Home/BlogLittle Change from Last Month
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for May, 2011 was just about the same as last month: up slightly to +0.13 deg. C (click on the image for a LARGE version):
Note the tropics continue to warm as La Nina fades:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2011 1 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 2 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 3 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342
2011 4 0.117 0.195 0.039 -0.229
2011 5 0.131 0.143 0.120 -0.044
I have also updated the global sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies computed from AMSR-E through yesterday, June 8 6 (note that the base period is different, so the zero line is different than for the lower tropospheric temperature plot above):
 |
I take this as good news for global cooling. Temperatures are not going up the way the global warming models keep saying ,and they never will.
,
Right now the SOI index is governing the temperature, which is one of the items I have said ,controls earth’s climatic system. As we can all see it trumps CO2.
The other items being solar,volcanic,oceanic temperature phases such as the PDO, atm. circulation indexes such as the AO.
How much effect, depending upon the degree of magnitude of those items that control the climate phase into, and the duration of time it last.
Again before anyone put’s to much faith in the climatic models one should remember this statement.
THE TOTAL CLIMATIC SYSTEM IS NON ERGODIC, MEANING IT WILL ALWAYS AND FOREVER FEATURE INCONSISTENCY OVER TIME.
I say the best way to deduce future climatic changes is to study the past and see how the climate back then responded to a set a certain circumstances. Even at that, no set of circumstances will ever be exactly the same, but at least one has a guide to go from. In any event, it is a much better way to try to ascertain future climatic conditions then putting data into climatic models ,which will never be full,proper ,and complete data to begin with ,hence you will never obtain a full accurate result.
As the climatic models continually fail to predict the atmospheric circulation correctly, the tropospheric hot spot correctly, the soi oscillation index corectly, and last but not least, the temperatures correctly, just to name a few of the many,many items ,the models are wrong on. I don’t have enough time to list all of them, so I just mentioned the biggest blunders ,among the many blunders.
Salvatore. Climatic models are good for one thing, they show us what we do know and whad we don´t. Let me state an example from another bit. Astrophysicists modelled formation of galaxies to estimate the amount of dark matter in the universe (now and then). They did not know anything, until computer gave the exact image of how does spiral galaxies look today. And more.
So could climatic models, if they were up to mix every bit of knowledge we have and then adjusting it. We have ice core proxies, which are quite reliable, so we can look back, as you like to. I wouldn´t expect to see the model of actual climate, but it would be far closer image.
And on tropospheric hot spot: I don´t know how they came up with it, but logically, it´s bullshit. Let´s assume that GHG´s are the only drivers of climate and there´s no thing such as external forcing (Sun and maybe GCR too) and no internal variability, as their first models almost exactly fulfilled.
Most of the IR trapping molecules would be very near to the surface, because almost whole atmosphere is concentrated near the surface, the more upwards one would go, the less. Statistical likelihood that a ray will hit a GHG molecule should drastically decrease with altitude in graph simmilar to hockey stick , but rotated by 90° to the (in)famous Mann´s hockey stick.Something less 50% of the energy would be transmitted back down (the rest being captured by the molecule itself).The nearer to the surface, the stronger the warming would have been.
And here goes Nobel prize awarded Auguste Compton, with whom I´m sure you are well familiar with. Captured ray will have shorter wavelenght than that radiated by GHG molecule (energy preservation law). So another molecule of the same type would not interfere with it, as, say CO2, have a particular interferring “playground”.
I wonder if Dr. Spencer has an opinion of Denis Rancourt’s blog entries on radiation physics. He had an interesting exchange with RealClimate contributors.
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/
Martin you make good point.
Dr, Spencer thanks for all the great data you constantly show us.
If I had just arrived on earth,and looked at the temp. record for the past 10 or 20 years, and someone pointed out to me here are the potential items that control earth’s climate such as the sun,co2, volcanic eruptions, soi ,pdo etc etc.
I would come to the conclusion that without a doubt it would be the SOI oscillation, along with the PDO ,which regulates the SOI.
If one looks at all the data objectively that has to be the conclusion.
The question is what makes the PDO phase change, and it does influence ENSO ,but what makes the SOI degree of magnitude always different and sometimes cold La Nina, sometimes warm El Nino.
Yes we know it correlates somewhat with the PDO, but that word INCONSISTENCY over time as always, always comes up. up. It comes up with the degree of correlation to the PDO, to the degree of magnitude strength ittself of the SOI.
The same can be said about the AO, INCONSISTENCY over time.
I am trying to tie the AO to solar ,let me say it this way, I see the argument for solar to the AO,as being much stronger then the argument trying to link solar to the PDO phase, never mind the SOI. However ,I think it could be linked and if so ,we may find out during the prolong solar minimum ,and perhaps it has to do with jolts from activity on the sun changing much more in magnitude when the sun is in a mostly quiet state, which effects the rotational rates of the earth and translates to the PDO. I am just thinking , I don’t know if that is correct,although I can see the solar /geological link more clearly ,if from nothing else just looking at past data.
I guess what I am trying to say is over time INCONSISTENCY, keeps coming up ,and I think it will take a prolong solar minimum which is long lasting in duration and in it’s degree of magnitude , to perhaps find out one way or the other ,just how much influence ,this exerts on earth’s climatic,oceans,geological systems.
Past history does however indicate, at least indicate, that it does have somekind of a connection ,when one looks at the two most recent prolong solar minimums, those being the Maunder, and Dalton.
Perhaps, this prolong solar minimum might give the opportunity to see exactly what is what. I hope so, because I would like to know one way or the other ,right or wrong.
Martin:
“And here goes Nobel prize awarded Auguste Compton, with whom I´m sure you are well familiar with. Captured ray will have shorter wavelenght than that radiated by GHG molecule (energy preservation law). So another molecule of the same type would not interfere with it, as, say CO2, have a particular interferring “playground”.”
Compton scattering is a different process from absorption and emission relating to “greenhouse gases”.
Compton scattering only gives you a reduced energy photon because often the material that holds the electron that causes the scattering is cooler than the material that produced the gamma ray. If you were to observe the scattering deep within a hot gamma ray producing region of a star then Compton scattering would as likely give you a higher or lower energy photon depending on the speed of the electron.
A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere will absorb and emit a similar spectrum of wavelengths.
@Steve Milesworthy
I was just assuming, and the last part is completely wrong, as I´m looking at that now. thank you for pointing it out, so id wouldn´t confuse anyone.
I completely forgot that the ray causes enhanced vibration (or rotation, in case of microwave with H2O in microwave owen)of GHG molecules, not photon-electron interaction.I must´ve been thinking about something else that moment.
Again, thank you.
The first part also needs one correction. Less than 50% into space, the same down to Earth´s surface and a small portion of energy captured by the molecule. Then the REemitted ray would have very simmilar wavelenght, maybe with different amplitude.
I may be wrong, I haven´t studied physics, and my english isn´t perfect either.
Still, I don´t understand how IPCC, Hansen and the others could forecast a hot spot.
