowest warmth Recoded in last 20 Months”

    At the end of the day, it appears global temperatures are stubbornly stable and trend towards a mean. Remove volcanic cooling and Nino events which have nothing to do with “Mann” and you have a system that regulates itself quite well.

    • yes, that’s true. It’s an indication of how we can state something in simple terms which is technically true, but the reader then infers something of greater significance from it.

      For example, the statement, “global warming is real”. Which I agree with. But what I mean by it is probably quite different from what most readers of that statement infer from it.

      I decided on the wording for the current post as a counterpoint to the inevitable headlines like “OMG 2016-Warmest-On-Record-We’re-All-Gonna-Die!”

      • J says:

        Thank you for being so sane, Roy. And Happy New Year.

      • barry says:

        I decided on the wording for the current post as a counterpoint to the inevitable headlines like OMG 2016-Warmest-On-Record-Were-All-Gonna-Die!

        Hyperbole or oracular? The surface records are likely to have a statistically significant record warm year, so let’s hunt those headlines down.

        “2016 ‘hottest on record’ in new sign of global warming, Copernicus organisation says” (Oz ABC)

        “Hottest Year Ever? 2016 Burns Through Heat Records, NASA Says” (Live Science)

        ‘A new sign’ is pretty temperate (pun intended). ‘Burns through heat records’ is a little breathless.

        “2016 Edges 1998 as Warmest Year on Record” (Science Daily)

        “Scientists Say 2016 Is Hottest Year Ever Recorded” (EcoWatch)

        A dearth of alarmism in the headlines so far. But the official results haven’t been released, so maybe the press is saving it up for a week or two.

      • barry says:

        Wait, I found one!

        “Earth ‘On the Edge’ as Disastrous 2016 Goes Down as Hottest Year on Record” (Common Dreams)

        Well done, Dr Spencer, for providing balance against the raging onslaught of headlines.

  12. Tim Wells says:

    We probably have a 10% effect on the temperature of the world, while nature has a 90% dominating effect. We have no plan for a significantly cooling world, which will result in a lower crop production.

    • FTOP says:

      We probably have 0% effect on the temperature of the world. We have a meadurable effect on localized temperatures due to urbanization which changes the latent heat capacity of a localized area.

      The sun represents 99.85% of all mass in the solar system.
      http://solarviews.com/eng/solarsys.htm

      The ocean represents 70% of the earth’s surface and according to the global warmists 91-93% of the measured warming we should be afraid of is happening in the ocean.

      Anyone who thinks we can burn a fossil fuel in Wichita and warm an ocean is delusional.

      It is that big orange ball in the sky warming the ocean and the ocean releasing that energy (El Nino) or not (La Nina).
      https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/climate-models-fail-global-ocean-heat-content-based-on-toa-energy-imbalance/

      All the rest is just noise.

      • We do have a tiny bit of an affect. No doubt about that. But the alarmist turn it into an affect that’s so catostrophic it’s going to kill us all!

        • Olof R says:

          If we continue to release 10 Gt C per year in the atmosphere for another 1000 years, we would be able to recreate the Permian-Triassic extinction event. That would be exiting…

          • FTOP says:

            If continued cooling reduces ocean out gassing, we could see CO2 levels below 300 ppm. We are at much greater risk of an ELE from low CO2 (.04%) than marginal increases.

          • Sods mother says:

            “If we continue to release 10 Gt C per year in the atmosphere for another 1000 years, we would be able to recreate the Permian-Triassic extinction event. That would be exiting”

            Yes, except, we will be way out of fossil fuels way before then! The predicted life of natural gas and oil is another 50 years while coal is another 100 years yet coal only makes up 25% of all our fossil fuels. But yes I agree with what your saying. If fossil fuels somehow do continue it could become a problem thousands of years down the road.

          • I apologize for the confusion.

          • Either way the climate will continue to change even if co2 emissions were still increasing from man made fossil fuels thousands of years from now except the ice ages will be milder and the warming periods will be hotter.

          • “If continued cooling reduces ocean out gassing”

            “Continued?” Do you perhaps not realise that most of current sea-level rise is due to thermal expansion?

            “Yes, except, we will be way out of fossil fuels way before then!”

            Perhaps not out of cement or soil. Fossil-fuel emissions are less then these two combined.

          • Fossil fuels. Does that name mean ANYTHING to you? They are FOSSIL fuels for a reason. Do your homework.

        • “No doubt about that. But the alarmist turn it into an affect thats so catostrophic its going to kill us all!”

          150,000 per annum so far, according to the WHO.

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/full/nature04188.html

          • Lol. That doesn’t matter. Co2 makes up only 0.04 % of the atmosphere and makes up only 5% of the total greenhouse affect. Even one hundred thousand million tons won’t do shit. In fact co2 is a plant fertilizer. If we choose to eliminate total co2 emissions we I’ll be dangerously close to killing all the plants on the planet . It benefits us much better then destroys us. Simple elementary school science.

  13. sod says:

    “Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998”

    Most misleading headline ever. Posted on a blog that lately had a topic named:

    “Science Under President Trump: End the Bias in Government-Funded Research”

    But hey, nothing that a few adjustments can not fix? Next version will have 1998 warmer again, promise?

    • sod says:

      The world is discussing fake news and then we get this from one of the most respected scientist on the sceptic side. I am really dissapointed.

      What would that 3rd order polynomial do these days?

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-still-below-the-zero-line/

    • Richard M says:

      Sounds like you are in denial and moving slowly into anger. Why does anyone care about the headline. The real issue is the data. The data now clearly shows no warming over the past couple of decades.

      What should really concern you is we now are seeing the maximum effect of the AMO cycle. It should be warmer than 1998 and yet it isn’t.

      • sod says:

        “What should really concern you is we now are seeing the maximum effect of the AMO cycle. It should be warmer than 1998 and yet it isnt.”

        it is warmer. Look at the numbers.

        Only if you do not weant it to be warmer, you start using the “statistical tie” nonsense.

        Your kids didn t grow last year. It a statistical tie with the number you got last month!

        • Richard M says:

          Obviously, you are not a scientist or you would understand what measurement error means. Why are you at a science site denying basic statistics?

        • oh, and your child growing analogy? If you don’t realize what’s wrong with it, I can’t help you.

          (Hint: All children grow with time, not shrink. But not all temperatures trend upwards.)

          • sod says:

            “(Hint: All children grow with time, not shrink. But not all temperatures trend upwards.)”

            This is wrong. Everybody shrinks every day.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pawmi-StB94

            And we have to include measuring errors, of course.

            You are also confusing stuff that we are going to measure (is the kid still growing) with some baseless claim (not all kids grow).

      • David Appell says:

        Richard, Roy wrote this headline knowing full well it would lead many forums — like Brietbart, the Daily Caller, etc — to report it the way he spun it.

        • spalding craft says:

          Gimme a break. You really think Roy cares what Breitbart and Daily Caller report? Roy is not a politician or a propagandizer.

    • “Most misleading headline ever”?

      Really?

      actually, in so few words, my headline is very accurate, and not misleading at all, sod. It makes a very important point…which probably would apply to the thermometer measurements as well….but good luck getting those guys to admit it.

      • sod says:

        “actually, in so few words, my headline is very accurate, and not misleading at all, sod. It makes a very important pointwhich probably would apply to the thermometer measurements as well.but good luck getting those guys to admit it.”

        It is not accurate, unless you also start calling cold records (you made a post about those lately) “tie”.

        It is a trick to make the record less relevant. You would not have called the record “significantly strong” if it had been above the “tie” threshold.

  14. SPQR says:

    From 1979 to the present, there is an upward trend on the graph. The graph does not begin in 1998. So what if 2016 was a record year? I think both sides (liberal and conservative) tinker with the data (liberals probably far more).

    However, even if there is slight warming (which it appears) I am not going to cease using my air-conditioner in the summer; Nor am I going to stop driving my car or cutting my lawn.

    Get over it people-

  15. Wim Rost says:

    2016 +0.50
    1998 +0.48

    Not really a sign of a dangerous warming…

  16. Bryan says:

    The planet has been getting warmer naturally since around 1600AD

    Fossil fuel use became significant from 1840AD onwards
    A trend line following this period can be established and then projected to the present to account for natural variation.

    This would establish a baseline to compare the accelerating trend that the IPCC claim is due to CO2 increase.

    So for a sceptic a natural rise is to be expected.

    For an IPCC advocate an accelerating rise is essential

    But for the period 1998 till 2016 virtually no rise of any kind is observed.

    Surely the penny has dropped for any reasonable person.

    • David Appell says:

      Bryan says:
      “The planet has been getting warmer naturally since around 1600AD”

      No it hasn’t:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

      • Bryan says:

        There is an absurd attempt to deny the Central England temperature record.
        Several adjustments have been made to the data set and it is not at all clear if the original values can be found.

        However the historical record has the Thames freezing regularly.

        Water freezing gives a record set that does not rely on a thermometer and hence gives very strong evidence of very cold conditions around the 17th century.

        You might say that central England does not represent the World.
        However it would be odd if this long period of very cold weather was some kind of outlier.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs

        • David Appell says:

          Bryan says:
          “There is an absurd attempt to deny the Central England temperature record.”

          Is that a joke? You cannot judge the world’s temperature by a few cubic centimeters of air in one single, tiny, location on Earth. Talk about absurd.

          • Bryan says:

            Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville said;

            “Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie

            Christy is correct the margin of error is 5 times bigger than the signal.

            You cannot claim more accuracy than your margin of error.

            This would be clear in any science discipline other than climate pseudoscience.

          • David Appell says:

            From UAH’s press release, titled “2016 Edges 1998 as Warmest Year on Record”:

            “Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C to become the warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.”

            http://www.newswise.com/articles/2016-edges-1998-as-warmest-year-on-record

      • Mike Maguire says:

        David,
        What happened to the Medieval Warm Period on your temperature graph?

        You must have Michael Mannitis (-:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/documenting-the-global-extent-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

        According to your graph, global temperatures were in a downtrend for 800 years and surely we must have just rescued life from the next Ice Age(or at least the great adversity created by continuing global cooling) with the warming since 1900.

        • David Appell says:

          Mike, what Medieval Warm Period?

          from the abstract of the PAGES 2k study:
          “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”

          — “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
          http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis, I’ll take a large, recent scientific study over an old, creeky encylopedia. Any day.

          • Mike Maguire says:

            “Mike, what Meideval Warm Period?”

            The one that exists in climate history, human recorded history and the fIrst IPCC report but was wiped out in the 2001 IPCC report, along with Mann’s tree rings studies and hockey stick climate history graph.

            But if we believe this silly rewrite(hijacking) of historical temperatures and man made global warming has interrupted the 800 year downtrend in temperatures then………humans have reescued the planet from global cooling!

            Since the last 4 decades of weather and climate have been the best for life on this planet since the Medieval Warm Period…….or by your definition, since the last period in climate history when temperatures were this warm…….you tell us when that was,…..lets let the observations on this greening planet get some weighting vs busted computer simulations in models programmed with equations that have been deemed infallible.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike, show us data for your purported global MWP.

            BTW, the hockey stick has appeared prominently in all IPCC ARs.

          • Mike Maguire says:

            Mike, show us data for your purported global MWP.”

            David,
            I showed you a link with numerous studies…….you responded to it but must not have looked at the link.

            Here is more to help you out:

            Medieval Warm Period Project:

            http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

            Project overview:
            http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/description.php

            Temperature differentials……majority(100) show Medieval Warm Period Warmer than Current Warm Period:
            http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.php

            Scientists whose work is sited(over 100)

            http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php

          • Mike Maguire says:

            David,
            I showed you over 100 studies that point to a Medieval Warm Period, that was as warm or warmer than the Current Warm Period.

            Will you just ignore all these studies and believe a handful of the ones that confirm what you believe? You don’t have to show me them. I know and have seen them. Science is not just latching on to the data that confirms what you want to believe.

            At the very least, any objective and rightfully skeptical scientist would have to acknowledge that many hundreds of scientists found strong evidence of the Medieval Warm Period.

            Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge this?

            I acknowledge that we have had around 1 Deg C of warming over the last century and humans have caused some of it.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Maguire says:
            “I showed you over 100 studies that point to a Medieval Warm Period”

            No you didn’t, you linked to a list of 100 scientists who purported did such studies. Is there a list of the studies?

            CO2 is well known to hide their funding sources. They have no scientific credibility.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike, there is no list of 100 studies — only a graph where one column goes to 100.

            What are the actual studies?

          • Mike Maguire says:

            David,
            You have the links and studies with the evidence. Pretending that there is nothigng there shows that you are just being a. Troll……..not interested in a 2 way discussion or exchange of authentic ideas…..just interested in disrupting.

  17. Interesting there was such a large drop from November to December. The CFSR GMST estimates from UM CCI and WxBELL also dropped, but not quite as much. I graphed them here:
    https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/global-temperature-december-2016-preliminary/

    It’s also interesting that all the various estimates have diverged considerably since June, with the spread increasing from about 0.2C to 0.4C. Just goes to show some of the uncertainty involved in trying to estimate a global temperature anomaly.

  18. David Appell says:

    What’s the probability that 2016 was the warmest year?

    • Mike Maguire says:

      The importance of the verbiage in describing the global temperature in 2016 is telling.
      In science, .02 deg C is not significant in the realm that is being measured.
      In politics and marketing, being able to use “warmest ever” or “hottest ever” is a huge deal compared to not being able to use those terms.

      So let’s go ahead and say that the last 2 years were the MF-ing hottest years ever, since humans have been able to measure temperatures.

      What happened in 2015 and 2016?

      1. Record crop yields and world food production
      2. Planet was the record greenest since satellites have been able to measure this
      3. Record low number of violent tornadoes(that peaked in the 1970’s)
      4. Record longest streak for US to not have a major hurricane make landfall.
      5. Global drought continues to decrease slightly
      6. Sea levels went up a bit more than 1/10th of an inch

      But let’s forget all of that and focus on:

      7. Heavy rain events saw a slight uptick
      8. Arctic sea ice dropped to the 2nd lowest ever.

      So however verbiage you want to use to describe 2016 as warmer than any other years, it and the last 4 decades have featured the best weather, climate and CO2 levels for life on this planet for the last 1,000 years.

      If that isn’t true, please let us know about all the bad things that have happened because of this slight beneficial warming……..err, I mean record smashing hottest years ever.

      • Mike Maguire says:

        “So however verbiage you want to use to describe 2016”

        So whatever verbiage you want to use to describe 2016

      • David Appell says:

        Mike, a study published in BAMS looked for human-caused issues in 2015:

        http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/scientists-strong-evidence-human-caused-climate-change-intensified-2015-heat-waves

        Among them are 10 extreme heat waves that killed thousands of people, an intense wildfire season in Alaska, extreme drought southwestern Canada and in southeast China, and sunny day flooding in Florida in September

        The study is at:

        http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2015/2015_bams_eee_low_res.pdf

      • Nate says:

        Mike,

        Perhaps warmer is better where you live, ok. But how bout the rest of the world?

        Most of the developing world is plenty warm enough. Extreme heat is not welcome there.

        In California the extended drought has not been the best weather they’ve ever had.

        In the Himalayas, the many glaciers (the 3rd pole) are counted on to feed rivers in spring that irrigate vast areas in China and India. These are in recession which is accelerating, trending toward a future of inadequate springtime water for ~ 500 million.

        No-one is saying 3.4 mm of sea level rise in 1 year is a lot, but the rate is accelerating and summed over 50 or 100 years it becomes significant for people living in coastal cities.

        • Mike Maguire says:

          “In California the extended drought has not been the best weather theyve ever had.”

          Global drought has not increased, the planet is greening up. You will always be able to find areas of drought and extreme weather. They have and will always exist naturally. Droughts in California have lasted for many decades not that long ago. There is no correlation between that drought and the increase in CO2.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought-repeats.html

          It’s interesting that we are about to have a huge precip event in California. In the next week, much of the northern and central parts of the state will see over 6 inches of rain, with isolated amounts of triple that. Snow will be measured in yards at the higher elevations. Reservoirs that are near record lows will be getting some needed water.

          http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/qpf/p168i.gif?1483650690

          So is this extreme precip from human caused climate change?
          No! As an operational meteorologist for 34 years, I can tell you that a portion of their precip has always come from events like this.

          “California Extreme Precipitation Symposium”
          http://cepsym.org/proceedings.php

          The difference between believing that weather/climate is unprecedented because you read about it and knowing that it is/was not is often a matter of doing a bit of homework and having an open mind. There are hundreds of sources that show recent extreme weather is very tame by historical standards……as we would expect when the planet warms more at the highest latitudes and decreases the meridional temp gradient. The atmosphere does not need to work as hard to balance the heat differential.

          The last 4 decades have featured the best weather, climate, growing and living conditions for life on this planet since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago. You don’t even need to do your homework to verify the Medieval Warm Period, just look at the 100+ studies from my previous post.

          Enjoy the data and enjoy this climate regime……even though some places will always be having extreme/bad weather.

          • Mike Maguire says:

            Nate,
            I am not completely blind or one sided on this issue. Arctic sea ice is near record low levels and yes, sea levels are increasing. “IF” this were to accelerate it would be a problem for the humans that decided to build along the coasts that assumed that climate would never change.
            With regards to the Arctic, polars bears are doing great and their numbers have increased greatly in the last 4 decades, mainly because we aren’t killing them like before.

            The polar bear has been used as a cuddly mascot for a marketing scheme to capture people’s brains by using propaganda……..vs scientific facts and authentic biology.

            When entities have to lie about things like this(current polar bear metric) then it means that the truth won’t support their position/cause.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            The supposed good weather of the MWP is a Euro-centric view of history, and the goodness of it. You are repeating that (centricity)

            You didnt address glacier melt or the the developing world. And nobody here is talking about polar bears.

          • Mike Maguire says:

            “The supposed good weather of the MWP is a Euro-centric view of history, and the goodness of it. You are repeating that (centricity)”

            Not true. This is just what you have read and heard. Please look at all the data and studies that I provided.

            “You didnt address glacier melt.”
            OK, glaciers are melting too, along with Arctic ice. Is that all you have?

            Doesn’t negate one iota of the statement that the last 4 decades have featured the best weather, climate, growing and living conditions for life on this planet since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago.

            And for those of you that deny there was a Medieval Warm Period, then since the last time it was this warm……..which, in your book is a very long time ago.

          • David Appell says:

            What data and studies did you provide?

  19. David Appell says:

    If a new record has to be 0.10 C warmer than the old record, then the only statistically significant “warmest years” in the UAH LT record are 1980 and 1998.

    This despite almost +0.5 C of warming over the entire record.

    So, yeah, the headline pretty kinda sounds like the best spin available for people who don’t want to admit warming.

    • appell'sajerk says:

      I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly…

    • sod says:

      “If a new record has to be 0.10 C warmer than the old record, then the only statistically significant warmest years in the UAH LT record are 1980 and 1998.”

      yeah. basically we can eliminate records by just making it difficult enough to score one.

      So we eliminated the surface data (not reliable) and concentrate on satellite data (small number of years). Then we occasionally change parameters, and lose satellites/sensors. The effect: We are sorry, but there is no (significant) warming any longer, no matter how much it warms.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Yes, it seems like a more fair way to say it would be something like:

      “2016 Probably The Warmest Year in Satellite Records

      By our best estimates, 2016 was the warmest year in the satellite record. Due to the uncertainties of the measurements, it is possible that 1998 was actually warmer, but odds are that 2016 is indeed the warmest. “

    • Nate says:

      Good point David.

  20. fonzarelli says:

    WHO WINS THE RACE FOR WARMEST YEAR?

    As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your hearts content.

    RWS January 3rd, 2011

  21. Lubos Motl says:

    Only 540 out of 703 pairs of the years in the 38-year interval, or 77%, agree with the claim that “a later year is warmer than the previous year”. In this sense, the increasing trend only exists at the 77% confidence level, slightly above 1 sigma.

    For more observations like that, click at my name.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      That has to be about the most inane use of statistics I have ever seen! Randomly, you would expect half of the pairs to go up and half to go down.

      Using the binomial distribution, the odds are of getting 352 or more pairs going up are 0.5 (ie 50%)
      The odd of getting at least:
      * 355 –> 0.41
      * 360 –> 0.27
      * 380 –> 0.017
      * 400 –> 0.00014
      * 540 –> 0.00000000000000000000000000000000
      (Excel can’t actually produce enough precision to calculate this number!)

      So what you are REALLY showing is that we can be VERY sure that there is more warming than cooling. There is about 99% confidence that warming occurs 77% +/- 4% of the time. (Ie if warming was occurring less 73% or more than 81%, then getting 540 out of 703 going up would be highly unlikely). The odds of 540 out of 703 being random (50%) are incalculably small.

      For more observations like that … yeah, I think I’ll pass.

    • sod says:

      This is the most absurd look at statistics that i have ever seen.

      and if we put the threshold for a record at “beating the last record by +5C”, we won t see any record over the next century.

