Home/BlogAs discussed in my post from yesterday, the spurious warming in Aqua AMSU channel 5 has resulted in the need for revisions to the UAH global lower tropospheric temperature (LT) product.
Rather than issuing an early release of Version 6, which has been in the works for about a year now, we decided to do something simpler: remove Aqua AMSU after a certain date, and replace it with the average of NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSU data. Even though the two NOAA satellites have experienced diurnal drifts in their orbits, we have found that those drifts are in opposite directions and approximately cancel. (The drifts will be corrected for in Version 6.0).
The new interim dataset, Version 5.5, has a September, 2012 global lower tropospheric temperature anomaly of +0.34 deg. C (click for large version):
Note that the new v5.5 dataset brings our monthly anomalies over the last few years somewhat more in line with those from RSS, which have been running significantly cooler than ours. The trend change from v5.4 to v5.5, however, only decreases by 0.001 deg. C/decade. This is partly because the time series is now almost 34 years in length, and adjusting the last several months by 0.1 deg or so is not going to affect the long-term trend substantially.
Evidence of the divergence of Aqua from the two NOAA satellites during 2012 is shown in the next plot:
The global monthly differences between v5.5 and v5.4 are shown next, which reveals the rapid divergence in the last couple months of Aqua AMSU from the average of NOAA-15 1nad NOAA-18 AMSUs:
The Version 5.5 hemispheric and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average since January 2010 are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.581 0.747 0.415 0.660
2010 02 0.542 0.623 0.461 0.738
2010 03 0.577 0.721 0.434 0.665
2010 04 0.416 0.609 0.223 0.596
2010 05 0.449 0.593 0.306 0.679
2010 06 0.376 0.430 0.321 0.464
2010 07 0.343 0.455 0.232 0.303
2010 08 0.376 0.480 0.273 0.216
2010 09 0.430 0.351 0.510 0.114
2010 10 0.278 0.232 0.324 -0.053
2010 11 0.208 0.316 0.100 -0.270
2010 12 0.141 0.207 0.075 -0.441
2011 01 0.022 0.036 0.007 -0.382
2011 02 -0.003 0.005 -0.011 -0.350
2011 03 -0.066 -0.013 -0.120 -0.336
2011 04 0.083 0.132 0.034 -0.233
2011 05 0.101 0.082 0.120 -0.061
2011 06 0.260 0.292 0.229 0.183
2011 07 0.343 0.290 0.396 0.169
2011 08 0.300 0.247 0.353 0.143
2011 09 0.290 0.280 0.301 0.128
2011 10 0.073 0.140 0.006 -0.152
2011 11 0.084 0.072 0.096 -0.060
2011 12 0.066 0.119 0.012 -0.033
2012 01 -0.134 -0.060 -0.203 -0.256
2012 02 -0.135 0.018 -0.289 -0.320
2012 03 0.051 0.119 -0.017 -0.238
2012 04 0.232 0.351 0.114 -0.242
2012 05 0.179 0.337 0.021 -0.098
2012 06 0.235 0.370 0.101 -0.019
2012 07 0.130 0.256 0.003 0.142
2012 08 0.208 0.214 0.202 0.062
2012 09 0.338 0.349 0.327 0.155
Again, Version 5.5 is only meant as an interim solution until our Version 6 is ready, which has new corrections for diurnal drift and an improved calibration strategy for the old MSU instruments.
Our reluctance to make these changes sooner is partly due to the flak we get when we are accused of adjusting temperatures downward for no good reason. There is now sufficient evidence (alluded to above) to make such adjustments.
You got your downward entertainment trends back.
Crazy noise but no spurious warming in winter.
just in summer when your entertainment trend betrayed you.
Thanks for ruining UAH.
If the temperatures on the aqua channel 5 are so disturbed that you cannot take them in consideration when making the UAH temps, I dont see why the temperatures on channel 5 are still being reported. Although I regard Spencer as a profesional scientist, I’ve still got a feeling that these new temperatures are not correct.
Ditto. I’m not sure how every other data source can show record surface temperatures over the past 3 weeks or so and that not show up in the sat data set. Dr. Spencer, do you think there is a lag from surface temperatures (partially SSTs) and the mid-troposphere temps?
So, the new UAH product with Aqua satellite data was made because AQUA needed no adjustment for diurnal drift as the old NOAA satellites used by RSS. Now, we are adjusting the Aqua in order to make it more in tune with already adjusted NOAA. Does not look good to me at all; only reinforces the skepticism of any reasonable person to all satellite data-sets.