Will all 2011 temps be adjusted to AQUA data as they look considerably cooler than the previous AMSR at 600mb CH5? correct me if I am wrong
Reply to slimething’s post of June 8, 2011 at 7:33 AM.
Denis Rancourt intends to do the right thing by using the year-round variation of the insolation, but in the event he does not use it correctly. He assumes that the cyclic change in insolation does not cause a corresponding cyclic change in the behaviour of the atmosphere. So what he does here cannot give a useful answer. Christopher Game
My new theme because it applies to just about every single climate/item that is suppose to change the climate, is INCONSISTENCY OVER TIME.
My new 3 word theme, until I see otherwise. So far that is all I see.
Savatore del prete,
I think your new theme is almost perfect for you!
INCONSISTENCY OVER TIME.
Every month you spew forth (like Pinatubo on steroids)
endless senseless dribble about your theories on climate.
Even better, no matter what the latest climate nugget is, your theories always predict it despite having no physical
basis.
Can I suggest a slight modification?
(INCONSISTENCY)^2 OVER TIME
This really brings together the two main features of your theories:
1. They are inconsistent with the known laws of physics
2. They change depending on the data at hand.
By the way, do you have any training in dynamical systems or ergodic theory at all? Do you even know what ergodic means? I was surprised you could even spell ergodic. You claim the climate is “non ergodic”. What measure space are you referring to here? You shouldn’t assume that everybody who reads these posts has no advanced mathematical training.
Many of us do, and we are laughing at you.
Yours,
Sabine
P.S. Although I haven’t tried it, I hear that Ritalin is effective. You might see if it works for you.
Martin,
I am not an expert either, but I was also disturbed by the hot spot. What I finally understood – and I guess it even make sense is that the hot spot is not in absolute temperature, but in temperature difference.
That means that the increase in temperature is quicker in the middle altitude equatorial regions (hot spot) and in the low altitude polar regions than in the rest of earth. It also means that the high altitude is forcasted to heat up slower, or possibly even cool down, when Earth heats up.
I guess I could venture an explanation as follow: the CO2 absorbs IR in the sky. So the higher layers are “shielded” (hence a lower rate of increase) as they get “less” IR (the one absorbed). The lower layer are already full of water vapor and CO2 (“high pressure”) so the absoprtion there does not vary that quickly; moreover hotter air means more convection which brings air higher, thus increasing the temperature increase at mid altitudes.
Hence the medium altitude are where the change is most visible.
Please everybody, correct me if I am wrong.
The consequence of this thinking is that actually the hot spot would probably also exist with a stong heating due to other causes such as the sun. What should not exist then is the much lower or negative effect in the upper level of the atmosphere.
Let me continue.
“The consequence of this thinking is that actually the hot spot would probably also exist with a stong heating due to other causes such as the sun. What should not exist then is the much lower or negative effect in the upper level of the atmosphere.”
Dust shielding after big volcanic eruptions caused abrupt warming of the stratosphere, while the troposphere has cooled. If the effect was reverse, caused by GHG´s, the effect would be logically opposite.
And I´m not equiped to make conclusions about convectional energetic balance, the only thing I know is that at tropopause(where convection ends)is nothing relevant to interfere with escaping heat radiation (but the radiation emitted by gas there is less intense because air there is cooler)
SABINE SF -anytime ,any place you want to debate just ask ,and I will run circles around you.
Yor commentary is the typical attack -NO SUBSTANCE.
LOL,LOL
I have no time to waste on someone like SABINE, so this wil be my last reply to him.
I am trying to figure out what makes this climatic system tick, and SABINE, IT AIN’T CO2, pardon my language.
In addition your goofy models, are not going to solve the problem either, that is 1005 sure.
So I am sure of two items ,expressed above, no inconsistency there.
TWO MORE PREDICTIONS- DECADE OF COLDER TEMP/INCREASE GEOLOGICAL ACTIVITY.
NO INCONSISTENY ON MY PART HERE EITHER
Maybe one of these days, Dr Spencer will notice there is absolutely no forensic evidence to back up the temperatures he shows. Polar ice can’t melt at the rate it has been if Dr Spencer was even close to being right. Get a clue Doctor. At least buy a vowel.
Dragontide says:
“Maybe one of these days, Dr Spencer will notice there is absolutely no forensic evidence to back up the temperatures he shows. Polar ice can’t melt at the rate it has been if Dr Spencer was even close to being right. Get a clue Doctor. At least buy a vowel.”
Dragontide: Take a look at all the other time-series records of global temperature, including the other satellite-based record and the land-based temperature records developed by researchers in the U.S and the U.K. All of them are in relatively close agreement, although there are differences to be sure.
I think it is fair to say that each of them are estimates, each rely upon different assumptions about appropriate adjustments that are necessary and each has various strengths and weaknesses. I am not aware that any scientist has attempted to make a case that any of the global temperature records are clearly wrong or that any record is objectively better than another. To be sure, some people might have preferences, but I don’t believe there is any clear consensus among scientists. The IPCC looks at all of them and does not make any attempt to rank them in terms of accuracy.
I think you might be hung up on the fact that Dr. Spencer’s time-series shows little or no warming since the early 2000’s. In fact, all of the global temperature records are in agreement on this issue.
You claim that “Polar ice can’t melt at the rate it has been if Dr Spencer was even close to being right.” This statement seems to be based on nothing more than your intuition. I challenge you to find any peer-reviewed literature or, even a credible website, that supports this statement. I would also challenge you to find any peer-reviewed literature or credible website that dismisses the Dr. Spencer’s records as not credible. The formal name of the time series that Dr. Spencer has developed is UAH.
I am aware that some years back an error was identified in the satellite records that I believe related to decays in the orbits of satellites. Dr. Spencer acknowledged the issue and made appropriate corrections. So don’t bring back any articles related to this issue that has been corrected.
Seems the early June temps are shooting up, now equal to 2010 levels. That seems a little odd. Also, what happened the the “average” graph option at the discover webpage?
pauld says:
“You claim that “Polar ice can’t melt at the rate it has been if Dr Spencer was even close to being right.” This statement seems to be based on nothing more than your intuition.”
It’s scientific fact. It’s BASIC scientific fact. More heat melts more ice.
To the north the Inuit are undergoing drastic lifestyle changes, due to the melting ice. (after 30,000 years of no such problems)
To the south, a new, micro, life form was discovered in Antarctica that had been living deep within the ice for 1.5 million years. If all that ice had not melted, it would still all be there instead of spilling into the ocean.
Then there’s changing migration patters. Earlier flower & crop blooms. (the list goes on and on)
FORENSIC EVIDENCE overshadows theory on paper, every, single, time.
One difference between Dragontide and Sabine, is at least Dragontide, makes his arguments right or wrong.
SABINE- If you are mocking me ,
then you are doing the same to the likes of Rhodes Fairbridge, Piers Corbyn, David Archibald, to name just a few ,a few that agree with me.
SABINE YOU NEED A LESSEN IN CLIMATE 101
I have said that these items ,solar,soi ,atmospheric circulations like the AO, oceanic circulations like the PDO, volcanic activity, control the climate with the sun setting the tables, and how much depends on the duration and degree of magnitude.
