Home/BlogAfter my extended trip to the West Coast, I am finally posting the global temperature update (sorry for the delay).
Our Version 5.5 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2012 is +0.28 deg. C (click for large version):
The hemispheric and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for 2012 are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2012 1 -0.134 -0.065 -0.203 -0.256
2012 2 -0.135 +0.018 -0.289 -0.320
2012 3 +0.051 +0.119 -0.017 -0.238
2012 4 +0.232 +0.351 +0.114 -0.242
2012 5 +0.179 +0.337 +0.021 -0.098
2012 6 +0.235 +0.370 +0.101 -0.019
2012 7 +0.130 +0.256 +0.003 +0.142
2012 8 +0.208 +0.214 +0.202 +0.062
2012 9 +0.339 +0.350 +0.327 +0.153
2012 10 +0.333 +0.306 +0.361 +0.109
2012 11 +0.281 +0.301 +0.262 +0.172
We were worried something had happend to you. I am glad you are fine.
2012 in Perspective so far on Six Data Sets
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.
With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for October at 0.486, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.217 + 0.193 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477 + 0.448 + 0.512+ 0.515 + 0.486)/10 = 0.411. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
With the sea surface anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for October at 0.518, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.288 + 0.209 + 0.339 + 0.526 + 0.531 + 0.501 + 0.469 + 0.529 + 0.516 + 0.518)/10 = 0.443. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The 2011 anomaly at 0.399 puts 2011 in 12th place and the 2008 anomaly of 0.383 puts 2008 in 14th place.
On all six of the above data sets, a record is out of reach.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months. NOTE: WFT is down at the moment so I can only give you the latest I have.
1. UAH: since September 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to October)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November) But see * below.
RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 11 months (goes to October.)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.1/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.66/trend
*In light of the importance of the 16 years lately, I would like to elaborate on RSS. If you hate nit picky stuff, just ignore this part. The slope for 15 years and 11 months from January 1997 on RSS is -4.1 x 10^-4. But the slope for 16 years and 0 months from December 1996 is +1.3 x 10^-4. So since the magnitude of the negative slope since January 1997 is 3 times than the magnitude of the positive slope since December 1996, I believe I can say that since a quarter of the way through December 1996, in other words from December 8, 1996 to December 7, 2012, the slope is 0. This is 16 years.
Werner,
I was curious where your obsession with “Santer’s 17 years” comes from. I am guessing it comes from this paper.
“Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale” by Santer, et. al.
Have you read the paper? You might be disappointed if you are able to understand it.
The “17 years” appears in only one paragraph which I will paste here
“On timescales longer than 17 years, the average trends in RSS and UAH near-global TLT data consistently exceed 95% of the unforced trends in the CMIP-3 control runs (Figure 6d), clearly indicating that the observed multi-decadal warming of the lower troposphere is too large to be explained by model estimates of natural internal variability. This conclusion is dependent on the fidelity with which models simulate the amplitude of observed climate noise, particularly on multi-decadal timescales – an issue that we explore later in Section 6.”
Werner, this is a statistical statement about how often linear trends from the observed data are higher than the trends coming from a computational model with CO2 forcing removed.
Two key points:
1. It is a %95 confidence interval meaning %5 of the linear trends were not different.
2. It is a statement about comparing observations to models.
So I am not sure what you are trying to prove with your cherry picking of linear trends. Even if you (mis)interpret Santer’s analysis to give special meaning to 17 year linear fits of observed data, Santer is still saying that %5 of the time the trends are outliers. In fact, you are sort of proving his point.
Also, I am not sure you have thought carefully about the future of your hobby. What do you think the linear trend from Oct 1998 to Oct 2015 is going to be? To put it in your terms, the UAH trend is now 0.15/decade over the last 13 years and 8 months (%80 of the way to Santer’s 17 years).
You have shed a ray of snusnhie into the forum. Thanks!
ANOTHER MONTH MORE OF THE SAME.
This is good for those of us who feel there is a greenhouse effect, but it is limited. My opinion.
All I know is one cannot make a climate forecast(although those like Doug Cotton have tried ) if one does not consider the atmospheric composition makeup, the surface and atmospheric albedo,solar insolation changes, and all of the secondary,and direct feedbacks associated with those items.