Dear Roy
Could you explain in more detail how the diurnal drift influences the average.
When averaging over a great part of the Earth and for a whole month i find it hard to see any problem.
I expect the satellites measure all the time and not on specific meteorological defined times, and i expect also you know exactly where the satellites are, so what is the problem.
Are there any plans for replacements before the existing satellites run out, or is all the money put in modelling?
The revised figure of .34 for September implies an adjustment down of about .09°C (from the original discover figures of about .43) – which is substantially less than the stated error of .2°C. Earlier values seemed to have been adjusted down more; ~ .13 for august, .15 for July, .14 for June, .11 for May, .06 for April, .105 for March, .025 for February and .055 for January.
Some values – notably the la nina period of early 2011, have been adjusted up (slightly). Overall the changes aren’t that significant, but they rely on the premise that the NOAA platforms are correct – I guess it’s up to others to comment on that.
I really do think the polynomial trend should be removed, it has no predictive value out side the range of the data set, it doesn’t vaguely correspond to the historical record before 1979. Or, you could equally entertain us with a good ol’ line of best fit on top, keep everyone happy.
Please, if you want to be the official datakeeper and truly be seen as objective, get rid of the entertaining polynomial fits. It isn’t even labeled as such anymore.
Doctor, I don’t know what’s most entertaining. Your polynomial trend or your “hide the incline”. LOL
I have very little confidence in this data ,as well as the changes that have been made for the previous months, even though they are down.
I can’t take this graph serious anymore. In RSS 2011 and 2012 peaks are similar in height. In UAH it is changed. This is fiddling with data.
Look closely:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Aug_2012.png August update
and
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sep_2012_v5.5.png September update.
Thanks for ruining a fine dataset and graph. I am off to GISS or HadCrut.
Is it true Dr Roy, that 4th order polynomials will always point down? Is that why you changed without telling us why?
No, 4th order polynomial’s ends will always go both in the same direction (up or down) depending on sign of the highest-order coefficient.
I am so relieve that people question the obvious.
It’s such a shame this has happened.
It’s been obvious for a while that there was a problem somewhere. See my comment in mid-December http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-nov-2011-0-12-deg-c/#comment-31561 about UAH versus RSS.
Another thing I do “for entertainment purposes only” is to keep track of how far back you can go and get a flat or negative linear regression in the various monthly temperature datasets. The August results were…
RSS – December 1996 to August 2012
HadCru3 – March 1997 to August 2012
NOAA – December 2000 to August 2012
GISS – March 2001 to August 2012
UAH – September 2008 to August 2012 !?!?!?!?
The revised UAH dataset shows a zero or negative slope for
April 2001 – August 2012
This is at least in line with NOAA and GISS, for what it’s worth. Note that when including the warm September data, the longest zero or negative slope series in the UAH data is July 2001 to September 2012.
“Or, you could equally entertain us with a good ol’ line of best fit on top, keep everyone happy.”
That is what the polynomial is. Duh.
You know this means a linear trend. Derp.
Linear function is 1st order polynomial.
Its has exactly the same predictive quality as any other order polynomial.
Certainly – but when WE know the historic trend to be down over the preceding century, it seems to have more validity than a fourth order polynomial that would diverge upwards (at both ends). You need to consider the fit over time – the function fails to model it effectively based on other information sources.
Overlaying it – even with the disclaimer ‘entertainment’ tacked on, is simply bad science. This is why I don’t like it, it creates needless questioning of the objectivity of the data, and adds nothing relevant, except maybe the false impression that the data is cyclical, which is mathematically incorrect if nothing else.
Imagine satellite era started in 2002 and Dr. Spencer was using linear regression which would be – pointing down. Would you call that bad science too? I bet you would.
You just want to see your beloved upwards line and are angry at Dr. Spencer for not providing you one.
And you completely miss on the argument that in case of temperatures, any polynomial regressions – including 1st order ones – have nothing to do with reality.
The one closest to reality is order 0 regression, i.e. average value. That is the only one that does not diverge to infinity on either end and therefore never significantly deviates from reality. But I guess you don’t want to see that one, too.
“Is it true Dr Roy, that 4th order polynomials will always point down?”
No.
Jenn says:
“I’m not sure how every other data source can show record surface temperatures over the past 3 weeks or so and that not show up in the sat data set.”
Jenn, which data sources are you referring to?