The inconsistenices or question IS, with how much does the sun effect theose items ,and to what degree of magnitude. Past history suggest if does.
I have not waivered from that position.
SABINE – you can take your advance math and use your asinine mathematical models from here to eternity and your results will be worthless, as has been proven to be the case.
As far as theories not folowing physics , I would say the CO2 theory is high on that list. It does not take into account or conform to any of the laws of THERMODYNAMICS.That is another big word I used, I wonder if I know what it means.
Also, if anything shows inconsistenices over time with climate, CO2/TEMPERATURE CORRELATION ,qualifies quite well. I see zero correlation, over time.
Sabine- I suggest you take a course in climatalogy 101, then start commenting, maybe you can come up with a theory of your own, instead of leaning on your math skills and abstract model predictions which are worthless.
I would say I am pretty CONSISTENT.
SABINE ,GOOD LUCJ IN YOUR FUTURE CLIMATIC STUDIES.
Let us know ,when you SOLVE the problem.
In closing at least I have thoughts on this subject, which are sincere,only time will tel how right or wrong they are.
I put in my best efforts.
@Salvatore del Prete
“As far as theories not folowing physics , I would say the CO2 theory is high on that list. It does not take into account or conform to any of the laws of THERMODYNAMICS.That is another big word I used, I wonder if I know what it means.”
Please express your opinion more clearly here. How could be Earth cooling or warming without so called radiative budget?
The only (theoretical) problem in their theory is, when a body would warm up too much, it´s radiative spectrum would change (more of it´s radiation in shorter wavelenght) and particular GHG molecule will become inactive in the radiative budget. I do not know, if this is also a practical problem of their theory, but Beer–Lambert law explains it.
To be correct, I do not think that that small change in the atmosphere alone would lead to any catastrophic change in climate. But I may be wrong, as anyone could be. What I do know for sure is that this whole climate topic is getting way too hot. Maybe the global warming theory had been proven, but in the environment of people´s heads.
I myself take whole science as a brain excercise, just as playing chess, for example, as well as food for my natural human curiosity. When I want to argue, I choose a different topic.
Dragontide:
Here is a web post created by Tamino (a climate activist that no one would confuse with a “denier”) that shows all the major temperature records overlayed on the same graph. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/
The first two graphs show the records overlayed, but with different base periods, which make them difficult to compare. The third and fourth graphs show them overlayed, but adjusted to the same base period. As you can see, they move together very closely. The fourth graph is shows the 12-month moving averages of each data set and is particularly useful for comparison.
As you read down, you can skip the principle component analysis unless it interests you. Down further Tamino shows the warming rates from each data set since 1980. As he notes, “They’re all close, all within each others’ confidence intervals, and they’re all definitely positive (warming).” In other words, their differences are not statistically significant over the period 1980 to present. The warming rate of UAH is slightly lower than the others, but just by a few tenths of a degree.
Given this analysis it is hard to see your point. Do you disagree with all the published, mainstream temperature records?
Many say their theory does not conform to the first and second law of thermodynamics. Just look that uo ,draw your own conclusions.
IN ADDITION
CO2 is already at or near a saturation point ,as far as it’s abiltiy to absorb more longwave radiation wavelengths in the spectrum it absorbs ,so that any aditional CO2’S impact, in this process will be minimal at best. It is like when you have one blanket,when you add another it makes a difference, but if you have 100 blankets ,and you add one more, the impact is very very minimal.
In addition they keep trying to get around this fact, by coming up with their phony positive feedbacks.
The fact to remember is only .04% of the atm. is CO2, and nature contributes 97% to this .04 % and to suggest that man’s contribution of 03% to the .04 % of C02 ,is going to impact earth’s climatic system is RIDICULOUS.
pauld:
One thing I see is that when I post a link from NOAA dot gov it gets held up in moderation. (on other threads at this site) You post a dot com link and it rolls right through. Interesting.
Anywho:
A few tenths of a degree is a BIG difference. If you were talking “hundredths”, then that’s another thing.
Sal:
The AGW process occurs within the troposphere. Not the entire atmosphere. Your .04% is misleading. Shame! Shame! Shame!
Your comment about more Co2 absorbing less heat is beyond the realms of reality. Co2 is not a blanket.
salvatore delprete says:
June 9, 2011 at 8:34 AM
I have no time to waste on someone like SABINE, so this wil be my last reply to him.
salvatore delprete says:
June 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM
One difference between Dragontide and Sabine, is at least Dragontide, makes his arguments right or wrong.
SABINE- If you are mocking
SABINE YOU NEED A LESSEN IN CLIMATE 101
SABINE – you can take your advance math and use your asinine mathematical models from here to eternity and your results will be worthless, as has been proven to be the case.
———————————————-
salvatore, do you even think when you type? You didn’t even make it 4 hours before contradicting yourself.
INCONSISTENCY OVER TIME!!!
By the way, I am not man. Sabine (short word this time).
You want to debate any time, any where. OK. Let’s debate here and now. You said the climate is non-ergodic. I said you have no idea what non-ergodic means. So, please tell us by what definition of the word ergodic you can make such a statement? Are there ergodic climate systems? How about you give an original example of a physical system that is ergodic. I am sure we all would fall out of our chairs if you made one single concise scientific statement that wasnt complete nonsense.
Which of the laws of thermodynamics does the radiative behavior of CO2 break? Does it break more than one?
If we could suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere, what
do you think would happen? Since there is so little of it, would it make a difference?
You are either a really bad troll, or a complete moron.
In either case, you are annoying as hell.
Actually, you are probably both a moron and a bad troll
(and annoying as hell).
Sabine
—
Quote Sabine;
“Actually, you are probably both a moron and a bad troll
(and annoying as hell).”
Sabine
Personally I find this post offensive & I am very disappointed Dr Spencer that you have displayed it.
Sabine is quite obviously incapable of mature intellectual debate & must be lacking in argument to need to resort to such childish name calling.
Sabine, go away.
steve
SABINE- the total climatic system is non ergodic,non ergodic phenomenon has an underlying structure where stable theory CANNOT be applied time after time, because the climatic system does not have a stable underlying structure. That is what non -ergodic equates to in what I have been saying. INCONSISTENCY OVER TIME.
DO YOU GET IT??
A PHYSICAL SYSTEM THAT IS ERGODIC-that would be pressure gradient verus wind speed. The tighter the gradient the faster the wind speed and a stable theory can be applied to that time and time again.
IF ALL THE CO2 LEFT WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.I say if you study your past history you would know that during the ORDOVICIAN PERIOD ,CO2 concentrations were over 4000ppm and yet we had an ice age. Explain that one.
CO2 THEORY DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE THERMODYNAMIC LAWS , WHY DON’T YOU POST THEM AND SHOW US HOW IT DOES.
SABINE- nobody is forcing you to read my commentary, so if you are upset over it, you have no one to blame but yourself.
SABINE -PLEASE ADD SOMETHING TO THE CLIMATE DEBATE.