That is the basis for making a climate prediction.
I believe in a limited greenhouse effect, which is limited due to the fact greenhouse gases are either absorbing near saturation levels(co2),or cannot increase there concentration levels from where they are for the most part(water vapor) due to the present amounts of total energy in earth’s climatic system, which if anything should be on the decline going forward, which will in turn limit the greenhouse gas roles even more. As oppossed to increasing their roles, if energy levels were to increase,which they are not,due to the prolong solar minimum. Also the the lack of any strong positive feedbacks between co2 and water vapor, also limits the greenhouse gas effects.
I say solar will rule this decade and beyond, as the accumulation of sub solar years now going on 8 years increases, and solar values,once this weak maximum of solar cycle 24 passes on by ,go back and stay at very very low levels.
solar flux sub 72
ap index sub 5
solar wind sub 350 km/sec
One has to realize the last time this happened was during the Dalton Solar Minimum, so to conclude solar conditions are not going to effect the climate is very premature at this stage, since we have not had the solar setup in place long enough and to a degree of magnitude quiet enough to effect the climate, since the Dalton Minimum ended in 1820.
This however ,will all come about as this decade proceeds and the prolong solar minimum(the first one since the Dalton, which began in late 2005 )continues on.
It is still obvious that the 13-month running average has been declining since 1998. This is totally as would be expected due to a roughly sinusoidal superimposed 60 year natural cycle, for which there is now compelling evidence. See for example, the linked references to such in my current paper about planetary surface temperatures, which is on the PROM* system at PSI for a month or so.
When you remove the effect of the 60 year cycle (with, for example, a trend for a 60 year running average) you get down to analysing the underlying long term trend which has periodicity of about 1,000 years, maybe a bit longer. This was the cause of fairly regular warming periods observed for at least the last 7,000 years, the most recent being the Roman and the Medieval W.P. which have both now been confirmed to have been worldwide and at similar temperatures to the present.
There is however still a slight incline in this long term natural cycle. About 100 years ago the mean rate of increase was around 0.06 C/decade, whereas in recent times it has declined, but only to about 0.05 C/decade. If it is also roughly sinusoidal we should see a maximum in about 200 years, probably less than 0.8 degree above the current trend. But of course, after that there would be 500 to 600 years of long term cooling, even though the superimposed 60 year cycle will continue to cause some alarm each time it rises for 30 years, as happened from around 1970.
Again, there is now compelling evidence that these natural cycles are the only “forcing” for our climate. There are links to evidence in my paper, and even to some evidence that the cycles are in some way controlled by planetary orbits, which makes sense because such orbits are the only “timing mechanisms” of such long duration in our solar system.
The reasons why carbon dioxide has no effect are explained in a radically new way in my paper. Nowhere else have I seen the hypothesis which brings together evidence from different sources into what I consider a cogent argument for a completely different explanation of planetary surface temperatures, not to be found elsewhere to the best of my knowledge. Yes, parts of the explanation are elsewhere, but it has not hitherto been coordinated to give an explanation based on correct physics.
For example, I contend that there is no other valid explanation for the surface temperature on the planet Venus. That surface receives less than 10% of the amount of Solar radiation which we receive on Earth’s surface. It’s not correct to assume that the CO2 atmosphere caused a massive GHE, because the surface could not have been heated in the first place to over 700K with so little energy being received through the thick and dense atmosphere. Nor was it heated by radiation from what is still an atmosphere that is at much lower temperatures, less than 230K at an altitude of 50Km, for example.
Until people come to grips with what I believe to be the correct physical mechanism which produced (and maintains) the temperature of the Venus surface, they will never correctly understand what is the same process working on Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – all the planets in our solar system with qualifying atmospheres.
As I have said, the paper is up for worldwide open review on the PROM* system at Principia Scientific International. It has already been reviewed by several of our 150 members, but if you wish to submit any comments, criticism, rebuttal or support, you may do so through our CEO John O’Sullivan or our Chairman, Dr Timothy Ball, a retired professor of climatology. You may also contact me via the email address on my website which opens when you click my name above.
However, I will only respond to those who have clearly read and understood the whole paper, whether or not they agree with the conclusions reached.
(*Peer Review in Open Media.)
Doug ,you do not know what you are talking about. Anotherwords you are clueless.