AFAIK we don’t yet have any September anomaly figures for other datasets.
Can I ask Dr Spencer when he expects the archived data file to be updated with the revised figures, and whether the revisions are likely to go back further than January 2010?
The changes are significant. Are they correct? That is the problem. What further changes will be coming about?
It is amazing how there really is no one reliable temperature source that one can really go to ,to say this is what has happened to the global temperatures over x amount of years.
This field is amazing. Endless twist and turns, endless opinions.
Nothing like it. Confusion to the nth degree.
What is worse you can spin the data to make it look like global warming is coming on, or that global cooling is coming on. That in itself is amazing, but I can do it, and so can others.
Are the changes correct? I tried a test with Nino3,4 data. In the past we saw the globals following Nino3,4 in time. This figure http://www.dh7fb.de/ninos/uahtest.gif shows, that the “old” UAH- globals ( in blue) would have shown a leading vs. the Nino3,4 and this would be extraordinary, wouldn’t it? The adjusted globals ( in red) show the more “normal” behavior, the Nino3,4’s are leading.
So it seems to me that the correction is some kind of correct.
Regards DH7FB
Salvatore, as was said earlier, there are no perfect data. Measuring something like a global planetary temperature to the nearest 0.001 C is a very difficult task, and it’s going to have its uncertainties and issues.
That’s science. (Otherwise, please propose a more perfect measurement, and the world will beat a path to your door.)
I think the correction is approximately correct and that Roy is honestly doing his best given the limits of the technology.
Still, the temperature changes recorded do seem to be less than the error band whether one uses surface sensors or satellites.
I thought the temperatures were correct before this happened.
There is no perfect solution. The satellite temp. data is as close to perfect ,if the data is determined to be reliable.
I hope future revisions are small and once those revisions are made, no future revisions will come about.
Well at the moment the 14000 & 25000ft look to have gone of on a journey of discovery into uncharted territory?
I noticed that also the 400mb and 600mb temp. look strange.
It is important going forward that we consistently spread doubt about the satellite temperature data. The effort to discredit surface temperature trends by arguing it is all Urban Heat Island bias has been very effective (thanks Mr. Watts!) even with set-backs like the BEST study. But the satellite data has always been a problem since there seemed to be no easy way to explain the fact that they also showed sustained warming trends. But this kind of “adjustment” of data is perfect ammunition for our cause. If satellite data needs to be “adjusted” then it can’t be reliable. This is an easy argument to make, and I think will be incredibly effective in creating doubt about global warming. If we all stick to the script, the global warming scientists will become increasingly ignored. Thanks Dr. Spencer for all you do!
Douglas
David Appell says:
October 6, 2012 at 9:40 AM
“Salvatore, as was said earlier, there are no perfect data. Measuring something like a global planetary temperature to the nearest 0.001 C is a very difficult task, and it’s going to have its uncertainties and issues.”
What exactly is meant by ‘global planetary temperature’? Is this the same as ‘global mean temperature’, arguably better stated as ‘global meaningless temperature’? Is measuring the planetary temperature to a thousandth of a degree Celsius a useful measure as it will surely exist in a constant state of change influenced by a unaccountably large numbers of variables. It is as you say ‘a very difficult task’. I would contend that whilst it may be statistically significant and of interest to some, the practical significance however is elusive.
Manfred: Maxwell taught us that any gas has a mean temperature. Right?
It has been a shocking summer in the UK and September wasn’t very nice either. We haven’t had a decent summer since 2006, so I really believe the information to be a false indicator of what is really going off in the world.
Appell to Manfred:
Maxwell taught us that any gas has a mean temperature. Right
Wrong.
Maxwell and Boltzmann discussed bodies of the SAME
temperature throughout. The question of a mean of
temperature, therefore, did not arise. The mean they
discussed was the mean of the distribution of thermal
ENERGY on a microscopic level, which underlies
the kinetic definition of temperature for bodies of the
same temperature throughout.
You can make physically meaningful means of extensive
quantities such as energy, but not of intensive quantities
such as temperature (which are often means already.You
can’t average averages and expect to get anything
sensible).
Another example of an intensive quantity which
illustrates the absurdity of making means of them,
is pressure. A building exerts different pressure at
different places in its foundations. Some “average
of the pressures” will, firstly, NOT even be equal to
total downwards force divided by total area, and,
secondly, is going to tell you precisely nothing
about your important concerns, such as whether it is
going to settle.
