Home/BlogThe Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2014 is +0.17 deg. C, unchanged from February (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 15 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2013 1 +0.497 +0.517 +0.478 +0.386
2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195
2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243
2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 5 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 6 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220
2013 7 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074
2013 8 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009
2013 9 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.190
2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.249 +0.031
2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020
2013 12 +0.266 +0.272 +0.260 +0.057
2014 1 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.029
2014 2 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103
2014 3 +0.170 +0.337 +0.002 -0.002
Potential 2014-15 El Nino Discussion
With the possibility of an El Nino developing later this year (still considered a 50% probability in the latest Climate Prediction Center discussion), there is the possibility of a new record high global temperature if the El Nino is sufficiently strong enough. I personally don’t think this is going to happen, because we are in the negative phase of the PDO (which favors stronger La Nina and weaker El Nino).
If El Nino does develop, peak tropospheric warmth as measured by the satellites tends to lag the surface warming. John Christy sent me this summary of past El Ninos during the satellite record:
82-83 peaked in Mar
86-87 peaked in Feb (86-88 was a weird one)
87-88 peaked in Dec
91-92 fouled up by Pinatubo
94-95 peaked in Apr
97-98 peaked in Apr (just above Feb)
02-03 peaked in Jan
04-05 peaked in Apr
06-07 peaked in Jan
09-10 peaked in Mar
Of course, an El Nino at the end of the record will increase the global temperature trend…at least temporarily…but El Nino is often followed by a cool La Nina, which would basically cancel out that effect.
The global image for March should be available in the next day or so here.
Popular monthly data files (these might take a few days to update):
uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)
uahncdc_mt_5.6.txt (Mid-Troposphere)
uahncdc_ls_5.6.txt (Lower Stratosphere)
If El Nino is strong and global temperatures rise in response this unfortunately is going to keep AGW theory going.
They will jump on anything to promote their theory. Even something that has no connection to their theory in any shape,manner or form.
That of course being an El Nino event which will likely cause global temperatures to rise but has absolutely nothing to do with AGW theory.
If anything the El NINO/WARMING correlation shows it is natural variability that governs global temperatures.
Salvaore: If you are going to correct for El Ninos, you need to do the same for La Ninas.
When you correct for both, and for volcanoes and solar variability, there is a strong underlying warming trend of 0.14-0.18 C/decade (=AGW):
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
Grant Foster1 and Stefan Rahmstorf
Environmental Research Letters Volume 6 Number 4 (2011)
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Wait, David, is this the same Rahmstorf who’s work on sea level rise has been completely discredited? And we’re supposed to place our trust in this? I’ll be honest, I don’t feel like picking through all his math, but I have to raise an eyebrow ……
Discredited where?
Its a pretty pointless paper – and if it was paid for by taxpayers – it would be pretty disappointing – only covering around 30 years – which as most people would admit mostly covers only one phase of the PDO. I ran the same thing but using different proxies and I could duplicate the results over the last 30 years, but if you go back further than that (using different proxies) the result isn’t nearly so nice. If this is typical of the standard of peer reviewed papers in climate science we are wasting a lot of money.
Chris: Actually the PDO changed phases in the interval considered by Foster and Rahmstorf.
Chris actually less than a half of a phase of the PDO.
Correction, yes just one phase a bit less than one phase.
@Jake “Wait, David, is this the same Rahmstorf who’s work on sea level rise has been completely discredited?”
The same. Rahmstorf has confused infrared energy with heat. He has claimed that summing infrared energies is the same as summing heats which enables him to use the 1st law of thermodynamics to claim the 2nd law is not violated by a cooler atmosphere transferring heat to a warmer surface that warmed it.
Clausius, who wrote one part of the 2nd law, claimed that infrared can be exchanged between bodies but that heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body under ordinary means. Heat is the average kinetic energy when applied to a gas but IR is the natural EM emitted and absorbed by atomic structures.
You can’t add incoming and outgoing IR and claim it is heat transfer since heat transfers only in one direction. Obviously heat can be transferred in one direction by IR but something happens to prevent it transferring heat in the opposite direction.
In a debate with Lindzen, that Rahmstorf initiated, he got his butt kicked.
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2008/03/lindzen-vs-rahmstorf-exchange.html
Gordon: Your understanding of the second law is in error — it only applies to adiabatic systems, which the Earth most definitely is not.
The latest reading I have on the PDO was for Feb.15 which showed +.38
Which is warmish. Perhaps temporary.
The chart seems to show a much less volatile climate over the last 10 years. The fluctuations are much bigger before 2002 than after. I don’t know why or if it has any significance but it is becoming a clear pattern.
ßri.
Thanks, Dr. Spencer. Good information.
I have posted your new graph in my pages.
And the global temperature is standing still even more.
Standing still is great but even better would be a decline.
I think decline is in the offing once solar cycle 24 maximum ends. Of course you have ENSO which will obscure other climatic effects in the short run.
If an el Nino ensues, and the AGW cohort claim new warming, it will have been caused by NATURAL events and not anthropogenic. The argument is being undercut by the hiatus, and even future warming needs to be defined by its cause.
That’s a nearly untenable position for the AGW crowd. Of course it will not stop them, but their arguments will reach fewer and be more quickly discounted.
Thanks again Drs. Christy and Spencer.
CoRev,
I think you have it backwards. The “pause” in surface temperature increases was caused by an unusual string of El Nino years followed by an unusual string of La Nina years. The “pause” is natural variation, the long term trend is AGW.
Carson, why was it an unusual string of el nino years and an unusual string of la nina years? That implies there is, and that you know, the usual pattern. Can you please point that usual pattern/string out for us!? Why was it unusual? ONI data only goes back to 1950s, SOI longer, but still there’s nothing unusual about anything. There’s a clear 25 year cycle, linking each and every ENSO event. Beautiful.
What is the long term trend you refer too? Since 1850? Since mid-1970s? IPCC and other “authoritative bodies” all agree and claim that AGW started in the mid-1970s, not before. Before was all natural variation according to them. (not me).
The running total of the ONI data shows a low during the mid 1970s and a peak at the 1997/1998 el nino; meaning that the ENSO cycle was dominated by el ninos (predominant + ONI values keep adding to the RT, while fewer – ONI values caused some short term variation, but the RT keeps going up, until 1998, when the ENSO phase-shift starts). Namely, since 1998 the running total of the ONI values has been steadily decreasing; meaning that the ENSO cycle is now dominated by la ninas. The running total also proofs that el nino and la nina events don’t cancel each other out on an event basis, otherwise the running total would constantly oscillate around 0), but shows instead the aforementioned clear, beautiful, 25 yr cycle. There is no standard/usual pattern of an el nino to be followed by a la nina, to be followed by an el nino, ad infinitum. That’s such BS (bad science). Neither is ENSO chaotic, random, and impossible to predict. Again, it has a beautiful 25 year cycle.
In addition, I find it too coincidental that AGW supposedly started at the exact same time as when ENSO went into an el nino dominated phase, that GSTA rose simultaneously and peaked at the same year as the running total of ONI did, and that GSTA have since not increased to slight decrease (“the pause”) while ENSO has turned (again coincidentally????) to a la nina dominated phase. Note that an ENSO phase dominated by el ninos will based on these cycles and running total analysis not occur until 2020s and thus GSTA will longer term continue to decrease, with shorter term spikes.
Last but not least, the research community should start treating el ninos and la ninas separately. ENSO data (ONI) is better represented by two separate sinus waves: one for la ninas, and one for el ninos. Each is out of phase (by about 20-25 years and has different amplitudes). There’s no sum-of-products either, hence why predicting ENSO events using a one-wave model fails. Until then… GL!!
The pause is natural variation.
The problem is AGW is suppose to over ride natural variation, not be subjected to it.
The statement the long term trend is AGW does not make any sense.
Salvatore, Yup! Carson’s wrong. Added warming due to the el Nino, is a natural event over riding the trend. What components make up the trend is the underlying issue in the AGW debate.
Carson actually thinks he knows has THE ANSWER!
Since WFT uses the 5.5 version, and since the 5.6 version was not changed, I would be pretty close if I assumed the 5.5 version was also unchanged for March. The average for the first quarter of the year would then be 0.163 which would rank it 10th warmest. The record is 1998 at 0.419. So we can calculate what would be required as a 9 month average to set a record as follows: 12(0.419) = 3(0.163) + 9x. Then x would be 0.504. Below is a plot of UAH version 5.5 since 1996 with a mean of 9 months.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996/mean:9
So to set a record, it must average 0.504 over the next 9 months and get as high as the 1998 peak. It is starting higher now than in 1997, so it certainly cannot be ruled out that this height can be reached. However I do not believe there is enough time for this to happen in 2014. In 1997, the El Nino started in May 1997 and the peak was not reached until April 1998. Remember, it is not an anomaly of 0.504 in November or December that is needed, but an average of 0.504 over the next nine months. So if April does not show a huge jump, the remaining fewer months have to be higher. And at the moment, we are still in neutral as far as ENSO is concerned.
Why wouldn’t WFT use the most recent version available? The SkS calculator goes out and gets the most recent version of the data, once per day. WFT needs to do the same, because even within a version, the numbers can change month-to-month.
Hi guys, I’m back again. Just couldn’t help myself. I Wanted to make a few statements.
El Nino forecasts usually aren’t that clear until May/June, so take this with a grain of salt.
The current El Nino looks to be stronger than 09/10, possibly stronger than 98.
The current surface temperatures are likely still influenced from cooler Pacific temps that are now transitioning into El Nino conditions (see link at bottom). If temps are going to significantly rise from this building El Nino (assuming it keeps building) it may not be until late summer until we start getting the “warmest July or October in modern temp records” statements that will become repetitive.