Tony M your post yesterday number 559 needs to be posted again. That was so excellent.
Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
I have updated your November graph in my web pages.
Merry Christmas!
Dr. Spencer, please update http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Hi Roy,
Glad you’re back. Some of us worried you or a family member may have fallen ill or something.
This was such a nice place to visit…until it got hijacked by a few long winded guys that basically keep saying the same thing. Please stop. You know who you are.
Sigh
Dr. Spencer, if I extract the data for 2009 and 2012 from http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt, I get the following:
1st November 252.555 252.774
2nd November 252.563 252.741
3rd November 252.584 252.723
4th November 252.603 252.666
5th November 252.601 252.645
6th November 252.605 252.593
7th November 252.591 252.604
8th November 252.562 252.615
9th November 252.531 252.65
10th November 252.506 252.687
11th November 252.539 252.695
12th November 252.531 252.787
13th November 252.527 252.803
14th November 252.466 252.842
15th November 252.465 252.778
16th November 252.445 252.712
17th November 252.452 252.639
18th November 252.433 252.554
19th November 252.435 252.522
20th November 252.488 252.468
21st November 252.529 252.433
22nd November 252.589 252.386
23rd November 252.604 252.351
24th November 252.623 252.346
25th November 252.604 252.327
26th November 252.557 252.323
27th November 252.502 252.326
28th November 252.438 252.334
29th November 252.403 252.333
30th November 252.378 252.326
Mean 252.523 252.592
Anomaly 0.405 0.281
I don’t understand how November 2012 can have a higher mean temperature than November 2009, yet a (much) smaller anomaly.
If you plot the graphs of daily data for 2009 and 2012 you can see that they are very close.
Does the data published on the discover website have any relation at all to your v5.5 temperature data set?
Based on this simple analysis, it would seem that it does not.
What other data do you use to compute your monthly anomaly?
@ Paul
A few months ago Dr Spencer wrote a post stating that the Aqua platform had developed a warming bias due to orbital drift, and had been adjusting downwards in reference to other sources. I believe that data has been adjusted back to some point 2010.
Using the discover website I calculate a RAW anomaly of .49, from the average difference between nov ’11 and nov ’12 of .36 added to the nov ’11 anomaly of .13 (pre-adjustment figure, the daily curves are unadjusted).
This consistent with your absolute temperature data, and implies a down adjustment of ~ .21, in line with the stated error. Whether the error itself is accurate I can’t say.
It should be noted that late ’09 period saw El Nino conditions active in the pacific, were as nov ’12 gave neutral/slightly positive SOI values – http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml –
This factor alone probably accounts for more than .1 of a degree difference in global temperature.
I would love some Global warming in the UK, we haven’t had a decent winter since 2006. The year before last was one of the coldest winters I remember and I was born in 64. Last year Europe suffered a shocking winter, if it had been 200 miles to the west, the UK would have suffered two horrendous winters on the trot. I don’t believe that the temperature of the earth is being measured that accurately.
Paul, Discover website shows Aqua data. V5.5 excludes this. See 5 Oct post which says:
“As 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).”
[PDF]
Av Monthly EUV .1-50 nm Flux Emissions – International Actuarial …
http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
Feb 29, 2012 – The US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has been providing data on EUV emissions of the Sun since
This is a great paper and explains all the secondary effects associated with solar changes, and it does support a limited greenhouse effect.
A great read.
The sun – still slumping | Watts Up With That?
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/03/the-sun-still-slumping/
Sep 3, 2012 – The latest solar cycle update graphs have been released by the NOAA SWPC … The Livingston and Penn plot continues its downward slide: …
As a complete and utter layman in regards to climate science and statistics, can someone please summarize -in one or 2 sentences- what Dr. Spencer’s data shows?
Is the Earth getting warmer or not ? (regardless of the possible causes)
This is NOT meant to start a flame war or heated debate or devolve into long-winded orations on solar cycles et al…
I have tried to wade through all the data sets…and the long winded orations…only to be left completely confused. To which I take full responsibility 🙂
Thor, My guess. The world has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA. There is no sign that this trend has ceased.