Out of interest, I looked in the collected papers of Maxwell
to refresh my memory; and found the following which gives some indication of the speculative attempts at clarification which people of the time(1860’s)were making:
If a great many equal spherical particles were in motion
in a perfectly elastic vessel, collisions would take place
among the particles, and their velocities would be altered
at every collision; so that after a certain time the vis
viva will be divided among the particles according to some
regular law, the average number of particles whose
velocity lies between certain limits being ascertainable,
though the velocity of each particle changes at every
collision.
and later,
Prop VI. Two systems of particles move in the same vessel;
to prove that the mean vis viva of each particle
will become the same in each system.
(Philosophical Magazine Jan July 1860; Illustrations
of the Dynamical Theory of Gases).
It is obvious what a small-scale, equilibrium-assumed,
approach this always was. A very long way from teaching
that the atmosphere has a mean temperature!
FFS we are talking about measuring a small band of space in the atmosphere to 3 decimal places using sats circling many kilometers above.
If anyone thinks this is anywhere near accurate they are disillusioned nincompoops.
But yet here they are arguing over a thousandth of a degree as if it actually means something………………..get a grip people.
The AAAS used to publish a journal called Scientific
Monthly. In the 1930’s there was a short paper in it*
about the fact that CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere
because of industrialisation. The writer calculated that
when the amount of CO2 had doubled, the world would be a
little warmer**, as it had often been before.
* I haven’t got the exact reference to hand.
** 2 Degrees Celsius.
In utter seriousness: Have the efforts of scientists and
polemicists added anything to this in the subsequent eighty
years?
Executive Summary IPCC Working Group I Scientific Basis states:
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
The idea of a global mean temperature (GMT) in a system such as that described by the IPCC above, makes very little sense. In my branch of scientific endeavour, one never provides the mean without describing the associated range and/or standard deviation.
Now, David Appell, how about citing GMT with a range and/or standard deviation? Methinks that in providing the fulsome information it would immediately become embarrassingly obvious that GMT was a truly meaningless value. Quibbling about a thousandth of a degree associated with such a value is little more than a bonfire of vanities.
@Kasuha
I think your vitriol is misplaced. I asked either for a removal of something I and you both know to be incorrect – or the addition of another one – to provide balanced ‘entertainment’. Regardless this was more a postscript to my comment essentially agreeing with Dr Spencer’s adjustments, it /appears/ to me (based on your responses) that your fixation with a minor aspect has more to do with pigeonholing opponents in debates with side issues, to more easily fit them to your world view.
I don’t want it gone because of false implication so much as the attention it gets, which is often used as a spurious excuse to belittle and write off UAH data as a whole, foolish given how little it differs from other sources.
Your tone is condescending. Yes I, and primary school math students are aware that lines are infinite in length, thus will likely diverge from an observed trend that isn’t. Yes, both a straight line and a fourth order polynomial will behave in this manner so neither have validity as models, though a pedant might note that the above curve might diverge far sooner than a linear one. Regardless, one way or the other it is irrelevant.
I don’t have any objection to people deriving short terms trends actually, they’re generally quite useful in identifying influences that function over similar time frames. You presume far, far too much based on no information, or even a stated opinion; and then descend to insult. This only ever compromises objectivity.
Thank you very much Dr. Spencer.
I have published your new global temperature graph in my meteorology and climate pages at Observatorio ARVAL.
daniel reppion, how confident are you in the adjustments to the satellite data? I would really like to use this data because it is objective or can be. thanks.
I’ll be honest about myself, I’m a science undergraduate who ended up here because the temperatures in my local area spiked a few weeks back – and I was curious enough to find the daily discover data showing a similar trend (didn’t realize about the impending alterations then). Anything I say should be ignored accordingly!
Leaving that aside – I would say all the adjustments made reflect reasonably accurately the difference between aqua and the other platforms (shown in the graph above). They are greater when the difference is greater, and lesser when the difference is lesser. September showed a noticeable jump in temperatures – but it wasn’t adjusted as heavily as some months, as the Aqua-NOAA disparity wasn’t as great.
This suggests that yes, the downward adjustments have been made objectively and accurately based on available information (I’ll leave the precision vs accuracy debate for another time). I’d be very surprised if Dr Spencer did otherwise, given the close scrutiny he undoubtedly receives.