It has been a long time since 98. The big danger is that a really strong El Nino could cause global climate to make another step increase as it did in 98. There has been a lot of heat accumulating in the Western Pacific that is now “sloshing” back to the east with the current Kelvin Wave. That, combined with slackening trade winds will allow a lot of warm water to stay near the surface.
Contrary to what people say on hear about natural factors. Most natural factors right now favor cooling not warming. New research from Michael Mann indicates that the current AMO is favoring cooling in the Northern Hemisphere contrary to what some earlier studies where saying. If you factor in aerosols, average to low solar input and other factors, temperatures will likely see a rapid rise in the next few years (assuming no major volcano eruptions near the equator). It is amazing when you factor in the negative PDO conditions that temps have still been rising. This slow increase won’t last much longer. If this El Nino marks a transition to a positive PDO (no reason it should necessarily) then surface temps will likely resume an increased rate of warming.
Surface warming isn’t the best metric for measuring Earth’s energy imbalance but it seems to get a lot of focus on here.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
I’m now seeing multiple posts referring to low solar activity as a factor in the current pause in temperatures.
Mann can’t have it both ways. IPCC reports have repeatedly claimed that low solar input has no impact on climate change.
Either it is a factor, in which case solar activity could be the primary cause of global warming over the past 150 years. Or solar input is not a factor, in which case Mann’s argument is disingenuous at best.
The bottom line is all the reasons given for the pause in warming are GUESSES.
Grady wrote:
IPCC reports have repeatedly claimed that low solar input has no impact on climate change.
They have not. This is from the 5AR WG1 Ch 8 sec 8.4 pg 688:
“Several natural drivers of climate change operate on multiple time scales. Solar variability takes place at many time scales that include centennial and millennial scales (Helama et al., 2010), as the radiant energy output of the Sun changes.”
Section 8.4.1 is titled “Solar Irradiance.” It goes on for a few pages and concludes (pg 690)
“Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smallervin magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).”
which really isn’t a surprising result, since the first-order change in temperature dT from a change in solar irradiance dS is, from the S-B Law
dT = (T/4)(dS/S)
Plug in the numbers….
OK, I’ll plug in the numbers:
T = 14 C = 287 K
S = 1365 W/m2
dS = 1 W/m2 (say)
then dT ~ 0.05 C
which is why changes in solar irradiance simply do not translate into large changes in the Earth’s surface temperature.
You deny what Grady said, and then prove him correct.
Odd strategy.
Grady was wrong, as I demonstrated.
@DAvid….”OK, I’ll plug in the numbers:
T = 14 C = 287 K
S = 1365 W/m2
dS = 1 W/m2 (say)
then dT ~ 0.05 C”
Have you verified that for every single EM frequency?
1365 W/m2 is an average.
Gordon: The S-B law is an integration of the Planck spectrum over all frequencies.
The data files for anomalies for the THREE levels of the atmosphere are now updated to March 2014. Global figures are:
Lower Troposphere + 0.17 C
Upper Troposphere + 0.07
Lower Stratosphere – 0.12
The simple average is
+ 0.04 C ,
which compares to the simple average for December 1978 (the first month of data from satellites) of
+ 0.15 C.
Bernie, that is interesting.
Do you have any charts or graphs of the simple averages and trends?
To the contrary it is amazing when you factor in the increase in CO2 concentrations this century ,the warm AMO post 1995, the PDO just recently turning neg. post 2009,(although currently weak positive which favors warming), the lack of any significant volcanic activity post PINATUBO, the high solar values up to 2005 ,then the brief lull only to be followed by solar cycle 24 maximum (although very weak for a maximum still strong enough to push solar activity to moderate levels for the last 2 or 3 years), and the URBAN HEAT ISLAND effect, that global temperatures have not continued to rise. If anything they have been going slightly down and the solar criteria needed to cause a significant impact on cooling the climate has yet to occur in a duration of time long enough to have such an impact, although degree of magnitude change was reached during the recent lull just prior to this maximum. However duration of time was only 2 years or so not long enough, and it did not follow enough years of sub-solar activity in general.
Once this current solar maximum ends(which will be very soon) and prolonged solar conditions return chances are not only the degree of magnitude of minimal solar conditions will be met but the duration of time this time will be long enough to have a significant impact on the climate.
Also much more favorable, is this time minimal solar activity will be following some 10 years of sub-solar activity in general, in contrast to the prior lull in solar activity around 2009 which only followed 3 years of sub- solar activity in general.
Solar criteria I feel is needed to have a significant climate impact will be posted.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
UV may play a role in forming CCN. High high energy GCR and relatively high UV may determine how much cloud formation (or how much cloud dissipation happens) during an el nino.
I would guess upper troposphere temps and winds pattern will also have an effect. Cool upper troposphere will allow more clouds to form and various wind patterns could move aerosols to the region.
Odd two different Aaron’s and both think the suns activity forces climate.
Salvatore del Prete, thank you for posting “The Criteria.” Since the peak of Cycle 24 should occur very soon (if it didn’t occur in March), we should see how this plays out within the next several months.
bassman, does it matter whether the PDO index goes positive for a couple years, or does it matter more what it is before and after an el nino? The PDO often spikes the opposite direction of the phase for several years.
Perhaps a running mean of PDO index is appropriate, but I have know idea what period would be appropriate.
The historical cyclical periodicity of the PDO would suggest at least another 12 years before it returns to it’s warm phase.
And aaron is dead right on the = and – spikes.
If that were not enough all one has to do is go back and check the three most recent warm periods which were WARMER then today while CO2 concentrations were lower.
Those three recent warm periods being the MINOAN, ROMAN, AND MEDIEVAL.
If that were not enough it is striking how the Medieval Warm Period ended around 1300AD and the Little Ice started around the same time solar activity went from very active to very quiet.
Further the Maunder Minimum (1650-1700 approx.)was a time of very low solar activity and had among the coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age, only to be followed by a pick up in temperatures and solar activity post the Maunder Minimum , until the Dalton Solar Minimum came about around 1790 when temperatures went down once again , only to be followed by warmer temperatures once again post the Dalton Solar Minimum when solar activity picked around 1840 AD, and lasted until 2005.
Was the Medieval Climate Anomaly global? Where is that data?
I’m sure Africa has an amazing data set … Dang man you are now grabbing at straws..In the records available it was. There was no satellite data and in the next post when it is convienent you will claim even satellite are not sufficient to estimate global temperature change. So how do you expect there to be a global data set then? You seem to use data when it is convienent for u!
A
Aaron: So where is the dataset for Africa? URL?
+ 0.15 C to +0. 04 C , in 35 years and 3 months.
” Oh, The Grand Old Duke of York
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only halfway up,
They were neither up nor down.”
And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only halfway up,
I was arrested…
“They were neither up nor down.”
Seems a fair statistical summary of these temperature series.
Looking for definite changes in temperature regimes is like
looking for a black cat in a black room in the middle of a black night.
Salvatore, I don’t think anyone at NOAA or NASA would agree with your interpretations of natural forcings. I read all of the abstracts, none of them agree with your conclusions. New research suggests that the AMO is having a cooling effect right now. If you take that away and consider how negative overall the PDO has been since 2001 the earth should be cooling. It isn’t. Surface temps will continue to rise based on all evidence available. Your statements are not supported by good data.
Bassman claims: ” If you take that away and consider how negative overall the PDO has been since 2001 the earth should be cooling. It isn’t.”
Using your selected year, 2001, and the WFT composite we get:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/wti/from:2001/trend
It is!
However, my favorite graph is the GISP data: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Or if you preferred we could reference the even longer Antarctic data.
Bassman?
AMO & PDO Cycles | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/amo-pdo-cycles/
Oct 21, 2013 – It has a positive (warm) phase that tends to warm the land masses of the … In the 1930’s, both PDO and AMO warm phases come together.
The AMO is in a warm phase according to the data below , and according to Baseman it is having a cooling effect. I think not.
Assuming that the AMO continues with its quasi-cycle of roughly 70 years, the peak of the current warm phase would be expected in c. 2020,[13] or based on its 50–90 year quasi-cycle, between 2000 and 2040 (after peaks in c. 1880 and c. 1950).[10][relevant? – d
Warm and cold phases can persist for decades. For example, a warm phase continued from 1925 to 1946 (red bars in Figure PDO-01), and a cool phase from 1947 to 1976 (blue bars). From 1977 to 1998, another 21–year warm phase occurred. However, these decadal cycles have recently broken down: in late 1998, the PDO entered a cold phase that lasted only 4 years followed by a warm phase of 3 years, from 2002 to 2005. The PDO was in a relatively neutral phase through August 2007, but abruptly changed in September 2007 to a negative phase that lasted nearly 2 years, through July 2009. The PDO then reverted to a positive phase in August 2009 (Figure TA-01) because of a moderate El Niño event that developed at the equator during fall/winter 2009–2010. This positive signal continued for 10 months (August 2009–May 2010) until June 2010, when persistently negative values of the PDO initiated and have remained strongly negative through autumn 2012.
As you can see in the above data BASEMAN also has the PDO wrong.
As one can see the PDO has not been all that negative this century while the AMO has been positive.
CO2 increasing, volcanic activity low, urban heat island effect present,solar minimal conditions not long enough in duration and degree of magnitude change (look at my earlier postings ), yet temperatures have not increased.
Temperatures should be increasing based on the above , but they are not.
Models are off more and more as each month passes by.
I encourage everyone to go to this link. Salvatore seems to imply that neg PDO hasn’t been much of a factor since 2001. This might shed some light on the accuracy of his statements. Sorry Salvatore, Im calling you out!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo.php
IN ADDITION THE PDO WAS +.38C. WARM PHASE LAST TIME I CHECKED.
go to web-site oopc state of the ocean climate for latest data.