  22. ren says:

    For several years now there is a clear shift of the polar vortex in the direction of Europe and it is a clear trend.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00855/ifuzwmefexm9.png

  23. E. Swanson says:

    Dr. Spencer, while it’s always interesting to see the latest UAH results, I think it’s important to realize that the meteorological year begins on 1 December. Your latest results should thus be the first installment for 2017.

    While we’re at it, the coldest time of the year for the US lower 48 is around the middle of January, so the projected cold and snow of your previous post isn’t unusual. And, how ’bout those tornadoes in the Southeast yesterday, were they NORMAL?

    • The numbers we post are departures from seasonal (actually, monthly) normals, so things like meteorological winter and when the coldest time of year occurs are not relevant.

      And, no, Gulf coast severe weather isn’t unusual this time of year.

      • E. Swanson says:

        The division of the year’s days into months is a rather arbitrary choice and the beginning of the calendar year on 1 January has no geophysical meaning. Why not just give seasonal averages with Winter beginning on 1 December, etc., which would better match the influence of the annual solar cycle? Oh, sorry, I suppose you probably are more interested in keeping your faithful followers happy with your monthly releases of your corrected MSU2/AMSU5 series.

        • Lewis says:

          Dear M. Swanson,

          Yes, months are arbitrary, but, in case you hadn’t noticed, in common use.

          Your idea reminds me of those whose last names start with letters far into the alphabet. They often advocate changing the order of the alphabet to let them be first occasionally.

          PC at it’s finest.

  24. Slipstick says:

    The lack of statistical significance is an artifact of the calendar.

    For example, if we look at two year periods:
    97-98 (or 98-99) +0.25
    15-16 +0.38

    Three year periods:
    96-98 +0.15
    14-16 +0.31

    • True. I’m only addressing the claims of “warmest year on record” here. One can always change the averaging intervals to come to qualitatively different conclusions.

      When it comes to “global warming”, the most important single statistic in my opinion is the linear trend, which is still only 0.12 C/decade.

      Maybe in each monthly update I should have the headline:

      “Warming Rate Still Only 0.12 C/decade”

      But that would get a little boring. So, we talk about statistics people are used to hearing, like “2016 worst year ever for…”

      • David Appell says:

        I wonder if 2016 was 0.02 C colder than 1998, if you’d be saying it was statistically tied for warmest year….

        • fonzarelli says:

          He did back when the 2010 data was out and ’98 edged it by .013:

          “…but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant.”
          RWS 1/3/2011

    • sod says:

      “The lack of statistical significance is an artifact of the calendar.

      For example, if we look at two year periods:
      97-98 (or 98-99) +0.25
      15-16 +0.38

      Three year periods:
      96-98 +0.15
      14-16 +0.31”

      do not dare to bring facts into this debate!

      The “fake news crowd” has decided that any temperature record is irrelevant because it can be cast into statistical doubt unless earth transforms into a burning ball from one second into the next (and then the debate wont matter any longer).

      And do not even dare to question, whether the medieval warming period was really warm or just a tie with a phase 10000 years ago!

  25. Paul says:

    Dr. Spencer. Please give them the headline they want. They aren’t interested in the data anyway. If they were, they wouldn’t attribute 0.1 deg to El Nino and claim 2016 as the hottest year ever, when temperatures are plummeting since 9 months.

    • sod says:

      ” If they were, they wouldnt attribute 0.1 deg to El Nino and claim 2016 as the hottest year ever, when temperatures are plummeting since 9 months.”

      This is what happens, when scientists support nonsense. Here is, how “sceptics2 turn your headlines. They think that cooling after el nino is significant, while high temperature records are not.

      You are supporting the fake news crowd and help them spread misinformation!

      Sad.

  26. Paul says:

    @Sod

    Cooling since El Nino spike actually is 0.6 deg in monthly data. Difference between 1998 and 2016 is 0.02 deg. Up to you to decide where the significance is.

    • sod says:

      “Cooling since El Nino spike actually is 0.6 deg in monthly data. Difference between 1998 and 2016 is 0.02 deg. Up to you to decide where the significance is.”

      The term “significance” has a statistical meaning. It involves making decisions, but not the way you assume.

      In general, we would check if trends are statistically significant. Th upward trend over the full data obviously is. Whether the drop over the last few month is, i do not know. It doesn t look very different from other drops.

  27. Paul says:

    But feel free to create your own message from the data. Hottest year in record and be it. After doing it ask yorself with the monthly data in front of you: So what?

  28. Kevin White says:

    As I predicted, 2016 finished statistically tied with 1998. So the pause continues, alarmists will not like this! The demise of El Nino’s lingering influence combined with a strengthening La Nina and declining solar cycle will mean a much cooler 2017. It’s a little something called regression towards the mean. Note to alarmists, strong El Nino years are always warm, 2016 in that respect was nothing out of the ordinary. Get over it there is no statistically significant AGW.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      1) A “pause” is not defined by individual years. It should be determined by trendlines. So analyze slopes, not individual years.

      2) Why do you call this a “strong El Nino”? The typical El Nino. This is unlike the 1998 El Nino, which from from near zero and then dropped back to near zero. So an apparently *weak* El Nino *still* produced a record!

      3) This is not really a good example of regression toward the mean (which would be caused by random variations, not a pattern like El Nino evolving into La Nina). If nothing else, the regression should be toward “typical” values, which in this case would most logically be the 0.12 C/decade upward sloping trendline.

      • Paul says:

        Why do you call it a weak El Nino? Any data that supports that assumption?

        The 1998 El Nino needed approx. 20 months to vanish. We still have 10 to 12 months to compare both.

      • Sven says:

        The strongest El Nino in recorded history is a *weak* El Nino????

        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

        ENSO index peak for 2015/2016 is 2.2 (and, yes, started from zero and dropped to zero, like it always happens)
        The next ones are 1997/1998 and 1982/1983 at 2.1

        Ideology, just like religion, does make people blind…

        • Sven says:

          Oops … sorry, the peak for 2015/2016 was even 2.3 not 2.2

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            My comment about strength was based on the effect of the El nino on temperature –the *extra* warming from the El Nino “spike” above the existing baseline. This was indeed fairly small.

            I was thinking akin to a spring tide. Even a small wave atop a spring high tide will be higher than a good-sized wave atop a high neap tide. Similarly, one could describe El Nino strength from how warm the surface gets. A relatively small peak atop a high background could be considered “large” from an absolute perspective, but not so large from a relative perceptive.

            So I looked a little further, focusing on the Multivariate ENOS Index (MEI) (mostly since it seemed a good overall estimate of El Nino/La Nina and since I found the data set easily). This index has a slope when you do a linear fit, increasing about 0.0125/year since 1950. This is perhaps not surprising since overall ocean temperatures have increased over that time. This means that — relative to this linear trendline — MEI values near the end would be be adjusted downward about -0.4 and those near the beginning adjusted upward about 0.4 to give “account” for the trend. In this sense, the most recent El Nino is only moderately strong.

            This leaves us with a couple competing interpretations. One would be that an unusual series of strong El Ninos have pushed global temperatures up (and there is no ‘baseline upward trend’ from other causes). The other would be that the recent El Ninos are mostly “typical” but get a boost from global warming and a higher baseline SST. Unfortunately, I would suspect it would take a number of years to sort out which answer is better (eg multi-decadal oscillations could *look* like a multi-decadal upward upward trend).

          • Sven, the 1997/98 El Nino also peaked at 2.3 K. That El Nino and the most recent one have had about the same strength.

        • Greven says:

          How strange that two months of 1997/1998 were 2.3, while you say it was only 2.1… clearly you cannot read.

          • Greven says:

            Or, perhaps I should just quote your ironic self-description:
            “Ideology, just like religion, does make people blind”

          • Sven says:

            Yes, my bad. I first planned to write only about 1998 and 2016. Then changed to the whole El Nino periods of 1997/1998 and 2015/2016. That created the confusion. Working on an iphone contributed as well. You are correct that the 1997/1998 peak was also 2.3. So the Tim Folkerts’ *weak* El Nino was not “the strongest El Nino in recorded history but “tied with 1997/1998 as the strongest El Nino in recorded history”. And apparently even that fact, combined with the fact that it was not followed by a strong La Nina, still failed to produce a record. Now, is that correct?

          • Sven says:

            And as to the “ironic self-description” – touch… In fact I regretted writing it as soon as I pressed “Submit comment”. It’s not a nice or wise thing to say and never adds anything to a discussion. One should stick to facts and avoid unnecessary snark. Will try to stick to facts. My appologies.

          • Sven says:

            Seems that the site does not accept french letters – touch… should end with e with accent aigu. Definition – “used as an acknowledgment during a discussion of a good or clever point made at one’s expense by another person.”

        • Kristian says:

          Sven says, January 3, 2017 at 2:20 PM:

          The strongest El Nino in recorded history is a *weak* El Nino????

          Well, it certainly wasn’t a weak one. It was definitely a strong one. However, it’s still pretty clear it was rather dwarfed by the 1997/98 event.

          Here’s a comparison between the three biggest El Nino events over the past 40 years, the 1982/83 event, the 1997/98 event, and the 2015/16 event. First the “Equatorial Upper-Ocean Heat Content” of the Pacific basin (130E-80W) (according to CPC):
          https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/eq-ohc-b1.png

          Then the 4 month average SSTa (including the months with the highest anomaly around the peak of each event) of the tropical Pacific basin (10N-15S, 145E-75W):
          (1982/83) https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/g20161209_0557_21808_1.png
          (1997/98) https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/g20161209_0558_26296_1.png
          (2015/16) https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/g20161209_0559_27363_1.png

          Note the black rectangle. That’s the NINO3.4 region. You will also note that the anomaly scale and range (NOAA (Reynolds) OIv2) is exactly the same in all three cases.

          Inside the NINO3.4 rectangle, the overall SSTa of the 2015/16 event is actually as high or even slightly higher than that of the 1997/98 event, believe it or not. But when you look at the full picture, there is absolutely no question the latter event was the stronger one. By far …

      • Sven says:

        And the 1998 El Nino turned right into a strong La Nina, what the 2016 El Nino did not, though it looked like it would at first. That fact probably did not have an insignificant role in making 2016 into such a warm year.

        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

        So, again, it depends how you formulate your point. I would do it like that – even though the 2016 El Nino was significantly stronger than 1998 and did not turn into a strong La Nina, like in 1998, 2016 still ties with 1998…

  29. Mike M. says:

    Elliot Bignell wrote: “Perhaps we should allow that a moment to sink in.”

    I noticed that result some time ago myself and it has definitely sunk in. Looks like there is nothing much to worry about.

    A continued linear increase in temperature corresponds to a continued exponential increase in CO2. That would lead to a forcing between 5.0 and 5.5 W/m^2 in 2100. I would say that is a reasonable business-as-usual scenario; that is, what might happen without any large innovations in energy technology. Given that CO2 emission growth already seems to be slowing, it looks like 2.0 K of warming is pretty much a worst case scenario. And 2.0 K is nothing much to worry about.

    Elliot Bignell wrote: “That is to say, that if we were to stop adding CO2e to the atmosphere today, then the warming being produced by the gases already in the atmosphere, without adjusting for decay in the concentrations, would put us very close indeed to the RPC6.0 scenarios outcome.”

    Someone ought to explain to Mr. Bignall how the Greenhouse effect works and what the 6.0 on “RCP6.0” means. I don’t have the patience.

    • Mike M. says:

      Hmm. This got disconnected from the message that I meant to reply to ( Elliott Bignell, January 3, 2017 at 8:55 AM). Lets see if I have fixed that problem.

    • “… In spite of this restriction, global emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have continued to grow by 2.5% per year on average over the past decade. Two thirds of the CO2 emission quota consistent with a 2 C temperature limit has already been used, and the total quota will likely be exhausted in a further 30 years at the 2014 emissions rates.”

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n10/full/ngeo2248.html

      “A continued linear increase in temperature corresponds to a continued exponential increase in CO2. That would lead to a forcing between 5.0 and 5.5 W/m^2 in 2100.”

      The RPC 4.5 scenario projects almost exactly 2K over Y2K temperatures – see the graph. That amounts to about 2.8K over pre-industrial levels. You have just said that we are looking at an RPC 5.0 to RPC 5.5 scenario – i.e. that we are going to actually exceed RPC 4.5. I’d be worried, if I were you.

      “I dont have the patience.”

      Or the brains.

      • Mike M. says:

        Elliott Bignell,

        You are spouting nonsense. Present forcing is about 2.3 W/m^2. To get 2.0 K warming from an additional 2.2 W/m^2 would require a TCR of 3.4 K and an ECS of somewhere around 7.4 K. Way beyond even the IPCC range. Using an observationally justified TCR of about 1.3 K gives about 0.8 K additional warming for that forcing.

        • Just read off the graphs. They are entirely clear. The 6.0 scenario ends a little more than 2K over y2K temperatures, making for a little over 2.8K of total warming. The 4.5 scenario ends so close to 2K over Y2K levels as to be almost unreadable, making for very close to 2.8K. You’ve admitted that we are looking at a 5.0 to 5.5 scenario.

          Not that hard, surely?

          • Mike M. says:

            Elliott Bignell,

            Oh! There is a graph somewhere! So it must be true!

            I have no idea what graph you are referring to. But, as I argued above, it is clear that the graph must be making unreasonable assumptions. Of course, you don’t care about that.

  30. Dan Pangburn says:

    Solar activity (quantified by SSN) is a proxy for average global temperature change on earth. Assessment of solar activity should include the influence of duration as well as magnitude of solar cycles. Also a threshold must exist for sunspot numbers; above the threshold warming occurs and below it cooling occurs. This is accomplished using the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies (measured minus threshold). When combined with an approximation of the effect of ocean cycles and the contribution to warming of increasing water vapor, the result is a 98% match to 5-yr smoothed measurements 1895-2015. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

  31. AaronS says:

    I dont have IPCC model prediction data to calculate the mean (it would be a great thing to share bc it is difficult to download). I am curious where does 2016 rank in:

    Highest ranking years for climate model error and exaggerated warming compared to measured data?

    A plot through time of measured temperature minus predicted temperature is the thing i feel that general population need.

  32. Sven says:

    Now that is a really innovative definition of the strength of El Nino! Must be your own invention. I’ve followed the “debate” for around 10 years now and I certainly have not seen this before.

    • Sven says:

      It was supposed to be a reply to Tim Folkerts, I have no idea why it landed here

      • fonzarelli says:

        Sven, my guess is that you’re using a mobile device (?) Comments have to be posted using the desk top version or they oft end up at the bottom of the page. Note that Tim’s comment lacks a reply button with the desk top version, but has a (false) reply button with the mobile version. If you have trouble getting the desk top version on your mobile device, let me know and i’ll walk you through how to do it…

  33. Entropic man says:

    If the December GISS temperature comes in 0.21C cooler than November, down from 0.95C to 0.74C, the GISS Land-Ocean temperature for 2016 would be 0.98C. We will know definately when their data comes out in three weeks time.

    GISS for 1998 was 0.63C. The warming to 2016 would be a statistically significant 0.35C.

    Are the two sides going to spend the next year arguing over which of the six main temperature datasets show significant warming and which do not, and what that means for the climate?

    • Bart says:

      GISS is not a credible data set. You will not make any points with knowledgeable people using it.

      • Greven says:

        So UAH is credible when there are VERY LARGE variations between v5.6 and v6.0?
        _UAH_5.6_
        1998 (J-D): +0.42
        2016 (J-N): +0.60

        _UAH_6.0_
        1998 (J-D): +0.48
        2016 (J-D): +0.50

        • Bart says:

          Meh. Barely discernible in the plot:

          http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/plot/uah6

          These differences are not “very large”. As a fraction of the peak values for these El Nino years, they are VERY SMALL.

          Nothing like this:

          http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/NASA-2000Vs2016.gif

          • Greven says:

            You should also look at other bits of the UAH data – especially the Arctic in 2016 from UAH v5.6 to 6.0:
            0.9 degree difference in October.

            What is the data source for that GIF?

            GIS is not doing much.

          • Bart says:

            Gimme a break, will ya’? I’ve been keeping tabs on this long enough to know that the surface data sets agreed with the satellite sets very well up until they manipulated the bucket data to add spurious new warming. It’s a blatant and transparent fudge to keep the warming meme going in the face of an uncooperative real climate.

            Now, your side wants to cast aspersions on the satellite data to complete the con. Go sell it to the numbskulls who lap up your bilge. I’m not buying.

          • David Appell says:

            Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)

            “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets.”

            http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

          • Bart says:

            Yes, Mears serves at the sufferance of the climate mafia. He knows which side his bread is buttered on.

          • Greven says:

            Bart,

            How strange. Why are you unwilling to link where that NASA-2000Vs2016.gif came from – from what data source does it originate?

          • Bart says:

            I wasn’t aware that I was obligated to do your web searches for you. But, here are the data:

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/output/met_used.zip

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Yes, Mears serves at the sufferance of the climate mafia. He knows which side his bread is buttered on.”

            You always have an excuse, don’t you Bart.

            If you can’t provide the data and science wrong, you just use insults and imply someone is crooked, all without any proof or analysis whatsoever.

            When you have to resort to garbage like that, your claims aren’t at all convincing. It shows no thinking whatsoever.

          • Bart says:

            Where’s the excuse? An excuse is “a plea offered in extenuation of a fault“. I am admitting no fault. I am pointing out that Dr. Mears heads a private research company dependent on contracts from NASA’s Earth Sciences arm, and has a keen self interest in pleasing his customers.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart, I take that to mean you manipulate data at your job, due to a keen self interest in pleasing your customers, and so you assume everyone else does it too.

          • Bart says:

            Yeah, unfortunately David, if I did that, people would die, and my customers wouldn’t be pleased for very long. I expect it’s nice to be in a field, like climate science, where there are no consequences for being wrong most of the time.

          • Greven says:

            Bart,

            Thanks for showing where you got the info. A web search for that was insufficient to find it, sorry.

            However, I think that GIF is a bit misleading. Here’s what the image looks like just pasting the frames on top of each other:
            http://www.evilgreven.net/images/nasaadjustments.png

            The longer beginning and shorter end seem to distort things. Looking at them side-by-side you see it’s pretty close; the maximum adjustment happens near the beginning, ~0.2 degrees Celsius. The much more certain modern era has far less adjustment at/below ~0.1 degrees; no more than UAH versions have been adjusted.

            You plotting that graph in WoodForTrees doesn’t show how different they really are:
            http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2015/05/first-look-uah-60-vs-uah-56-vs-rss.html

            You can clearly tell the 0.1 degree Celsius difference (nearing 0.2 for 2016!)between UAH v6.0 and v5.6 in my data above and that’s straight from this site.

          • David Appell says:

            So you’re the only honest man in the world, huh Bart?

            No one else can be honest but you. You can insult the integrity of others, based on no data whatsoever, but you’re above it all, just becausey you say so.

            That must be a weighty crown to bear.

          • Nate says:

            Bart. Thats a nice way to obscure the issues. Both sets have changes of about .1 C. But the satellite data has lots more noise and is not smoothed as nasa data is.

          • Bart says:

            Greven –

            All data are uncertain, and within the realm of uncertainty, there is leeway for various interpretations. What I see happening is that adjustments to the satellite record go both ways, while adjustments to the surface record are overwhelmingly in one direction.

            David – I do not know if it is dishonesty, or incompetence, or both driving the panic mongering. But, I know that there is no emergency, and I know that the proposed cures are worse than the purported disease.

            Nate – Smoothness of the data is not a general indicator of quality.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “David I do not know if it is dishonesty, or incompetence, or both driving the panic mongering. But, I know that there is no emergency, and I know that the proposed cures are worse than the purported disease.”

            You don’t know anything, because you never look at data or do any analysis.

            Intuition is not science. That’s what makes science so useful.

            And insults aren’t a counterargument.

          • Bart says:

            Way to contradict yourself within the space of a couple of sentences there, Dave.

          • barry says:

            Bart,

            What I see happening is that adjustments to the satellite record go both ways, while adjustments to the surface record are overwhelmingly in one direction.

            The single biggest adjustment to the surface data sets has been to cool the centennial record, by adjusting upwards sea surface temps in the past – making the slope shallower.

            http://tinyurl.com/gtrllh4

    • JasG says:

      Until they reconcile the terrestrial recons with the more accurate satellite recons then they are all worthless. The fact that they all use the same data means that 6, 20 or 100,000 recons would still not validate each other. The fact that Giss was quick to adopt the NOAA pause-buster adjustments where accurate sea temperatures were replaced by extrapolations from bucket measurements tell us all we need to know about them. That unscientific politically-motivated bodge will, I expect, be reverted after proper scrutiny under the Trump administration and Noaa will flop back down to match the satellites/radiosondes once again. However even then it will still be running hot because the atmosphere should really be warming more than the surface according to the man-made warming hypothesis….but then the Antarctic should also be warming….and the stratosphere should be cooling…..and the pause should not be happening. Giss will still of course remain the pessimistic outlier due to the fact that it unscientifically extrapolates across the Arctic (otherwise known as just making it up).