Doing this simply means that different observation sources are more homogeneous in their displayed trends compared to one another – which is probably a good thing accuracy wise, there’s only one atmosphere with which to have a temperature trend in the first place…
If anyone cares to see the dataset graphed without the “entertaining” polynomial trendline, you’ll find a very faithful and up-to-date reproduction here:
bit.ly/Qa64Qc
There you’ll also find a version with a linear trendline, along with ones for 2nd, 4th, and 6th order polynomials:
bit.ly/R1aUyW
Jim Pettit (5:40PM) thanks for those graphs. Now that I can see how much those lines appear to resemble each other, I no longer think any of them means anything for this specific purpose.
Those who castigate Roy Spencer for using a polynomial fit for ‘entertainment purposes’ ought to reflect a little on their obsession with straight trend lines.
Shouldn’t they be including a caveat, a la Spencer, to those linear fits stating that they are for ‘entertainment purposes’ or, to be more honest, ‘to scare people witless’.
Any chance you could add 10 years to the graph on both sides? The non-predictive nature of polynomial fits really stands out when the higher order terms start dominating the value outside of the fitted range.
Looks like Dr Roy has started using Mike’s Nature trick!
Geoff:”Looks like Dr Roy has started using Mike’s Nature trick!”
Do you really know what “your” Mike did indeed?
I think no, because it was a very very different issue.
I’m losing confidence in these graphs, because of the overlay of the polynomial “fit”. Last month shows the polynomial flattening out. This month has significantly higher temperature, and yet the polynomial suddenly shows a downward trend. Has anything been fiddled here? An explanation is necessary. Removal of the “fit” would be best.
Perhaps I should have read the article.
I have extended the four trendlines 10 years into the future (http://bit.ly/R1aUyW). The 4th order polynomial trendline “predicts” a laughably rapid cooling, while the 6th order one “predicts” an equally laughable temperature increase. In the meantime, the linear (1st order) and 2nd order polynomials show a perfectly reasonable and steady rise in temperatures. The obvious takeaway: the higher order polynomial fits have a predictive value of zero, so probably shouldn’t be included on Dr. Spencer’s graph–not even for “entertainment” purposes…
Three basic areas needed to see how the climate may or may not be changing we either don’t have and or can’t have much faith in the data.
They are obviously temp.data which is constantly different and worse data from the same source changes,nevermind different sources giving different data.
Albedo changes on a month to month basis no where to be found.
% of earth covered in clouds on a month to month basis no where to be found.
This is crazy enough to try to figure out with good data,nevermind this situation.
The solar data from a star 93 million miles away is more accurate and complete then the data from earth!!
I say complete chaos in this field
HADCRUT3 all of a sudden wrong with slight neg. trend in temp. replaced with HADCRUT4 with a slight positive trend in temp. over the past recent several years. More confusion ,more BS!
I think I need a thermometer. I can measure the temp. outside of my house, and use that as a guide for the globe. Just kidding but this is ridiculous.
Jim Pettit says:
>> I have extended the four trendlines 10 years into the future (http://bit.ly/R1aUyW). The 4th order polynomial trendline “predicts” a laughably rapid cooling, while the 6th order one “predicts” an equally laughable temperature increase. <<
Jim, I completely agree with you; these polynomial fits say absolutely nothing about the physics:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/roy-spencers-entertaining-polynomial.html
In my opinion Roy Spencer is doing real damage to his (and UAH's) reputation by continuing to supply these unphysical polynomial fits. And now they aren't even be labeled as such…. He has passed the point of doubt of intending to deceive those who see his plots, which are being reproduced many places without any caveat.
UAH's reputation already has enough problems, without this.
It is beneath a group who wants their data to be seen as truthful and objective.
Agreed – I think to removal of entertainment trends to definitely to the benefit of UAH. I’m surprised that fit would take until 2170 to reach absolute zero – I expected it deviate even faster.
Different polynomials *do not* have the same predictive power. If you use a model that is more complex than required to represent the underlying structure of the data it will use the excess complexity to learn some of the noise that obscures the underlying structure. In statistics this is known as “over-fitting” the data, and results in the model performing *worse* than a more simple model. This is why linear trends are generally used for climate data on the scale of 30 years or so – there simply isn’t enough data to support the contruction of a more complex model.
SkepticalScience.com has a trend calculator that can display the uncertainty in estimating the regression from the data, you can find it here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
If you look at the UAH trend from 2002, for example, you will find there isn’t enough data to determine whether there is warming or cooling.
A similar exercise could be performed for the quartic plot that Dr Spencer uses “for entertainment purposes” (without the caveat these days); I suspect that this would show that the quartic has no predictive value, simply because it is grossly over-fitting the training sample.