The PDO index is a unitless number.
Salvatore, that was just for 2 months. Again, since 2001 PDO has been very negative overall. Too suggest otherwise is dishonest and may say a lot about all the other stuff you post on here. Someone needs to call you out. The NOAA link says it all.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo.php
They are simply fluctuations within the positive phase.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/PDO.htm
As one can see from the data I just sent (scroll down to see chart), the PDO had many neutral to positive periods between 2000-2009.
This supports the earlier post I posted on the detailed phases the PDO went through this current century.
Posted Apr. 07 at 1:48 PM
Given all of that the PDO I agree has been mostly in a cold phase from 2008- 2013, BUT NOT SINCE 2001 which is what I was trying to get across.
No, my data comes directly from NOAA and clearly shows a very clear negative PDO occurring after 1998/2000 that is also the interpretation you will hear from any other credible scientist. Why don’t you back peddle a little farther Salvatore! For something as serious as AGW you are playing way too loose with data. Anyone who takes a close look would question what you post on here after seeing these comments about PDO.
Baseman , time will tell . Things need to play out more.
If solar minimum conditions approach my criteria and the temperatures stay neutral or positive I will be wrong.
I have stated specific criteria from which I expect a specific climate result.
Your own data Baseman shows from 2001-2008 the PDO had many warm periods. I am looking at your chart.
I see many red (warm periods) on the left chart you sent from the period 2001-2008.
Scroll way down on the data I sent, you will see more of the same.
However, these decadal cycles have recently broken down: in late 1998, the PDO entered a cold phase that lasted only 4 years followed by a warm phase of 3 years, from 2002 to 2005. The PDO was in a relatively neutral phase through August 2007, but abruptly changed in September 2007 to a negative phase that lasted nearly 2 years, through July 2009. The PDO then reverted to a positive phase in August 2009 (Figure TA-01) because of a moderate El Niño event that developed at the equator during fall/winter 2009–2010. This positive signal continued for 10 months (August 2009–May 2010) until June 2010, when persistently negative values of the PDO initiated and have remained strongly negative through autumn 2012.
My last post on this subject, which I had sent earlier.
PDO not entrenched enough in cold phase to have a significant impact on the climate? I don’t know the answer. Maybe given all the flips. Baseman thinks the PDO all things equal should have cooled the climate. Again I don’t really know the answer.
Key facts about global temperature
•The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 212 months from August 19996 to March 2014. That is just over half the entire 423-month satellite record.
•The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century – before the industrial revolution began. It cannot have been our fault.
•The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
•The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
•Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
•The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
•In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 3.5 Cº per century.
•The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – two-fifths of what the IPCC had then predicted.
•In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to 1.7 Cº per century – just half its 1990 prediction.
•Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its centennial warming prediction of 3.7 Cº warming to 2100 on business as usual.
•The IPCC’s prediction of 3.7 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
•The IPCC’s 3.7 Cº-by-2100 prediction is more than three times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
•Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the dataset of datasets is zero – 0.0 Cº per century. No warming for 13 years 2 months.
•Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
•RSS shows the least warming over the past 18 years; UAH, the other satellite dataset, shows the most. The difference is caused by varying adjustments to the data.
•Averaging the RSS and UAH data, and averaging the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC data, shows a difference of only 1/30 Cº between the two trends.
This article is very interesting and very telling.
“RSS shows the least warming over the past 18 years;…”
And I do not think that anyone can snipe at the technicians at RSS as being overtly Creationist inclined…!
They don’t cover the poles.
Stephen: But does UAH? I would be surprised if the divergence between and RSS was this simple, but would very much like to know if that’s the case.
Dr. Spencer — is there a difference between the coverage of your time series and RSS’s?
Salvatore says:
“…time will tell…”
A cartoon in the “Wall Street Journal”, a long time ago, showed two Vultures sitting on a tree branch. One was saying to the other,
“The hell with being patient! I want to get down and KILL something!”
Wow, pretty close to my prediction of +0.19!
(April 2, 2014 at 4:25 AM)
Probably just a rounding error in the sat data. 🙂
Salvatore, are you so ignorant of basic climate change facts that you are unaware that the IPCC prediction for 3.7 deg by 2100 includes faster warming in the later decades and slower warming in early decades. Or are you being deliberately misleading in ignoring this fact?
The IPCC warming rate for current decades has been stated at about 2 deg/century. The warming trend for the last 30 years varies by temperature series, but is somewhere near 1.5 deg/century. Its nice that the actual warming rate is a little lower than predicted, but if the last 30 years reflects the true rate of CO2 warming then in effect we have another 35 years before we see the amount of warming predicted for 2100.
Another little fact – the average warming rate for UAH, RSS, HADCRUT and GIS up to 2001 is 1.32/century. If you add the years from 2001 up to now, the warming trend increases slightly to 1.39/century. The reason for the so-called pause since 2001 is that the El Nino dominated years around 2002-2007 were warmer than the previous trend would have predicted, and then the La Nina dominated years around 2008 to now have been cooler than would have been predicted by the previous trend, and that overall these factors have roughly cancelled out.
The argument that increased temperatures caused by El Nino in 2002-2007 were warmer than the previous trend before dropping again doesn’t make sense in relation to climate models. Most of the warming in climate models is predicted to come from positive feedback through water vapour. Higher than average temperatures would therefore surely feed this heating mechanism so that the rate of temperature rise would increase. In fact we have seen the opposite with no temperature increase despite El Nino/Nina neutral conditions.
NB. A prediction of future temperature increase is not a climate fact!
Tim is correct.
TedM, the rise in trends is .07. Statistically equal to 0.
Wait, you’re right. That doesn’t make sense. The trend should go down. Something is wrong with Mike.
Since there has been no statistically significant warming between 2001 and now, how does that “increase” the trend to 2001?
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Zoom out and look at pdo and u see we are early into a cool phase that should persist for considerable longer time even if there are short term, or high frequency positive excursions. Which is exactly the fear… If pdo and sun are in “cool phases” then we could be in trouble.
Along with the link between solar activity and climate through time, there is More empirical data for a connection between solar activity and earths climate that can be found in the presence of solar cycles in tree rings and annual varves… Of course the 11 yr schwabe cycle is probably most common, but The presence of the hale cycle as a major regional climate driver ( these are not global proxy) in various locations at different geologic ages suggests the suns magnetic cycle is capable of strongly driving climate. There is some research exploring the link between solar magnetics and clouds but the process is poorly understood. However, despite the lack of complete understanding the exclusion of the sun’s magnetic flux on climate in global models indicates that they do a poor job addressing the sun’s influence and show the uncertainty in their predictions. Also, CME flux could impact earths climate and changes w solar activity. As salvatore states The sun just transitioned from the most active 50 yr interval of the past >300 yrs to a much weaker phase… It will be very interesting to see what happens when we leave the 11yr peak to the earths temperature.
My biggest fear is that if significant cooling happens that there will be a decrease in the earths carrying capacity for people and a real catastrophic event could occur. Warming is inconvenient to costal people and regionally disrupts regional EvapoTranspiration patterns (moisture balance) but it expands agriculture bc continents are currently configured with lots of land at high latitudes, so warming expands agriculture globally. Cooling compresses it. I’ve started watching game of thrones… Obviously fantasy but it’s interesting to note they fear the “long winter” and celebrate the warm phases… I think politicians have forgotten the basics…look at what happened during the little ice age. Climate is naturally highly dynamic and we have thrived during the warming. If it continued and sea level rose 20 feet (6m) just like it did naturally during the last interglacial (120kyr ago) human, populations would continue to grow… Cooling however that could be ugly.
The SOI is starting to rise again at
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
Remember that things are upside down “down under” so higher values indicate La Nina, and lower values indicate El Nino. Daily values have risen from -17.95 at the end of March to +11.17 April 7th. The 30 day values are used as forecast indices. -8 or lower indicates El Nino, and +8 or higher indicates La Nina. The 30-day average has just risen above -8, so it’s backing off from the El Nino signal.
The value of the 30 day running average of the SOI for just the last two days can’t be used to predict the evolution of the ENSO cycle over the next several months. You might as well claim that the cool weather of the last two days indicate that the seasonal cycle is backing off from the summer signal.
Have a look at the NOAA ENSO: Recent Evolution,
Current Status and Predictions
So why are we in the middle of a 30 year period of slight net cooling, Roy? Because natural cycles control climate – not mankind.
Standard physics tells us why carbon dioxide has no warming effect and water vapour has a significant cooling effect, because it reduces the thermal gradient and thus lowers the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere..
The Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube confirms what physics tells us, namely that the force of gravity produces a state wherein the maximum entropy (at thermodynamic equilibrium) has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient, because of the effect of gravity acting on molecules when they are in free path motion between collisions.
Hence, since the whole greenhouse conjecture starts out from an assumption that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be ignored and so (they think) isothermal conditions would apply if you removed all the “pollutants” like water gas, droplets and vapour, carbon dioxide and its colleagues from the atmosphere.
Roy: Why does peak atmospheric warming lag peak surface warming for El Nino’s and how much does it lag? Heat from the surface is carried aloft by radiation (which is fast) and convection. Most convected heat is latent heat. The average water molecule stays in the troposphere for 9 days (?), so I can see why there would be a lag between evaporation and warming of the upper atmosphere monthly data. It is easier to see why this principle should apply locally (SST and tropospheric temperature move in parallel in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, for example), but the global picture is simply the sum of many localities.
Thanks for that link Walter. I have seen many comments about SOI being very unpredictable this time of year. Is it just as important as 3.4? A severe El Niño is bad news for the most part hopefully we will just get a 2009/2010 style El Niño.
Doug, enough with the CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas/ 2nd law of thermodynamics garbage. It makes you sound like a bot rather than a real commenter.