Yet, you must read everything I say, if not you would not be commenting on it.
SABINE- I challenge you to come up with your climate outlook for this decade and why.
I have stated mine, which really bothers you, probably because you are a believer in the man made co2 global warming hoax.
.
That is what it seems like because some of the global warmers like yourself take a very hostile ,attacking atitude, instead of trying to debate the issue.
SABINE ,PEOPLE LIKE YOU JUST MOTIVATE ME MORE.
I WILL BE WAITING FOR YOU CLIMATIC PREDICTION FOR THIS DECADE AND WHY.
BEST OF LUCK IN YOUR CLIMATE STUDIES.GOOD LUCK TO YOU.
@Salvatore del Prete
“IF ALL THE CO2 LEFT WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.I say if you study your past history you would know that during the ORDOVICIAN PERIOD ,CO2 concentrations were over 4000ppm and yet we had an ice age. Explain that one.”
Easily explained by volcanic activity. Late ordovician volcanic activity was huge. Thus large emissions of CO2, but at the same time also loads of solid particles. A lot more than poor Pinatubo, or even Tambora and Krakatoa.
That would be the basic, other factors are not known to me.
“CO2 THEORY DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE THERMODYNAMIC LAWS , WHY DON’T YOU POST THEM AND SHOW US HOW IT DOES. ”
Why don´t you explain yourself.
PS: being somewhere in the middle of this megapolarized topic is sometimes quite harsh.
I have been reading Dr Spencer’s website for a while now and have found his posts and the comments very informative.
I have noticed a recent trend in the comments section of immature name calling and general derogatory opinions.
Can we please leave that for the school yard and show some respect.
I think I have to side with Sabine on this one.
I like to read these posts too so that I can better
understand the arguments against the IPCC consensus.
But salvatore fills every thread with his ranting.
It is like trying to sit around a table and have a discussion
with a screaming lunatic dancing in the middle of the table.
Trying to have a debate with him does nothing, so
I found Sabine’s approach justified. Sadly, I don’t
think it will do any good.
CJ
salvatore,
Thanks for your informative reply. It helps a lot.
Lets see how you did:
1. On the question of non-ergodic systems, you prove
without a doubt you don’t know what ergodic is. You
seem to equate it with “stable theory” which you also
dont define. There are indeed unstable ergodic dynamical
systems, so your answer again is wrong. Your example
explains correlation or dependency, but has nothing to do
with ergodicity. Grade: F
2. On CO2 theory violating the laws of thermodynamics, you give no answer but suggest you don’t know the laws of thermodynamics. Perhaps too lazy to use wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Grade: F
3. On the question of what would happen if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, you tried to answer by an irrelevant comment about having 400ppm instead of 0. Even this comment was shown by Martin to be consistent the scientific understanding of atmospheric processes.
Grade: F
Since you asked, here is my NEW climate theory:
THE TOTAL CLIMATIC SYSTEM IS NON BLOPSOTITRIC, MEANING IT WILL ALWAYS AND FOREVER FEATURE INCONPOOPSITY OVER TIME.
My theory is better than yours. It explains everything that is going on right now. It proves without a doubt that your theory cannot be correct. It also predicts several El Ninos and several La Ninas in the next 15 years (does yours?). It explains why the methane release on Pluto is causing warming there (does yours?). It explains why sea ice grows as temperatures increase but land ice melts (does yours?). It explains why the stratosphere is cooling (does yours?). It explains how Fred Singer can be an expert on cancer, acid rain, the ozone hole, DDT, AND global warming. It will also accurately predict next month’s temperature too (as soon as it is posted).
Yours,
Sabine
Sabine SF
“It explains why the methane release on Pluto is causing warming there”.
I´d like to correct this one. The atmosphere of Pluto is so weak that any greenhouse effect is negligible. Instead of that, Pluto is warming (and therefore CH4 in solid form sublimates) due to its location on its very eccentric orbit.
Hi Martin,
That is exactly what my theory predicts!
THE TOTAL CLIMATIC SYSTEM IS NON BLOPSOTITRIC, MEANING IT WILL ALWAYS AND FOREVER FEATURE INCONPOOPSITY OVER TIME.
Sabine
Dragontide says: “One thing I see is that when I post a link from NOAA dot gov it gets held up in moderation. (on other threads at this site) You post a dot com link and it rolls right through. Interesting.”
The NCDC temperature series published by the NOAA is contained in the overlay graphs at Tamino’s website for which I previously provided a link. Is there some comparison between the NCDC record and Dr. Spencer’s UAH record that you think deserves comment? Tamino’s analysis shows that the differences are statistically insignificant. Do you disagree?
Tamino comments, “the satellite data sets show greater fluctuations, especially during el Nino events (e.g. 1998) and la Nina events (2008), and during the coolings associated with volcanic eruptions (El Chicon in the early 1980s and Mt. Pinatubo in the early 1990s).” That appears to me to be the only noticeable difference between the satellite records and the land-based records and it appears to explain most of the statistically insignificant differences in the growth rates of the five series.
I say everyone is entitled to his/her thoughts, and we need to keep it civil. This not lfe and death.
I know the ones that are inclined toward the belief that CO2 has an influence on the climate, don’t like what I am saying , but I am just expressing my honest opinions.
To find out more info on CO2 ,and where I come from..
HERE ARE TWO GOOD ARTICLES TO GOOGLE.COLD FACTS ON GLOBAL WARMING.http://brneurosci.org/co2.html AND CLIMATE CHANGE STUPIDITY. That is the real title. It talks about how CO2 does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics. If I remember, it has something to do with how the atm .is not able to transfer heat from it to the earth’s surface. It violates one of the laws of thermodyamics. I have not read this recently, so I am vague on it.
So far I have much reason to be confident in my climatic predictions, because of the following:
1. solar activity remains very weak
2. global temp. are no longer increasing.
3. climatic extremes have been on the increase
4. geological activity has been on the increase.
5. atmospheric circulation has been tending toward a more negative -AO.
6. SOI – has been indicating mostly positve readings, of late.
7. PDO has turned cold, AMO will follow soon.
All the above indicate colder times ahead.
Again I don’t know if this will turn out correct, I say so far so good,but I will never get over confident, when it comes to climatic prediction, yet one must try to do it,if interested in this subject.
I think this board has much good info. from everyone, agree or disagree.
Drgontide, and I could not be more further apart,
but we always have had civil give and take.
Roy, for those of us that avidly follow daily data, graphs and stats from various sources would you be so kind “if possible” to update us on the recent data glitch on your site?
SABINE – it does not matter per say if the stratosphere is cooling or not, what matters is the contrast in the strtospheric temperature between the polar area and lower latitudes. Indications are, the polar regions are warming relative to the lower latitudes which helps create a less zonal circulation , a colder climate.
SABINE- FUTURE EL NINO’S as predicted, depends in large part on the positive feedbacks, associated with the lower tropospheric hot spot in the tropical regions which has yet to be found, and to a lesser extent tropical volcanic activity.