      Meantime most of the (global) warming in Giss (outside the 100% invented Arctic data) seems to be happening in Siberia in Winter; so not of even local concern, never kind global. Giss climate models are just as inaccurate, being the worst performer spatially and temporally compared with all other models. In any privately funded endeavor such resolute incompetence would be rewarded by the sack.

      • barry says:

        Results differ very little whether you use GHCN, or a well-spread subset, whether you use or rural or sea surface records, whether you use different records to GHCN, no matter what methods you use, or if you are a skeptic who actually decides that they will construct your own temp record from raw data, and endeavour to use the best methods you can think of (3 different skeptic groups have done this).

        There are numerous global (and US) surface temp records made by AGW skeptics and others. They are not much different from each other.

        Critics complain automatically. Useful people crunch the numbers, running their own tests.

        Those that have done this, stop complaining.

        Check out their work. For example,

        https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/

      • Greven says:

        Satellites are not ‘more accurate.’

        They have more coverage, but they do not directly measure temperature. Temperature is inferred based on theory; interpreted and modeled from microwave sounders.

  34. Francis says:

    I am not a scientist but only a humble lawyer. However, it seems to me from having looked at this subject for many hours online that the likelihood that there is man made global warming going on is incredibly small. I think that I now know enough about the key points in debate to make comment in them.

    What is being discussed is, at the moment, something much less than 2 C having started with an average which could have itself been +/- a good part of that anyway pending what average you take.

    I cannot accept that the historic toempritue record, mostly having come from ‘proxy’ measurements, could be accurate by more than +/- something like 10 C. I know that science is very good and is constantly getting better these days but I don’t believe anyone who thinks that they can tell me what the global temperature is today without the use of a satellite, much less someone who can tell me what it was half way through the 18th century. Neither can I believe that accurate adjustments can be made to allow for what kind of buckets were used to measure temperature using who knows how accurate a thermometer on so many different ships all those years ago.

    In my view the satellite measurements are the only thing that we have which has much chance at all of providing the information that we need to decide this issue. The earth could get quite a lot warmer over the next few years and that would still not ‘prove’ the issue either way. I don’t think that anyone would be wise to try to forecast what the temperature will actually do for any short to medium period of years at any stage (ask the ‘warmers’). However, now that we have been through 2016 it seems to me that the ‘warmers’ have now had their shock headlines, probably, for a long time to come.If 2017 is warmer still I may well go and join the ‘warmers’ but I don’t think that it will be.

    Dr Spencer, for my part I do think that your headline could have been a little closer to ‘2016 just pips it at the post’ or something like that. In the future you may be glad that the high point was so high, all lower temperatures in years to come will be comparatively lower because of it.

    I think that the key question for the warmers now is ‘how much cooling over how long would it take to convince you that man has no significant effect?’ and then ‘how much lack of warming over how long would it take to convince you that man has no significant effect?’ Or ‘how many C drop would convince you?’

    If those questions were answered we would at least have a target, mind you I don’t expect my life will be long enough to see it!

    Dr Spencer keep up the good work, the world needs more like you and Illegitimi non carborundum.

    • David Appell says:

      Francis wrote:
      “I think that the key question for the warmers now is how much cooling over how long would it take to convince you that man has no significant effect?”

      Francis, how much more warming over how long would it take to convince you that man has a significant effect?

      • Francis says:

        David, good question.

        Looking at the satellite record it seems to me there are a number of points worthy of note.

        First, the lowest low on the 13 month average (assuming that I am reading off the graph correctly) was October 1984 @ -0.51 and the highest high was May 2016 @ +0.5. That is a difference of 1.1 over the 37 year record. That seems to me to be very little change for that period.

        Second, the higher temperatures (on the 13 month average) are followed each time by a number of years where the temperatures drop back down. That recovery is then countered by a higher high. Between 1998 and 2016 the temperatures were settling back down before they went up to the 2016 peak. That is 18 years, with a significant peak in 2010, before getting back up to (and slightly over) the 1998 figure. I don’t see that that can in any way show a trend of warming overall.

        Third, I get that you can’t take a single year in isolation or even a 2 year average but as you step to three years, five years or ten years you are asking for a much bigger step each time to be able to claim a warming trend. If we were to see a significant lack of the cooling in future years between peaks then that would support a warming argument. Or if we saw a peak larger than 1998 and 2016 in much less than 18 years then that would support warming. However, if we saw any lows, as low as 1992 or 1985 or lower, then they would stand against the warming argument.

        Fourth, if the problem is CO2 then the fact that it has been increasing consistently over the whole period should mean that the temperature should increase consistently, at least, over any period of a decade or more.

        Therefore I would say that it would need a high on the 13 month average of more than 0.55 within the next 18 years without a low below -0.31 within that period for it to be likely that man’s CO2 is making it happen.

        What are the warmers’ answers?

        • Entropic man says:

          Francis

          I was asked this on another blog.

          The most recent GISS 5-year average centred on 2013 is 0.79C+/-0.1C.

          A stastically significant cooling would be 0.2C. Show me a future GISS 5-year average below 0.59C and I would accept that global warming has stopped.

        • David Appell says:

          Francis says:
          “First, the lowest low on the 13 month average (assuming that I am reading off the graph correctly) was October 1984 @ -0.51 and the highest high was May 2016 @ +0.5. That is a difference of 1.1 over the 37 year record. That seems to me to be very little change for that period.”

          Compared to what?

          When the Earth left its last ice age to when warming peaked, the average rate of warming was only +0.005 C/decade.

          So today’s rate of LT warming is about 25 times higher.

          • Francis says:

            And when the earth left the last ice age what were the rolling 13 month averages and the highest and lowest of them in each 37 year period?.

            The trouble with historic data is that it simply cannot be accurate, at best it is approximate. There may be some degree of certainty as to the overall averages over long periods but we do not have the satellite record.

          • David Appell says:

            Francis: Our current rate of warming is about 30 times faster than when the last ice age was ending.

            From Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a:
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

            global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.4 C
            global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is +0.0 C

            so the average temperature change is 3.4 C in 7000 years, or ~ +0.005 C/decade, compared to NOAA’s current 30-year trend of +0.17 C/decade

            So that’s a factor of 30 now compared to then.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Francis, don’t bother tangling with appell. (he’s the biggest liar in the blogosphere…) He well knows that we had an equvilent amount of warming a century ago, but he’s never going to tell you that. In fact he’ll probably use his sock puppet “John” to refute early twentieth century warming as he has done in the past…

        • David Appell says:

          Francis wrote:
          “That is 18 years, with a significant peak in 2010, before getting back up to (and slightly over) the 1998 figure. I dont see that that can in any way show a trend of warming overall.”

          Francis, you’re doing numerology, not math.

          You can’t calculate the change in the data just by looking at two data points, peak-to-peak. Those two peaks just don’t accurately represent the data.

          “Fourth, if the problem is CO2 then the fact that it has been increasing consistently over the whole period should mean that the temperature should increase consistently, at least, over any period of a decade or more.”

          No no no no no no no. Natural variations still exist in a warming world.

          So again: how much more warming over how long would it take to convince you that man has a significant effect?

          • Francis says:

            I was not trying to do math. I accept that to a great degree what the figures provide is statistical and can be looked at in that way. I further accept that I know so close to nothing about statistical analysis as makes no difference.

            If all of the scientists and mathematicians and statisticians knew how the climate and the numbers worked then they could model it but they don’t even come close. So, it seems, they are as good at it as I am.

            David wrote:

            “You cant calculate the change in the data just by looking at two data points, peak-to-peak. Those two peaks just dont accurately represent the data.”

            We (by which I mean everyone on earth) don’t know what the data tells us, assuming that it could tell us anything if we understood it better. Whatever the important influences are CO2, the sun, the air, the land, the sea, the volcanos or any number of other factors the truth is that ‘we’ don’t know. But, if the planet is warming then the high points and the low points should get higher with time, that is just logic. In the satellite record the low points have been pulled up over the 37 year period but none of them from a standing start. If I boil a kettle and then let it cool it will take just as long to boil again if I leave it to get as cool as it was. But if I start it boiling again very soon after it boiled the first time it will do it so much quicker than the last time. The math is irrelevant. High highs will be followed by higher lows until it cools down again. The question is will we get higher highs before the lows have recovered.

            David wrote:

            “No no no no no no no. Natural variations still exist in a warming world.”

            And we (the same we as above) don’t know what those natural variations are or what their data is over any period. If the warmers knew that ‘the pause’ was caused by some particular variant then they would have measured the data and told us but they have not. Just because you don’t know what causes something it is no good just saying that it must be CO2. You need to be able to demonstrate what it is if you expect people to suffer and die for it.

            So many times in history what seemed to be very difficult and complicated questions proved in the end to have very simple answers, this could be one of those times.

            And in answer to your question; it would take higher lows and higher highs in the satellite record. The higher they are the sooner I could be convinced but if a volcano interferes then I would still need higher temperatures. Other than that I stand by my previous answer.

          • David Appell says:

            Francis,

            Again, more numerology and hand-waving, when what’s called for is analysis.

            “And we (the same we as above) dont know what those natural variations are or what their data is over any period.”

            We do know some, but it doesn’t matter, they exist and they mean temperature isn’t going to increase monotonically with CO2. This is so obvious it’s dumb to even argue about it.

            “So many times in history what seemed to be very difficult and complicated questions proved in the end to have very simple answers, this could be one of those times.”

            This is the end — the increase in temperature is due to man’s emissions of greenhouse gases. As is ocean acidification.

            I recognize you are desperate to have something else — anything else — be causing the warming. But the science clearly shows AGW, and it was known in the 1800s that this would happen.

            So again: how much more warming over how long would it take to convince you that man has a significant effect?

          • fonzarelli says:

            The ipcc claims that as little as half of recent warming may be caused by agw. If we’re generous and assign 0.3 C as half of recent warming, then 0.5 C (since LIA) would be natural. And that’s if the ipcc’s unproven assertion is actually correct. The science doesn’t “clearly show” anything…

          • Francis says:

            David

            We seem to agree that there are many factors which affect the global temperature. The difference is that you say that CO2 is increasing temperature in a more than minor way, I say that there is no proof of that, there is too much noise. Therefore I say that the temperature has not gone up any more than it would have done if man were not on the planet.

            If your starting point is that temperature has gone up more than it would have done then you have to look for what caused that. If your starting point is that there has not been such an increase then there is nothing to look for. We know that the planet can go into and out of ice ages but you say that it should now stop going up and down, why?

            David wrote:

            “the increase in temperature is due to mans emissions of greenhouse gases. As is ocean acidification.”

            Prove it! If you can do that then we don’t even need temperature records or increases we would know it to be a fact, but you can’t and we don’t.

          • David Appell says:

            Francis, the proof is in many papers publishe over the years, summarized in modern textbooks.

            Have you read any climate science textbooks, Francis?

            Or, for free, you could read the IPCC 5AR WG1. But a textbook would be clearer.

          • David Appell says:

            Francis, if not anthropogenic GHGs, what natural factor(s) are causing modern warming?

            How much more warming over how long would it take to convince you that man has a significant effect?

          • Francis says:

            David

            Maybe you and I differ over the meaning of phrases such as ‘prove it’ and words such as ‘proof’.

            I would not have set you the challenge if there was any chance that such proof exists, it does not. If it did then this website would not exist and there would be no dispute.

            Given time I could give you a long list of well qualified scientists who do or have worked in appropriate fields that disagree with what you call ‘proof’ (I don’t however propose to do that) and you could do a list of those that agree with you (I don’t expect you to do so either) but I am sure that my list would constitute more than 3% of the total.

          • David Appell says:

            Francis, yes, there is a strong preponderance of evidence that CO2 is the leading cause of AGW.

            But since you won’t read papers or textbooks, you’ll never learn that and will always be arguing from a position of ignorance.

            How much more warming over how long would it take to convince you that man has a significant effect?

  35. mojomojo says:

    An email I sent [email protected] was sent back as not deliverable.
    Do you have a email current address?If not heres the content.

    Hi Roy ,
    I started a thread using your post
    “Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998″as the topic and I would appreciate if you would comment on why version 6 global TLT data is not the data used in your blog.
    Heres the blog.You will need to create a username.
    Thanks
    Im the sole skeptic on this environmental site and have been defending climate skepticism for years without any scientific or engineering background.
    https://priuschat.com/threads/latest-global-temp-anomaly-dec-16-0-24%C2%B0c-global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warme.175146/#post-2473564

  36. David Appell says:

    I think the probability that 2016 was the warmest year is 66%, and the probability that 1998 was is the complement of that, 34%.

    Assume the temperatures are normally distributed, with 2*sigma = 0.10.

    So what we have are two normal distributions side-by-side, one (2016) with a peak 0.02 C more than 1998, to the right.

    The probability that 1998 was the warmest year is the area to the right of the 2016 curve from 0.50 C to infinity.

    Normalizing the coordinates, this is the area to the right of 0.4 of the normal distribution.

    0.4 = (0.50-0.48)/0.05

    where the first two numbers are the means, and sigma = 0.05 is the standard deviation.

    The area of the normal distribution to the right of 0.4 is 0.3446.
    See:
    http://www.stat.ncsu.edu/people/osborne/courses/xiamen/normal-table.pdf

    so P(1998 is warmest) = 34%

    The probability 2016 was the warmest year is the complement of the probability that 1998 was, so

    P(2016 is warmest) = 66%

    • Bart says:

      “Assume the temperatures are normally distributed, with 2*sigma = 0.10.”

      Why should we assume that? Why should we assume a time invariant distribution at all? Answer: we shouldn’t. These data are autocorrelated, with both long and short term correlations.

      “So what we have are two normal distributions side-by-side, one (2016) with a peak 0.02 C more than 1998, to the right.”

      You do not appear to understand probability distributions. The height at any given point does not have physical significance, only area under the curve.

      “The area of the normal distribution to the right of 0.4 is 0.3446.”

      No, no, no, no, no. That is nothing like a test of the null hypothesis, Junior. This is terrible. Go back to doing whatever your liberal arts degree qualifies you to do.

      • David Appell says:

        You clearly don’t understand the nature of physical measurements.

        The annual temperature for any year is (I’m assuming) normally distributed, with a best estimate (0.50 C for 2016, 0.48 C for 1998) and, according to Roy, 2*sigma = test of statistical significance = 0.10 C. So sigma = 0.05 C.

        The rest of my calculation proceeds as above.

        • Bryan says:

          Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville said;

          “Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie

          Christy is correct.

          You cannot claim more accuracy than your margin of error.

          This would be clear in any science other than the climate pseudoscience.

          If I handed in a lab report at university with a margin of error of a tenth of a degree yet claimed an accuracy to one hundredth a degree I would get an embarrassing fail.

          Perhaps you have a degree in climate pseudoscience?

          • David Appell says:

            Sorry, no.

            First of all, I’m calculating something different than whether the two numbers are “a statistical tie.” They aren’t — one is definitely larger than the other, and I calculated the probability that it is.

            Second, all of my figures are to two significant places, just like the data.

            Third, I suspect this uncertainty number of 0.10 C (2*sigma) is just a guess. Unless Roy took the time to take ALL the uncertainties in the input data and ALL the resulting uncertainties in the calculations, which would be quite difficult, the standard deviation of the monthly numbers (0.05 C) probably comes a sense of the spread of the monthly result as calculated by the UAH model. It’d be nice to know for sure.

            I stand by my 66%.

      • Bart says:

        Sorry, DA. Your math is appalling. This is not the way you do hypothesis testing. Not even close.

        • David Appell says:

          When you have nothing but name calling and no analysis of your own, your reply is what’s appalling.

          • Bryan says:

            David Appell

            Perhaps you do not have a science background so I will explain more fully.

            If I was carrying out a lab report on an experiment I was required to lay out the entire mathematics of determining the final margin of error in the reported results.
            This is called error analysis.

            The experiment may involve several components and sensors each with its own margin of error.
            For example the display might claim an accuracy of 0.01% and a sensor might have an accuracy of 0.1%
            Usually quoted as plus or minus a percentage.

            There may be several components to the experiment giving rise to a final calculation of a value or result.
            In such a case it is perfectly possible to find a value with more digits than can be justified by error analysis.
            The iron rule is you cannot claim to be more accurate than the final margin of error.

            So the result would be quoted with the redundant digits stripped out.
            Spencer and Christy would be bound to report that;

            Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie”

            To do otherwise would be professional suicide.

            Tim Folkerts and Mike M are physicists and broadly support the IPCC case.
            However I’m sure that now that the margin of error is known,that in this case the report is following standard practice.
            It would be good to raise the standard of debate instead of shouting at each other.

          • David Appell says:

            Bryan, I’m well aware of where final margins of error come from.

            “Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie”

            No it isn’t. See

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-statistical-tie-fallacy.html

            I don’t think the MOE of 0.10 C is right, either. I gather this number came from twice (appx 95% confidene limit) with the MOE on each number of 0.05 C.

            First, I wonder how that MOE was determined — by running all the raw data uncertainities through the UAH data model, or mostly a guess. (I have the same question about GISS’s data model, BTW.)

            Second, I think it’s too high.

            We really want to know the MOE of the *difference* of two numbers, T(2010)-T(1998). Using standard error analysis, that is not sigma*2, but sigma*sqrt(2) = 0.07 C.

            So the difference is (0.02 +/- 0.07) C. One can calculate the probability that difference is > 0, and the result will be that the probability that T(2010)>T(1998) is > 50%. Why wouldn’t UAH do that here?

          • Bryan says:

            David you still dont get it.

            Its not a matter of juggling around with statistics to get a most likely outcome.

            This might be appropriate with social studies as in your example but has nothing to do with physical science.

            I have given you the names of two physicists (who are broadly IPCC supporters) who when they look at my post will agree with it I’m sure because its very basic.

            For example, a display unit is capable of displaying accurately to 0.01% resolution is linked to a temperature sensor with 0.1% resolution accuracy.

            The high resolution display will not improve the accuracy of the temperature reading.

            Even though the display unit will appear to show more digits than is justified,the superfluous digits will have to be discarded.

            Please quote any physics,chemistry or engineering textbook that would agree with your method of dealing with the unavoidable error analysis of a physical measurement for the result to be valid.

            To quote election results is really a joke and you will not be taken seriously

          • Bart says:

            David is claiming that a juggle of 0.02 deg in an assumed 0.1 deg 1-sigma normal error distribution makes it 66% likely that the underlying mean has shifted upwards by 0.02 deg. It’s farcical. He hasn’t verified the distribution. He has no inkling of the underlying statistical model. He hasn’t even applied the F-test. His entire methodology is cockeyed. He’s just throwing something at the wall to see if it sticks.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “David is claiming that a juggle of 0.02 deg in an assumed 0.1 deg 1-sigma normal error distribution makes it 66% likely that the underlying mean has shifted upwards by 0.02 deg.”

            No, sigma = 0.05 C

            “Its farcical.”

            More insults, still no analysis.

            “He hasnt verified the distribution.”

            Your gonna have to do better than that. Since I don’t have all the data, I can’t see the distribution. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t Gaussian. I assumed each annual temperture was normally distributed around its best estimate, with sigma=0.05 C

            “He has no inkling of the underlying statistical model. He hasnt even applied the F-test. His entire methodology is cockeyed. Hes just throwing something at the wall to see if it sticks.”

            No I’m not. My method agrees with similar results for polling data.

            Come back when you have your own analysis and can do more than meaningless ranting.

          • David Appell says:

            Bryan, it’s UAH who says sigma=0.05 C, not me.

        • Nate says:

          Bart,

          How bout this?

          We have two numbers, a, b, with Gaussian pdfs and sigma =.05, want to know prob that a is greater than b, or that a-b >0. So pdf of a-b is also a Gaussian with sigma (a-b) = sqrt(2) sigma =.07 and peaking at 0.02.

          Prob of a-b > 0 is area of pdf > 0. Agreed?? If so then prob is 61%.

          However useful that is..

          • Bart says:

            Nate – In the first place, the claimed sigma was 0.1, not 0.05. Next, the pdf is only Gaussian with sqrt(2) times the sigma if the error process is i.i.d, which has not been shown. Next, neutral ground is 50% probability, so even 61% would only be slightly better than even odds. Put in sigma = 0.1, and you get 58% (sigma = 0.05 would actually give 66%). That’s only 8 percentage points beyond a coin toss. There are better than 4 in 10 odds that a is less than b!

            Then, for the actual system we are arguing about, there is the autocorrelation of El Nino to consider. El Ninos come and go. Some are bigger. Some are smaller. It is essentially random where it peaks. So, you’ve got to take into account the variability of that as well, which pushes your sigma value well beyond 0.1 deg.

            Then, you have to consider the underlying natural pattern, and take that into account to see if there is any deviation from it. That pattern, which was in place long before CO2 could potentially have been a problem, is a steady rise coming out of the LIA plus an approximately 60 year cyclical component. When you remove that natural pattern, there is actually very little left that could be attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere.