Thor – your answer is just above ….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/12/uah-v5-5-global-temperature-update-for-november-2012-0-28-deg-c/#comment-66945
I computed all the 17 year linear trends possible from the beginning of the UAH temperatures. There are 204 such fits with a max of 0.25/decade and a min of 0.015/decade. The mean slope is 0.17/decade with standard deviation 0.063. From this, a 95% confidence interval on 17 year trends is about [-0.017, 0.36]/decade. But the data is not particularly Gaussian, so this confidence interval is another example (among many) of misguided statistics. But even this muddled analysis supports Santer’s 17 year 95% confidence interval.
Interestingly, the min occurs from 1979-1986 which is due largely to the big cooling at the end of that period from the eruption of Pinatubo. The fit for the last 17 years is 0.124/decade. So Werner should be “arguing” that global warming “stopped” in 1979, then “started” again later.
If you go to a 20 year time window, the mean is 0.17/decade with a std of 0.035. The max and min are 0.23 and 0.102 with the last 20 years having trend 0.125.
Thor:
If you ask what Dr. Spencer’s data shows, it shows a long term warming trend of about 0.14 degrees per decade over a 33 year period. That trend is obscured by large yearly variations in temperature caused by El Nino (warmer) and La Nina (cooler) years.
It also shows that 1998 was an extremely warm year due to the biggest El Nino since records began. 2010 was the second warmest even though the El Nino that year was much weaker. A common argument is that warming has stopped or slowed because relative to 1998 the current temperature is cooler. Another argument is the warming demonstrated by Dr. Spencer’s data is just part of longer term natural variability that cannot be supported from only looking at the past 33 years.
If you read Dr. Spencer’s own posts and skip the comments from the peanut gallery, he argues that the rate of warming in his own data will not increase in the future as the IPCC claims it will.
I agree that it is difficult to find informed opinions on the data from reading web blogs.
Lucy Pinaterrio says:
December 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM
David Smiths says:
December 13, 2012 at 3:16 PM
The statement about the 17 years is in this article:
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
“They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
I see no mention of 95% here although it may be in a different context. My interpretation is that if the troposphere goes 17 years with a slope of 0, then you cannot blame noise but you have to accept that CO2 is just not the driver some people assumed it was.
In my opinion, this interpretation of the comment by Santer is completely in line with the statement by NOAA:
PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
I just commented with respect to RSS. I know that the 94% does NOT apply to UAH, however that may change when version6 comes out.
I am not making any comment about what happened before the linear trend began. The bottom line for me is this:
1. Look at NOAA’s statement.
2. Look at Santer’s statement.
3. Look at what RSS has done over the last 16 years.
My conclusion is that CAGW is on very shaky ground. While it may not have been disproved 100%, I do not think we should spend billions on carbon capture, etc for something that may not be a problem.
By the way, even UAH shows no significant warming since 1995 or almost 18 years. For UAH, we get 0.123 +/- 0.190 from 1995 to date.
So as I guessed, you didn’t read the paper, and you didn’t understand it. The paragraph I pasted is the only discussion in the whole paper by Santer that your press release discusses, and the paper clearly states that they are dealing with 95% confidence. That means about 1 year in twenty you should find an outlier. You haven’t found one yet, but perhaps one is coming soon.
David
Unless you go back to at least around the year 1900, you have no hope of eliminating the effect of the 60 year natural cycle, which is superimposed on a longer cycle of about 1,000 years or more. See this comment above and the plot and comment at the foot of my Home page.
Sorry that “Home page” link didn’t work, but you can click my name. A better discussion is in the Appendix of my March 2012 paper here.
Thor,
As one layman to another (although I have studied a heck of a lot on the subject in the last five years), this is my response to your question:
As Jim Cripwell has already said, the world has warmed since the start of ‘accurate data’ (IPCC) in 1850. To prove his point, see this link:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:2012
It shows a staggered warming of about 0.9 deg C since 1850.
It also shows no warming since 1998. The temperature has flattened since then according to this dataset (HadCRUt3). Why use this dataset? Because it starts in 1850 and is the longest running global record. The longest running regional record is from Central England and goes back to 1650. That one shows a warming of about 1.2C since 1650.
So it depends on what scale you want to use. The world is not currently (14 years) warming, but has (162 years) warmed.
Hope this helps.
ps, Before anyone else chips in, you can find other (shorter) datasets. Some show that 1998 is not the warmest year. However, the satellite datasets agree with this one!