SABINE- My thouhgts are based in large part on the distribution of temperatures rather then absolute warming and cooling. This methane or anything for that matter that can warm the polar regions, relative to the mid latitudes in my book is an aid to a more -AO/NAO and hence global cooling. Same can be said for the Artic SEA ICE DECLINE, of late. However S.H does not show the sea ice decline.
OZONE HOLE- ozone is replaced on a continuous basis. I see nothing to get excited about over this.
SEA ICE- I say oceanic circulations most likely play the biggest role in how the sea ice coverage responds.
I guess you think much of Fred Singer, nothing wrong with that, let’s see what happens over this decade. I think he is wrong, you think he is right. I have made some of my case in the above. No need to get so upset, let’s see what happens.
Maybe you will be correct, if so I will admit it.
The second law of thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred from a hotter object to a colder object.
Now this is a quiz, is that statement above true or false?
That is correct, and that is one of the arguments against the CO2 theory, one of the many valid arguments.
Better yet, there is no correlation at all between CO2 and past temperature,in addition man contributes .03% to the .04 % of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in reference to the question if there was no CO2 would it make a difference?
The answer is yes because I think it is Beer’s Law, that states with CO2 ,the effect is greatest when started from zero, but as CO2 increases the amount needed to have the same effect has to keep increases twice as much as the time before.
So if you have only 20ppm and it went to 100ppm that would make a difference. However, if you have 400ppm to get the same effect as the 20ppm to 100ppm ,CO2 would have to go from 400ppm to 2000ppm.
Of course the false positive feedbacks try to get around this ,but as of today there is just no evidence of these positive feedbacks.
As I have said the man made co2 global warming theory is the most RIDICULOUS theory I have ever heard,it will very likely meet it’s ending, this decade as a vaild theory.
If I am wrong , I wil be the first to admit it, I doubt it.
-AO circulation- I say equates to more clouds, more snow cover,more precip which serve to increase earth’s overall albedo. That is my thinking here.
Geography comes into play alo,and that is why the N.H. , will always be more effected then the S.H. ,by the items that control the climate. If CO2 were the cause, the effect would be much more unifirm in my opinion ,instead of being concentrated in the N.H. versus the S.H.
Sorry, my statement is false, here is the whole law
“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature”
The important part being the sole result bit.
SABINE- My answers on non -ergodic come from a scientific paper.
I will quote the paper ,and you will see it substanciates my answer.
The total system is, as DOUGLAS NORTH,would say ,non-ergodic. North, considers we live in a non ergodic world,he explained that an ergodic phenomenon has an underlying structure, so stable theory that can be applied time after time ,consistently ,can be developed. In contrast ,the world we are concerned is continually changing :it is continually noval.Inconsistency over time is a feature of a non -ergodic world.
There you have it, word for word from the article.
SABINE – finally I am so glad you made all your silly comments about the climate, because that gave me an outline to respond to, although I believe, you were just being ,whatever ,with your answers, just to make nonsence.
Martin , I think it was all in jest.
SABINE -please give us a serious climatic outlook and the reasons and why’s behind it. I gave mine, I want to hear yours along with your predictions for global temperatures this decade. I am serious, I would like to know.
Use your vast knowledge of math/physics to come up with the answer,along with those climatic models.
I will use past history, and knowledge of earth’s climatic system, and what influences it.
Doug says:
“Seems the early June temps are shooting up, now equal to 2010 levels. That seems a little odd. Also, what happened the the “average” graph option at the discover webpage?”
Sorry, I can’t reply in the normal way.
There seem to be other problems with the data on the site too. Since I last looked at it, some of the figures in the AQUA CH5 file seem to have changed. Earlier ones seem to have moved on by 1 day but some of those in June are just different. The average figure has gone from the data file, so presumably that’s why it’s not an option on the graph any more.
Oh, and also, the graph doesn’t tie in with the scale any more (assuming it ever did). According to the scale, it is now about July 1st.
Can we trust these figures any more?
pauld
Thanks for posting that link to the temperature comparison graphs. I have been doing the same thing myself and I can confirm that after adjustment all of the data sets are fairly close, over the long term and also in terms of the timing of changes. It’s nice to have something to compare my own figures too. I did the comparison in order to counter the myth that seems to exist that there are substantial differences between the different data sets, which is in part caused by the wide range of base periods involved. It would cause a lot less confusion if a single standard base period were employed.
Dragontide says:
“To the north the Inuit are undergoing drastic lifestyle changes, due to the melting ice. (after 30,000 years of no such problems) ”
I believe that some of the “Inuit” were moved there, possibly in the 1950’s, by the Canadian Government, as part of a policy to populate northern territories. Sorry, I don’t have a source for that but I heard it on the BBC.
“To the south, a new, micro, life form was discovered in Antarctica that had been living deep within the ice for 1.5 million years. If all that ice had not melted, it would still all be there instead of spilling into the ocean.”
Just because we have recently discovered the life form, does that mean it wasn’t getting into the ocean, without us knowing about it. The ice has always been melting and being replaced by new snow fall. If the ice didn’t melt, the sea level would actually be falling every year.
The average seems to have disappeared from the daily site… What’s up?
Having spent the past 10mins reading Salvatore Delprete drivel I’ve come to the conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with that guy … and I feel soiled … and i want my 10mintues back
Doug, bushy, Sven,
The figures for CH5 on the discover site now seem to have changed again.
On the graph, 2011 no longer goes above 2010.
This seems to be due to the figures for the last 4 days
being removed from the data file.
Dr. Spencer, it would be nice to be kept informed of
what is going on.
This decade will decide who is full of BS, and who is not.
I made my case very strongly, probably to strong sometimes, but that is in response to the other side, that has flipped and flopped over their positions on what results global warming should have and will have on the climate, in addition to trying to justify anything that happens with our climate as always ,always the result of global warming.
I am sick of their BS.
The global warming BS just continues, read recent article (about the 4th down)on climaterealist website.
I must say the harder they try to promote their hoax ,the harder they will fall later this decade, when reality sets in.
I am pretty confident as of now,that something like I have been saying ,will result before this decade is out.
It is sickening to hear the total absurdity ,that keeps going on and on.
I love the science of climate and to see it being ruined by the IPCC and company, just has to be challenged on every front.
I say thank God for the computer age, which keeps records of what one said and when it was said.
Quote Sabine;
“Actually, you are probably both a moron and a bad troll
(and annoying as hell).”
Sabine
Personally I find this post offensive & I am very disappointed Dr Spencer that you have displayed it.
Sabine is quite obviously incapable of mature intellectual debate & must be lacking in argument to need to resort to such childish name calling.
Sabine, go away.
steve
The CH5 data seems to be being populated again on the discover site, although currently only up to June 9th, following the removal of data for June 9th to 12th. The figure for June 9th seems to be the same as the one there previously, so it will be interesting to see whether those for June 11-12th, which were also removed are still above those for 2010. In the absence of any info., I presume that some sort of accuracy checking is going on?
Ray wrote “This seems to be due to the figures for the last 4 days being removed from the data file.