            When you have done all that, you then can use that model to make a determination of whether there is a systematic change due to CO2. There are sophisticated tools available for doing that, much more involved than I can describe here. But, it is apparent by inspection that there is very little influence once you have accounted for everything as I have outlined above.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Nate In the first place, the claimed sigma was 0.1, not 0.05.”

            No, 0.1 C was the test for significance, presumably the 95% confidence limit, appx 2*sigma.

            Sigma for each annual temperature is 0.05 C, as Roy has written before on this blog.

            BTW: A calculation for polling data from two academic statisticians agrees nearly exactly with my 66%:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-statistical-tie-fallacy.html

            (Roundoff error.)

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, Nate, I think that’s right, as I wrote below.

          • Bart says:

            You’re an idiot and a blackguard, Appell.

            http://www.steynonline.com/7661/the-craziness-of-the-climate-science-echo-chamber

            I showed in voluminous detail why you are wrong. You haven’t even chipped a full cube off the iceberg.

          • David Appell says:

            More ad hominem attacks Bart.

            That’s all the game you ever have.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Since my name came up … a couple quick comments.

            First, if a=0.5 and b=0.48, then a>b. Period. No statistics required.

            I suspect what Nate meant is something more like “We have two numbers, a=0.5, b=0.48, that we know a priori were drawn from two distributions (call them “A” and “B”) with Gaussian pdfs and sigma =0.05. We want to know prob that the mean of A (“mu_A”) is greater than the mean of B (“mu_B”), or that (mu_A)-(mu_B)>0.”

            Then the 61% probability quoted above sound about right. But this requires assumed knowledge of the distributions and assumed knowledge that the items were drawn randomly.

            Beyond the pure statistics, there are then the (to me) more important questions about drift in the sensors and changes in the data sets being used. Presumably these are one major source of the estimated uncertainties of 0.05 that have been quoted.

          • Bart says:

            Correct, Tim. I chose not to quibble.

            But, the more important deal is that there is an implicit assumption that both El Ninos are of equal intensity, and the only variation beyond CO2 induced warming is the instrument error. That alone renders the result wholly disconnected from reality.

            Moreover, not all the change would be due to CO2 induced warming – there are other influences upon temperature beyond El Nino and CO2. Many more.

            And, then you get into the problems you identify.

            If I took the analysis at DA’s word, I would simply counter with, “OK, 0.02 deg in 18 years is 0.011 deg/decade. Congratulations, you just proved AGW is negligible.” But, I didn’t do that, because the analysis is ridiculous on its face.

          • Bryan says:

            From

            https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1AVNE_enGB620GB620&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=margin%20of%20error%20definition

            1.2.4 State units in the accepted SI format.

            There are several ways to write most derived units. For example: meters per second can be written as m/s or m s-1. It is important to note that only the latter, m s-1, is accepted as a valid format. Therefor, you should always write meters per second (speed) as m s-1 and meters per second per second (acceleration) as m s-2. Note that this applies to all units, not just the two stated above.

            1.2.5 State values in scientific notation and in multiples of units with appropriate prefixes.

            When expressing large or small quantities we often use prefixes in front of the unit. For example, instead of writing 10000 V we write 10 kV, where k stands for kilo, which is 1000. We do the same for small quantities such as 1 mV which is equal to 0,001 V, m standing for milli meaning one thousandth (1/1000).

            When expressing the units in words rather than symbols we say 10 kilowatts and 1 milliwatt.

            A table of prefixes is given on page 2 of the physics data booklet.

            1.2.6 Describe and give examples of random and systematic errors.

            Random errors
            A random error, is an error which affects a reading at random.
            Sources of random errors include:

            The observer being less than perfect
            The readability of the equipment
            External effects on the observed item
            Systematic errors

            A systematic error, is an error which occurs at each reading.
            Sources of systematic errors include:

            The observer being less than perfect in the same way every time
            An instrument with a zero offset error
            An instrument that is improperly calibrated
            1.2.7 Distinguish between precision and accuracy.

            Precision
            A measurement is said to be accurate if it has little systematic errors.

            Accuracy
            A measurement is said to be precise if it has little random errors.

            A measurement can be of great precision but be inaccurate (for example, if the instrument used had a zero offset error).

            1.2.8 Explain how the effects of random errors may be reduced.

            The effect of random errors on a set of data can be reduced by repeating readings. On the other hand, because systematic errors occur at each reading, repeating readings does not reduce their affect on the data.

            1.2.9 Calculate quantities and results of calculations to the appropriate number of significant figures.

            The number of significant figures in a result should mirror the precision of the input data. That is to say, when dividing and multiplying, the number of significant figures must not exceed that of the least precise value.

            Example:
            Find the speed of a car that travels 11.21 meters in 1.23 seconds.

            11.21 x 1.13 = 13.7883

            The answer contains 6 significant figures. However, since the value for time (1.23 s) is only 3 s.f. we write the answer as 13.7 m s-1.

            The number of significant figures in any answer should reflect the number of significant figures in the given data.

  37. Tim S says:

    It seems to the me that the real question is the relative strength of the 1998 and 2016 El Nino events in area, intensity, and duration. If the “Godzilla” El Nino of 2016 was stronger than 1998 as advertised, than the global temperature should have been affected in the same way.

    • argus says:

      Tim I agree, and to do that, comparing Jan 1 to Dec 31 may not even be the best way.

    • MarkB says:

      By ONI 1998 and 2016 were pretty close to equivalent. e.g. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

      • Tim S says:

        The peak is about the same, but the area under the curve is larger for 2016. Is that important?

        • MarkB says:

          Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 suggests that ONI lagged by about 5 months integrated over the calendar year as a first order approximation of the relative magnitude effect of El Nino events.

          To a second order, it seem plausible that prior warmth matters. If one were so motivated they could extend F&R with a autocorrelation term to investigate this.

          The more scientifically relevant parameter is the long term trend. Record warm years are more relevant as propaganda tools and it should surprise no one that that contrarians will minimize their significance and warmists will highlight them.

  38. ren says:

    The decrease in solar activity has a huge impact on ozone and air circulation in the stratosphere. This is particularly important over the poles where there is practically no tropopause and waves in the stratosphere directly affect the troposphere.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2016.png
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_OND_NH_2016.png
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_OND_NH_2016.png

  39. Entropic man says:

    I used woodforthetrees to get the linear trend for UAH6.0.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/every/trend

    That is 0.45C in 37 years, 0.12C per decade.

    I also calculated how far the annual averages for 1998 and 2016 exceeded the trend.

    In 1998 the excess was 0.48-0= 0.48C. In 2016 the excess was 0.5C-0.25C = 0.25C

    This shows two things.

    Firstly, the 2016 El Nino was considerably weaker than 1998, so we are not comparing like with like.

    Secondly, the underlying UAH6.0 trend shows 0.25C warming since
    1998. With John Christy’s quoted 95% confidence limits of +/-0.1C that is statistically significant warming.

  40. barry says:

    Don’t see the importance in comparing calendar years when using anomalies. The warmest 12 months were from Dec 2015 to Nov 2016 at 0.52C

    • sod says:

      sorry, but you are using facts again. People following this topic do not want facts. They prefer fake news.

      They do not like surface temperature data. it shows too much warming. They do not look at longer periods or other periods in the satellite set, as they also do not show anything that can be compared to 1998.

      people here prefer the single datapoint (Jan-Dez 2016, which in comparison with 1998 still shows an increase. so the method of their choice is the “tie” intervention.

      None of them ever uses this bizarre concept. Imagine you had a great dinner. Bets you ever had or just tied with your birthday dinner 2 years ago? Best book list? Absurd, as obviously the top 10 is mostly tied with each other. And let us not get into sports. basically the whole “winner” concept is dead, when we add a +-2 goals error range to soccer results and call 90% of the games a tie…

  41. Steve Richards says:

    Gordon Robertson says:
    January 4, 2017 at 4:46 AM:

    Nitrogen has little radiative performance when compared to CO2 and H2O

    See: Thermal Radiative Transfer and Properties By M. Quinn Brewster

    Previews of this book are available via: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z_anVNTmQLUC&lpg=PA250&ots=118JAO5gvp&dq=radiative%20gases%20quantum&pg=PA250#v=onepage&q=radiative%20gases%20quantum&f=false

    Page 250 starts the explanation with quantum mechanics.

    Page 252 tells how nitrogen and oxygen do not react much to IR but CO2, H2O and others do and why they react and how the theory matches with physical tests that can be conducted to measure said sensitivity to IR.

    Page 259 goes into great detail about how CO2 and H2O react to IR photons: stretching, bending, stretching.

    Page 293 onwards contains some tables that indicate the effectiveness of H2O compared with CO2:

    Its all in the book, Gordon.

  42. ren says:

    Air from Scandinavia reaches Greece and Italy.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00855/xynkpjs7qg90.png

  43. Sun Spot says:

    2016 warmest year eve, just more fake news. . .

  44. barry says:

    From way above:

    Fake news

    NOAA has perfected the art of obfuscating the temperature record by blatantly slashing 5000 surface stations from the global pool of 6500

    Fact

    NOAA researchers spent a few years in the 90s obtaining hand-written climate data from around the world from the bulk of weather stations that do not send their data to the US in the format used by NOAA, and digitised this information. All the while, the 1500 or so stations outside the US that continually report to NOAA in the usable format continued to do so.

    So NOAA didn’t slash stations. They added a great many that don’t report information to NOAA. That project ended in the mid-90s.

    http://tinyurl.com/hztu3jj
    [NOAA research paper detailing the data collection programs]

    Fake news takes a few seconds to read. Facts take longer.

  45. Scott says:

    The fact that “global warming” has changed to “climate change” in the realm of media discussion speaks volumes. Its really all anyone needs to know.

    • David Appell says:

      From Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s memo “Words that Work,” a which he wrote to Republicans urging them to use the term “climate change” instead of “global warming”:

      “”Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change ‘sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.’ While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.”

      “Frank Luntz “Straight Talk”: The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America” – memo to Bush Administration on communicating environmental issues, 2002
      http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001330.php

    • Now, here we have an “argument” that uses innuendo instead of substance.

  46. David Appell says:

    Well worth reading, Roy:

    “The Myth Of The Statistical Tie,” David Drumm, jonathanturley.org, 10/6/2012
    https://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/06/the-myth-of-the-statistical-tie/

  47. David Appell says:

    and:

    “Margin of Error,” Kevin Drum, Washington Monthly, August 19, 2004.
    http://washingtonmonthly.com/2004/08/19/margin-of-error-3/

    The table he mentions is no longer on that page, but it can be found here:

    “One Last Encore for the Great “Statistical Tie” Fallacy,” Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, 10/3/12
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/one-last-encore-great-statistical-tie-fallacy

  48. Norman says:

    This article calculates climate sensitivity of Carbon Dioxide doubling at 0.43 C.

    The rest of the warming is from other causes. I have one I am working on at this time but have not calculated it yet.

    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/analytical-approach-to-calculate-the-heat-fluxes-in-the-atmosphere-and-to-quantify-the-sensitivity-of-earth-temperature-due-to-co2-2157-7625-S5-012.pdf

    This work matches what the CERES data shows and makes sense with Hottel’s work.

    http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf

    • David Appell says:

      Junk.

      CO2 is only 45% higher, and the temperature has risen more than twice 0.43 C. And that’s with aerosol cooling.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell
        Junk? Or you are an idiot and are unable to follow the logic of the derived equations so you post your typical unthinking reactionary comment “Junk” with no thought or explanation as to why you think the work of these researchers is “Junk”. Looking at their material I would not call it “Junk” and they explain in the article (which of course you did not read or consider before you stupid mindless post).

        What aerosol cooling? The EPA cleaned up the air removing vast amounts of pollutants (sulfur dioxide) that were reflecting solar radiation before it reached Earth’s surface.

        Look at Hottel’s equations to see how empty your scientific thought process seems to be.

        Increasing Carbon Dioxide concentration does very little to the emissivity at the current levels.

        If you look at Roy’s chart of all the years, the highest non El Nino years were around 0.2 C above the zero line which fits fairly well with the article you call “Junk”.

        One thing I wish you would realize is you are not as intelligent as you think you are. You post some alarmist points and pat yourself on the back but will not even consider alternate intelligence.

        • David Appell says:

          Norman, did you even read the paper you’re hawking?

          The model is 1-dimensional.

          And not very realistic. From the paper:

          “In the present model, global mean parameters are used as constants,
          e.g. cloud height, relative humidity and Earth emissivity”

          “What aerosol cooling?”

          That around world — and not US-only.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            The paper’s primary purpose was not to make a realistic energy budget with all the factors. It was to find the radiation contribution of doubling Carbon Dioxide only. It made assumptions for those things not related to carbon dioxide. For the radiant energy increase caused by carbon dioxide alone it looks like they used Hottels’s work on emissivity of this gas. It does not go up much after a certain amount so it will not increase the downwelling IR (which is the only radiant component that can add extra energy to the surface).

            CERES data downwelling global average does show this. No increase in downwelling IR (all-sky) in 16 years. I know you somehow have concluded that the CERES graphs are my work so it is pointless to direct you to this link.

            Anyway thanks for looking at the paper. I don’t mind your views as long as they are based upon actual looking at what is posted. Wish you would do this with the CERES material. I would like to know your explanation of what is presented on this website (no increase in downwelling IR (all-sky) in 16 years and no increase in total flux (all-sky) in 16 years. To produce radiant warming you would have to have an increase in these two radiant fluxes.

            Good day to you. Hope you are having a Happy New Year working to convince everyone of the dire threat of Global Warming.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman:

            But the surface temperature increase is 0.9 C, twice that paper’s purported climate sensitivity to CO2.

            Yet CO2 has’t even increased by 50% yet, let alone doubled.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman wrote:
      “The rest of the warming is from other causes.”

      What other causes?

  49. David Appell says:

    “The Statistical Tie Fallacy,” davidappell.blogspot.com 1/4/17.
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-statistical-tie-fallacy.html

  50. Norman says:

    If I did my calculations properly my idea would be off by a factor of 10.

    The link explained that man building dams and pulling up water for irrigation led to more water evaporated than if man had not done such tasks.

    I was using the graph to figure how much latent energy would be released into the atmosphere by man’s increased use of water. I used 1000 cubic KM/year as my choice just to see where this figure would lead.

    latent heat to turn 1 gram of water into vapor is 600 calories so you get this energy in return when the vapor condenses to water.

    1000 cubic kilometers of water is equal to 10^18 grams.

    1000 km^3 = 600×10^18 calories or 2500 joules x 10^18.

    2.5×10^21 joules of additional energy released a year by extra evaporation/condensation cycle.

    • Lewis says:

      Norman,

      Re: Dams

      Have you taken into consideration the vegetation that was replaced by water? Many, not all, dams, flood areas which had a great amount of plants, whose affects would have to be considered before you can make final conclusions.

      Lewis

  51. Norman says:

    Would not take the links, if interested the sight was Aquastat.

    http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/image/WithTimePop_eng.png

  52. Norman says:

    It took a link to the graph page I was using.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Ocean_Heat_Content_%282012%29.png

    But the latent energy release would not be enough by a factor of 10 to explain the ocean gain in energy. 2.5×10^21 joules/year would not explain the energy increase in the oceans.

  53. A couple of pieces of news today. The good news is that Judith Curry is apparently hurt at being left out of the death-threat and e-mail-hacking championships and has resigned. One loony fewer!

    The bad news is: “Much-touted global warming pause never happened”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/much-touted-global-warming-pause-never-happened

  54. ren says:

    Dr. Roy Spencer, thank you very much for your scientific honesty.

  55. barry says:

    Fake news

    The fact that global warming has changed to climate change in the realm of media discussion speaks volumes.

    Fact

    Both terms have been in use for decades and still are. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was inaugurated in 1988.

  56. barry says:

    2016 statistically indistinguishable from 1998 in the latest version of the UAH data set. Yep.

    Trend from 1998 to any year after – statistically indistinguishable from warming fast, warming cool, or no trend.

    AGW skeptics have renounced statistical analysis (statistical significance) right here on this blog as some kind of fakery.

    But as soon as it is convenient to their outlook….

  57. IMHO, the headline “Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998” is misleading.

    This is not what “global satellites” says. The satellites by themselves don’t say anything. Instead, this is what your retrieval algorithm says, for which there hasn’t been published any detailed description of the underlying assumptions and methodology so far. Nor any information about the structural uncertainties inherent in your analysis.

    The UAH 6 version of your analysis apparently produces results that are an outlier, compared to both surface temperature analyses and other tropospheric temperature analyses based on the retrieval algorithms developed by other groups, e.g. Remote Sensing Systems.

    • David Appell says:

      And, the UAH model code. No one can have a look at it.

      GISS makes their data model computer code available: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q213

      • UAH version 5.6 model code has been publicly available for years at NCDC/NCEI. The V6 code will be available there soon.

        • David Appell says:

          Ok, I was wrong. Sorry.

        • David Appell says:

          I got the notion UAH wasn’t sharing all their code from what Henry Waxman said to John Christy in 2006:

          “Well, I contacted RSS about your testimony and Mr. Frank Wentz sent me a letter last night, and he wrote to say, Dr. Christy has never been willing to share his computer code in a substantial way, and he provides the text of a 2002 e-mail exchange between RSS and yourself. In light of this letter, Dr. Christy, I would be interested if you care to clarify your testimony because Mr. Wentz wrote further, I think the complexity issue was a red herring. My interpretation of Dr. Christys response is he simply didnt want us looking over his shoulder, possibly discovering errors in his work. So we had to take a more tedious trial-and-error approach to uncovering the errors in his methods. What do you say about that? That sounds inconsistent with what you have told us.”

          https://thinkprogress.org/quoting-john-christy-on-climate-change-is-like-quoting-dick-cheney-on-iraq-414c7bc89cac#.jiq5ev8hs

          • David Appell says:

            Roy, does your response mean you DIDN’T share your code before v5.6?

            During all those years where you had a sign error?

            People say they had to reverse engineer your methodology to finally point out this sign error to you….

            ….and that you and Christy were uncooperative all the way.

            Is that what the Waxman quote above is about?

            Would appreciate some straightforward answerw, finally.

  58. ren says:

    I repeat: when the polar vortex is strong is a range of cold air is smaller. The cycle changes in the strength of the polar vortex depends on solar activity. Weak vortex may occur over many years and temperatures fall on mid latitudes.

  59. AGW theory is a hoax there is o global warming and now global cooling will be the rule going forward. End of the story .

  60. Bottom line is that there is no proof whatsoever that the changes we see are anthropogenic, or caused by humankind. Throughout history in the past, before the advent of the Industrial Revolution with the introduction of factories and the automobiles, there have been periods of even warmer teperatures, than we have experienced in the last 100 years. Studying the climate is a multi disciplinary undertaking, and should never have included those that are utilizing taxpayer money (subsidies) to fill their pockets. This is mostly a plan to take more money It of taxpayer’s to create more regulations to restrict human activity under government control. True free markets with intelligent dialogue and discussion would solve most problems besetting us today. Research and investigation of this subject is most important, not the EMOTION that rules this anomaly presently. Wake up everyone!

    • “Bottom line is that there is no proof whatsoever that the changes we see are anthropogenic, or caused by humankind.”

      If this is supposed to be a conclusion drawn from above data, it’s a non sequitur.

      Generally, there is no “proof” in science for anything, in the meaning of mathematical proof or absolute certainty. There is only evidence in science. And the evidence overwhelmingly points to that human activity has been a major cause of global warming observed since pre-industrial times, and the main cause for the warming since the mid-20th century. The evidence that would support any other explanation for the observed global warming (and related other changes in the Earth system) falls systematically short.

      “Throughout history in the past, before the advent of the Industrial Revolution with the introduction of factories and the automobiles, there have been periods of even warmer teperatures, than we have experienced in the last 100 years.”

      When were these periods, according to what data?

      “Studying the climate is a multi disciplinary undertaking, and should never have included those that are utilizing taxpayer money (subsidies) to fill their pockets.”

      I don’t understand what you are exactly saying here. Are you saying government should not fund science? And when scientists get a salary, they were illegitimate “filling their pockets”? What else should be? How should science be funded? And are scientists supposed to work for free?

      • Bart says:

        “The evidence that would support any other explanation for the observed global warming (and related other changes in the Earth system) falls systematically short.”

        Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

        “How should science be funded? And are scientists supposed to work for free?”

        – Testimony by Tobacco Institute scientists, circa 1978

        • “Argumentum ad ignorantiam”

          False claim. It would have been true, if I had said that alternative explanations for global warming were false because evidence for them had fallen systematically short. This is not what I said.

          ” Testimony by Tobacco Institute scientists, circa 1978″

          Source?

          Also, I’m missing what your argument is in reply to my question.

          • Bart says:

            You are arguing for a conclusion based on purported lack of evidence for an alternative. Classic logical fallacy.