Regards,
Arfur
Thor, the world was geting warmer from 1850, just after the end of the Dalton Solar Minimum, until around year 2000, due to solar activity being in a very high state, and the associated secondary effects from this high solar activity all causing the earth to warm.
That started to change in Oct.of 2005, when the sun went from a very high state of activity prior to that date to a very quiet state post that date, which should last until 2030 or beyond.
This prolong solar minimum and all it’s secondary effects, should start the temperature trend on the decline probably no later then year 2014, once the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 is behind us.
The atmospheric circulation as a result of very low solar activity will continue to be more meridional, volcanic activity will likely increase, cosmic rays will likley increase, which will all conspire to increase earth’s albedo , due to greater snow cover, more clouds, and more precipitation which will hence promote lower temperatures.
Co2 effects and water vapor effects probably becoming less due to the total energy in earth’s climatic system declining. So the warming effects from these two greenhousee gases will not be as great going forward.
Another factor holding up temperatures is the ocean heat content that has accumulated due to the very high solar activity last century ,but that should decline in response to the prolong solar minimum.
There really are no climate cycles, unless you are in a particular climate regime. I think due to the prolong solar minimum and all it’s associated effects we are currently in a transition which probably statred in earnest around 2008 into a climate regime which will bring us back to conditions which were present during the Dalon Minimum.Years 1790-1820.
So as this decade goes on extremes in the climate should continue to increase if not persistence in the climate due to the more moeridional atm. circulation, geological activity should increase which will aid in the cooling, and the temperature trend should be down.Again due to the prolong solar minimum and all of it’s secondary effects.
My post Dec. 13 at 09:26, over this web-site has a great study that explains much of my position and others who think solar drives the climate for the most part.
Thor you should read it, it is quite good.
The Realists Take on Climate Change
Sorted by: Date Posted | Views
view news archive
HEADLINE STORY JAMES DELINGPOLE
James Delingpole: Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up
Thursday, December 13th 2012, 6:31 PM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC’s latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in “climate change” than the scientific “consensus” has previously been prepared to concede.
Here’s the killer admission:
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.
As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer:
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
Over to you greentards. I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it’s business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme.
Source Link: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole
Tweet Article Post to Facebook Print Article
views 76 | comments 0
SOLAR CLIMATE CHANGE
Solar Climate Change: Cyclone “Evan” Intensifying over Samoan Islands in R4 period
Thursday, December 13th 2012, 6:12 PM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
And before this decade ends the man made global warming theory will be dead.
Thanks everyone for your replies- they helped a great deal
Now…about the causes…
Just kidding 🙂
thanks again!
Arfur (and others)
Yes, your “0.9 deg C since 1850” is in keeping with my estimated rate of about 0.06 C/decade a hundred years ago, decreasing to 0.05 C/decade in recent times. This has been at the foot of my Home page for a year or so, and in the Appendix of my March 2012 paper.
It’s good to see someone else agree with me!.
But this is just the underlying long-term ~1,000 to ~1200 year cycle which varies by about 3 degrees between maxima and minima every 500 to 600 years. I estimate it has at the most another 200 years before the next maximum, as in this comment above, but the rate of increase is declining and might only average about 0.03 C/decade in that period until it goes negative after that for 500 to 600 years. So that would be at most 0.6 C in the next 200 years in the long term trend, but let’s say 0.8 C because of the superimposed 60 year cycle. Nothing much to worry about and nothing we can do about it.
Thor
Why Now…about the causes… Just kidding ?
There are cogent reasons backed up by empirical evidence in my new paper and the cited documents therein. It’s only seven pages, so won’t take long to read in the PROM menu at Principia Scientific International. If the link doesn’t work, just Google “Planetary Surface Temperatures A Discussion of ALternative Mechanisms”
Thanks for your answers. I was aware of the Aqua drift issue but I presumed that the data published and plotted on the discover website was already sourced from the NOAA satellites.
I hope that more data from the NOAA 18/19 observations will be published soon.
Doug,
Do you know the history of Copernicus? His detractors argued that his radical new theory about the Sun being the center of the solar system was wrong by adding ever more epicycles to explain the observed motions of the planets. They were wrong of course, but if they had understood what we now call Fourier analysis, they could have come up with enough epicycles to match the observations exactly without throwing out their earth-centric view.