Dr. Spencer, it would be nice to be kept informed of
what is going on”
The last post said
“I have been advising users that, of all the AMSU channels listed there, to trust only the “ch. 5? (mid-tropospheric) temperatures, since all of the other channels at the Discover website are from the NOAA-15 satellite, which has diurnal drift issues. Hopefully later this week we will transition those other channels from NOAA-15 AMSU to Aqua AMSU, so there will be no long-term drift issues from changes in the satellite observation time. The downside will be that all of the data will only be available since Aqua data started flowing, in mid-2002. (Again, the sea surface temperature variations are very accurate, and come from a completely different instrument using different methods).”
That seem sufficiently informing to me.
Having said that it seems the data has been moved to one day later. eg it had previously been posted that 29 Dec 2010 was 252.204 and 30 Dec 2010 was 252.175. Now those two amounts are shown for 30 Dec and 31 Dec 2010. So it seems the data transition hasn’t occured yet but a strange date change has. Just thought I would mention this in case anyone is puzzling over why it isn’t the same as it was.
Crandles,
I am not sure how your quote explains the removal of AQUA CH5 figures from the data files for the period June 9th to 12th, since AQUA CH5 shouldn’t have been affected by the transition of the other channels to AQUA. The figures for June 11th and 12th showed temperatures above the equivalent days of 2010 (but you wouldn’t be aware of that if you hadn’t looked at the graphs before the figures were removed). Some of that may have been due to the figures for 2011 being a day early but now that the figure for June 10th has been repopulated, it appears to be lower than the original figure, at 253.736k, compared to the previous figure of 253.83k. I also don’t think your quote explains the removal of the “average” figures from the data files and the graph for AQUA CH5, as again this should not have been affected by the transition of the other channels to AQUA.
How was the zero (average) point calculated?
Sorry, just found the answer.
While I am a skeptic on AGW, I suppose we all see that this relatively short period of time for deriving the average temperature will always result in an out-of-proportion average temperature change, making that number quickly move in conformity with any recent temperature changes. Therefore, deviation from the mean is always minimized.
I assume this average temperature number is unavoidable due to the fact that it is satellite derived and therefore limited to the time period satellites have been reading the temperatures. However, given this tendency for overcompensation, it might be better to set the zero mark at a surface temperature derived number (if its possible to find something that is at all accurate). In fact, any non-changing zero mark would perhaps be more helpful.
Keith,
Not entirely sure what you are getting at. By “short period of time”, are you referring to the base period is 30 years, or the fact that it is “recent”, i.e. 1981 to 2010?
Most of the other datasets use a 20 or 30 year period, except NCDC/NOAA which uses the 100 years 1901-2000.
It is true that the UAH period will make anomalies APPEAR to be lower than other series, but actually when you adjust them all to the same base period they are all very similar. The satellite based series tend to be more extreme at the high and low ends, but I don’t think that is anything to do with the base periods used.
Will low prolong solar activity cause the AO to be more negative?
Will a more -AO cause more snowcover,clouds, precip?
Will that be enough to increase earth’s albedo?
Will increase cosmic rays, as a result of low solar activity aid in increasing earth’s albedo due to more low clouds?
Those are the question that need to be answered.
Each 1% change in albedo is equal to a 2 degree F change in temp.
The revised AQUA CH5 temperature for June 11th was 253.744k, compared to the previous figure of 253.924k, so it is begining to look like this year’s figures aren’t going to go above 2010. Temperatures have been rising quickly compared to last year, but from the 13th onwards, the figures for 2010 showed a rapid rise.
The cumulative CH5 anomaly at the 11th was 0.0915c, which based on June figures for previous years, is equivalent to a UAH of about 0.14c, although April & May were both above the expected level based on AQUA CH5.
The “revised” CH5 figure for June 12th is 253.749K, barely up on the figure for the 11th and a full 0.287 degrees below the “removed” figure of 254.036K. So it looks like for whatever reason, the previous figures, which showed the CH5 anomaly going above the 2010 figures were wrong.
Since we are now entering a period when CH5 figures increased very quickly in 2010, it seems unlikely that 2010 figures will be exceeded in the near future. That is, if we can believe that the current 2011 2010 figures were correct and will not be revised.
On the other hand the current CH5 figure for June is about 0.097c above “normal”, and indicates a UAH figure of 0.147c.
The data on the discover graph are still a month out relative to the scale on the graph and no apparent explanation.
Sorry, the second sentence should read:
So it looks like for whatever reason, the previous figures, which showed the CH5 temperatures going above the 2010 figures were wrong.
Ray:
It is unclear to me why you want to spend time evaluating day to day figures that are subject to revision? Since it takes at least 10 years to identify a trend that is significant, what would do we learn from day to day fluctuations?
pauld,
I don’t think this is normal “revision”.
It is the replacement of figures which showed temperatures well above 2010 with those which aren’t.
In my experience, daily figures are rarely “revised” to this extent.
Even where anomaly figures calculated from AQUA CH5 figure differ from actua UAH anomalies, that is not normally as a result of “revision” of the CH5 figures.
The AQUA CH5 daily figures are those recommended by Dr. Spencer as being the most reliable for daily monitoring.
“The AQUA CH5 daily figures are those recommended by Dr. Spencer as being the most reliable for daily monitoring.”
I don’t really understand what value there is in daily monitoring. It seems a bit like trying to predict the outcome of a baseball game based on the first pitch thrown.
pauld says:
June 15, 2011 at 12:09 PM
“I don’t really understand what value there is in daily monitoring. It seems a bit like trying to predict the outcome of a baseball game based on the first pitch thrown.”
I appreciate I used the term “daily monitoring”, but in reality it is cumulative monitoring.
We are almost half way through the game.
If you don’t see the point, then don’t do it.
Dr Spencer
Why has the ability to look at the current temperatures disappeared from the “latest-global-temperatures” page?
I see that ch5 at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ is rocketing upward at present.
Early in the year it looked like it might compete with 2008, a relatively cool year now it looks like its trying to reach the mid year highs of 2010.
So let me get this straight …
The globe is warming.
This creates additional water vapour.
This leads to increased precipitation and snowfall. These are cooling mechanisms and led to strange winter behaviour.
But now the effect has passed and summer temperature can rocket up to its 2010 high (creating increased precipitation and flooding along the way … ).
So the cold winter was an aberration caused by a warming globe and the warm summer will increase the chance of it occurring again, hence the idea that global warming leads to climate extremes.
Meanwhile so called scientists claim that Satellite temperatures are the only reliable ones despite the obvious negative effect of large ice cover suggesting warming when its not there, requiring them to fudge their figures.
I suspect also that when it warm and water vapour is increasing that cloud cover masks the “brightness” leading to cooler results than reality reflects.
All in all this seems to paint Satellite temperatures as extremely flakey and unscientific and in general we are perhaps wise to ignore them.
comments ?
lookingforscience,
Your description of the global physics is not
very close to reality, but I think the point you
make in the end will become more popular during the
next decade.
The land based temperatures have already been dismissed because of ‘heat island effects’. But since the satellite
temperatures give the same long term trend, they
need to be discredited too (at least while they
are showing warming).