I would advise Dr Spencer to remove the quartic fit, what entertainment value it gives him by being mischievous isn’t worth spreading more disinformation into the debate that could badly do with clarity instead.
“remove Aqua AMSU after a certain date, and replace it with the average of NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSU data. ”
just out of interest, what was the “certain date” and how was it chosen?
Why hasn’t the AMSU-data been updated for the last couple of days? Has it something to do with the increased amount of noise, or is it just a temporarily miss in the system?
Any fit is alright for INTERPOLATION of data.
In that case, it is just bringing out the
salient features of the data to our eyes.
There is no need to call it “entertainment”.
But it is not alright to use a fit, on its own,
for EXTRAPOLATION.
I do not think anything needs to be said when
data is transformed, so long as the method is
clear, and the original data is still there.
Take it or leave it, I say.
@anthony beevor
I agree.
I really don’t understand why some people should make “a case” about that.
What Dr.Spencer probably would shown with that polynomial was that the temperature trend is not so linearly increasing following the CO2 trend as some people would it to be.
Maybe they have too much confidence on statistical prediction by simply fitting data.
Or maybe they are just disturbed by the simple fact that the polynomial is highlighting that inconvenient truth.
Dr Doom,
Yes, the graph currently says it was updated on the 13th, but the data hasn’t changed since the 7th.
Normally the data is only a oouple of days behind.
Roy, I appreciate that none of the criticisms levelled at you guys are warranted or appropriate. You are after all reliant on the data served up by the instruments that are available and blaming you or your team is pathetic. come on people, could you do a better job?
Let these folks get on with what they have to do, difficult and at times, frustrating, but the end result is probably the best that modern technology can achieve and all considered, the most accurate)
Unless you are of course a fan of the constantly homogenised/adjusted/model enhanced land temperature records that are to be quite frank, criminal misrepresentations of fact and should be under judicial scrutiny.
I agree ,with the previous post. I will be using this data, because it is the best out there.
“The average global temperature across land and ocean surfaces during September was 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the long-term 20th century average. This temperature ties with 2005 as the record warmest September in the 133-year period of record. The Northern Hemisphere tied with 2009 as second warmest on record, behind 2005. The Southern Hemisphere also ranked second warmest on record, behind 1997. It was also the highest departure from average for any month in the Southern Hemisphere since May 2010.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/9
which just verifies the temp. rise has stalled out, for the past 16 years.
“verifies the temp. rise has stalled out, for the past 16 years”???
“The average global temperature across land and ocean surfaces during September was 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the long-term 20th century average. This temperature ties with 2005 as the record warmest September in the 133-year period of record.
http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Various_Temp_500.jpg
The temp. rise has stalled , it has stalled out for some 16 years.
The only reason why the tempertures have not actually begun their decent is the ohc lag and the current weak max. of solar cycle 24, both of which will be less and less of a factor going forward.
The temp. rise from 1980-1998 is done, it is finished ,over.
Heat Is Gone: Global Warming Game Runs Out Of Steam
Posted 10/15/2012 06:30 PM ET
Email
Print
License
Comment
inShare.
Environment: Global warming hasn’t been a point of contention in the presidential campaign. This is as it should be, because it’s not a real issue. Earth’s temperature is about the same now was it was in 1997.
In fact, we don’t believe it’s ever been a real issue. Global warming has always been an idea, a guess. We’ve never been satisfied that man’s small contributions to the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere were causing the planet to overheat.
The global warming alarmists always liked to point to the “hockey stick” graph that supposedly showed temperatures flatlining for
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/101512-629393-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-1997.htm#ixzz29ZJ2SEVL
as i said, temp. rise has stopped.
A tip for you – buy this book http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Planetary-Climate-Raymond-Pierrehumbert/dp/0521865565/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291418043&sr=8-1
Xela,
That text book is no doubt based on the same scientific principles which are used in the climate models which have dismally failed to predict the correct temperature increase since the year 2000?
I think that what Salvatore is saying is that if temperatures are continuing to rise, why is Sept. 2012 not warmer than Sept. 2005?
However, assuming global temperatures are continuing to rise, what do you propose is done about it?
I hear lots of alarmists saying “something must be done” but it only gets as specific as “we must reduce CO2 emissions”. How do you propose we do that, at least in the U.S.A. and U.K. when China is growing it’s economy on the back of continually increasing emissions of CO2.