Salvatore here is the recent AMO study I was talking about. The PDF is free.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059274/full
That study is meaningless to me because it is all because it is pro AGW.
So science is meaningless to you, based not on its methods, but on its conclusions?
Says a lot….
“Salvatore, are you so ignorant of basic climate change facts that you are unaware that the IPCC prediction for 3.7 deg by 2100 includes faster warming in the later decades and slower warming in early decades”
That one is a puzzler for me. There’s that warmist spin explaining the lack of warming the last decade plus.
Just how a prediction that is not showing skill for the last decade, which is when we can actually compare it to observations(reality check for scientists that have at least half an open mind) somehow gets credibility forecasting to the year 2100 is mind boggling.
All sorts of reasons for why the global climate models have busted but only one reason for why they aren’t being seeing by a large group as having busted……….and that its time to change the mathematical equations that represent the physics in the models so they work better…..that reason?
Bias
Maybe the increase in low clouds the last decade is radiating more heat to space.
Or the contribution from a massive increase in our planets biosphere and vegetation as a result of CO2 going up is also a factor.
Or the understated evapotranspiration from the underestimated vegetation response is causing all sorts of problems, micro climates, increase rainfall and low clouds as mentioned earlier.
Or the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2 on temperature means we’ll be seeing a decelerating effect vs the accelerating effect suggested.
The implication of a “runaway” temp effect, with melting ice, less albedo and so on over looks so much. When the surface temperature warms, the amount of outgoing radiation INCREASES which would be a negative feedback.
If a decade’s worth of warming can get swallowed up into the deep ocean with no trace, why would a body that has 1,000 times more heat capacity than the atmosphere not continue to do that with only a tiny warming effect on the ocean, acting as a massive buffer.
The atmosphere can generate all the atom bombs worth of heat it wants but if it vanishes for a decade without a trace in the ocean……… then what leads people to believe in theories that it will, instead be magnified from forces that have yet to prove themselves.
Why waste your time with the IPCC junk? There is absolutely no valid physics which supports it. The gravito-thermal effect is now supported by empirical evidence. Loschmidt was right in the 19th century. All temperatures follow the pre-determined thermal profile from the tropopause to the centre of the core of all planets and satellite moons in our Solar System, and no doubt beyond.
You all need a paradigm shift in your thinking.
It is blatantly obvious that direct radiation cannot raise the temperature of the Venus surface from 732K to 737K. And because you cannot prove that it could do so, my $5,000 offer is pretty safe.
“As it turns out, the global warming “hiatus” doesn’t exist,”
Eric Holthaus, Quora, November 15, 2013
http://qz.com/147049/as-it-turns-out-the-global-warming-pause-doesnt-exist/
Mike M wrote:
If a decade’s worth of warming can get swallowed up into the deep ocean with no trace….
Except it has left a trace, detected in reanalysis by Balmaseda et al (2013); their main graph is here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/03/missing-energy-claimed-to-be-found.html
David,
So would you base policy on models that do not factor in the major process you present from the Balmaseda et al (2013) paper? If the models don’t include these sort of first order variables, how can society trust them?
Basically, you are saying they are busted.
What major processes are missing in Balmaseda et al? Please specify….
What processes? Well given it talks about since 1997 maybe they should have included the number of Columbines I ate per month and half the apples. If that isn’t a better fit perhaps the number of reds to black in roulette until it “fixes” the problem without a syringe.
I just make the observation that if one uses readings from satellites then we have a comprehensive and basically consistent reading from two such sources. We don’t need a “fix” to fix anything as we already have the measures. It just does not show any warming!
In any case the fix is determined by what superior or exact T measure for comparison???
I haven’t read the article and won’t waste my time on curve fitting in hindsight but have they applied the same methodology to the previous periods ie since 1980?
Even those adjustment won’t provide the right “fix.” It does not matter what T is involved the sensitivity just does not measure up to the alarmist proposition whether one takes the last 17 years, the last 70 or the last 140 years; it just is not there no matter what hallucinogenic fixes are used.
Specifically, I was referring to storage of heat in the ocean. How can a model be correct of it did not expect this heat sink? Then u have all sorts of questions like will it eventually return to the surface temperatures, how el niño perhaps, what rate, why just now when the models were left to run and predict surface temperatures. The thing agw proponents fail to see is the uncertainty in the theory… U can’t base policy on false precision… That could be catastrophic. Also… I wrote a longer post farther down.
Tony won’t read the article.
Enough said.
Aaron: Whatever makes you think models say there can be no heat stored in the ocean???
Because if they did the correlation between model predicted temperature and empirical data (satellite or hadcrut4) would not have diverged to the point they have… The ipcc models would have included more uncertainty in short term predictions so that this hiatus (if this is just a hiatus) would have been within the uncertainty envelop of the predicted surface temperature. A step jump like the very large one during a1997-98 el niño does not restore the actual temperature to the models mean predicted temperatures. Or in simple terms, if the models predict tropospheric temperature and the satellites and station data measure it, then the poor correlation necessitates that one is incorrect.
I remember 5 years ago the early hiatus was described as relating to a volcano in science, then the system failed to correct so the explanation shifted to the oceans are absorbing heat… I think they are just attempting to save face, but we shall see. Solar cycle 25 will be very interesting.
David A:
April 12, 2014 at 12:31 AM
Tony won’t read the article.
Enough said.
…………………………………
Ducking for cover again eh!
Any old excuse just like your gyrations and insistence that the atmosphere does not absorb infra red radiation from the sun.
The CAGW assertions are not a time series but supposed to be an “exact physics” if one is to be guided by Hansen (2012). So trying a fix, any fix on a dud data set is immaterial.
There is no time series hypothesis by climatologists. There is no such thing as a linear trend that has meaning even if the avg T had some meaning under non equilibrium conditions.
The AGW assertion fails because the empirical evidence of avg T does NOT conform with the assertion in line with the increase in CO2 equivalents. It’s a dead duck – with you quacking in the background
Agree that the negative PDO regime we are currently in supports Dr. Spencer’s thoughts on this natural cycle. In the past when it’s negative, it correlates with a reduction in the number and the strength of El Nino’s.
Here’s an article I wrote recently for our local paper. The current -PDO correlates to harsh Winters. Ignore the title they picked. I believe that CO2 does have a warming effect but the extreme weather this past Winter was not caused by the theory of Arctic amplification from global warming.
If this theory was valid, it should have started to show up when there actually was warming in the 80’s/90’s………not suddenly, after the Arctic has a big ice gain the prior year and 10 years after the warming stalled out.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/apr/04/carbon-dioxide-increase-not-to-blame-for-global/
Except warming hasn’t “stalled out.” The ocean is warming strongly. There isn’t even much of a slowdown on the surface, with Cowtan & Way’s method of infilling, just the usual oscillations around the trendline:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-pause-that-aint.html
So DAvid is Appel.
Not worth replying to this half wit.
Clearly you don’t have better data….
I do…I have lots of data that you can not explain. Why do solar magnetic cycles force climate and why are they not included in ipcc models. Ive asked you on several occasions and written long posts that you do not respond to when the questions are new and not readily available on agw web pages. The media has a misconception of the inherent uncertainty in science, most have never published a paper or done primary research and have no idea how the process of science works … They are an outsider “wanna be”. I get it now.
Really, Aaron? I don’t recognize your name at all. Show me one of the posts you’ve claimed to write to me.
Why should IPCC models include the solar phemonena you favor? What is their impact on climate?
Here are some interesting perspectives from the paleoclimate literature:
Sun and PDO in phase is scary for climate:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL020050/abstract
PDO and SOlar cycles are linked:
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/35/1/1.short
Sun cycles force or at least amplifie the major climate processes:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707005418
WHAT IS ALARMING TO ME is how little attention papers like these get (and I could provide dozens more in this field). In 10 years these have only been cited like 10 or 20 times. This is what frustrates me most- we are stacking the deck on the climate change argument by ignoring the other perspective because the AGW mafia have an agenda and a strong hold on funding that even extends into the review of literature. This group has claimed consensus (which is an absurd concept in science). This is a time of bad science, right now we are in a version of the dark ages… it is like a flat earth or earth centric model for the universe…. even if CO2 does end up being the climate driver they claim (it is possible to me), it doesn’t change that the process is broken badly. Even a broken clock is right 2 times a day. There is this notion that if we just stop the evil oil industry, then Earth’s climate will remain static, but that is not what the data says… we live on a dynamic planet and climate chages at many frequencies naturally. Okay diatribe is done…just as an outsider to the research community now (I work in industry) I can not believe science has become this one sided.
The first article has been cited 38 times, according to its journal page.
I don’t know about the second one, but the third one has been cited 21 times. These aren’t bad numbers…. Science is the ultimate meritocracy — good work gets recognized (and cited).
Except in climate science
Bitter because your favored theory hasn’t measured up?
Aaron S, I understand what you are saying. There are times when incredibly important scientific studies are ignored (just ask Gregor Mendel). However, the amount of citations a paper gets is usually a sign of importance or validation among peers. Take the hockey stick, it is still cited because further research has only supported/validated it’s conclusions while those papers you cited are likely not in this category. If you think the vast majority of climate scientists are living in an echo chamber fine. The observations support the majority of conclusions. And sorry, surface warming just isn’t that important.
I agree and I personally have had an issue with using surface warming for some time because there is so much more heat storage in the ocean. However, you have to admit in 1998-2005 the same data you now critisize was considered solid evidence for the models, which are themselves predicting global surface temperature change. Most (all ipcc I know of) have a very restricted ocean depth and only consider the surface waters and not deep circulation.