I have already predicted that Spencer will stop plotting global temperatures on this page. If he doesn’t, the
chorus of people claiming that the numbers are wrong will grow proportionally to the temperature anomaly.
lookingforscience,
So far, no individual day of 2011 has exceeded 2010 and it seems unlikely that any day will.
The cumulative CH5 anomaly for this year, (relative to average temperatures which are no longer in the CH5 data files), at June 18th, was about -0.1 deg. compared to a cumulative figure of +0.382 deg. at the same point in 2010.
These figures may be slightly out due to missing data in the files, but they should be roughly correct. Otherwise, this year is currently running at about 0.48 deg. lower than 2010 and there would seem to be no chance of the annual figure getting anywhere near 2010.
The cumulative figure for June 18th 2005, another warm year, was +0.138 deg. so this year is currently about 0.24 deg. lower than 2005 at the same point.
This year looks like being similar to 2009, which had a cumulative figure of -0.057 deg. at June 18th. This year is currently catching up on 2009 but that seems to be because anomalies between February and June 2009 declined slightly. Since CH5 anomalies in July/August 2009 increased quite quickly, it is still possible that this year will be cooler than 2009 in terms of AQUA CH5, although it seems unlikely to be as low as 2008.
“All in all this seems to paint Satellite temperatures as extremely flakey and unscientific and in general we are perhaps wise to ignore them.”
In fact, all five major indexes are remarkably similar. I have previously posted (June 9, 2011 at 1:36 p.m.) the relevant link, but here it is again. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/
The post by Tamino overlays all five major temperature indexes on the same graph. When they are adjusted to the same base period, they look remarkably similar. Moreover, Tamino demonstrates that there are no statistically significant differences between the indexes.
Yes, there are perspectives in which all five indices have the same message over long periods of times. Yet, here is another significant consideration to remember: if increased CO2 were the cause of global warming, then the Satellite temps should show higher increases than land-based temps. The AGW theory is that the heat-trapping CO2 will warm the troposphere (which Satellites measure) and the warmer troposphere in turn will heat near-surface and SST (which are measured in GISS and HadCru). One possible thought — perhaps GISS and HadCru are affected by UHI and siting issues, and perhaps that is why they are keeping up with Satellite temperatures rather than lagging behind.)
“Meanwhile so called scientists claim that Satellite temperatures are the only reliable ones despite the obvious negative effect of large ice cover suggesting warming when its not there, requiring them to fudge their figures.”
Which “so-called” scientists claim that the Satellite temperatures are the only reliable ones? This would be a strange claim since the satellite records substantially agree with land records.
I agree with pauld. The main temperature anomaly series are broadly similar. There may be short-term differences in the figures, but over the longer term they show very similar trends. Fortunately several of them (HadCRUT3, RSS and NOAA), are currently showing negative trends over the last 10 years and I expect that GISS will follow later this year, and UAH sometime next year.
Ray,
Your insistence on putting significance on 10 year linear
fits of the data is either out of ignorance or an intent
to deceive.
Using your favorite site woodfortrees I see that:
the linear fit of UAH from 1979-1988 has negative slope
the linear fit of UAH from 1988-1997 has negative slope
the linear fit of UAH from 1998-2008 has negative slope
But:
the linear fit of UAH from 1979-2008 has positive slope
I guess many people would think this is impossible, but
it is simply an artifact of the large oscillations due to
ENSO in the data. The 30 year trend is 0.15 per decade. The ENSO oscillations are several times greater. This makes 10 year fits too sensitive to the timing of ENSO events.
For example a 1 year shift of the periods above:
the linear fit of UAH from 1979-1989 has positive slope
the linear fit of UAH from 1988-1998 has positive slope
the linear fit of UAH from 1999-2009 has positive slope
What have we learned?
The slope of a linear regression for ten years is not
a statistically significant measure of global temperature
trends. I know you *want* to see if the last 10 years are
different, but you can’t do it with a linear fit.
CJ
Also, I just looked at the link that pauld provides
above. Among other interesting comparisons, it has a plot of trends from linear regression of the last 10 and 30 years of all the major temperature indices. What is nice is that he also puts the 2-sigma confidence intervals on the plots, which show clearly that the 10 year trends are not statistically significant. The
30 year trends all point to positive slope well within
the 2-sigma c.i. Too bad woodfortrees doesn’t give confidence intervals for linear least squares slopes, although maybe it wouldn’t change what people want to see in a graph anyway.
Quoting from this report:
—————-
For some reason “the Blackboard” has an obsession with trends over the most recent 10-year period. Here they are (plotted in blue), compared to the trend over the entire time span common to all data sets (plotted in red):
None of the 10-year trends is “statistically significant” but that’s only because the uncertainties are so large — 10 years isn’t long enough to determine the warming trend with sufficient precision. Note that for each data set, the full-sample (about 30 years) trend is within the confidence interval of the 10-year trend — so there’s no evidence, from any of the data sets, that the trend over the last decade is different from the modern global warming trend.
————-
I have no idea who “the Blackboard” is, but perhaps his first name is Ray?
CJ
Thanks for providing fact where other provide fantasy!
James
It is beginning to look like I might have been premature in saying that no day in 2011 would exceed the equivalent day in 2010, based on the AQUA ch5 temperature.
2011 increases are currently matching those in 2010, but the real test will be from tomorrow onwards, when temperatures started to fall in 2010.
CatrunJ,
Firstly, my apologies for not linking directly to your comments. I have never been able to get that to work for some reason.
I never stated that the 10 year linear trend has any statistical significance or am I attempting to deceive.
I merely state it as fact, that over the last 10 years, there is an increasingly negative trend in temperatures, contrary to most expectations.
Of course the trends vary over differing 10 year periods and over longer or shorter periods. I routinely monitor linear trends over differing periods and it isn’t those over a fixed period of time which are informative, but how they change with time.
What these seem to suggest is that the 50 year linear trend is approaching a peak and will start to decline over the next couple of years.
Imagine a roller-coaster car reaching the top of a roller-coaster. It slows almost to a standstill, then slowly starts to descend. The decline isn’t noticeable at first, but eventually it accelerates.
As a result, it seems unlikely that the record high year of 1998, based on HadCRUT3, will be exceeded before 2026, whereas the UKMO predicts that “about half” of the years between 2010 and 2019 will be warmer than 1998.
I don’t know why you say that the woodfortrees site is “my favourite”, since I never use it and I have never linked to it. You must be confusing me with someone else, possibly with the same name.
Also, I have no connection whatsoever with the “Blackboard” website.
The Blackboard is a website that can be found here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/ It is run by a woman named Lucia, who I believe is a professor of aeronautical engineering. It is actually a great website that has interesting posts that attract high quality comments from across the spectrum of views. Tamino seems to have some animosity towards Lucia, which is understandable because she frequently shows him to be wrong.
Although the website has nothing to do with Ray, he might enjoy visiting it, because Lucia hosts a monthly contest to guess the monthly UAH anomaly and provides a valuable prize to the winner.
PaulD,
Thanks for the tip.