Do you want us to make ourselves even less competitive than the Chinese?
About the Xela suggested book, an excerpt from the Amazon book description:
“This book introduces the reader to all the basic physical building blocks of climate needed to understand the present and past climate of Earth, the climates of Solar System planets, and the climates of extrasolar planets.”
Wow!!! Wow!!! Wow!!!
So Dr. Pierrehumbert knows how climate works on “extrasolar planets”…
I’ll be glad if he would explain me in an acceptable scientific way just the Earth climate indeed.
Said with all my sympathy for Dr. Pierrehumbert: if those are the arguments of that book, I guess it’s much better that he continues to play his nice accordion instead.
The climate models(which are bs) are wrong on every count ,let’s name a few. These are just a few.
Models said olr radiation would decrease, the reality is no change.
Models said stratosphere would cool especially near the poles ,the reality is it has warmed slightly.
Models said ohc would keep rising,the reality is it has more or less leveled off since 2004.
Models said the atmosphere would be more zonal ,reality is it is more meridional.
Models said more El Ninos ,reality is more La Ninas.
Models said a lower troposhere hot spot would form ,due to positive feedbacks between co2 and water vapor,reality is no hot spot is present.
Finally the models predicted a continuos rise in temp.,the reality is no rise last 16 years.
So if all these basic assumptions are wrong, how could the model projection be correct.
The answer is ,it is not correct, and will never be correct because the models will always have incomplete, not comprehensive enough or accurate enough data to work with in the first place, and will never have the beginning state of the climate put into them properly.
They are a waste, useless junk, and past history is 100x more superior in trying to figure out where the climate might be going from here,then those useless ridiculous models.
and past history is STRONGLY suggesting we are in for a period of 25 to 30 years of cooling.
What is more, the current temperature is lower than predicted by the IPCC “commitment” scenario, which was based on ZERO growth in greenhouse gasses since 2000.
To put it another way, the temperature is behaving as if there had been a decline in greenhouse gasses, rather than an increase.
That is correct Ray. Also don’t forget ocean heat content rose quite a bit from the 1960’s -2004 due to the extreme active solar activity throughout that entire period.
Just look at he magnetic flux increase from 1900-2000 as measured by the aa index. That says it all
As anyone should know visible light penetrates the ocean surface to a depth of 100 meters, where as long wave infra-red light penetrates the ocean surface to a depth of 1 mm. Co2 ,does not absorb in the visible light wavelengths of .5 microns ,it only absorbs in the infra-red wavelengths being most effective at 15 microns!
Co2 no effect on ocean heat content ,visible light variations through solar variations have a big effect on ocean heat content, which is what is currently keeping the temperatures from going down, but that will become less of a factor going forward.
The whole warming from 1850-1998 can be explained by the extreme rise in solar activity post Dalton Minimum, and continuing until year 2005.(Look at the aa index.)
When it all came to a halt, and now is acting in the exact opposite way since 2005. Temperatures will be going down and there are certain threshold values of solar activity /geomagnetic activity ,earth’s magnetic field itself,w hich will accelerate this, none of which have really been reached since the Dalton Minimum.
I would bet my last dollar that the temp. will be lower long before this decade ends,the only thing that would derail this is if the prolong solar minimum somehow ended. Very unlikely.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong?newsfeed=true
Xela, the Gardian is as biased in favour as warmimg as the Mail is against it.
Unfortunately “warmists” are unable to distinguish the fact that temperatures have increased in the past, from the fact that there has been no warming over the last 16 years.
However, unlike Salvatore, I don’t claim that warming has ended forever and I think it is likely that warming will resume in about 10 years.
I notice that you didn’t answer my question of you think we should do about it.
Ray please tell me why you think what I say below is wrong. I want to know.
What I said is it is over for now at least until 2030, or whenever this prolong solar minimum ends. Co2 has zero to do with it. All of the warming from the Dalton Minimum ,or let’s go back to the Maunder Minimum can be closely correlated with the aa index, a measure of geomagnetic activity on the earth. Very similar to the more popular ap index,but it has a longer record.
This table wilL show where I am coming from
The following should show where I am coming from. Based on 1910 temperature.
time period aa index average temperature
1900-1920 14 1910 temp.
1980-1996 27 +.6c above 1910 temp
Maunder Minimum 6 -.6c below 1910 temp
Not to mention another dip during the Dalton Minimum. Is this by some odd chance? I highly doubt it. Not to mention earlier periods in time.