            You cannot be blind to the fact that enormous sums of money are being exchanged for scientific testimony favorable to the AGW conjecture. And, we have nothing to show for it. Temperatures are not rising any faster than they have for over 100 years, with only occasional cyclical departures of varying duration.

            We can go about this point forever, but things should become a lot clearer once the present El Nino has run its course. Until then, I suggest you have an exit strategy planned. Just, you know, to be safe and cover all your bases.

          • “You are arguing for a conclusion based on purported lack of evidence for an alternative. Classic logical fallacy.”

            Stop misrepresenting what I said. This is not what I did. Instead, I argued for one explanation stating that there was overwhelming available evidence for it, and then I compared this to the lack of evidence for alternative explanations.

            “You cannot be blind to the fact that enormous sums of money are being exchanged for scientific testimony favorable to the AGW conjecture.”

            And here comes the conspiracy fantasy.

            “Temperatures are not rising any faster than they have for over 100 years, with only occasional cyclical departures of varying duration.”

            What is that supposed to prove. This is not in contradiction to global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing has been present for more than 100 years.

            “We can go about this point forever, but things should become a lot clearer once the present El Nino has run its course.”

            What exactly will allegedly happen? The recent El Nino had run its course months ago. Instead, La-Nina conditions have been present for multiple months already.

            “Until then, I suggest you have an exit strategy planned. Just, you know, to be safe and cover all your bases.”

            What’s with the innuendo? Sounds like a veiled threat. What’s your plan?

          • Bart says:

            “I argued for one explanation stating that there was overwhelming available evidence for it…”

            There isn’t. There is only rationalization and confirmation bias.

            “…and then I compared this to the lack of evidence for alternative explanations.”

            If you don’t know the explanation, then lacking evidence for it is rather tautological.

            “And here comes the conspiracy fantasy.”

            A fantasy is something for which there is no reliable evidence. We have the Climategate emails. We’ve seen the manipulation of the data. We know the vast sums of money sloshing around.

            Those are all concrete data points. Perhaps there is no conspiracy, per se. But, there is plainly a lot of groupthink, and a convergence of interests.

            “Anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing has been present for more than 100 years.”

            On the record, then. You are claiming that early 20th century warming was driven by the same process that drove later 20th century warming? Is that what you are claiming? Because, that is not what your peers are claiming.

            “What exactly will allegedly happen?”

            It will either A) resume the interrupted warming trend, B) continue the “pause”, or C) enter a cooling phase. I very much doubt (A). (B) would be bad enough for you. (C) would be extremely awkward, to say the least.

            “Sounds like a veiled threat.”

            That’s pretty bizarre. Do you think the AGW hypothesis will survive if the Earth reenters a cooling phase, as it has every ~60 years for at least two cycles now? I would have a backup plan, that’s all.

          • “There isnt. There is only rationalization and confirmation bias.”

            Now, that possibly explains why you are misrepresenting my statements.

            “If you dont know the explanation, then lacking evidence for it is rather tautological.”

            What makes you think I didn’t know any alternative explanations that have been proposed?

            “A fantasy is something for which there is no reliable evidence. We have the Climategate emails. Weve seen the manipulation of the data. We know the vast sums of money sloshing around.”

            There is no reliable evidence for this. Just assertions, accusations, insinuations, and conjecture.

            “On the record, then. You are claiming that early 20th century warming was driven by the same process that drove later 20th century warming? Is that what you are claiming? Because, that is not what your peers are claiming.”

            I’m saying that greenhouse gas forcing also significantly contributed to the warming in the early 20th century. Solar activity also increased. Thus this climate driver contributed too. I’m not aware that this is really different from what my peers says. It’s not different from what is said in the last IPCC report, is it? Greenhouse gas forcing didn’t start in the 1950s or 1970s.

            “It will either A) resume the interrupted warming trend, B) continue the pause, or C) enter a cooling phase. I very much doubt (A). (B) would be bad enough for you. (C) would be extremely awkward, to say the least.”

            The claim about the allegedly “interrupted warming trend”, i.e., the so-called “pause” lacks 1.) a proper definition of the “pause”, based on reproducible scientific/statistical criteria and 2.) lack of statistical evidence of an interruption in the warming trend. Thus, the notion that something would have to resume is non-existent for me. Without evidence that global warming has “paused” nothing needs to “resume”. The same for B. Re C: Since radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is continuously increasing the likelyhood for entering a cooling phase is very low, even if the sun indeed went into a phase similar to the Maunder minimum. The negative radiative forcing change would have some counter-effect, but would be smaller in magnitude than the increase in radiative forcing by greenhouse gases.

            “Thats pretty bizarre. Do you think the AGW hypothesis will survive if the Earth reenters a cooling phase, as it has every ~60 years for at least two cycles now? I would have a backup plan, thats all.”

            I suppose with “cooling phase” you mean the apparent hiatus periods between about 1880 and 1920 and about 1940 and 1970? The latter is generally recognized to be largely caused by an increase in negative aerosol forcing. However, regardless of these hiatus periods, there has still been an overall warming trend over the whole century, whatever the explanation for these hiatus periods is. If such a cooling phase occurred again without any forcing (like aerosols, e.g. from strong volcanic eruptions) the effect of which we have principally understood to explain it, then maybe we have underestimated unforced variability in the oceans. But how would that empirically or logically contradict warming by anthropogenic greenhouse gases? It just would mean that warming would resume with full force once the ocean variability is in phase again with anthropogenic forcing.

            Sounds like a veiled threat.

            Thats pretty bizarre. Do you think the AGW hypothesis will survive if the Earth reenters a cooling phase, as it has every ~60 years for at least two cycles now? I would have a backup plan, thats all.

          • The last two paragraphs are from the comment to which I replied. Remove then (in your mind at least).

          • With the one sentence being a quote by me, which had been cited.

          • Bart says:

            “Im saying that greenhouse gas forcing also significantly contributed to the warming in the early 20th century.”

            At precisely the same underlying rate, with uniform spacing between local maxima and minima, while CO2 concentration did not take off until mid-century. Okey, dokey.

            “The latter is generally recognized to be largely caused by an increase in negative aerosol forcing.”

            Yes, and ulcers are generally recognized to arise from stress, and dietary fat is bad for blood cholesterol, and supplementary vitamins beyond what your body needs will make you healthier, and so on and on.

            These are all things that were generally believed up until quite recently. They were not so. Yet, very qualified people nevertheless adopted them as truths without any verification.

            This is rationalization, not science.

            “Since radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is continuously increasing the likelyhood for entering a cooling phase is very low, even if the sun indeed went into a phase similar to the Maunder minimum.”

            Radiative forcing is subject to pushback from compensating feedbacks within the climate system. You guys really had no business going out on such a limb before you had seen confirming data of the effect.

            But, that’s your story and, I assume, you are sticking to it. We shall see…

          • CO2 increased from 280 ppm to about 310 ppm from pre-industrial to the mid-20th century. The CO2 increase translates to a radiative forcing by CO2 of about 0.54 W/m^2. This is already about twice as large as the solar radiative forcing between the Grand solar maximum period and Maunder minimum.

          • What am I saying. About 2.5 as large.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “You cannot be blind to the fact that enormous sums of money are being exchanged for scientific testimony favorable to the AGW conjecture.”

            Prove it.

          • Bart says:

            Jan P Perlwitz @ January 6, 2017 at 11:09 AM

            More rationalization. You do not appear to comprehend the many implicit assumptions just in what you wrote in that paragraph.

          • I comprehend that you have to offer nothing with any substance.

          • Bart says:

            If that is the case, then we are even.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Do you think the AGW hypothesis will survive if the Earth reenters a cooling phase, as it has every ~60 years for at least two cycles now?”

            Of course it will survive — it’s already established. Natural variations aren’t going to change that, just as they haven’t changed it so far.

          • Bart says:

            “Verdict first, trial after!”, said the Red Queen. And now, you find yourself in a tangled web, grasping at straws to maintain the fiction you determined before the evidence was in.

          • David Appell says:

            I’m starting to understand you, Bart.

            1. You think you are a master of mathematics, even though you can’t do any.

            2. You knowledge of the science is very weak.

          • Bart says:

            Whatever…

        • barry says:

          That last quote is clearly a cynical fabrication. This commenter is not trustworthy.

          • Bart says:

            “That last quote is clearly a cynical fabrication. This commenter is not trustworthy.”

            – Senator Larry Craig, circa 2007

            What a bunch of maroons. Are you really all so dull?

            This just in: Jonathan Swift endorses processing Irish babies into food. Film at 11.

          • I’m still waiting for an answer what your alleged argument is. Are you seriously saying that scientists should not get paid for doing their work?

          • barry says:

            No, not that one.

            This one

            How should science be funded? And are scientists supposed to work for free?

            Tobacco Scientist circa 1978

            I call bull.

          • Bart says:

            LOL. Such intellectual candlepower.

          • David Appell says:

            More insults from Bart, who never supplies any science whatsoever.

            Bart is the definition of fake news.

          • barry says:

            LOL. Such intellectual candlepower.

            I’ll take an honest lackwit over a smart deceiver.

            You fabricated this:

            How should science be funded? And are scientists supposed to work for free?

            Tobacco Scientist circa 1978

            Not just a lie, but a ‘clever’ lie, the very worst kind.

      • Kristian says:

        Jan P Perlwitz says, January 5, 2017 at 1:21 PM:

        There is only evidence in science. And the evidence overwhelmingly points to that human activity has been a major cause of global warming observed since pre-industrial times, and the main cause for the warming since the mid-20th century.

        Strange how you people keep repeating this meme over and over, without ever actually showing us even a single piece from this “overwhelming” heap of evidence.

        Smacks of pure, unadulterated propaganda tactics and not much else.

        • The assertion is a blatant lie. I have repeatedly cited scientific publications or data in various threads here where I participated to back up my statements, if it has been needed.

          • Kristian says:

            Like what? Name ONE piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system that shows that our emissions of CO2 has caused ‘global warming’.

          • You are asking the impossible from science. The request to present observations that show a causality is nonsense. Observations don’t show any causality ever. Causality statements are part of the theory that explains the object of scientific research. Such theory can make statements about what specific behavior observables should show, if a specific causality is present. If the observations show according behavior than they are interpreted to corroborate the theory and the causality statements of the theory. And they are taken as evidence in support of the theory.

          • Kristian says:

            Jan P Perlwitz says, January 8, 2017 at 6:55 PM:

            You are asking the impossible from science. The request to present observations that show a causality is nonsense.

            It’s not me who claims the following (that’s you, Jan P. Perlwitz):
            “And the evidence overwhelmingly points to that human activity has been a major cause of global warming observed since pre-industrial times, and the main cause for the warming since the mid-20th century.”

            What ‘evidence’? And exactly how does this evidence ‘overwhelmingly’ point to our activity as a major cause of ‘global warming’?

            I assume that when claiming the existence of such evidence, apparently overwhelmingly pointing in a particular causal direction, you can actually produce at least ONE example …

            Or else I will have to agree with Bart when he calls your claimed “evidence” mere “rationalization and confirmation bias.”

            In fact, I would go further and call it mere “conjecture.”

            Observations dont show any causality ever.

            Of course they do. A tight and consistent lead-lag relationship over time between two related physical variables quite evidently points to a cause and effect connection. I’m not asking for more than this. Do you have such a connection. Like, say, +CO2 -> +T? In the real Earth system?

  61. Also to be honest on this subject the amount of water vapor and solar activity are much more important linchpins in weather and climate.

    • The water vapor in the atmosphere is not a climate driver. It doesn’t cause climate change. It is a dependent variable. Water vapor is strongly dependent on the temperature. It is very important for climate feedbacks, though.

      Solar irradiance is a climate driver, but solar activity has not increased significantly since the mid-20th century. It has decreased over the recent solar cycles, and it has even more decreased since the maximum of solar cycle 23. Some solar physicist say that the sun may go into a state in the near future next, which was similar to the Maunder minimum. Thus, the solar activity changes over recent decades would rather imply a cooling tendency of climate, which has not been observed. On the contrary.

      • Bart says:

        It’s called thermal inertia, dearee.

        • Thermal inertia in the temperature response to what perturbation that occurred when? A response with thermal inertia would show the largest rate of change at the time of the perturbation and then asymptotically approach an equilibrium state with a decreasing rate of change.

          • Bart says:

            Not in a multi-reservoir system.

          • You haven’t answered my question.

          • Bart says:

            We were talking about solar forcing. And, for Nate’s benefit, in a multi-reservoir system, past thermal excitation of one of the reservoirs can produce continual change in the others long after the excitation has ceased. It is like going from an RC circuit to an LRC one in electronics.

          • You still haven’t answered my question.

          • Bart says:

            I think I did. The only question I saw was “Thermal inertia in the temperature response to what perturbation that occurred when?”, and the answer was the same as we have been discussing, variations in solar forcing.

          • That was not clear. Solar activity increase until about the mid 20th century. After that it hasn’t changed much anymore. And for the recent solar cycles, there has been first a slight decrease; and a somewhat stronger decrease since the maximum of cycle 23. What is the evidence, based on which you claim that the increase in solar forcing caused the global warming trend after the hiatus period of about 1940-1970 as a delayed response of the temperature to the earlier increase in solar forcing?

          • The last question needs some serious editing:

            What is the evidence, based on which you claim that the global warming trend after the hiatus period of about 1940-1970 was a delayed response of the temperature to the pre-mid 20th century increase in solar forcing?

          • David Appell says:

            And what does a “delayed response” mean?

            Does the extra energy circulate through some capacitors or something, waiting decades for discharge?

          • Bart says:

            Jan –

            “What is the evidence, based on which you claim that the global warming trend after the hiatus period of about 1940-1970 was a delayed response of the temperature to the pre-mid 20th century increase in solar forcing?”

            The first line of evidence is that CO2 is not the driver. The pattern of warming was laid in well before CO2 could have been the major driver. Moreover, CO2 responds to temperature in such a way that, were CO2 in turn to significantly drive temperatures, there would be a positive feedback loop that could not be stabilized even by T^4 emission, and we would have reached a tipping point eons ago.

            Having eliminated that phenomenon as the driving force, we need to move on to investigate others. As the Sun is the ultimate source of all significant surface heating, it is very likely that the observed, very regular pattern of warming is a long term modal response of the Earth’s climate system to solar forcing, quite probably in conjunction with solar and lunar tidal mixing, IMO.

            That does not confirm it as the culprit. More investigation is needed. But, we cannot gain further knowledge as long as we are focused on the dead end of CO2 hysteria.

            DA –

            “Does the extra energy circulate through some capacitors or something, waiting decades for discharge?”

            Literally, no. But, analogously, yes. But, more like the distributed capacitance of a very long transmission line, with local propagation speed limited to very much less than the speed of light. We are dealing with a system with very long term modal responses. It is hubris, indeed, to imagine that we have diagnosed the characteristics of this response based on the very brief record of reliable data available to us.

          • “The first line of evidence is that CO2 is not the driver. The pattern of warming was laid in well before CO2 could have been the major driver. Moreover, CO2 responds to temperature in such a way that, were CO2 in turn to significantly drive temperatures, there would be a positive feedback loop that could not be stabilized even by T^4 emission, and we would have reached a tipping point eons ago.”

            These are mere assertions, apparently based on your personal beliefs. Stating your personal beliefs is not evidence in science.

          • Bart says:

            No, this is what the temp/CO2 records show. There really is no doubt about it.

        • Nate says:

          If the inertia is as much as that, to cause few decades delay, then itll apply to AGW too, and we’re really in trouble..

          • Bart says:

            Yeah, maybe the warming will be 100% higher than what it’s been. OMG, 100% of 0 is… still 0.

          • Nate says:

            bart

            ‘Not in a multi-reservoir system.’ Huh? Hows that?

            ‘OMG, 100% of 0 is still 0.’

            ok now I know that you are just blowin smoke..

          • Bart says:

            If you do not know, then you really should not be offering your opinions on the subject.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart, warming of anything has not been 0.

            Except for the stratosphere. But then, a cooling stratosphere is one of the fundamental predictions of greenhouse theory.

          • Bart says:

            Take out the natural pattern which has been in evidence since well before CO2 could have even potentially been a major player, and there is very little left that could actually be driven by CO2. The hypothesis is a bust.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Take out the natural pattern which has been in evidence since well before CO2 could have even potentially been a major player”

            What natural pattern?

            What are the natural causes of modern warming?

          • Bart says:

            There are many candidates. But it is beside the point. You are still promoting an argumentum ad ignoratiam.

        • Nate says:

          And ditto on what Jan says

  62. Sunsettommy says:

    Ha ha, all the whining about a .02C difference,when the real issue is the PER DECADE warming rate,which is currently waaaay below the IPCC’s projected rate of .30C per decade.

    Satellite data show about a .13C per decade warming rate.

    Since .02-04C difference from 1998,is so very small,the AGW conjecture dies really easily.

    The IPCC is wrong,NO global warming anyway since it is confined to the Northern Hemisphere.

    • This is what the IPCC report says:

      “The global mean surface temperature change for the period 20162035 relative to 19862005 will likely be in the range of 0.3C to 0.7C (medium confidence). This assessment is based on multiple lines of evidence and assumes there will be no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes in total solar irradiance. Relative to natural internal variability, near-term increases in seasonal mean and annual mean temperatures are expected to be larger in the tropics and subtropics than in mid-latitudes (high confidence). {11.3}”
      (Working Group I Report “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis”, http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/, Summary for Police Makers, page 20)

      Thus, according to the IPCC report, the projected warming rate between the 20 year averages 1986-2005 and 2016-2035 is about 0.1 to 0.23 deg C per decade. What is the source for your wrong assertion that the warming rate projected by the IPCC was 0.3 deg. C per decade?

      Also, the difference between two individual years, 2016 and 1998, doesn’t say anything about the observed warming rate over a time period. And comparing this difference with the warming rate as specified in the IPCC report and drawing any conclusions from such a comparison is methodologically also totally wrong.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Two examples of the .30C per decade statement from the IPCC,which never later disavow their projections in future reports.

        “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1C per decade would be expected.”

        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

        “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
        emissions of greenhouse gases,a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade), this is greater than that
        seen over the past 10,000 years”

        http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

        • “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”

          How is a projection of a temperature increase of 0.2 deg. C per decade an example for a projection of a 0.3 deg. C. per decade?

          And the projection of an average temperature increase of 0.2 deg. C per decade has not been falsified so far.

          As for your second example, the one from the first IPCC report. You selectively cite the projections for Scenario A. There are also a Scenario B and C with a 0.2 deg. C and 0.1 deg. C per decade projected average temperature increase, respectively. Actual forcings after 1990 have not followed Scenario A. They have rather followed Scenario B. A proper evaluation of such projections requires that the projections are compared for the same forcing that has been observed.

          The observed surface temperature trend since 1990 is near 0.2 deg. C per decade.

          Also, there is nothing to “disavow”. The demand to “disavow” something sounds more like the desire for political inquisition. Science revises previous statements when new evidence requires this. This is part of the normal scientific process.

    • sod says:

      “Ha ha, all the whining about a .02C difference,when the real issue is the PER DECADE warming rate,which is currently waaaay below the IPCCs projected rate of .30C per decade.”

      You are utterly wrong. For a start, the “projected” rates are all for SURFACE temperature.

      Thanks Roy for giving fake news to those who understand absolutely nothing!

      • Wrong. I’m not that stupid, sod. I’m talking apples-to-apples…same atmospheric layer measured by the satellite versus in the models.

        But, since you insist on the accusation of “fake news”…buh-bye.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        NONE of the Surface data does either,Sod.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Sod,consider that the “surface” is not static,but highly variable,

        The Surface temperature data can be from below sea level (Death Valley) to 6,000 feet (Denver).

        Satellite temperature data is from the LOWER Troposphere region,quoting Roy:

        “The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2016 was +0.24 deg.”

        Think about it,Sod.

  63. Ray Blinn says:

    Obviously the warmest years in recent history have been right after El Nino years. With 2016 being 0.02 deg C higher than 1998
    and the time span between these two events being 18 years the trend line between El Nino peaks is 0.00111 deg C per year.
    Assuming the trend continues, the earth will be 0.111 deg C warmer 100 years from now. Does that justify the extreme measures some on the left advocate?
    I personally think asphalt parking lots and masonry buildings have a greater affect on temperature readings than CO2. The heat island effect is well documented. Most of our land based temperature readings are from urban areas. While they claim that these temperatures have been corrected to cancel the heat island effect their correction factor is suspect especially since their readings don’t correlate well with satellite data.

  64. mandrewa says:

    Zeke Hausfather et al. have published a new paper on measuring sea surface temperatures. See http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full.

    Based on data from buoys floating in the ocean they report an increase of 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade over the last several decades.

    That’s the same number the satellites are giving.

    The correlation between the satellite and the buoy data is very strong.

    • Entropic man says:

      The linear trend for UAH6.0 is 0.45C since 1979. That is 0.12C per decade.