However, as I recall, the prize is not in real currency, so that wouldn’t make it very interesting. Or that may be a different site I am thinking of. In any case, I haven’t been very good at predicting UAH recently.
CatrunJ,
Another couple of points.
It is perfectly true, as the report says, that the current 10 year trend COULD be higher, but equally, as is not mentioned, it could be lower.
If it is the case that the 10 year trend is actually the same as the 30 year one, would that not imply that the accuracy of ALL of the temperature series over the last 10 years, has suddenly declined relative to the previous 20 years?
I am sure it is possible to prove, using statistics, that black is white and white is black, but as far as I am concerned, the trend is genuine, assuming that there is nothing seriously wrong with the monthly figures.
I believe that is borne out by the fact the current decline in the 10 year linear trend is not a new phenomenon.
In fact, the 10 year linear trend, in all of the temperature series, reached a peak of about 0.4 degrees/decade around June 2002, and it has been declining at an average rate of about 0.05 degrees/decade per year, since then and is still falling.
This means that the plot of the 10 year linear trend in the Open Mind article is already out of date, since the 10 year trends for more than half of the series are now negative.
Dear Ray,
As for the question of ignorance vs. intentional deception, you have convinced me that you are not intentionally trying to deceive anyone. My apologies. I am sorry I questioned your motives.
Your comments about statistics are a hodge-podge of contradictions, inaccuracies, and common fallacies:
“I never stated that the 10 year linear trend has any statistical significance”
Good, we agree. So why do you constantly talk about “the trend” in recent temperatures as if were one meaningful number? You quote always the linear regression estimate of temperature vs. time. The confidence interval for ten year linear regressions are so huge that the estimate doesn’t tell us anything. What’s more, we know why they are huge. I told you why. The website you looked at tells you why and shows how big they are. If the 10 year trend goes from +0.1 to -0.1 in 2 years
it says basically nothing about the warming of the earth over the last 10-12 years if the uncertainty is +_0.4. If you find that interstesting, fine. Study it all you want. What I take offense at is passing this off as prediction. In a world where so few understand statistics, this is unethical.
“I am sure it is possible to prove, using statistics, that black is white and white is black”
You either never took statistics, or you slept through the class. Your statment is typical of someone who has no appreciation for statistics, and is even more galling since you constantly present the results of statistical analysis (usually wrongly) as a single truth. Statistics can only give you a probabliltiy that white is black, often expressed in a confidence interval. In fact this is done gazillions of times a day. Each time a stream of digital bits is sent anywhere, there is an algorithm to decode it which intrinsically uses a probability that there was an error in transmission;e.g. 1 is actually 0 (or black is white). The greatest power of statistics is that it provides uncertainties for estimates. The problem is that most people (like you) ignore the uncertainties and focus only on the estimate (i.e. your sacred linear regression trend). This by the way is also a major criticism of the IPCC as well. How often does one see error bars on a climate prediction?
“but as far as I am concerned, the trend is genuine, assuming that there is nothing seriously wrong with the monthly figures.”
Sorry Ray, you can’t just declare a statistically insignificant linear trend coefficent to be genuine because you like it. There is uncertainty in the trend, and you can’t wish it away. You could accurately say something like “the linear trend is -0.09 +- 0.2”. But I guess that wouldn’t be much fun.
“Of course the trends vary over differing 10 year periods and over longer or shorter periods. I routinely monitor linear trends over differing periods and it isn’t those over a fixed period of time which are informative, but how they change with time.”
It might be interesting to you to observe the changes in statistically insignficant data, but it is not informative. You could spend your days doing linear regression on the price of rice in China. It is probably tied to the climate somehow, and it does fluctuate. But is it informative? Is it predictive?
“What these seem to suggest is that the 50 year linear trend is approaching a peak and will start to decline over the next couple of years.”
First, the change in the 50 year linear trend has as much to do with what happened 49-51 years ago as it does with what happened last year and what will next. Plus, the confidence interval for the rate of change of statistical parameters is almost always more than than the trend itself.
“Imagine a roller-coaster car reaching the top of a roller-coaster. It slows almost to a standstill, then slowly starts to descend. The decline isn’t noticeable at first, but eventually it accelerates.”
The speed of a roller-coaster can be modeled very accurately with a simple linear differential equation. The temperature of the planet can not. What is interesting here is that in the roller coaster, the motion is completely determined by the track. In your version of the temperature, you have, in effect, already decided in your mind what the track looks like. You are saying that you can accurately extrapolate the 2nd derivative of the linear trend of noisy data into the future. This is just fantasy.
“If it is the case that the 10 year trend is actually the same as the 30 year one, would that not imply that the accuracy of ALL of the temperature series over the last 10 years, has suddenly declined relative to the previous 20 years?”
This makes the least sense of all. What the data says is that with at least 95% confidence the 30 year linear trend is positive. The trend of the last ten years could be higher or lower or the same, BASED ON A TEST OF LINEAR REGRESSION versus time. This is a statement about the lack
of significance of linear regression on a 10 year window. It says NOTHING about the accuracy of the temperature series. You don’t seem to understand the simple fact: the
uncertainty in the 10 year regression trend is more than the estimate itself. The trend estimate is not predictive. You can’t extrapolate it. You can’t put meaning into its rate of change. The reasons why are completely transparent to anyone who dares to learn a little bit.
Just google ” multiple regression el nino” and click on the top link: Time Series Regression of Global Temperature, El Nino – LaNina … This page gives you both the data and R code to do a regression that takes into account the biggest known oscillations in the temperature data: ENSO and volcanic activity. If you are going to spend your time staring at regression estimates, the very
least you could do is control for the biggest known sources of deviations from linearity so that what you are looking at has some possible relevance. BTW, the site I sent you too presents data that the 30 year trend is only 0.0128 rather than 0.0157, so I gather this will make you happy.
So I guess the question I have for you is this. “Do you want to understand statistics better?” I gather from your posts here that you do not. If you do not, you are in good company, and you will (according to Thomas Gray) have a blissful life.
CatrunJ,
“As for the question of ignorance vs. intentional deception, you have convinced me that you are not intentionally trying to deceive anyone. My apologies. I am sorry I questioned your motives.”
By which of course you imply that I am only ignorant, and not dishonest.
That is something I suppose.
As for my ignorance, and whether or not my predictions are correct, only time will tell.
“BTW, the site I sent you too presents data that the 30 year trend is only 0.0128 rather than 0.0157, so I gather this will make you happy.”
Yes, because it demonstrates that the 30 year linear trend is probably decling too, although I haven’t done any work on that particular period.
If you go to the “climate4you” website and look under Global temperatues/Cyclic air temperature changes, you will see a graph of the 50 year linear trend in HadCRUT3.
I suggest you watch how this progresses over the next few years.
Since my post of June 24th., AQUA CH5 temperature increases have slowed down to about the same rate as 2010, and so far, it remains the case that no individual day has exceeded last year.
Based on the mean CH5 anomaly for June, based on the relationship between CH5 and UAH in previous years, the UAH anomaly for June should be round about 0.2 degrees.