The sun has been on a magnetic flux tear since 1900-2005, when it all came to a sudden halt. The oceans had decades of strong solar activity to build up ocean heat content, which is not going to go away fast, it is going to take time. I feel enough time has now past, 7 years of sub solar activity, so that the next down turn which should be very severe and long (post 2014)in solar activity, should drive the ohc down. I don’t know how far down, the ohc will go, it will depend on the depth of the overall prolong solar minimum. Certain threshold values probably slightly below typical solar minimum values are needed ,to have a significant impact on the climate. Values which have not been attained on a long enough, consistent basis, since the Dalton Minimum. In addition to not having enough years of sub-solar activity in general proceeding those values.
It seems very clear to me, but hey what do I know. I say the sun is like gasoline to a car ,when it comes to the climate. It drives the climate ,therefore any changes with the sun in regards to the solar wind,uv light emissions, or the solar effect on geomagnetic conditons here on earth, must have animpact on the climate if certain threshold values are attained for a long enough period of time ,following a period of time of sub-solar activity in general.
How this can be matched up against a trace gas with a trace increase is beyond me, especially when all of the things that were supppose to take place according to the models (which I posted earlier) have never happened. If anything the opposite of the basic assumptions the models made ,has taken place.
Al I can say is I think I am going to have my day in the sun, when it comes to this climate debate. I am very confident in my positions.
clarification of table
did not come out good
1900-1920 average aa index 14 ,we use 0 deviation for 1910 average temp.
1980-1996 average aa index 27 (much much higher )+.6c temp .deviation from 1910 avg. temp.
Maunder Minimum., average aa index around 6 (much much lower -.6c deviation from average 1910 temp.
The ap index is being used now ,do you know, probably not that anything over 7 or 8 is active, even though the scale goes from 0 to 400!
A GEOMAGNETIC STORM IS CONSIDERED AT AP VALUE OF ONLY 29!
You need ap sustained values sub 5, to have an impact! This can’t be appreciated and is not even known in the climate world to begin with. These value have hardly been attained(only during 2009-2010 recently,but not enough years of sub-solar activity prior) since the Dalton Minimum, so how in the heck can one say the sun is not the cause when the values have yet to be reached that are needed to see if the sun has an effect or not. My way of thinking is new,innovative , and not old school. This is all going to be public soon, in the very near future. These our the conclusions of my me and my company.
We will get credit ,if correct that is for sure.
The big news is these values are very likely to be reached post 2014, and should be sustained , and we will find out who is correct and who is not correct,once this takes place,once and for all. I plan on being right.
Somebody is evenually going to be correct. I say we will find out one way or the other long before this decade ends.
Unlike the AGW crowd I will not spin to make it appear I am right ,(even when I know I am wrong)which is what they have been doing for years.
I say they have been proven wrong already, but the spin is keeping them alive for now.
Then there is that elusive issue always completly ignored, abrupt climate change.I will end with that.
…the spin is keeping [warmists] alive for now.
Yes, it reminds me of an earlier little spat. In the
19th Century some scientists insisted for theoretical
reasons that the air at the poles was CYCLONIC. When
people actually got there and found that it was ANTICYCLONIC
these diehard scientists came up with the argument that perhaps it was anticyclonic near the ground but it was properly cyclonic up above! Where, of course, the early explorers were remiss in not going. It wasn’t until
aeroplanes flew there that they finally shut up.
Oh my goodness! an incredible article dude. Thank you Nevertheless I’m experiencing concern with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody getting an identical rss downside? Anyone who knows kindly respond. Thnkx
Excellent article. I will be experiencing many of these issues as well…
I am so amaze by how this article was written wit full of insights. It is full of information and I have gain more knowledge because of this, thanks for sharing a wonderful article.
https://emergencyplumberchatswood.net.au/emergency-plumber-chatswood/
Good post, if you need junk removal call us
First of all I want to say awesome blog!
I had a quick question that I’d like to ask if you don’t mind.
I was interested to find out how you center yourself
and clear your mind before writing. I have had a difficult
time clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out.
I truly do enjoy writing but it just seems like the first 10 to
15 minutes are usually lost simply just trying to figure out how to
begin. Any recommendations or tips? Thank you!
Thanks in favor of sharing such a nice thinking,
paragraph is good, thats why i have read it entirely
Heya i am for the first time here. I came across this board and I find It really useful
& it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and help others like you aided me.