As far as citation index representing good work… that is absurd- you must be a sheep following the masses to believe that. Much of science gets refuted in time and the popular scientists of today get forgotten. Einstien never got a noble prize for Relativity bc the experts found it unworthy… Look at history it is a pervasive concept! The beauty of science it is supposed to be a self- correcting system because multiple working hypothesis are entertained and then the most accurate survive. When the IPCC does lip service at best for solar influence on climate they are biasing the field. When they say 97% of scientists support AGW- who did they ask? Certainly not an equal representation of Solar physicisits and paleoclimatologists… my guess is they focused on the goup that agree to get that concensus.
I have published papers from both the AGW perspective (CO2) and the Solar point of view and I can assure you this is not a balanced field. Time will tell and I don’t pretend to know the answer- I see both sides, but one just doens’t get equal coverage.
A
Experts certainly did NOT find Einstein’s special relativity “unworthy.” The idea was accepted quickly — Planck defended it almost immediately. Many others weren’t overly surprised at his results, which were similar to Lorentz’s — in 1905 Einstein said his theory was “ripe for discovery.” By 1912 it was nominated for a Nobel Prize.
Wikipedia has much more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity#Early_reception
It’s worth noting that Einstein also did not receive a Nobel Prize for general relativity, which was much more original and fundamental than special relativity. Maybe they wanted to give others a chance once in a while.
You guys won’t face up to the fact that there is no valid physics to support the GH contention. Water vapour does not warm (like by about 10 degrees for every 1% in the atmosphere) – it cools.
I’ll be offering $5,000 to anyone who can repeat my study (being published in June) and get totally different results, showing, for example that a city with 4% of water vapour above it is 30 degrees hotter than one with 1% above it, where a sample of at least 15 inland tropical cities is considered.
This is how the statement and information on the Second Law should read …
Second law of thermodynamics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases in the course of every spontaneous (natural) change. In other words: over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a horizontal plane, but not in a vertical plane due to the force of gravity. For example, density and pressure do not even out in a vertical plane, and nor does temperature because gravity acts on individual molecules, and this means molecular kinetic energy interchanges with gravitational potential energy in free path motion between collisions.
Entropy is a measure of progression towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which has the greatest entropy among the states accessible by the system. In a vertical plane in a gravitational field, thermodynamic equilibrium exhibits a non-zero gradient in pressure, density and temperature, each being less at the top of a planet’s troposphere.
The most common wording for the second law of thermodynamics is essentially due to Rudolf Clausius:
“ The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. ”
There are many statements of the second law which use different terms, but are all equal. Another statement by Clausius is:
Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.
This, however, is strictly only correct in a horizontal plane where the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has uniform temperature. When that state exhibits a thermal gradient in a vertical plane, then temperature inversions can occur in which the upper, cooler region is warmer than normal, even though cooler than lower regions. In such instances there can be heat transfers from cooler to warmer regions because such transfers are increasing entropy and restoring thermodynamic equilibrium. This is how energy absorbed in the cooler Venus troposphere is transferred into (and warms) the surface.
Until you “publish” somewhere than your vanity press, not one will begin to take you seriously.
The “heat creep” hypothesis I put forward gels with all measured and estimated temperature data from planets and satellite moons throughout the Solar System. It could be used, for example, to calculate much of that data even before knowing measurements. My calculations for the temperature at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere were barely 10 degrees different from the 320K quoted in the linked Wikipedia article.
The hypothesis explains with sound physics why water vapour cools rather than warms, as real world data confirms in the above-mentioned study.
It also explains why the planets are not cooling off, and never will be significantly cooler while the solar intensity remains essentially the same and their atmospheres do not change significantly.
The greenhouse conjecture does none of the above, and flounders everywhere with absurd assumptions of isothermal tropospheres and transparent thin surface layers of oceans that are supposedly absorbing solar energy like a black or gray body, but are in fact letting most of that radiation pass down into the thermocline.
You guys must have a lot of wool over your eyes by now.
Follow up on the actual figures:
The positive anomaly of + 0.17 C is down to a mild (+ 1-1.5 C) late winter over the 13% of the world’s surface between lying between 60N and 85N.
“Everywhere else” contributes 0 C.
When the overall change between the beginning and end of the data.. is smaller than the routine swings contained within… the trend is statistically flat isn’t it? It’s a matter of resolution. If after a mile, the elevation of a bumpy road has increased or decreased by less than one of it’s own bumps… we can’t conclude from this that the road is going uphill or downhill- it’s just a ‘flat bumpy’ road.
But again- nobody cares anyway, either you like the ‘solutions’ to global warming or you don’t, that’s what shapes everyone’s position on this- not the problem.
Threepwood – you said –
“But again- nobody cares anyway, either you like the ‘solutions’ to global warming or you don’t, that’s what shapes everyone’s position on this- not the problem.”
Exactly so. Further, I don’t know why anyone would want more ice and snow. Everyone I know complains about it when it arrives, and wishes it gone. Who are these people who want more of it?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-last-refuge-of-anthropogenic-global.html
As one can see from the data in my above post every claim AGW theory has made is wrong and can be refuted.
AGW theory has predicted everything wrong with the two most glaring being the atmospheric circulation prediction which called for an increasingly positive Arctic Oscillation gong forward, and a lower tropospheric hot spot in equatorial regions ,both of which are WRONG.
If the basic atmospheric processes are predicted wrong how does one then get to make an accurate climate forecast going forward? The answer is you can not make an accurate forecast, which is being proven each and every month as the average global surface temperatures continue to drift further and further apart from the climate model predictions.
Ice Expanding: Global Sea Ice 959,000 Above The Mean – – AND Antarctica Set Another Record – 23.74% above ‘normal’ – ’30th Daily Record for this year’
Another WRONG prediction.
AGW theory predicted El Nino would be the dominate mode of ENSO, another WRONG prediction.
AGW theory predicted an increase in tropical weather. Ace index way below average. Another WRONG prediction.
AGW theory stated the stratosphere in the highest latitudes would cool greater then it would in lower latitudes. Another WRONG prediction.
It goes on and on and on.
There looks to be problems with the data on Antarctic sea ice:
“A spurious jump in the satellite record: is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?,” I. Eisenman et al, The Cryosphere Discuss., 8, 273-288, 2014
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/273/2014/
spurious shmurious
If 2014 is an anomaly, then so was 2008 (see data plots there).
Arctic sea ice extent.
humor
Dr. Spencer, there is much talk about molecules and heat moving up in the atmosphere. As a rocket scientist guy who has dealt with orbit degradation, I have a question: How much is the expansion of the atmosphere into space due to warming taken into account in climate models? I would think that it would have a small but significant effect in the amount of heat radiated to space as well as the temperature at the surface (after all, pv=nrt). Do you think that scientists have a good handle on the effects?
Not surprised you didn’t get a response, since orbital degradation has been a sticky subject for UAH over the years, back into the 1990s…..
The anthropogenic effects account for about two thirds of the post-1975 global warming with one third being due to the positive phase of the AMO.
A small part of a study Baseman posted.
I suggest their is NO evidence to show GHG accounted for for two thirds of the warming post 1975. It can easily be shown to be linked to natural variability. From the warm phase of the PDO /HIGH SOLAR ACTIVITY through out a good portion of that time period, to mostly low volcanic activity.
Baseman then says , New research suggests that the AMO is having a cooling effect right now.
The study you presented said it had a warming effect.
I suggest when the AMO is in a positive phase it has a warming effect, and when the AMO is in a negative phase it has a cooling effect.
PDF]
HOW VOLCANISM AFFECTS CLIMATE – ICECAP
The 1960s became very active with Mt. Agung as the first of several significant eruptions that kept aerosols levels high much of the decade. This coincided with a quieter sun and cooler cycles in both the Atlantic and Pacific. That decade not surprisingly was the coldest of the last 50 years.
After 1979, even as temperatures began again to rise with an increasingly active sun and a warming in the Pacific (called the Great Pacific Climate Shift), cooler global temperatures followed the major eruptions of Mt. St. Helens (Washington State in 1981) and El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo and Cerro Hudson (Chili in 1991),. This is clearly evident in figure 3 below which relates the stratospheric aerosol loading represented as aerosol optical thickness (Sato et al 1998) to the satellite derived lower tropospheric temperatures (Spencer and Christy 2006).
All the warm and cold periods on the satellite derived global temperature graph can be attributed to El Ninos or La Ninas and volcanic eruptions.
The above is the real cause of the temperature rise post 1975. This from part of a study JOE D’ALEO, recently did.
right David that must be the answer. LOL
No idea what this is referring to….
Roy, face the facts!
My physics gives the right answers.
You cannot explain the gravitationally induced thermal gradient in a vortex tube.
You cannot explain how the extra energy gets into the Venus surface to raise its temperature with what has to be a net energy input. There cannot be a net energy input brought about by radiation from a colder atmosphere as that obviously would violate the Second Law.
The Venus atmosphere cannot magnify the incident solar radiation at TOA up to 14,000 to 16,000 watts per square metre that would be needed if radiation were adding energy to the surface to raise its temperature 5 degrees during the Venus day.
Oxygen and nitrogen molecules in Earth’s troposphere absorb thermal energy by conduction and diffusion processes. They do most of the slowing of surface cooling because there are 2,500 times as many of them as there are carbon dioxide molecules..
I can explain why surface cooling slows right down and upward convection sometimes stops altogether in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours, even though the thermal gradient is still there.
I can explain why hydrostatic equilibrium is the same as thermodynamic equilibrium, because there can be only one state of maximum entropy.
Of the incident solar radiation entering Earth’s atmosphere, NASA net energy diagrams showed 19% absorbed on the way in compared with only 15% absorbed on the way back up from the surface. What does that tell you about how the atmosphere gets warmed? It’s like on Venus – more solar energy is absorbed on the way in.