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/every/plot/uah6/every/trend

      As you say, the same as the buoy data.

    • barry says:

      The trend of 0.12C/decade in Hausfather’s SST analysis is for the period Jan 1997 to Dec 2015.

      That’s a higher trend than UAH v6 for the same period, which is 0.014C/decade.

      The trend for UAH5.6 for the same period is 0.12C/decade.

      • mandrewa says:

        In an earlier comment, on Jan. 3rd, Dr. Spencer said,

        Maybe in each monthly update I should have the headline:

        “Warming Rate Still Only 0.12 C/decade”

        But that would get a little boring.

        So I believe this means he thinks the trend is 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade.

        If you look at the satellite and buoy data they are strongly correlated. Every move in the satellite data is echoed by a move in the buoy data.

        One could hypothesize in fact that air temperatures over the ocean, at the level that the satellites measure them, are tightly constrained by the temperature of the ocean surface.

      • barry says:

        Dr Spencer is referring to the UAHv6 trend from 1979 to present.

        0.12C/decade

        The paper you have cited is referring to the trend in SSTs from 1997 to December 2015.

        0.12C/decade

        UAHv6 trend for the same period as in the paper you cited is only 0.014C/decade – 1 tenth the rate of the SSTs per the paper you cited.

        However, the older version of UAH – v5.6 – matches the SST trend rate for the same period.

        However, all this is purely circumstantial, or coincidental, for various reasons. I was just pointing out that you had not noticed the periods were different – and what that meant.

      • barry says:

        To put it another way, Hausfather finds a trend of 0.12C/decade SSTs during the so-called ‘pause’ period.

        • Bart says:

          Which includes a large El Nino. We will see what happens when the Nino has passed.

          • Curiously, I never have seen anyone of the “Hiatus” crowd complaining that the alleged “Hiatus” period had a very strong El Nino at the start of the alleged “Hiatus” (and a dominance of La Ninas at the end of the period). Suddenly, El Nino matters. How times change.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Not true, Dr. P., there’s plenty of disagreement among sceptics as to whether the hiatus began in ’98 or ’03. Even Lord M. with his “pause posts” over at Watts’ went there in discussions. At any rate, Bart is right. It could very well be a whole new ball game in a couple years time. Comments like yours may well end up like moss covered tombstones sitting around the archived graveyards of climate blogs…

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Jan P. Perlwitz…”I never have seen anyone of the Hiatus crowd complaining that the alleged Hiatus period had a very strong El Nino ”

            Jan…you need to get with the program. That alleged warming hiatus came straight out of the IPCC 2012 review. That’s what they called it despite Barry’s denial, leading him to find a quote that did not include the word hiatus.

            All the Ens are matched with following LNs except 2016 and it’s a-comin’.

          • What is that supposed to prove that the word “hiatus” appears in the IPCC report? The context and what is actually said about it matters. “Skeptics” claim that global warming had stopped in 1998 or in 2002 or 2003 (or whatever start year is convenient for them at a moment). They also often misrepresent what the IPCC report says about this and suggest that the IPCC report supported such claims. However, this is not what the IPCC report says. According to the IPCC report, there is a robust global warming trend over multiple decades. In the IPCC report, the “hiatus” is taken as evidence that there was “substantial interannual to decadal variability” despite the “robust multi-decadal warming”. The IPCC report also talks about the high uncertainty of short-terms trends such as the one from 1998-2012 and the sensitivity of those trend estimates to the choice of the start and end year (which means that the statistics based on such short term periods aren’t robust):

            “Despite the robust multi-decadal warming, there exists substantial
            interannual to decadal variability in the rate of warming, with several periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since 1998) (Figure TS.1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to +0.15] C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (19512012; 0.12[0.08 to 0.14] C per decade). Trends for short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end years. For example, trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] C per decade and 0.07 [0.02 to 0.18] C per decade, respectively.”
            (page 37 in The Physical Science Basis)

            All of this about the “hiatus” in the IPCC report refers solely to the surface temperature trend, but not to any other variables. Certainly not to the warming of the oceans.

            Further down in the IPCC report, it is then discussed whether climate models were able to reproduce such “hiatus” periods (page 61ff), particularly the one from 1998-2012.

            Also, whatever the IPCC report says, you seem to confuse it with the bible. The statements in the IPCC report are not canonical “truth”. Instead they may be flawed and they can be criticized like any scientific study or review paper, and they are subject to revision, if new evidence requires this.

          • barry says:

            All the Ens are matched with following LNs except 2016 and its a-comin.

            That’s simply not true. Sometimes its years before a Nina forms – no sooner than average. And sometimes el Nino is followed by another Nino.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry..”Hausfather finds a trend of 0.12C/decade SSTs during the so-called pause period.”

          Any idiot could find a trend on woodfortrees if he knew how to manipulate the parameters. The IPCC did not see a trend, only you and Hausfather.

          • The IPCC didn’t find anything, since the IPCC doesn’t do the research. Every IPCC report is based on the research studies available at the time of publication of the report (or more precise, at the time of some cut-off date before publication of the report). The next IPCC report will also include the revised temperature analyses by Karl et al. and Hausfather et al.

          • barry says:

            Gordon, you are seriously not following the conversation.

            I skimmed the paper. No idea if it’s sound or shit.

            I didn’t get any further than pointing out that the 2 trends cited have different time periods (one trend period is 19 years, and the other is exactly twice as long).

            If you have an issue with any of the quoted trend rates take it up with someone who is wedded to them.

    • David Appell says:

      Just because the long-term trends are the same doesn’t imply correlation. That’s a separate question.

  65. AlanF says:

    How much of heat island effect is due to increased dew poibt from water vapor arising from combustion of fuel? I think it should be possible to distinguish this from other uhi processes

  66. Fred says:

    Considering that average global temperature is thought to have fallen ~0.2 C from the 1940s to the 1970s, it can be said that there’s been no statistically significant warming for the last 75 years.

  67. Ceist says:

    RSS Press release

    Atmospheric temperature measured by satellites sets new record in 2016

    http://images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/Jan_5_2017_news_release.pdf

  68. Norman says:

    David Appell

    I would like to respond to your comment way above (easier to find down here).

    YOU: “Norman wrote:
    The rest of the warming is from other causes.

    What other causes?”

    Your post was in response to an article that calculated CO2 sensitivity at 0.43 C.

    You also posted: “Norman:

    But the surface temperature increase is 0.9 C, twice that papers purported climate sensitivity to CO2.

    Yet CO2 hast even increased by 50% yet, let alone double”

    Here are other causes of warming or cooling besides CO2 levels.
    http://www.universetoday.com/28876/aerosols-could-be-responsible-for-artic-warming/

  69. Norman says:

    David Appell

    Also Global Sulfur Dioxide has declined

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/11/1101/2011/acp-11-1101-2011.pdf

    Look at Figure 3 page 1107 Top graph, this one is global emission of SO2. It has declined. It has increased in China but decreased over the globe. This is the aerosol that causes a cooling effect and it is down since 1970’s peak.

    • David Appell says:

      I’m not sure aerosols have declined globally since 2005, when the paper was written. Is China cleaner since then? What about India? The Middle East?

      China and the US are only small fractions of the globe. We need to see data past 2005.

      BTW, the (negative) aerosol forcing also depends on the latitude of the aerosols, because that determines how much sunlight they reflect. Unlike the well-mixed gases CO2, CH4 etc, it’s much more involved to calculate the global influence of aerosols than just looking at a graph.

  70. Norman says:

    David Appell

    Have you played with these calculators?

    http://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/climat/radbal.html

    Change the global albedo by just 1% and you get all the warming since the beginning of the industrial age. Since we have no good empirical data on albedo variance over time it would not be very scientific to rule its effects out and just magically assume this value does not change over time.

    • David Appell says:

      So you have no data on albedo changes. I don’t either. But we know that aGHGs cause warming, and it’s warming that we see happening.

      Two big influences on albedo are:

      melting Arctic sea ice and NH snow cover –> lowers albedo
      planetary greening –> lowers albedo

      What things happening to you see that would increase planetary albedo?

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        YOU: “What things happening to you see that would increase planetary albedo?”

        Two things I can think of would. Increase of water on the land surface (more or bigger lakes overall) as water has a very low albedo.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

        More forests could do it.

        Cloud changes are a really big factor, if one of the long term natural variations causes long term cloud cover variations you could easily change the Earth’s albedo 1%.

        My point with this, is without the information how can one make a scientific claim. Should they not monitor albedo as much as CO2 concentrations since both effect surface temperatures?

        • Norman says:

          David Appell

          Sorry I did not answer your question correctly. You said what could increase albedo not decrease. More deserts could increase it, crops in place of forests would have an increase in albedo, clouds can definitely increase albedo if you get more of them. Just to name a few possibilities.

          • David Appell says:

            Sure, all these things *could* affect climate. But you’re just speculating.

            Where is the data showing they have changed albedo?

          • David Appell says:

            BTW, a paper published a few years ago on melting Arctic sea ice:

            “We find that the Arctic planetary albedo has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 0.9 W/m2 of solar
            energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979.”

            and

            “this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period.”

            K. Pistone, I. Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan (2014). Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 3322-3326.
            http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Maybe you noticed in the article you linked to that they also are using CERES data. It must be of some value if various Climate Scientists are using the data in their studies.

            YOUR POST: “Sure, all these things *could* affect climate. But youre just speculating.

            Where is the data showing they have changed albedo?”

            Now you are talking my language. That is the problem, where is the data showing global albedo values over time? Slight changes in the value can cause all the warming or cooling seen in temperature records alone so you would think it would be very well researched and data collected. I have read they try to establish a global albedo with Earthshine data but it has some flaws.

            Here is a link that talks about it. They use CERES (again) and show the trend has not changed from 2000 to 2005 which is what the global CERES mean graphs show. Not much change in Net Radiant energy striking the Earth’s surface.
            https://skepticalscience.com/The-albedo-effect.html

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, again, it’s not CERES that I object to, it’s using its data without knowing what you’re doing. The satellite is very complicated. Even the experts having trouble getting it right.

            The Pistone paper says

            “A detailed discussion of the sources of bias and uncertainty of both CERES and sea ice data may be found in Supporting Information.”

            Have you corrected for any biases in CERES data? Corrected for instrument drift? Is there any meaningful satellite drift?

            If you get your results published somewhere decent, I’d definitely take a look. But nothing is going to be resolved via blog comments, and frankly I have stuff of my own I’d rather work on that trying to become an expert in CERES data.

            Good luck.

  71. Norman says:

    David Appell

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

    I am sure you are most familiar with the global energy budget images.

    Note if the radiant energy would remain the same you could still get a warming or cooling Earth based upon any potential change in the surface cooling mechanisms that are not radiative (evaporation and thermals). Changes in these can also lead to warming and cooling and either could be based on natural long term cycles scientist are only now discovering like PDO, ADO, etc. These long term cycles affect wind patterns and ocean heating patterns.

    • David Appell says:

      Natural variations are from energy in the system moving around, not energy being created.

      AGW, on the other hand, means that the surface, lower atmo and oceans are gaining heat that would otherwise be radiated to space.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        And yet CERES graphs do not show this energy (heat gain), they show NO increase in energy reaching the surface for 16 years (which is supported by the satellite temperature readings). The global Downwelling IR shows no increase in 16 years (all-sky), the one study that showed an increase in downwelling IR was conducted under Clear-sky conditions which the CERES graphs support.

        If the natural variations do not remove surface energy at the same rate as a previous rate (changes in wind patterns or ocean currents) the globe will warm with no net increase in radiant energy. Not sure you are following my logic on that point. If you have less evaporation going on globally so that rather than the surface losing 78 W/m^2 by this process, it only loses 76 W/m^2 you would have a warmer surface that could then warm the measured air above and show a global warming signal.

        You do realize that the surface has a Net positive radiant energy of about 107 W/m^2. If this was not removed by the other processes (evaporation or thermals) the surface would get much warmer and the air above would also increase considerably in temperature. Any change to the removal of energy from the surface can give you a global warming signal in the air temperature. The result would be a total energy the same but you would have warmer air near the surface and the air at higher elevations of the Troposphere would be cooler. You would have to monitor several air layers over time to see if this was taking place.

        As far as I know the only real significant consistent measurements are of the air a couple meters above the surface and some of ocean surface.

        If you know of other consistent measurements, please share, I want to update my understanding.

      • David Appell says:

        Norman, you mean *your* CERES graphs.

        I don’t accept them as definitive. I’ve already explained why.

        • Norman says:

          David Appell

          Once again they are not my CERES graphs. I did not compile raw data and create the graphs based upon such data. The site itself does all the graphing. Have you gone to it?

          https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp

          Click “Visualize Data” It is set on Global Mean. The graphs are done by the CERES program not me. You have not explained “why” not at all. You said I was not qualified to make graphs on raw data since I did not know what I was doing. So I didn’t do this. Your explanation is not a very good one. Just go to the link and look. When you click the “Visualize Data” tab and it brings up a series of graphs for you does that mean that they are *your” graphs?

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Please take the time to read this article. The authors used CERES data as one of their sources to compile the Global Energy budget.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, yet again, it’s not CERES that I doubt, it’s your ability to get useful information from the raw, unadjusted satellite data.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Maybe again you are completely wrong. I am NOT getting the raw, unadjusted satellite data. Why do you repeat this false statement over and over?

            The CERES tool itself is generating the graphs. One would hope the team in charge of the data does know what to do with the data before they create it in graphic form.

            Your idiotic behavior on this point is very strange and unworthy of anyone seeking the Truth. Unscientific illogical thought process goes with your false posts based on absolutely nothing.

            I still think you post them hoping you can sway anyone who might look at the CERES graphs with a false thought process and influence behavior.

            I really do not know why you perpetuate your falsehood on this topic. What does it benefit you? It makes you look very dishonest and deceptive. Is that the image you are trying to project on this blog?

          • Ball4 says:

            Norman – You ARE using the raw data straight from CERES site without applying the recommended adjustments in the CERES team own publications. The CERES raw data has to be calibrated and some of their oldest data is as they point out (in extreme detail!) uncalibratable to surface observed conditions.

            Your task is to show that you have properly calibrated CERES raw data & complied with each of their cautionary notes to users. This is no small task to get your CI meaningful as they do.

            By the way, as a check, in your 9:37pm link: “There is a TOA imbalance of 6.4 W m−2 from CERES data and this is outside of the realm of current estimates of global imbalances (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005; Huang 2006).” Confirming your use of raw data is debatable. There has been additional work and new publications showing better calibrations based on ARGO surface thermometer data directly from the CERES team (see Loeb 2016).

            Also, you discuss global down welling measured by instrumentation looking up as if it is from CERES which is a TOA instrument looking down. You do not explain how your interpretation of down welling is meaningful within CI.

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            I am not using any data. I do not know where the data comes from. I am hoping the CERES team does the proper calibrations on their own data before producing graphs of such data. I am not even looking at their raw data.

            I am clicking on their own resource “Visualize Data” which produces graphs.

            If the graphs they provide are not accurate or properly calibrated then it would be up to the CERES team to correct the data to allow visitors to their site to get valid graphs from them.

            Again on your final point: “Also, you discuss global down welling measured by instrumentation looking up as if it is from CERES which is a TOA instrument looking down. You do not explain how your interpretation of down welling is meaningful within CI.”

            I again am only going by what data the website provides. I am not making any assumptions on how it was obtained and am hoping the CERES team is doing a good job of getting the information correctly before they create graphs of it.

            I would like you to provide an answer as to why you think I am the one using “raw data” from CERES? What does my link to their webpage make you think that is what I am doing?

            Please explain, thanks.

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            It appears someone has already done a study of the accuracy of the CERES calculated surface fluxes vs actual measured values.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/21/the-tao-calculated-surface-datasets/

            Willis Eschenbach believes they have a achieved a relatively close match for calculated values.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JD008159/full

            This one also discusses problems with early algorithms and how they have improved. This article is from 2007 I would think that they would continue to improve their product over time to reflect as accurately as possible what is going on with energy fluxes. Even if some errors remain in the calculations it would not really matter as the graphs are time series and would all be using the same algorithms to calculate their values.

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            From reading about the surface fluxes provided by the CERES site I can positively state you are incorrect when you say this is “raw data”. The surface fluxes are derived values from the raw satellite data.

            The surface fluxes are model calculated values that try to get the values as close as possible to empirically measured values on the ground.

            Really I have zero comprehension on what you or David Appell are claiming when you state I am using CERES “raw data” to build some graphs.

          • Ball4 says:

            Norman – Quote your stuff directly from the CERES team, only then you will find the correct user cautions. You will have to do your own study to compute CI determine if your interpretations are meaningful.

          • Norman says:

            Ball4

            I do not think I would need to do my own study to calculate a confidence interval anymore than you would if you posted a global temperature graph or linked to one. It is up to the party generating the graphs to perform such tasks. They provide the graph and I take it as is. I read material concerning how they obtain the data for the graphs and it does seem rigorous with frequent corrections to make the data even better.

            So if I link you to a GISS global temperature graph you would require I go to their database, pull up all the data make my own graphs and somehow come up with a confidence interval to satisfy you?

            I think your demands are not very valid and I am not even sure what they are based upon. If The CERES graphs are invalid and are not reflecting reality then that would be a flaw in the team generating the graphs and not with me.

            They are the ones who should do correct adjustments on their data before they present it to the Public for consumption.

            I think you are off on the wrong tangent with your arguments and I still am not sure what valid reasoning they are based upon.

          • Ball4 says:

            “It is up to the party generating the graphs to perform such tasks.”

            It is up to the authors interpreting the data such as you; the reader should not need, can not, will not assume those duties.

            “So if I link you to a GISS global temperature graph you would require..”

            Sure, if GISS issued the same cautions to data users as does CERES team and it was well known the GISS data was unbalanced by 6 W/m^2 when there is much more precise data to which balance calibration is available as I found for you researching your own posted link (to TFK09).

            “I think your demands are not very valid…”

            Then you haven’t bothered to research the CERES Team cautions to data downloaders, it only takes 20-30 minutes of study Norman but a lot of work thereafter. You as the author needs build credibility not me by doing the work; I am not offering an interpretation of the CERES Team data, you are. DA has made enough suggestions you are already on notice.

            The CERES data is not invalid, just not completely calibrated to a reasonable balance CI as they caution users. You are generating the graphs and then offering an interpretation which is unfounded shown simply by spending 20-30 minutes reading CERES literature easily found non-paywalled on the web.

            “I still am not sure what valid reasoning they are based upon.”

            Pointed out Loeb 2016 is a good starting point to find a ton of the CERES Team own valid reasoning. You do that reasonably well enough then maybe DA will be forced pay more attention to your interpretations.

          • David Appell says:

            Sure Norman, perhaps you aren’t using raw data.

            But I still won’t trust you. I’m hardly going to spend my time piecing together the CERES claims you’ve made, or try to replicate all your calculations, or try to replicate your result.

            Want to begin to be taken seriously? Publish. Let some experts review your findings first.

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4 says, January 7, 2017 at 10:48 AM:

            Norman You ARE using the raw data straight from CERES site without applying the recommended adjustments in the CERES team own publications.

            No, he’s not. He’s using officially published CERES EBAF Ed2.8 data. That’s not “raw data”. That is a finished product. Sorry, mate.

            There’s a very simple way for you to find out whether I’m right or wrong about this, Ball4. Just write Norman Loeb and ask him. I’m sure you’re capable of tracking down his email address.

          • Ball4 says:

            Hi Kristian – I’ve read Dr. Loeb’s published paper(s), there is no need to contact him as his team writes clearly on the subject of cautioning CERES data users on their products. Once users follow all the cautions calibrating the satellite data to surface instruments, interpretations of results can be made meaningful within CIs.

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4,

            I’ve also read them and cannot for the life of me find a quote where it says anything about the EBAF Ed2.8 product somehow not being a final dataset (“raw data” in situ validated, calibrated, corrected and adjusted before officially published), not to be used in climatic studies. And you have yet to provide such a quote, even after having been asked umpteen times.

            So yes, I fear it’s time for you to write Loeb himself to ask him what he’s actually saying about this matter, Ball4.

            So stop your incessant trolling on this. Put up or shut up!

          • Ball4 says:

            And you have yet to provide such a quote..

            Kristian I have. I am not the user of the CERES data, YOU are. The CERES team cautions are directed at the users not the readers. Nice try at getting me to do the work you need to do. Ive spent cocktail hour time, posted exact quotes, ref. cites, links, and clips pointing you in the right directions to fact find. I can just read the CERES Team work instead of you. Dont need your stuff, if you want to contribute, more work is needed by YOU not me.

            What you can do to show your data download is as you claim final calibration is replicate results in Table 4 in Loeb 2016: Trends in daytime and daytimenighttime LW TOA flux for January 2003December 2014 and over 30S30 for Terra and Aqua, including CIs.

            Absent that, no critical, informed reader can in any way justify you have meaningful results within CI extending CERES Team work from your CERES raw data downloads to date. Nice looking graphs though.