So you can add all the cycles you want to match the temperature data. I will stick with physics.
And yes, I have read your paper. It detracts from the sum of human knowledge.
D Chaine
Maybe you need to read Dr Scafetta’s new paper about Solar influence on climate which has been just published December 13 – click here. Other papers in well known journals are also linked in my paper, supporting the information about natural cycles, so perhaps you need to catch up on your reading with an open mind – but not to do so is your prerogative.
I too will stick with physics, in which I have had about 50 years’ experience – plus some mathematical statistics.
If and when you comment on the physics and/or trend analysis which is actually that published in either of my papers, rather than what you think I may have said, then I am more than happy to respond scientifically.
My latest paper is still open to peer review in open media, so you are very welcome to submit a rebuttal to our CEO John O’Sullivan or Chairman, Dr Timothy Ball, retired professor of climatology. Contact details are on the Principia Scientific International website, where you may also read the bibliographies of some of our 150 or so members here.
typo – “biographies”
PS Maybe you missed reading one of the cited papers in my current paper on Planetary Surface Temperatures …
Here’s a full link …
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648
Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 296–311
I quote from the abstract …
“The major beat periods occur at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years.“
PS
A little more about Dr Timothy Ball …
I quote from this article …
The court case brought by Dr. Mann against his most outspoken critic, Dr. Timothy Ball, appears to have collapsed. Mann simply failed to provide the data on which his whole hockey stick graph is supposed to rest. As a result, Mann, and potentially others like him, may be facing counter-suits and potentially substantial damage awards, possibly even punitive actions as well. PSU may not be pleased. They could be on the hook for millions. Stay tuned.
The take-home message here is simple.
Don’t fall for media hype, awards, or scientific concepts or models with claims like “the majority of scientists believe” as their justification. “Consensus” does not exist in science – but facts do. Computer models can provide great inside knowledge – or can be utterly wrong, the latter for sure if the data behind it are “cooked.”
Dr. Scafetta, believes in a strong greenhouse effect Doug.
Maybe you need to read his papers.
Dr.Scaffeta has it backwords in that during low solar activity the temp. gradient between the poles and equator decreases, giving rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation, as can be seen by looking at the ao/nao index values during times of high solar activity, versus times of low solar activity.
I think he is forgetting about all the secondary solar effects, he needs to read that paper I put on this web-site yesterday, which examines all the effects solar conditions have on the climate.
When the atmospheric circulation is more meridional, this allows greater amounts cold air to flow from the poles to the equator, and greater amounts of warm air to flow from the equator toward the poles lessening the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator.
So he is wrong on that count.
Dr. Scaffeta keeps trying to say climate cycles, which is just a means, of avoiding the abrupt climate change issue and why the climate can switch from one regime to another,sometimes within decades, with cycles having nothing to do with it.
Climate cycles only work when in a partuclar climatic regime, such as the one we had been in from 1850-2005. I say 2005 because I think we are in the process of entering another climate regime.
Finally if you look at Dr. Scaffeta’s temperature forecast going forward, you will see that the decline he forecast in temperatures is very very slight, because although he believes in the solar influences upon the climate, he also thinks the greenhouse gas effect will largly nullify the effects of low solar activity going forward.
He has mentioned this in previous papers he has published. I even had a discussion with him about this on one of the message boards a while back.
So we have yet another opinion, completly different then mine, Doug’s ,or the man made global warming community, or Dr. Spencer for that matter, or the dozens and dozens of other opinions.
I say go with what you feel is correct and time will tell who is most correct and the least correct. I say most correct, because I doubt if anyone has this 100%.
May I suggest to Doug and Salvatore that they get a room somewhere. Or at least move this continuation of the same conversation to Doug’s website before it goes any further here.
Thanks Doug for putting Dr. Scaffeta’s latest wrong thoughts being made available.
Like you , he is also wrong on almost everything.
John, how could it possibly upset you? How could anything as insiginifcant as this upset you? Get a life.
I want different opinions. I am glad Doug has posted everything that he has. I want to hear all sides of this argument, and I like hearing view points which are much different then mine.