I can explain why real world data (which I will publish in an Appendix to my book) proves with statistical significance that water vapour cools. The IPCC wants you to believe that it warms by a staggering amount of the order of 10 degrees per 1% of moisture in the atmosphere. That’s simply not what it does, and only the most gullible of people would believe that to be the case.
I can explain why planets are neither warming or cooling significantly.
I can explain why the core of our Moon is kept hot by the Sun, as is the case for the cores of all planets and moons.
I can explain the temperatures in the Uranus troposphere where there is no surface and no significant source of insolation or internal energy.
I can explain all known and estimated temperature data above and below any surface on any planet or satellite moon.
You can’t, Roy.
Doug Cottom: Do you ever wonder why everyone ignores you?
I’m only interested in discussing issues with those who have a sound knowledge of physics and no pecuniary interest in maintaining the greenhouse hoax – people like the retired physics educator who wrote this review of my book, the galley proofs of which I confirmed OK today …
“Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures. Do.g Cot..n shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”
John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)
Are you ever going to try to publish in a real scientific journal?
Instead of your vanity presses…..
Take a wander over here …
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/03/open-thread-9/#comment-518046
Thanks for the update, Roy.
So it is interesting that some people posting here suggest the recent hiatus in global warming is related to heat being stored into the deep ocean. This has huge implications for the issue of GLOBAL WARMING because in theory it preserves the CO2 AGW theory (CO2 forces warming), but it destroys the validity of the models because they do not include this important process. Im curious, will the heat eventually come out, if so when, how (El Ninos), or could it be stored permanently (see below)?
What other huge processes are missing from the models: for example if heat in the ocean increases will it possibly get converted to organic matter via photosynthesis? People forget that photosynthesis is 1) an Endothermic reaction and 2) increases under high CO2. Perhaps we will generate a new source rock (which when cooked properly will produce more hydrocarbons be it coal, oil or gas). The C cycle is a first order global process (terrestrial coal swamps and oceanic algal deposits) and there are many times in earth history that something changes and we get global deposition of high TOC source rocks.
Given the uncertaintly that seems to exist maybe we should base our policy on these guys views- they claim to be experts in the field!
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/04/08/new-report-claims-un-findings-on-climate-change-is-just-bunch-hot-air/
(Note: I am not supporting nor refuting this document, as I have never read it and do not know who is involved, but the point is just because a group makes claims like the IPCC has, doesn’t mean they are valid.)
A
Aaron asks: “What other huge processes are missing from the models”
Answer: downward convection by diffusion and some advection which is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium and supporting warmer temperatures at the base of any planet’s troposphere and in it’s surface and even sub-surface regions.
Doug, have you considered constructing a model…. I imagine it’s a great way to communicate your ideas. I’ve read your posts and don’t pretend to fully understand the details, but i think i get the big picture. the thing I don’t get is if the earths temperature has changed dramatically throughout geologic time scales at many different frequencies and over vast ranges of temperature (Precambrian snowball earth vs Jurrasic sauna… We today are in a very cold phase by the way) and gravity has been basically a constant, then it seems logical to me that some other parameters control most of the variability. So that would be my question… How much of a factor is convection in the atmosphere? I have other questions to but let me wrap my mind around the scale of the process as you envision it first.
Dr. Spencer,
I wonder if you could explain the small discrepancies between the figures you post in the body of the article, and those in the dataset to which you refer?
For example, you quote February 2014 as having an anomaly of 0.170 deg, whereas in the dataset which I have downloaded it shows as 0.18 deg. January 2014’s figures are 0.291 and 0.30 and January 2013’s are 0.497 and 0.51
I realise the differences are very small, but can’t be put down to pure rounding off to the 2 decimals you use in the dataset. There are similar small differences in the hemisphere values. Which are the correct figures?
Many thanks
Where did the heat go? Into the oceans? Nope:
Temperature fluctuations: Atlantic Ocean dances with the sun and volcanoes
Natural fluctuations in the ocean temperature in the North Atlantic have a significant impact on the climate in the northern hemisphere. These fluctuations are the result of a complex dance between the forces of nature, but researchers at Aarhus University can now show that solar activity and the impact of volcanic eruptions have led this dance during the last two centuries…
…Although the temperature fluctuations are small — less than 1°C — there is a general consensus among climate researchers that the AMO phenomenon has had a major impact on the climate in the area around the North Atlantic for thousands of years, but until now there has been doubt about what could cause this slow rhythm in the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean. One model explains the phenomenon as internal variability in the ocean circulation — somewhat like a bathtub sloshing water around in its own rhythm. Another model explains the AMO as being driven by fluctuations in the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, and as being affected by small changes in the energy radiated by the Sun itself and the after-effects of volcanic eruptions. Both these factors are also known as ‘external forces’ that have an impact on the Earth’s radiation balance.
However, there has been considerable scepticism towards the idea that a phenomenon such as an AMO could be driven by external forces at all — a scepticism that the Aarhus researchers now demonstrate as unfounded “Our new investigations clearly show that, since the Little Ice Age, there has been a correlation between the known external forces and the temperature fluctuations in the ocean that help control our climate. At the same time, however, the results also show that this can’t be the only driving force behind the AMO, and the explanation must therefore be found in a complex interaction between a number of mechanisms. It should also be pointed out that these fluctuations occur on the basis of evenly increasing ocean temperatures during the last approximately fifty years — an increase connected with global warming,” says Associate Professor Mads Faurschou Knudsen, Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, who is the main author of the article.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331114502.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29
As much as these people cling to their AGW belief system, somehow they still have to deal with the facts and now there is grudging acknowledgment that the sun affects the AMO and climate. It is a stunning admission with vast implications when you digest it. IF the sun affects the Atlantic Ocean then clearly it affects the other oceans as well. IF the sun affects the oceans, then by implication there must be a change in the solar output in some manner that causes this effect. IF the sun changes then the entire concept of a solar constant is WRONG. The two pillars of the AGW hoax is the falsehood that 1.) the sun doesn’t change in any meaningful output and 2.) Water Vapor, that is Specific Humidity in the atmosphere doesn’t change leaving the only variable as CO2 to account for any change in Earth’s temperature (GAT).
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/ukmo-en3-ocean-heat-content-anomaly-data-disappeared-from-the-knmi-climate-explorer-as-suddenly-as-it-appeared/
Dave while I am at it Antarctic Sea Ice is at record highs once again, while Arctic Sea Ice is gaining.
LOOK AT CRYOSPHERE TODAY
Artic sea ice is not growing — it’s significantly below last year at this time.
Don’t try lying with me, Salvatore — I know the data very well.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/sea-ice-update-april-8-2014-global-sea-ice-959000-above-the-mean-and-antarctica-set-another-record/
I also sent another source on the previous post.
Your 2nd source shows Arctic ice sea is NOT gaining, it looks more like a significant and ongoing decrease. And the decrease in Arctic sea ice more than offsets the Antarctic gain.
Here’s a 2nd source
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
Jason if you look at total global sea ice volumes it is approaching record highs.
What none of you seems to understand is the actual physical process whereby the temperature gradient in the troposphere (badly named a “lapse rate”) does in fact determine planetary temperatures. How does it work in the Uranus troposphere, for example, where there is no surface at the base and no direct solar radiation? Why is it hotter there than Earth’s surface, even though Uranus is nearly 30 times further from the Sun? You’ll find answers here.
Salvo writes: “IF the sun affects the Atlantic Ocean then clearly it affects the other oceans as well. IF the sun affects the oceans, then by implication there must be a change in the solar output in some manner that causes this effect.”
Firstly, variations in solar intensity do occur in a cycle of about 100,000 years due to variations in the mean distance between Earth and Sun. These variations result from variations in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit due to the gravitational effect mainly from Jupiter. So this cycle probably regulates the frequency of glacial periods.
But there are other factors apart from variations in actual insolation intensity reaching TOA. Sunspot activity (probably regulated by planetary magnetic field strengths) varies in cycles and cosmic rays levels can affect cloud formation on Earth, for example.
Ocean temperatures are probably well reflected in the temperature records of some islands, and this record for Ireland is interesting when you notice the long term linear trend since the end of the 18th century.
Sorry .. link fixed here …
and this record for Ireland is interesting when you notice the long term linear trend since the end of the 18th century.
Hi Doug,
at your request I looked at the atm of Uranus, and what I fail to understand is how it compares to the Earth’s atmophere or serves as a useful analogy because 1) It has very little convection or atmospheric circuations, which on Earth undoubtedly mixes up the atm at a faster rate than the heat flows via gravity driven convection 2) is compositionally totally different (methane, amonia, water GHGs), and most importantly 3) it is a supergiant planet so the gravity creates and atm with 100 bar pressure (not millibars). I can envision (again have not evaluated the math) how the processes you describe works at uranus- it makes some sense to me because it would be almost like a quasi solid so the molecules would be more stationary and ordered and in closer packing configuration- so convection would be easier. As an incoming photon penetrated the atmospheric photic zone it would eventually encounter something to absorb it, which then could gradually convect down gradient to the surface via gravity. I do not understand why this process doesn’t generate a convection cycle like what happens in the Earth’s ocean where you have a cooling downward gradient driven by density differences from salty cold water (eg. NADW) relative to warm surface waters (opposite trend). So it seems logical to me that on Uranus there is also likely heat coming from within that would escape and contiribute to the cooling outward thermal gradient as well… that seems a simple answer
So in summary, Uranus I can envision the process but think the simpler answer is that there is heat from within escaping via convection (probably I am missing something), but here on earth atmospheric circulation occurs at such a fast rate that it is difficult for me to understand how the process could work. Then you have the issue of variability of earth temperature through time, and the gravity feild would be mostly constant. I am not talking Milankivitch orbital scale climate change I am talking on a much longer time interval (100’s of Million years) as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
So if gravity convection and advection are the primary drivers of global temperature – it has to explain the empircle data.