          • Kristian says:

            Still no quote!?

            Still your unsupported assertions only …

            Write Loeb, Ball4. Ask him. Or do you want me to do it for you?

          • Ball4 says:

            “Or do you want me to do it for you?”

            Do it for yourself Kristian, ask him professionally for the help you need to replicate his Team’s 2016 Table 4 including CIs. Then show him your extension (without CIs) to his Team’s work and ask if your results are in any way meaningful. Be sure to let us know what you hear back & show us your completed replication.

          • Kristian says:

            I’ve (…) posted exact quotes (…)

            Hilarious. You have done no such thing. Never a single quote provided. Even when specifically asked. And that’s your problem. Because now you’re evidently forced to flat out lie about it.

            Well, you just keep digging.

            The CERES team cautions are directed at the users not the readers.

            Don’t worry. As you’ll notice, there are no specific cautions about the published All-Sky ToA OLR anomaly values.

            I am not the user of the CERES data, YOU are.

            Yes, and I know it’s good, highly precise, thus both usable and applicable. Loeb himself has confirmed that many times. He’s even used his own data (duh!) on multiple occasions, written several papers based on this particular data.

            So what is your problem with it? Why is this such a big deal to you? You’re clearly wrong about this. You have fundamentally misunderstood this entire issue, Ball4. You just need to live with it and move on. It’s not the end of the world.

            BTW, do you want me to ask Loeb – on your behalf – whether the EBAF Ed2.8 data as officially published on the CERES webpage is simply “raw data” as you claim? Like no processing steps whatsoever to get to level 3B?
            https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php

            You are a clown, Ball4.

          • Ball4 says:

            “do you want me to ask Loeb – on your behalf – whether the EBAF Ed2.8 data as officially published on the CERES webpage is simply “raw data” as you claim?”

            Yes professionally actually, it doesn’t include CIs so raw for instance. Let us know. Show him your nice graph of CERES data and OLR results with no CIs and ask if your work is meaningful. Be especially sure to point out Kristian’s use of the CERES data pre-Jan. 2003.

            “You have done no such thing. Never a single quote provided.”

            I found and quoted Loeb 2016 for Kristian last summer and apparently earlier. Extensive multithread discussions Kristian conveniently forgets but the internet remembers. Still to date no Table 4 replicated results with CI from Kristian, just pretzel twisting (Dr. Spencer term) from Kristian. This ought to be easy, almost trivial, for Kristian seeking to meaningfully extend CERES team work on OLR.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/#comment-221480

  72. Norman says:

    David Appell

    Weather phenomena can create things like this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean)

    It seems a persistent high stopped normal wind patterns that would have caused ocean water to mix leaving a warm blob in the Pacific.

    Ocean water mixing can have a significant effect on global temperatures. If warm ocean water remains on the surface and is not mixed by steady winds it can act to warm the atmosphere.

    Just letting you know many things can change global temperatures. Other possibilities are that the adjusted temperature charts are not accurate and may be biased by scientists believing by producing them they will save a future world (passion in their objectives).

    I think there are multiple possiblities to explain warming that do not involve CO2.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, I’m very well aware that there are other influences on climate than aGHGs. The Blog and ENSOs and such are energy shifting around, not energy being created.

      You wrote:
      “I think there are multiple possiblities to explain warming that do not involve CO2.”

      Such as?

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        Yes, true “warm blob” and ENSO do not create energy but they do impact the air temperature which is what is being measured.

        I know you trust the ocean temperature plots with a few buoys taking temperatures that vary by the hundredth of a degree, but I am skeptical of these measurements.

        But if the energy that would be going down into the deeper ocean (maybe changing its temperature a few hundredths of a degree) is released into the air, it can increase global air temperatures as long as such conditions persist and that is what is being measured, not total energy content of the entire system.

  73. Norman says:

    David Appell

    Also the Southern Hemisphere receives more solar energy than the Northern (check up CERES to confirm what I am stating)

    Yet the Southern Hemisphere is cooler than the Northern.
    http://profhorn.aos.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap14/climate_spatial_scales.html

    Southern Hemisphere just about 2 C cooler than the Northern yet the difference in peak energy received by each hemisphere’s summer is 20 watt/m^2 more in the Southern Hemisphere summer vs Northern Hemisphere summer.

    This reality between hemispheres and radiation amounts shows that there is a lot more to temperature than radiant energy alone. The greater surface water in the Southern Hemisphere keeps the air temperature from getting as warm. It is 5 C difference between the summers yet the Southern Hemisphere is getting 20 more W/m^2 in its summer.

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, the SH is warming slower than the NH because it has more ocean on it, which moderates temperature change.

      The NH is 61% ocean, while the SH is 81% ocean.

      57% of total ocean surface area is in the SH.

  74. ren says:

    Two storms will meet on the Gulf of Mexico.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00856/lgb7mvsw8x5k.png

  75. Tim Wells says:

    The sun is about to hibernate. The thing to watch is the Atlantic ocean going into a negative cycle as it did in 2010 and brought a massively cold winter to the UK. Global warming is a scam, I found while working for a Carbon management company in 2006.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Tim Wells…”The sun is about to hibernate. The thing to watch is the Atlantic ocean …”

      Who cares about the Atlantic, we have been freezing out here on the Pacific coast of Canada where record lows for December were just established. Environment Canada is talking about this entire winter setting records for cold. The record cold for December in Vancouver is now a week into January.

  76. Hans Dampf says:

    Are the old temperatures the real or the manipulated?

    I think you know they changed old temperatures…and call it adjustment or something…

  77. WizGeek says:

    To account for cyclic components, use a polynomial trend line rather than a linear trend line.

  78. Phyte_On says:

    According to the surface thermometers was is the rate of warming from end of 1998 thru 2016? How much has it warmed in this 18 year period according to the surface thermometers?

    • As for the speculative predictions by some here that we will see “global cooling” because of a “cooling sun”.

      According to the SORCE reconstruction of the TSI (http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png) TSI averaged over recent solar cycles has been about 1.2 W/m^2 above the TSI during the Maunder minimum. This translates to a solar radiative forcing of about 0.21 W/m^2 (1.2/4*0.7) between recent TSI and Maunder minimum.

      With a carbon dioxide increase of about 2 ppm a year in the atmosphere, it takes only eight years of CO2 increase to exert about the same magnitude of radiative forcing: 5.35*ln(416.0/400.0)=0.21 W/m^2.

      Thus, based on a comparison of the radiative forcings, if the sun indeed goes into a Maunder minimum like state, the effect on global temperature variability will very likely be relatively small. It will have only a small counteracting effect, if CO2 (and other greenhouse gases such as methane) continues to increase in the atmosphere. The effect on global temperatures of a continuing CO2 increase at similar rates as today over multiple decades will strongly overwhelm any counteracting effect of a decrease in solar activity.

      • Oh, this was supposed to go at the end of the thread, not as reply to “Phyte_On”.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Jan…”With a carbon dioxide increase of about 2 ppm a year in the atmosphere, it takes only eight years of CO2 increase to exert about the same magnitude of radiative forcing:”

        Forcings apply only to the differential equations in climate models. There is no real proof of CO2 doing anything to create warming. In fact the 18 year warming hiatus proves the opposite to what you claim.

        If you are going to talk science, please stop passing off unvalidated models as being scientific. None of their ‘projections’ can be verified by the scientific method hence they cannot be validated.

        • Every sentence by you is utter rubbish.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Jan…”Every sentence by you is utter rubbish”.

            That would be understandable considering you are a layman.

          • Now you are babbling.

          • Bart says:

            Ze is defintely not a layperson. But, ze has made a logical leap that is left unacknowledged. The mechanisms by which the CO2 and solar input heat the Earth are quite different. Different spectra entirely.

          • It is correct that different physical processes occur through which the different forcing driving climate variability. However, there are also feedbacks in play that are the same, which amplify a relatively small forcing, such as the water vapor feedback in the long-wave range and the ice-albedo feedback in the short-wave range. And the evidence known to me does not support the claim that the climate sensitivity to solar forcing and the one to forcing by greenhouse gases differ much.

            Perhaps you know evidence for such a claim, which I don’t know?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Jan …”there are also feedbacks in play that are the same, which amplify a relatively small forcing…”

            I don’t care how many degrees you have, if you think a feedback is an amplifier you’re a layman. The notion that a feedback can act as an amplifier is strictly pseudo-science.

            Positive feedback can be used as part of an amplifier to enhance the input while causing an exponential gain in the output. However, positive feedback is part of the system, not the amplifying agent.

            If you want first hand evidence, set up a PA system with a microphone and adjust the amplifier level till you the typical feedback squeal. When it begins, turn off the amplifier and the feedback is terminated hence the squeal.

            There are no true positive feedbacks in the atmosphere since there is no gain mechanism.

          • For instance, an increase in solar irradiation will increase temperature at Earth surface, leading to decreased sea ice in the Arctic, reducing Earth’s albedo, leading to a larger value of solar radiation that is absorbed at the surface. The gain in solar radiation at the surface is larger than it would be, if the positive ice-albedo feedback wasn’t present.

          • Bart says:

            “And the evidence known to me does not support the claim that the climate sensitivity to solar forcing and the one to forcing by greenhouse gases differ much.”

            Shortwave solar radiation penetrates deep into the oceans to cause long term heating. Longwave radiation from CO2 back-radiation does not. It is rather unnerving that a person in your position is unaware of this.

          • Bart, everyone with brains knows that more co2 leads more trapped heat thus leading to a warmer planet. The only problem is while co2 makes up 20% of the total ghg affect at most mans contribution makes up less then 3%. Here let a real physicist spell it out for you:

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM

          • What makes you think I was unaware of this? I never said anything to the contrary of the physical fact that solar radiation penetrated relatively deep into the oceans and longwave radiation did not, nor did I say anything that would imply what you claim.

            It is annoying that you make up assertions about me to smear me, when you don’t know to answer anything with substance. This is a despicable tactic.

          • Bart says:

            “And the evidence known to me does not support the claim that the climate sensitivity to solar forcing and the one to forcing by greenhouse gases differ much. If you believe you were misunderstood, then perhaps you should strive to make your statements clearer. It looks very much like you are merely making an appeal to outrage.

          • Bart says:

            Let’s backtrack, shall we? You asserted that

            “With a carbon dioxide increase of about 2 ppm a year in the atmosphere, it takes only eight years of CO2 increase to exert about the same magnitude of radiative forcing: 5.35*ln(416.0/400.0)=0.21 W/m^2.”

            I essentially countered with the observation that W/m^2 does not tell the whole story, that these two forcings do not operate on the same footing, and there is no reason to presume that their effects are equivalent.

            You have now countered with, essentially, “I know that! Why wouldn’t I know that? I’m well aware of that!”

            If it is your claim now that high energy, deep ocean heating does not cause any significantly different response than low energy surface heating, then I’m afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree.

          • And again just misrepresentation of what I said and again deflection. You obviously are not capable to address the actual statements of your opponent.

          • Bart says:

            Could you quit dodging then, and explain what you mean in your own words?

        • David Appell says:

          “There is no real proof of CO2 doing anything to create warming.”

          Wrong.

          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

    • David Appell says:

      Phyte: Using NOAA data, the surface warming from 1/1999 to 11/2016 is (+0.35 +/- 0.06) deg C.

      • Phyte_On says:

        Thank you. When will 12/2016 come out? Do you have a site/link where I can check this each month similar to Dr. Spencer’s site.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Phyte: Using NOAA data, the surface warming from 1/1999 to 11/2016 is (+0.35 +/- 0.06) deg C.”

        Did you tell Phyte that NOAA corrupted the historical record to get that trend, a trend the IPCC did not see from 1998 – 2012 after they peer reviewed it in their 2012 review? UAH did not see it wither.

        The IPCC declared that era a ‘warming hiatus’ and NOAA are currently under investigation by a US Senate committee for essentially scientific misconduct.

        In case Phyte wonders how NOAA did it, they slashed 1500 weather stations from a global pool of 6500 then applied real data from 1500 stations to a climate model to SYNTHESIZE the 5000 they removed.

        Guess what, they found record warming. I hope the new administration in the US shuts these charlatans down.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon, for the Nth time, better data came in after the 5AR was published. It shows no hiatus. Is that really so diffiult to understand

          The Ksrl et al changes were in SSTs. An independent study published Wednesday verified the changes:

          “Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records,” Zeke Hausfather et al, Science Advances 04 Jan 2017:
          Vol. 3, no. 1, e1601207, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601207
          http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon, for the Nth time, better data came in after the 5AR was published. It shows no hiatus. Is that really so diffiult to understand”

            It is from you and your propaganda troll machine, especially when you cannot supply proof of the ‘better data’.

            What better data can you get? The IPCC uses 2500 reviewers to find what researchers are saying via peer review, then NOAA comes along after the fact, slashes 5000 surface stations from a global pool of 6500 stations, subjects data from 1500 stations to a climate model, SYNTHESIZES the missing 5000, then claims…”Oh, oh…the IPCC was wrong”.

            Come on man, get real. Do you think everyone is so stupid they can’t see through your carefully manipulated propaganda. You put Josef Geobbels to shame.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, your reply and its insinuations are so putrid you don’t deserve a meaningful reply.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Phyte_on…”How much has it warmed in this 18 year period according to the surface thermometers?”

      According to the IPCC there was a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012.

      page 6:

      “Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 19982012 (0.05C [0.05 to +0.15] per decade)…”

      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf

      Please note the IPCC has a very strange practice of allowing 50 lead authors in the Summary for Policymakers to sanitize the Final Draft listed above to make it more palatable for politicians.

  79. David Appell says:

    RSS found 2016 to be the warmest year by 0.17 C.

    1998 second, 2010 third.

    http://images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/Jan_5_2017_news_release.pdf

    • Phyte_On says:

      See my earlier question. Can you provide me a link to a site where I can look at the monthly surface temperature data in a similar fashion as the UAH satellite data. I would like to follow the surface temps vs. satellite data on an on-going basis.

      I’m not a scientist just real curious – no agenda.

      I like the straight forward presentation of Dr. Spencer/UAH monthly data – very easy to follow. Looking for something similar for surface thermometer data. Thank you.

    • David Appell says:

      But… RSS’s number is for the TTT —

      For the LT, they found 2016 to be warmer than 1998 by the same 0.02 C. I don’t know what their margins of error are.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”RSS found 2016 to be the warmest year by 0.17 C…1998 second, 2010 third”.

      They did that by down-grading 1998 temperatures retroactively. RSS cannot be trusted. The company was formed to prove UAH wrong and they ended up proving them right.

  80. jean-luc says:

    R. spencer says : “Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998”

    completely false

    if you release december you obtain 0,52 for 2016 year mean

    i don’t understand why you say that ?

    the only truth is 2016 have the highest temperature higher or equal to 1998 with UAH data (satellite)

    but the difference between 1998 and 2016 is the year before (1997 vs 2015)
    1997 : 0,0 vs 2015 : 0,25
    and after 1999 : 0,0

    the trend is warming not cooling.

    december 2016 beat many recent year …. the fourth rank compare to complete year

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jean-luc…”i dont understand why you say that ? ”

      If you lived where I do on the Pacific coast of Canada, you’d know why first hand. We just experienced the coldest December on record.

      • David Appell says:

        Salem, Oregon, Pacific Northwest:

        December 2016 the coldest December since….2013.

      • jean-luc says:

        the coldest December on record you said G. Robertson….

        Maybe you can cherry pick special fruit like other climato skeptic :)….on pacific coast !

        We talk about climat , not about weather !

        When (like R. Spencer) a person mix the two subject (climat and weather) we become skeptic about his knowledge of climat change !
        he make wrong interpretation

        Bravo David Appell, good answer

  81. I see certain people are blaming this cooling on La Nia. Funny because no other La Nia since sattelite records began has dropped as quick as June and July of last year. More warmist drival nonsense.

  82. David Appell says:

    Even the UAH press release says “2016 Edges 1998 as Warmest Year on Record.”

    http://www.newswise.com/articles/2016-edges-1998-as-warmest-year-on-record

    It says, “Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C to become the warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie, with a higher probability that 2016 was warmer than 1998.”

    So why is this blog in disagreement with the press release?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”It says, Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C…So why is this blog in disagreement with the press release?”

      +0.02C is 2/100ths of a degree C. You can’t even begin to see that on a room mercury thermometer and even on a more expensive digital thermometer the error range would likely allow for that as an error.

      Roy claimed the 0.02C is insignificant and it is. Why are you trying to make an issue of it? Is it because you were braying for so long about 2016 being a record warming year?

      The point is that 2016 had a 0.25C head start over 1998 and is technically not nearly as warm. There was an unexpected surge in the global average around 2001 of about 0.025C that has not been explained. Without that surge, which was likely produced by natural causes, 2016 is a lot colder than 1998.

  83. Lol. I do not see where it says one era on this page as in the one we are commenting on. Go get your eyes checked

  84. He said it would have to be 0.1 degree C warmer count as significant dimwit!

  85. The error in the comment section was by 0.01C not 0.1C are you blind?

  86. Finally got some snow here in the Alps. However: “In the Swiss Alps, the last time so little snow fell over the Christmas period was in 1864, according to measurements taken by the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research … The last three years have been a “row of Decembers without snow”, says Mr Marty. While it may be too early to confirm a pattern, even the possibility that snow will not fall until after the festive season is a concern.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38516688?post_id=10207120808963323_10211963704352681#_=_gg

  87. RSS have confirmed that 2016 Tropospheric Temperatures break the 1998 record by 0.31 “degrees Fahrenheit” – whatever the hell they are. Looks like about 0.2C.

    http://www.remss.com/node/5203

    • Even if it was that much warmer. So what? History shows us again and again that before every grand solar minimum there is a record breaking spike in global temperatures. This one being with the combined affects of elnino and the peak of the past solar cycle which correlated a lag of one year thus peaking in February of 2016. The combined affects of the peak of the previous 11 year solar cycle and the strong El Nio is what caused that record breaking spike not man. There is your answer!

  88. Egor the One says:

    CAGW = BS ……the only relative equation !

  89. ren says:

    Modeled ice thickness and volume

    The plots show maps with sea ice thickness, and seasonal cycles of the calculated total arctic sea ice volume. The mean sea ice volume and standard deviation for the period 2004-2013 are shown with gray.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20170106.png

  90. ren says:

    The forecast ozone indicates that Arctic air will flow now to the eastern US.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00856/ra43lxc456q6.png

  91. Mark G says:

    Comparing this length in time is like saying the the living room is 1 degree cooler .005 seconds ago. It’s not a question on if we are changing our planet. It is how much. Do we argue about traffic controls at a intersection because there have be multiple accidents there? Or do we wait until someone dies before doing something. Money and business are driving this ridiculous notion we are not changing our world. Nothing bad comes from cleaning our act up now.

    • Bart says:

      Actually, money and business are driving the ridiculous notion that we are significantly changing our world, and for the worse. There’s lots of money to be made in panic mongering, and AGW is a trillion (with a T) dollar industry worldwide.

      We don’t need to “clean up our act” vis a vis CO2 because CO2 isn’t dirty. It is a vital compound for life to exist on this planet. If anything, we need more of it, not less. A lot of bad comes from misdirecting resources from fighting actual pollution into this silly crusade against innocent, little CO2.

      Solar and wind power will never, ever be major contributors to our energy supply, yet we are spending gazillions on poisoning groundwater with silicon tetrachloride, and shredding rare raptors and insect controlling bats while mining heavy metals for wind turbines. Biofuels require more net energy input than they produce, which means MORE, not LESS CO2, even if that were a useful thing to do – burning food for fuel was never very bright.

      Our environment is cleaner, our forests broader, our air more transparent now than it has been at any time in my life, and I have been around for a fairly significant time, I can tell you. Do not let the panic merchants bamboozle you. There is not there, there.

  92. David Appell says:

    Bart says:
    “We dont need to clean up our act vis a vis CO2 because CO2 isnt dirty. It is a vital compound for life to exist on this planet. If anything, we need more of it, not less.”

    IF CO2 is so good for life, why is there no life on Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide?

    • Bart says:

      Good one, Dave. Couldn’t stop laughing.

      • David Appell says:

        Yet again you have no answer.

        I’ll add this one to the tally.

      • “We dont need to clean up our act vis a vis CO2 because CO2 isnt dirty. It is a vital compound for life to exist on this planet. If anything, we need more of it, not less.

        And potassium in the human body is a “vital compound” for the life of a person. Why don’t you consider applying the same “logic” to the potassium level in your body?

        • Bart says:

          Well, potassium is necessary for

          hormone secretion and action
          vascular tone
          systemic blood pressure control
          gastrointestinal motility
          acidbase homeostasis
          glucose and insulin metabolism
          mineralocorticoid action
          renal concentrating ability
          fluid and electrolyte balance

          It would be bad to have too little of it as well.

  93. Norman says:

    David Appell

    If you are still visiting this thread I would like to respond to a question you posted somewhat above.