That is how you learn
The pugnacious and repetitive nature of the conversation between you and Doug suggests you, Salvatore, have not learned anything from the repartee but only to tell Doug he is wrong. My preference would be you tell him he is wrong on his Web Site instead of co-opting Dr. Spencer’s. However, it is an open board and my preference means little.
Lucy says:
December 13, 2012 at 9:37 PM
If that is the case, then it seems to me that NOAA had a goal post at the 95% level at 15 years and Santer moved the goal post to 17 years at the 95% confidence level. Three data sets have now gone over 15 years with a slope of 0:
1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since December 8, 1996 or 16 years
So however you look at it, the theory of CAGW does not seem to be on solid ground. Things like the ocean oscillations and the sun are much larger drivers of climate than CO2.
John I think we learned much. I was not the only one that was responding to Doug, many others were going back and forth with him also. I gleamed much from them, which would not have happened if Doug,was not the way he is.
Nothing against Doug, personally.
Basically I am more interested in demonstrating why carbon dioxide has no warming effect, and I believe I have done that in my new paper in a radically different way that has nothing to do with convection rates or the amount of energy transferred by radiation from the surface. I came to the conclusion for the reasons explained clearly in the paper. There has been one final update to a couple of paragraphs in the last 12 hours, and I am happy now that the argument is cogent.
I don’t really want to get into discussions about the details of Scafetta’s paper. I’m sure the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics would consider a rebuttal paper from anyone. Personally I had come to the conclusion about two years ago that planetary orbits affect solar radiation in some way, possibly through their magnetic or gravitational fields, and that variations in solar radiation and cosmic rays then somehow affect Earth’s climate.
I am convinced that the limited absorption and radiation by carbon dioxide in the 15 micron band can have absolutely no net warming effect on Earth’s surface, whilst its absorption in the 2 micron band has a minor cooling effect. If water vapour does anything, it increases the mean specific heat, thus reducing the lapse rate and so also reducing the surface temperature, as you will understand after reading my paper.
I don’t conduct blog comments on my website which is not set up that way, but you are welcome to email me at the address therein. At this stage I am seeking any valid point by point criticism or correction for my latest paper Planetary Surface Temperatures A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms which is still on the PROM (Peer Review in Open Media) system. So far I have had nothing but good comments about it from those who have emailed me.
I’m sorry if I have bothered some people who obviously do not wish to have their thoughts on these issues challenged. But my motive in drawing attention to my paper on about a dozen climate blogs such as Roy’s, is a genuine attempt to seek out any valid rebuttal before it goes on the main publications menu at PSI and is more widely promoted. In short, I want to get it right – in the interests of science and humanity.
You may wish to download the leaked IPCC report after reading this article.
My comments continue on the next thread here.
Doug Cotton says, December 12, 2012 at 3:50 PM, in part:
>It is still obvious that the 13-month running average
>has been declining since 1998. This is totally as would
>be expected due to a roughly sinusoidal superimposed 60
>year natural cycle, for which there is now compelling >evidence.
I have tried on my own to discern this cycle by trying
several 2-cycle Fourier runs on HadCRUT3. I trust HadCRUT3 better than GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 because of better resemblance to UAH and RSS.
What I came up with: A 64 year cycle with peak-to-peak amplitude of .217 degree C, and most recent peak in 2005.
I first reported this finding of mine in a 12/18/2010
Usenet article with message ID of
Smoothed HadCRUT3 peaked at 2004-2005.
Donald. It is possible that the “60 year” cycle is more like 61 years and “slipping” a bit from the often quoted 1880, 1940, 2000 approximate maxima in the trend. One recent paper spoke of minima around 1910 and 1970, but then their models predicted 2035 as the next minimum though these years seem to be rounded to multiples of 5.
Roy’s previously published curved trends showed a maximum around 2007 or 2008, and I agree that there is very little difference between current temperatures and those 15 years ago, so that implies a maximum in the trend around 2005.
Ref [9] in my new paper is interesting, pointing out other minor cycles, which, in combination make it a bit more complex than I usually describe it. I am aware of these complications, but try to make it easier to understand in broad concept. The exact length of the cycles is not as critical as the very fact that natural cycles do exist.