A
High pressure does not cause or maintain high temperatures. Gravity sets up both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. Pressure may then be calculated from these. Inter-molecular radiation reduces that temperature gradient a little and then the final (balanced) state is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. The thermal gradient on Uranus is in fact very close to the calculated value based on the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. So too on Earth. None of this requires rising air or gas from a heated surface, or any solar radiation in the lower troposphere. Difference in atmospheric composition is irrelevant – we just use the appropriate specific heat values.
The distance between molecules does not matter when forming the thermal gradient by diffusion, unless the rate of thermal energy absorption overrides the rate of diffusion process, as in Earth’s stratosphere, mesosphere and thermosphere.
No there most certainly is not thermal energy of any significance being generated within the solid core of Uranus which is about 5,000K. It is kept hot by the Sun, believe it or not, as is Earth’s core, the Moon’s core, the Venus core etc. If Uranus were just cooling off there would be considerable net energy imbalance at TOA, but there is not, and, within the error margins, there could even be net inward flow.
Do you think it just a coincidence that the base of the Uranus troposphere is 320K, thus creating just the right thermal gradient through 350Km of atmosphere to the radiating altitude at about 60K near TOA? How does the thermal energy get down there in the first place?
At night on Uranus, Venus and similar planets throughout the universe there is upward diffusion and advection plus net outward radiation from the atmosphere to space. Then the opposite occurs in the day, with net absorption of incident solar radiation in the upper troposphere and above, followed by downward diffusion and advection which is restoring disrupted thermodynamic equilibrium in accord with the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and raising the surface temperature. Radiation could never do this on its own.
(continued)
Regarding the observed climate data I quote …
Chapter 7 – So why is the globe warming?
The quick answer to this question as to what is causing Global Warming is that it all has to do with natural overlapping temperature cycles with differing time periods that are probably governed by some process relating to planetary orbits.
There appear to be two dominating natural climate cycles. The longer cycle has alternating periods of about 500 years of warming and cooling whilst the shorter cycle is associated with alternating periods of about 30 to 35 years of warming and about 30 years of cooling.
The shorter cycle takes about 60 to 65 years to complete, and we can say with reasonable certainty that it was on the rise in the 30 to 35 years from 1968 up to about 1998 to 2003, and it now appears to be well into a period of 30 years of cooling. That cooling is however partly offset by the fact that the long term (roughly 1,000 year) cycle is still rising out of the “Little Ice Age” the middle of which was about 400 years ago. So it is not surprising that the temperatures in the 1998 to 2003 period were so hot, but the good news is that there may be just another 100 years or so in which the long term cycle may rise by only about half a degree before it then turns to about 500 years of cooling. But, even over that whole 500 years of cooling the mean temperatures are unlikely to drop by more than two degrees.
There is a temperature plot in the Appendix of the author’s paper [1 & 2] which is interesting for two reasons. It makes the 60 to 65 year cycle quite obvious and it also shows that the mean rate of increase is actually decreasing, as indicated by the green line. About 100 years ago that mean rate of increase was about 0.06 degree per decade, whereas by early this century it had decreased to about 0.05 degree per decade. If the information were updated it could well be even less by now because of the very slight decrease since 1998.
This is in keeping with the assumption that we are approaching the maximum of the 1,000 year cycle, and the rate of increase (about half a degree per century) is still about the same rate of warming that started just after the end of the Little Ice Age, not in the twentieth century.
There was very little sunspot activity during the Little Ice Age and it is thought that the level of such activity may be an indicator of Earth’s climate. Whether or not there is a direct link may be hard to determine. There may be gravitational or magnetic influences from planets that affect sunspot activity. Then sunspot activity may determine cosmic rays levels, and these may affect cloud formation and thus climate on Earth.
So planetary orbits probably could provide a mechanism which in some way regulates the natural climate cycles on Earth.
Whatever the case, we have seen that carbon dioxide does not cause warming and its minuscule cooling effect (probably less than a tenth of a degree) is insignificant. Thus mankind cannot expect to control Earth’s climate by limiting anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
Footnote: The cycle of about 100,000 years between glacial periods may be regulated by variations in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit that are caused by Jupiter’s gravitational force. This leads to a difference in mean annual distance between the Earth and the Sun, and thus a cyclic pattern in solar intensity which thus affects the level of the thermal profile for which there is radiative balance.
Other empirical evidence for what I am saying is prolific, but I’m not copying the whole book here, OK?
There is no empirical evidence anywhere that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming. Nor is there evidence that water vapour warms the surface, as the IPCC would have you believe.
“I’m not copying the whole book here, OK”
Please don’t.
MikeB – I was answering Aaron’s question. Do you have any questions yourself? Warning: they will probably be answered already in my book, so I might save time copying text therefrom.
Doug, my only question is have you forgotten to take your medication?
Doug, I do appreciate you answering most of my questions because I want to keep an open mind in science and keep learning. This is your passion I can tell and you want it to get consideration. My advice is try to submit an agu talk at an upcoming conference, but go there humble bc you have to remember you are way outside of most in the field. perhaps this theory will change the dogma, but there is an alternative to me that Uranus has some heat from within like the other super giants. as a geologist it is hard to envision the sun warming the earths core bc of plate tectonics and slab push from mantle convection which is driven by heat from within. So to answer your question yes I think it is likely that correlation and causation are not associated in this case, but again I am no expert in any of this.
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2014/
If Uranus had “heat from within” it would need enough to maintain a temperature of 5,000K in its core, which would have a huge outward radiative flux completely dominating inward solar radiation which is about 0.1% of what Earth receives.
Uranus is very different from Neptune and Jupiter which are each collapsing gas-only planets generating energy from a reduction in gravitational potential energy because of this collapsing. So, if Uranus were still cooling off, how come its thermal gradient just happens to be right?
Likewise on Venus and all planets. Will all these gradients be wrong in another billion years? Are we here just at the right time in history? We know Venus cools 5 degrees at night, but warms back up 5 degrees the next day for reasons explained in my book. How do you think it gets the energy to warm? Only one other person in the world (to my knowledge) has documented the same reason that I have, so you may have to think, as I did, for a few thousand hours, because no other valid explanation has been forthcoming.
“mantle convection which is driven by heat from within”
You don’t know that. My book explains the real mechanism.
Global Sea Ice Over 1,158,000 sq km Above Normal! Antarctic Is Demolishing Old Records!
NASA is in with their March surface Data .69/.7 anomaly, 3rd warmest March. Not sure if the positive PDO is kicking in yet. Interesting to see what NOAA has. A very good chance of 2014 being warmer than 2010 if a decent El Niño locks into place. 2010 Anomaly was .66 write now Jan-March is around .61/.62.
Also forgot to add 2002 and 2010 had warmer March temps for NASA.
The IPCC has a political agenda emphasised by Al Gore. It seems every country has failed in its duty of paying due diligence to proper analysis of the physics involved. Climatologists are not physicists. The issue relating to the effect of carbon dioxide is deeply entrenched in the physics of radiative transfer and thermodynamics. Would you go to a medical practice to have your teeth filled? Why then do you consider climatologists (who have very limited knowledge and usually mistaken understanding of physics) to be suitable peers of a physics-related matter?
For example, one of the problems involves incorrect understanding of the process described in modern statements of the second law of thermodynamics which states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy. The process described explains why gravity induces a thermal gradient in any planet’s atmosphere, crust and mantle, just as we see evidence thereof in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube which you can read about in the article talk pages on Wikipedia. This thermal gradient would produce surface temperatures about 10 degrees hotter on Earth than we observe, but fortunately water molecules in the atmosphere reduce the magnitude of the gradient so that the supported temperature at the surface boundary is cooler. Studies show this to be the case. If the IPCC were correct about their “greenhouse effect” of water, then moist rainforests would be expected to be about 20 to 30 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar altitudes and latitudes. That is not the case, and so the IPCC greenhouse effect is fiction.
Another major problem is that the IPCC authors assume that back radiation can help the Sun warm the oceans. But it is well known that back radiation from a cooler atmosphere does not penetrate water, whereas the solar radiation reaches down into the ocean thermoclines. But, the very fact that solar radiation does penetrate several metres into the oceans, means that over 99% of it is transmitted right through the thin surface layer which could be considered perhaps just 1 centimetre in depth. But a black or grey body is not transparent, and, in any event, there is no adjustment in the models and NASA / Trenberth / IPCC energy budget diagrams that reduces the intensity of solar radiation by 99% or more for the 70% of Earth’s surface that is ocean. So they use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations quite incorrectly to “prove” that their combination of back radiation and solar radiation supposedly raises the surface temperature by 33 degrees from an isothermal state. Even that assumption of an isothermal state is wrong because it is not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with no unbalanced energy potentials. It would have unbalanced energy in that it would have more gravitational potential energy per molecule without any compensating reduction in mean kinetic energy per molecule – that is, without a reduction in temperature at the top.
Then the IPCC uses 1980’s assertive statements from books which claim there is a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. Well, the temperature of any location on the equator of Venus falls by 5 degrees at night (so Venus could have cooled right down by now) but it then rises by 5 degrees in the four-month-long Venus day. How does the required energy get into the surface? The radiation from the Sun has been measured and is less than 20W/m^2, whereas about 16,000 W/m^2 would be required to cause the temperature to rise. No radiation from the colder atmosphere can do so.
Then you may wish to turn your attention to the nominal troposphere of Uranus where it is hotter than Earth’s surface at the base thereof, even though there’s no surface or solar radiation.