    YOUR POST: “Actually there are about 3000 ARGO buoys, and when I looked up information about the instruments they carry, the temperature measurements we accurate to 0.005 C, IIRC.

    Of course ocean heat can warm the air see, especially ENSOs.

    Where do you think all the added heat to the ocean is coming from??

    Just in the last 11.5 years, the top half (0-2000 m) of the ocean has gained heat at a rate of 330 trillion Watts”

    You have a double question mark around your question.
    It does not have to be added heat. It works just as well to accumulate energy if you reduce one of the primary cooling processes. If the radiant energy remains the same but you reduce a cooling mechanism energy will accumulate.

    Here is my reply. Please note that I am not making a claim that what I propose it what is actually happening. It is a demonstration only of how complex climate science and heat balance can be.

    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-05/1148725781.Es.r.html

    Start here. This email gives some data on how much ocean water is evaporated a year. The source is In Koo Kim, Physical Atmospheric Chemistry.

    The number 425,000 cubic kilometers of ocean water are evaporated a year.

    I will post in a series since I do not know how many links one post will support. Hope this works for you to follow, if you wish to.

  94. Norman says:

    David Appell

    The heat of vaporization of water (how much energy is needed to vaporize 1 kg of water) is given as 2257 KJ/kg.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/evaporation-water-surface-d_690.html

    1 cubic kilometer of water has a mass of 10^12 kg.

    So some basic math:

    425,000 km^3 x 10^12 kg = 4.25×10^17 kg evaporated a year by oceans.

    4.25×10^17 kg x 2257 kJ/kg = 9.59×10^20 KJ or 9.59×10^23 Joules.

  95. Norman says:

    David Appell

    “The linear trends (with 95% confidence intervals) of OHC700 are 0.40 1022 0.05 J yr−1 for 19692008 ”

    From this article:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037155/full

    If you take this value and divide it by the total energy removed from oceans by evaporation you get:

    (0.4×10^22 joules/year) /( 9.59×10^23 joules/year) = 0.00417

    Now take this number by the annual amount of water evaporated by oceans a year. 425,000 km^3 x 0.00417 = So it just 1772 less km^3 per year evaporated (so instead of 425,000 it was currently reduced to 423,228 km^3 per year) you would get the amount of warming in the oceans that you describe with no change in energy input. AGW is not needed to explain ocean heating as other things can produce the same results.

    Evaporation of oceans is very complex. It is not just based upon a slighlty warmer surface temperature. Relative humidity and wind play very powerful roles to rate of evaporation.

    Like I said I am not making the claim that there is less ocean evaporation. I am only pointing out other mechanisms can produce the warming that scientists are finding and they do not have to be caused by an increase in radiant energy to the system.

    Does all this make sense to you?

    • David Appell says:

      Norman, where do you think water that is evaporated ends up going?

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        It would be the atmosphere and then after condensation it falls back down as rain. Not sure what your point is with that question. You specifically asked about another source of energy accumulation in the ocean and I provided one possible answer.

        • David Appell says:

          And then where does the rain end up?

        • David Appell says:

          Norman says:
          “You specifically asked about another source of energy accumulation in the ocean and I provided one possible answer.”

          Where does the energy for evaporation comes from?

          You don’t honestly think your calculation means energy is being created, right?

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            YOU: “You dont honestly think your calculation means energy is being created, right?”

            No I would not think that my calculation would mean such a thing.

            The oceans are receiving a flux of incoming solar energy. If the rate of evaporation changes less incoming energy can leave the ocean system and you will end up with more energy contained in the oceans relative to a state with higher evaporation rates.

            Energy is not created but energy can accumulate if one process of energy loss is changed.

          • Kristian says:

            Norman says, January 7, 2017 at 3:12 PM:

            So it just 1772 less km^3 per year evaporated (so instead of 425,000 it was currently reduced to 423,228 km^3 per year) you would get the amount of warming in the oceans that you describe with no change in energy input. AGW is not needed to explain ocean heating as other things can produce the same results.

            Evaporation of oceans is very complex. It is not just based upon a slighlty warmer surface temperature. Relative humidity and wind play very powerful roles to rate of evaporation.

            Like I said I am not making the claim that there is less ocean evaporation. I am only pointing out other mechanisms can produce the warming that scientists are finding and they do not have to be caused by an increase in radiant energy to the system.

            This is of course a pretty relevant observation you’ve got here, Norman. There’s only one (?) problem with it. It can explain the increase in OHC and SSTs, but it cannot at the same time account for the rising tropospheric temps.

            When less heat is transferred via evaporation from the surface to the troposphere above, this would, on balance (even as, as you point out, the various interactions going on in the climate system regarding evaporation>condensation are quite complex and hardly linear), lead to a net cooling of the troposphere:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/rain-vs-heating.png

            That’s not what we’ve observed since 1979.

            And so there is really just one process that can explain it all, rising OHC, rising SST, and rising TLT, all at the same time: an increase in the heat INPUT to the Earth system, from the Sun.

            Which is exactly what the radiation flux data from the ToA is telling us (ERBS+CERES, ISCCP FD): A substantial inrease in the mean level of ASR (TSI minus refl SW (albedo)) from the 80s to the late 90s, created a rather large positive imbalance at the ToA, a gap that the OLR is struggling to close even today.

            Here’s the causal chain:
            +ASR -> +T -> +OLR

          • Ball4 says:

            Except Loeb 2016 results show that Earth OLR has decreased slightly within meaningful CI for the longest calibratable CERES record studied. CERES data calibrations were performed using ARGO thermometer data.

          • Norman says:

            Kristian

            Thanks for you post. I was not trying to come up with a new idea with my point to David Appell. It was just a demonstration for him of how other effects can change energy accumulation. You can accumulate energy by either adding more energy and the rate of loss is unchanged or you can accumulate energy by keeping the input energy the same and lowering the output energy.

            I think the evidence is against the evaporation idea anyway.

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2011-humidity

            The Specific Humidity graph on this page shows that the actual water vapor content over the oceans has increased which could not take place with less evaporation.

            Here is what I wrote to David Appell before starting the excercise:
            “Here is my reply. Please note that I am not making a claim that what I propose it what is actually happening. It is a demonstration only of how complex climate science and heat balance can be”

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, you can keep mentioning me, but

            (1) I am not going to check or verify your calculations, and

            (2) I am not going to buy them until they’ve been published in a decent peer reviewed journal.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “”It was just a demonstration for him of how other effects can change energy accumulation”

            But you have yet to demonstrate that any of these ideas comes anywhere CLOSE to explaining modern warming.

            And even if they did, you’d have to explain why our GHG emissions aren’t a strong warming factor, when every piece of science says they are.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “The oceans are receiving a flux of incoming solar energy.”

            How is this flux changing?

            Say, since 1960?

        • David Appell says:

          Norman says:
          “It would be the atmosphere and then after condensation it falls back down as rain. Not sure what your point is with that question. You specifically asked about another source of energy accumulation in the ocean and I provided one possible answer.”

          Why has this energy amount changed since the dawn of the industrial era?

    • David Appell says:

      I still don’t know where this “425,000 km3/yr” number comes from.

  96. Now with the sun entering a very quiet phase watch the global temperature trend over the next 6 to 12 months.

  97. Norman says:

    Kristian and Ball4

    I did email Norman Loeb concerning the CERES graphs and their validity. I will have to wait to see if he responds. If Ball4 is correct I will discontinue using the data from CERES. If Kristian is correct I think I should be allowed to post them without the stipulations placed on the graphs by Ball4 or David Appell.

    He may not respond. I will just have to wait and see.

    • Ball4 says:

      Good idea Norman. Though there is no need to discontinue your use of the CERES data calibrated consistent with all CERES team publications and cautions to users.

        • Norman says:

          Kristian and Ball4

          Dr. Loeb did respond to my email concerning the CERES website. It seems from his response that Kristian’s view are more valid than Ball4’s. But I will let you evaluate his response on your own to determine the correctness of your views.

          EMAIL RESPONSE:

          Dear Norman,

          As you may already know, EBAF is really two products: EBAF-TOA and EBAF-SFC. The Loeb et al papers primarily discuss EBAF-TOA. The TOA fluxes are closely tied to the actual CERES measurements since they correspond to reflected solar and emitted thermal radiation to space.

          For some reason the Roy’s webpage does not like something in the copied email so I will try to send it in parts to see what goes through.

          • Norman says:

            Next email segment from Dr. Loeb:

            In contrast, satellite-derived surface radiative fluxes are determined in a more indirect manner. One has to infer atmospheric and surface properties from imager data and compute surface fluxes using a radiative transfer model. For a reference on EBAF-SFC, you should read the following paper by Kato et al: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00436.1

          • Norman says:

            As shown in Fig. 1 of Kato et al (2013), EBAF-SFC processing starts with surface radiative flux calculations provided in the SYN1deg-Month data product. For a reference on SYN1deg, please see Rutan et al, 2015: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00165.1

          • Norman says:

            test

          • Norman says:

            Found the segment that won’t post but not sure what is the offending material.

            Surface radiative fluxes in S Y N 1 deg -Month consist of radiative transfer model calculations initialized from a number of data sources (e.g., cloud properties retrieved from M O D I S Terra & Aqua imager radiances, 3-hourly cloud property retrievals from geostationary imagers covering 60S-60N, meteorological assimilation data, surface albedo maps, snow/sea-ice maps from N S I D C, aerosol assimilation data constrained using M O D I S aerosol retrievals, etc.) In addition to being able to calculate surface radiative fluxes with a radiative transfer model, one can also calculate T O A fluxes. Due to uncertainties in the input data used in the calculations, the computed T O A fluxes in S Y N 1 deg will not necessarily agree with T O A fluxes in E B A F-T O A.

          • Norman says:

            Putting spaces between the letters of some words allowed it to post so I will do this on this next offending segment. Hope it does not make the email response too hard to follow.

            CONTINUED EMAIL RESPONSE:
            In order to provide a data product with self-consistent T O A and surface radiative fluxes, we created the E B A F-S F C product, which uses an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust the inputs used in S Y N 1 deg to ensure consistency between computed T O A fluxes and those provided in E B A F-T O A. Because this requires adjustments to the input data used in the calculations, surface radiative fluxes in E B A F-S F C may differ from those in S Y N 1 deg-Month. To guide adjustment process, we also bring in temperature/humidity data from A I R S and cloud heights from CALIPSO/Cloudsat (see the Kato et al., 2013 paper for more details).

          • Norman says:

            Importantly, we do not adjust the E B A F-S F C fluxes based upon ground surface flux measurements as implied by Ball4s claim: calibrating the satellite data to surface instruments. The surface measurements over land and ocean provide independent validation of the E B A F-S F C surface radiative fluxes.

          • Norman says:

            So, I would not call E B A F-S F C raw uncorrected data. It represents our best attempt at providing the most accurate surface radiative fluxes from satellite. We do our best to publish our validation results for users to interpret. We also provide users with the opportunity to evaluate the products themselves for their particular problem by making the ground measurements available on the ordering tool. For example, you can compare the E B A F surface fluxes directly with hundreds of surface observations with a few commands and have the results displayed for you on the ordering tool. See the following website:

            https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/cave/jsp/CAVEEBAFSelection.jsp

          • Norman says:

            It is not my habit to read or interact with blogs so please excuse me if I choose not to dive into what appears to be a heated climate debate. Were very close to releasing a new version of E B A F (E B A F 4.0) hopefully later this month and I am literally swamped with work right now.

            Hope my comments are helpful.

            Regards,
            Norman

          • Norman says:

            Kristian and Ball4

            That was the entire contents of the email I received from Dr. Loeb.

            Hope that clears up questions on the issue of using CERES data. Seems it is a valid resource to use and you can compare the calculated values with ground measurements from his link. I tried it but it was currently unavailable.

          • Ball4 says:

            Very well done Norman, thanks for the effort, I’ll dig up & go thru the papers mentioned.

          • barry says:

            Well done going to source and asking for advice. Investigate with the caveats at least as recommended by Dr Loeb.

            I trust ‘skeptics’ will not be overly concerned that the input data has been adjusted and then subjected to modeling to process the results. (/ sarc)

          • Norman says:

            barry,

            I am thinking the “skeptics” may not be against models just for the sake of being against them. The objection is that the models are not matching empirical reality.

            If you read some the of papers on the Surface Flux models, they find problems and work to correct and change how they calculate the surface fluxes from satellite data. Their goal is to make the most accurate data they are able to generate and they validate their product with empirical measured data.

            If the globe is not warming at the rate determined by most models (the average of the many models) then they should be evaluated and corrected. The goal of any model should be to match as closely as possible the empirical data and when it deviates, correct the model.

            Some believe that with the Progressive Governments of most Western Nations, these governments are pushing the CAGW meme in order to gain more power, money and control over people. If they can scare the Public enough, the Public will give up freedom for safety and “Big Brother” will watch and control it all for our safety. Since Governments have trillions of dollars flowing through the treasury they can afford to use some of this money to generate a false sense of panic in order to herd the citizens into compartments of fear and manipulation.

          • Ball4 says:

            Norman – OK, I read thru Kato/Loeb 2013. This paper shows the complex process CERES team uses to go from EBAF TOA to EBAF SFC irradiances, i.e. Fig. 1 surface irradiance adjustment process to produce the EBAF-surface product. The process of obtaining CIs from the various satellite (A-train) and surface instruments should be a good source for you (and Kristian) to master if your ambition continues to make your EBAF TOA raw data downloads meaningful within CI (as in Loeb 2016 Table 4). As Dr. Loeb writes, the Loeb et. al. papers are your best source to achieve that ambition helped along mastering the 2013 SFC paper discussion of CI provenance. Once either of you are able to replicate Loeb 2016 Table 4, your processing of the raw data constrained meaningful within confidence intervals (CIs) will gain credibility.

            I point out Loeb 2016 concludes with: “…it is critical that there be no gaps between successive CERES instruments on different satellite platforms. Bridging a gap would require a reliance on the absolute calibration of CERES sensors, which is inadequate for this purpose (Loeb 2009).”

            This is why your link to TFK2009 concurs as to EB imbalance from CERES too large, can be meaningfully constrained by using ARGO (Loeb 2016). I do not understand how Dr. Loeb came up with the implication I meant they adjust E B A F-S F C fluxes to surface instruments – I did not imply that since I have been discussing the EBAF TOA product calibration cautions to users (not SFC cautions, if any).

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4 says, January 10, 2017 at 11:28 AM:

            The process of obtaining CIs from the various satellite (A-train) and surface instruments should be a good source for you (and Kristian) to master if your ambition continues to make your EBAF TOA raw data downloads meaningful within CI (as in Loeb 2016 Table 4).

            (My boldface.)

            Ball4,

            Please don’t embarrass yourself even more. EBAF ToA data is BY DEFINITION not “raw data”. It is radiance data processed to level 3B (4) in the CERES flowchart:
            https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/products.php?product=EBAF-TOA
            https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/DQ_summaries/CERES_EBAF_Ed2.8_DQS.pdf

          • Ball4 says:

            Kristian remains moot on the raw data containing finished instrument calibration confidence intervals thus meaningful.

            If the data Kristian downloads does contain finished CIs, is not just raw, please show us. Ought to be no problem for Kristian to build credibility as an authority on CERES OLR by replicating Table 4 in Loeb 2016 from the raw data download(s) & showing his work (not just pretty graphs of the raw data). Kristian has had 6+ months of discussion to do this, we are still waiting even though I’ve provided links to pertinent Loeb papers and the CERES team user cautions: crickets.

          • Kristian says:

            Norman says, January 9, 2017 at 7:22 PM:

            Hope that clears up questions on the issue of using CERES data. Seems it is a valid resource to use and you can compare the calculated values with ground measurements from his link.

            Of course (!!) it’s a valid resource. Ball4 is making up his own reality on this issue.

            However, one does need to be careful upon choosing which data product to use.

            This is from the CERES team itself (the FAQ):
            https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/faq_main.php#which_product
            “Which CERES Product Should I Use?

            – CERES best estimate (net-balanced) TOA fluxes, use EBAF especially for evaluation of climate model and energy budget

            – CERES best estimate surface fluxes, use SYN

            – CERES TOA fluxes for long term climate trend evaluation, use SSF with associated cloud and aerosol properties”

            EBAF is based on the SYN1deg and SSF1deg products.

            SYN1deg and SSF1deg observed LW ToA fluxes are both pretty close to the EBAF end product, while the surface fluxes (as Loeb himself alluded to) can be quite different between SYN1deg (the source) and EBAF (the end product).

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4 says, January 10, 2017 at 12:57 PM:

            If the data Kristian downloads does contain finished CIs, is not just raw, please show us.

            *Sigh*

            It’s called EBAF Ed2.8, Ball4. Loeb wouldn’t publish the data under that name if it were still raw, you clown!

            The CERES team publishes their various data products for the public to see and use. The public can choose between data products all the way from the raw data (level 1) to the final end product (level 3B (4)).

            How thick can one get!?

            I’m sure if you asked Loeb himself about this (you don’t dare to, of course), he wouldn’t even understand what you’re talking about. Er, EBAF Ed2.8 ToA “raw data”? Huh?

          • Ball4 says:

            “How thick can one get!?”

            Not as “thick” as Kristian, the finished work is Table 4 of Loeb 2016. You have not yet replicated the finished work from the raw data. I don’t have any need to contact Dr. Loeb, the finished data is in his Loeb 2016 easy to find, I already found it, I linked it for you.

            It is trivial to download the EBAF raw data and show a pretty graph which is the extent of your accomplishment after 6+ months of discussion. To finish the work and show your interpretations meaningful within CI means to master all the user data cautions in your own link, Loeb 2016, Kato/Loeb 2013 and calculate CI & replicate Table 4 Loeb 2016.

          • Ball4 says:

            Kristian, I’ll be more specific, take your pretty graph download of EBAF Ed2.8, level 3B (4) (or the exact one used in Loeb 2016). In the last 6+ months you ought to have been easily able to truncate it to the dates in Loeb 2016 Table 4 and come up with their CERES/Terra Daytime LW TOA flux of -0.89 W/m^2 per decade, that from CERES/Aqua -0.73. You also ought to be able to explain why the truncation was performed on the raw EBAF Ed2.8, level 3B (4) (or earlier) data (hint: explained in a ref. at the end of the paper).

            You have to date after 6+ months shown no sign of subject mastery in being able to do so let alone using the data cautions and A-Train constellation for confidence interval development on the raw data. All necessary if you are to credibly extend CERES Team work as was your ambition at the start of these discussions.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “Were very close to releasing a new version of E B A F (E B A F 4.0) hopefully later this month and I am literally swamped with work right now.”

            Who is “we?”

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            “Some believe that with the Progressive Governments of most Western Nations, these governments are pushing the CAGW meme in order to gain more power, money and control over people”

            Norman, the US has had a cap-and-trade program for 25 years.

            How exactly has this exerted control over you?

          • David Appell says:

            Norman: Again, who is “we?”

            If you work for a scienific group, you should say so.

  98. Ed Millerski says:

    9 of the 10 hottest years in the UAH satellite record occurred this century. 9 of the 10 coldest years occurred last century. Perhaps this too is “statistically insignificant”, but it sure as hell seems to indicate things are indeed heating up.

    • Bindidon says:

      Yes, Ed, and especially in the northernmost latitudes.

      The most known UAH6.0 record shows in its ‘NoPol’ column (60N-82.5N) a trend of 0.24 C / decade, and that’s already twice as much as for the entire Globe.

      But if you inspect UAH’s 2.5 deg gridded record and compute the linear trends for all 66 available latitude zones, you obtain for the northernmost latitudes (80N-82.5N) a trend of 0.42 C / decade.

      And if you compute the trends separately for all 9,504 grid cells, you see that
      – the cell with the highest trend has shown 4.62 C / decade;
      – 96 of the 100 highest trends were computed for cells located in 80N-82.5N (two are in Kamchatka, two at the South Pole).

    • Bart says:

      So what? Things have been warming since the exit of the LIA. The questions are:

      1) Do we have anything significant to do with it?
      2) Can we do anything to stop it?
      3) Would we want to do anything to stop it?

      The answers are, no, no, and no.

    • ChuckC says:

      It indicates that things HAVE heated up, thru 1998.

      This is now 2017.

  99. Bindidon says:

    JMA is one of the “coldest” pure surface temperature record available:

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

    December data is not officially available yet, but you see
    a ranking this last month hardly might manage to change:

    1st. 2016(+0.46C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42C), 3rd. 2014(+0.27C), 4th. 1998(+0.22C), 5th. 2013,2010(+0.20C)

  100. barry says:

    For the record:

    RSS 1998 : 0.55
    RSS 2016 : 0.57

    All the global [land/sea] data sets will have 2016 at the top rank.

    If they’re all non-significant results, we’ll still be left with all 6 showing 2016 as highest rank.

  101. Ceist says:

    Roy, when is your paper on V6 beta being published? It’s been almost 18mths now. RSS published theirs BEFORE releasing their V4.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1

Leave a Reply