Here’s an excerpt from the Abstract of that paper …
A simplified harmonic constituent model based on the above two planetary tidal frequencies and on the exact dates of Jupiter and Saturn planetary tidal phases, plus a theoretically deduced 10.87-year central cycle reveals complex quasi-periodic interference/beat patterns. The major beat periods occur at about 115, 61 and 130 years, plus a quasi-millennial large beat cycle around 983 years.
Doug and Donald,
You might like to compare your figures with this one from ‘climate4you’:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20100yearTrendAnalysis.gif
Pretty close on the polynomial fit.
Ole Humlum recently changed to HadCRUt4. Possibly to show that even with the ‘manipulations’ the big picture is still much the same…
Arfur
Arfur and others:
That plot which you linked gives the impression of a rate of increase of about 0.075C/decade whereas my calculations more accurately eliminate the effect of the 60 year cycle, and are 0.06C/decade a hundred years ago, decreasing to 0.05C/decade in recent times.
If you look closely, they cherry picked the bottom of the 60 year cycle (around 1910) as a starting point, ending in current times when we have just passed a maximum in the 60 year cycle – what I would call extreme cherry picking. (Those who missed my earlier post can refer to the Appendix of my paper here.)
Doug,
Don’t get too alarmed at the implication of cherry-picking. Ole Humlum’ site is probably the most objective site around. There is so much ‘just data’ and it is all linked to source. If you read his reflections, you will see he tends toward the sceptical side but he is, at all times, fair. I suspect the 100 year trend was just picked to be a round number; there are other graphs and charts on the site which show the smaller, larger and overall pictures. Your calculations are reflected on his site.
Yes, but to remove the effect of a 60 year cycle you need multiples of 60, and can really only work with 120 years for any worldwide data. There are some records for some islands that go back much further – see http://climate-change-theory.com and they give some indication because they reflect ocean temperatures from currents which flow over most of the globe.
Doug,
I understand all that, and you are not wrong. I was just pointing out that the idea of demonstrating a 60-year cycle may not have been uppermost in his mind when he plotted the graph.
Personally, I feel that any graph which is contracted suffers from the accusation of ‘cherry-picking’ by someone, so the entire graph should always be used, as long as it is from only one dataset.
Regards,
Can we bring this discussion back to chaos in the temperature record?
Has anyone read the section in Nate Silvers book “The Signal and the Noise” which features Gavin and short-term global warming trends. The book is about Bayesian probability, and treats short-run additional information as a sample which might adjust prior probabilities, established over a long run.
They discuss decadal temperature increases, and Gavin asserts his 100% confidence in AGW, insisting that each successive decadal mean temperature will be higher than its predecessor.
Nate comments “if temperature changes are purely random and unpredictable, the chance of a cooling decade would be 50%, since an increase and a decrease in temperatures are equally likely”.
This suggests a good method of testing AGW, but where could we find enough decades to test the idea? The Central England Temperature record covers 34 decades, from the end of the first decade in 1679. Though geographically limited, the weather is well mixed and might be a better test than the Central Park records, which Nate quotes.
The results are illuminating, at least from my sceptical point-of-view.
The first 22 decades, to 1889, show 10 warming and 12 cooling decades, randomly scattered, with negligible overall change.
The next 6 decades to 1949 are all warming as temperatures (IMO) climb out of the Little Ice Age, from about 9.1 to 9.6 degreesC.
For the last 6 decades, to 2009, we are looking for the impact (or non-impact) of exponentially increasing CO2.
There are 3 warming decades and 3 cooling decades.
Now, admittedly, the temperature increases in the last two decades were significantly greater than any previous, taking the decadal averages above 10 degrees for the first time. The average temperature in the decade ending 2009 was 10.4 degrees C.
Equally, the first three years of the current decade are cooling. Are Gavin’s odds (of 100 to 1 against a cooling decade to 2019 still available, I wonder?
Fred,
I agree. Looking at the data, 2012 is likely to end up with an average of 9.7C (assuming 6C for Dec…), which is a whole degree C lower than 2011…
Since 1974, the CET data has been adjusted for UHI. I wonder if they are adjusting correctly but, either way, the temperatures have been pretty varied recently.
9.7C is less than 1C above the temperature in 1659!
we prefer to honor numerous other web sites around the web, even though they arent linked to us, by linking to them. Below are some webpages worth checking out.