There is no science reviewed by suitable peers which can be correct if it concludes that back radiation from carbon dioxide (one molecule in 2,500 other molecules) is causing Earth’s surface to be warmer than it otherwise would have been.
In the field of climatology, “science” is blatantly corrupt, as revealed in Climategate emails. There has been no warming since 1998 and this period of slight net cooling will be about 30 years in duration. There is no reason to assume that the long term 1,000 year cycle of warming and cooling by about two degrees will not continue, being regulated by planetary orbits, and it is due to start 500 years of cooling within the next century or so.
According to Dutch Professor Richard Tol (who has resigned from the Climate Panel of the UN) “The Panel is directed from within the environment lobby and not from within the science.”
Bassman keeps presenting data that gives him the answers he wants, not what is.
The realities are global sea ice values are at or near record highs , no global warming now for over 17 years, satellite temp. data for March shows only a +.17c deviation ,just more of the same.
Even worse for the AGW crowd is the temperature trend for the rest of this decade will be down once prolonged solar minimum values become more firmly established which is right around the corner, while AGW theory will be obsolete before this decade ends.
Bassman then says there is a good chance if El Nino locks into place 2014 may be warmer yet. Last time I recall ENSO was a natural moderator of the climate just as solar activity is.
Now Bassman in a desperate effort to keep the faint hopes of AGW alive is resorting to the aid of natural climatic items. PATHEITC.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/the-great-credibility-gap-yawns-ever-wider/
As the chart clearly shows in my previous post NO GLOBAL WARMING this century.
Silly me it shows a slight global temperature decline from around 2005 to present.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/april-10-global-sea-ice-area-third-highest-on-record/
Solar forcing will have to drop much much farther to cancel out GHG forcing. El Niño years are getting warmer, La Niña years are getting warmer. Even neutral years are now getting as warm or warmer than the great 98 El Niño. Nothing against this UAH data, it’s very useful, NOAA and NASA data is just more representative of Earth’s overall energy imbalance. They still show a very clear trend despite so many natural factors currently having a cooling factor. This link says it all.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/#more-6942
Yes but you and the authors of the attached article are using a straw man argument. Most skeptics are not denying global warming (I’m not) I’m merely saying the confidence in the role of co2 is way way over stepping the reality of the data. If the church of agw had the truth then their magic models would not perform so poorly. Take the articles method and apply it to the models I have not but it won’t support their validity. Even if the heat is stored in the ocean that means the models are wrong because they didn’t understand the system. I use the entire hadcrut 4 data from 1850 all the time… There is abnormal warming in the last 40 years, but there was also abnormally high solar activity until this solar cycle. It is mere faith that the models address the role of the sun adequately.
This is not the work of a real scientist.
I see real data.
That’s no good.
Real scientists use computer models.
I see months in 2013 and early 2014.
That’s no good.
Real scientists predict the future, they don’t dwell in the past.
How can you possibly refute predictions of the future using computer models … by presenting actual; temperature data from the past?
Answer: You can’t.
I can, however — I am absolutely sure the average temperature in the future will be warmer than today … or cooler than today — it will not be the same. — I wonder if I can get a government grant to “refine” my prediction?
PS: I have taken many more science courses in college than AL Gore has, and got better grades than he did too, in case you doubt my qualifications to predict the climate in 100 years.
The fact that solar radiation penetrates the thin surface layer of the ocean (say the first 1 centimetre) means that the IPCC, NASA and Trenberth are wrong in assuming that they can determine the temperature of the ocean surface using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations.
As best I can ascertain, only two persons (myself and another – independently) have discovered (back in 2012) how “heat creep” functions in planetary atmospheres, crusts and mantles etc.
So take away the surface and the direct solar radiation and what would you expect the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere to be? Hotter than Earth’s surface, even though it is 30 times further from the Sun? You see, there is a big “something” missing in your paradigm of radiative forcing.
Roy and climatologists in general are not physicists, and what they write is a travesty of physics – as I can easily prove.
Doug,
I am still a bit confused. What stops the heat creeping out after it creeps in?
Is it held in by gravity, and if so, how does it manage to creep out of the Sun?
Creepy!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I’ll pay you the courtesy of assuming this is a genuine question.
Consider Venus. At night its whole troposphere and surface cool by 5 degrees over the 4-month period. The cooling is similar to Earth’s cooling at night. The gravitationally-induced thermal gradient is maintained (in calm conditions anyway) as the cooling takes place. Of course there is some non-radiative transfer of energy from the surface to the troposphere, and radiating molecules send the surplus energy to space.
But the nightly cooling stops at dawn and the process reverses. Incident solar radiation warms the upper troposphere (and above) on Venus, but then there is the “heat creep” process which is downward convection that is maintaining the thermal gradient, as the whole thermal profile now rises (through parallel positions) in the troposphere, and thus the surface temperature also rises.
You need to remember that the sloping thermal profile is actually the state of hydrostatic and thermodynamic equilibrium. Heat creep is restoring disrupted equilibrium. It’s not hard to understand.
Doug,
Sorry. Sort of real, sort of not.
I realise your heat creep doesn’t apply to the Sun, only where you want it to.
I prefer my physics universal.
No offence intended.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The real issue is that this whole analysis of what carbon dioxide can or cannot do in relation to warming or cooling is totally within the realm of the physics of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics.
Yet arrogant “climatologists” who are not physicists have presumed to know more about it all that physicists, and they have well and truly bungled their physics due to complete misunderstandings of what radiation does and the process described in modern statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The nearest they get to the Second Law is to mix up entropy with enthalpy. They assume there are always compensating heat transfers each way which enable them to “excuse” obvious reductions in entropy, because they are really only thinking of enthalpy – in other words, conservation of energy.
But the one single most compelling argument that knocks them out cold is the obvious fact that 70% of the effective “surface” (which determines the temperatures we measure as climate) is an almost completely transparent thin layer of water through which perhaps over 99% of incident solar radiation is transmitted out the other side. So how can they count all that solar radiation as supposedly heating the thin surface layer which we could consider to be perhaps just 1 centimetre in depth?
Do you see them reducing the solar radiation by 99% before they bung the value of solar radiation (plus back radiation – LOL) into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to come up with their 33 degrees of warming? No.
Radiation striking a planet’s surface (if there is one) is not the primary determinant of planetary atmospheric, surface and sub-surface temperatures.
David A,
Three times in different articles on this site I have addressed you specifically and commented about the sun’s role in climate and all three times you have disappeared. I’ve consistently given you the benefit of the doubt, but I’m starting to think your scared to debate about the other solar factors that could force climate besides irradiance.
I think you accurately represent the agw mainstream ideology, I’d like to know what u think.
The latest IPCC report is 100% accurate…
As long as you throw it at somebody less than 5 feet away.
Bassman time will tell.
Climate Scientist don’t get it or have an agenda or both . My points below. They are oblivious to these points.
Point 1 – the beginning state of the climate can cause similar solar variations to have completely different outcomes making it appear that a solar/climate connection is not that strong especially when solar variations are small and short in duration.
Point 2- climate thresholds are out there which means an item that influences the climate may be changing the climate but not enough to bring it to that threshold, which makes it look like the item that is changing the climate does not change the climate all that much. Wrong assumption.
Example have a volume of water at 2C , an item changes the temperature of the water to 1C it appears nothing much has happened, but if that item were to exert a force on that water to cool it one more degree a threshold would be reached, water to ice and the impact of that same item on that water would be much greater.
Point 3- the balance of the climate is not that easy to change ,yet all that is needed is a small change to get a drastic result. How effective a change an item may have on the climate depends on the duration and degree of magnitude change that item under goes that may change the climate along with the state of the climate.
Bassman this is what you essentially don not understand.
http://s23.postimg.org/691bp3lln/Sun_SST_AMOC.png
The real data tells me the following :Temperatures are flat for some 17 years, global sea ice is well above normal.
All the data I use is based on satellite observations which for my money are the most objective and accurate.
Now if that data should change toward AGW predictions and solar remains weak then that would be the time to maybe evaluate the situation again. As of today I see no evidence of this being the case.
Again time will tell.
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/big-increase-in-multiyear-arctic-ice/ … pic.twitter.com/7h7jjhqVzZ
Multiyear Arctic sea ice has increased substantially since last year, from 869,000 to 1,220,000 sq miles, following a lower melt last summer.
Multiyear ice now stands at its highest level since 2007, prior to the loss of much of it that summer.
Significantly, third year ice and older has been steadily building up since 2008 as well.
As NSIDC point out, whilst winter ice conditions have a part to play, summer weather patterns also have a large impact on the amount of ice that will be left at the end of summer.
FROM THE ABOVE LINK
Can anyone help me understand the difference in the data published on this website for global temperature from what is published by NASA?
The UAH data (above) appears to show a relative flat mean temperature from 1980 through about 1997 and again a flat period from about 2002 until 2014, with the more recent data about .35°C higher. This implies that it’s warmed, but almost all the warming came from some kind of step in the 1997-2002 period.
The NASA data on seems to show a near steady temperature rise from 1980 until about 2000 of about .45 °C. (Ignore my specific numbers, I am eyeballing the chart. My question is about the Temperature rate of rise.
Why the difference from the NASA Goddard data published by NASA and the UAH data for the period 1980-2000?
April 12 Antarctic Sea Ice Area Highest On Record http://wp.me/pPrQ9-s5J via @wordpressdotcom
Roy, do you see the implications of what you are saying …
“some portion of recent warming was simple due to a natural decrease in cloud cover.”
According to the greenhouse conjecture, increased water vapour should lead to increased cloud cover and (according to the hoax) increased temperature. But you found (as I did in my study) that water vapour cools, because decreasing water vapour (cloud cover) correlates with warming.
I love it when individuals get together and share views.
Great site, stick with it!