Home/BlogThe Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2014 is +0.29 deg. C, up from the August value of +0.20 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 21 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 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001
2014 4 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.092
2014 5 +0.326 +0.325 +0.328 +0.175
2014 6 +0.305 +0.315 +0.295 +0.510
2014 7 +0.304 +0.289 +0.319 +0.451
2014 8 +0.199 +0.244 +0.153 +0.061
2014 9 +0.294 +0.188 +0.400 +0.182
It should be remembered that during ENSO, there is a 1-2 month lag between SST change and tropospheric temperature changes, so what the SST anomaly is doing lately gives you a rough idea of how the tropospheric temperature anomaly will be changing in a couple of months.
The global image for September 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)
It won’t be long before the sun comes off it’s solar maximum. Things could get pretty interesting…
…especially since the Modern Maximum ended around 2000 and so does the warming. The current temp is 0.29 of a degree above trend well that’s nothing to be worried about at all considering 1 degree is considered natural variability the AGW crowd must be kicking themselves for ever conceding that.
Can anyone say what is the margin of error for the Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly ?
Dear Doc Roy
Why don’t you post a figure of all your data from you beloved UAH and put a trendline through the whole thing?
Or are you scared of showing your “flock” on this website the trend during this period?
Seems you are more interested ridiculing participants of a demonstration, or taking any possible angle based on mere speculation on your behalf (no actual experimental data) criticizing actual scientific reports that are being published (with actual experimental data) (such as the recent ocean temperature increases) than analyzing or even considering actual science…
Seriously if you had one more eye you would be a cyclops (if you are unaware of the phrase it is saying you have a predetermined opinion on every climate related topic…and believe it or not it contradicts about 99.99% of the worlds experts on this field)…but hey i guess you would know more since you are such a prolific publisher of scientific manuscripts in high impact factor journals…
You mean the “99.99% of the world’s experts” with the failed climate models/science?
“Seriously if you had one more eye you would be a Cyclops”
Roy,
Maybe you are a Cyclops? And all this time I didn’t know you were a mythical creature? At least you don’t need a costume for Halloween. I do wonder where you get your glasses, Sicily maybe?
I wonder who would win between a Cyclops and a troll. Would the Cyclops even waste his time with the troll? Nah!
“…things could get pretty interesting…”
It may be even before I am dead.
The current solar maximum is a very weak one and the thinking is that once we come off it we could see cooling. If that happens it will be very interesting indeed! On the other hand, if the anticipated cooling doesn’t materialize that could be interesting, too. We’ll be able to see who is right (and who is wrong) regarding solar warming…
Yes, that’s what Dr. David Evans – “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory, 2014” says:
“The notch-delay theory says that the fall in TSI signals a fall in force X which acts after a delay, which seems to be 11 years. So the fall will occur in 2004 + 11 = 2015. But the delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years, so the cooling is more likely to start in 2004 + 13 = 2017.”
“Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade. If the criterion does not occur then the Notch-Delay solar theory is rubbish and should be thrown away. If it does occur then the carbon dioxide theory is rubbish, and should be thrown away.”
See http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
The cooling is always just around the corner, but the corner never comes.
Those waiting on cooling better hope for a monster La Nina in 2016, otherwise we are departing this “pause” for good. Solar forcing is becoming increasingly less relevant as the GHG forcing continues to build.
“The cooling is always just around the corner, but the corner never comes.”
Strangely, neither does the warming.
From 2003 the effect of El Niño had passed and a slightly declining trend has been observed. This is the net effect of the 60-year cycle starting to decline whilst the 934 year cycle is still rising. By 2014 the decline should be steeper and continue until at least 2027. (This statement was archived 22 August 2011 here)
The cycles I referred to are well correlated with a 934 year cycle and a superimposed 60 year cycle in the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets.
Bassman, you are assuming the earth’s climate is as sensitive to CO2 as modeled. Remember the temp feedbacks to CO2 could be positive and big (as in the models), minimal or neutral, which would means we currently have extra heat beyond CO2 from something like the sun and will see cooling until we get to about 500ppm and the direct impact of CO2 takes us up from where we are (0.9 Deg C above preindustrial), or alternatively even negative, which is plausible based on Roy’s work. If the extra water vapor from the warming earth via CO2 is expressed as low, cumulus clouds it can in theory increase albedo. Also, recal cosmic rays are the dark horse in all of this because they change cloud types and during an active sun create more high clouds that warm. They cloud story is very complex.
EXACTAMUNDO !!!
UAH has shown consistent warming on a 5 year or 10 year average. JMA and NOAA both seemed poised for 2014 to be the warmest on record. If we have a small/moderate El Niño drag through most of 2015, it will really add to the record breaking ocean surface temps. Current models also show very little chance of a 2015 La Niña. This will almost ensure that most data sets break records in 2015 as well.
“Consistent” = statistically insignificant.
But I agree at the current warming rate, we’ll have a real problem of some sort in 10,000 years or so. Although we’ll have an ice age by the so it’s something of a moot point.
5- and 10-year trends are almost never statistically significant — there’s too much noise in the system.
Over their entire dataset of almost 36 years, UAH’s LT trend is +0.14 C/decade, and that is statistically significant. That’s a change of +0.44 C, which is very fast in geologic terms. Even if this rate continues (and a quadratic fit to the data is actually better than a linear fit), that’ll be 1.8 C by 2100.
By contrast, the warming from recent glacials to interglacials is about 8 C, and that occurs over ~10,000 years. Compare.
Appell, we had just as much warming over the same amount of time a century ago. Compare…
We don’t have lower tropospheric data from a century ago.
David, There’s a fine line between reasoned debate and stupidity… (and you just crossed it)
No.
John, would you mind backing up your “No” with some data?
Fonzarelli, would you mind backing up your assertion of just as much warming a century ago with some data?
Yes, I would mind… It’s a well established fact accepted by both sides in the agw debate that it warmed nearly half a degree from 1908 to 1940. I really don’t feel the need to provide data for that which nobody (except you) disagrees… If you have the data I’d greatly appreciate it if you would provide it because I sincerely wish to see it.
If I look at a plot of temperature proxies for the last 2000 years (RWS, Blunder, pp2f) it seems that 0.4 or even 0.6 deg C per half century is not so uncommon. Although I will admit that the 0.7 deg C of the last century is unprecedented in that period. Ten millennia with perhaps a millennium averaging period will do an awful lot of filtering of the sub century changes.
We can live in hope we’ll get 1.8C of beneficial warming by 2100, but this century is not off to a good start. It sure beats 1.8C of cooling.
John, if the video here :-
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=3486494&s=8#.VC_18HEiMuU
doesn’t convince you that the there was a similar amount of warming starting around one hundred years ago – no empirical evidence ever will!
UAH has shown consistent warming on a 5 year or 10 year average. JMA and NOAA both seemed poised for 2014 to be the warmest on record. If we have a small/moderate El Niño drag through most of 2015, it will really add to the record breaking ocean surface temps. Current models also show very little chance of a 2015 La Nina. This will almost ensure that most data sets break records in 2015 as well.
Sorry for the double post. People on here have been touting the solar cycle as a dominant driver of decadal climate trends. Does anyone have any recent peer reviewed studies with evidence that this is possible. The solar forcings calculated by NASA and other research that I have seen show a pretty recent decline (last 40 years) of solar energy. At the same time we have had decades of warming in response to GHGs. See link below:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Forcings/
If I did the math right in adjusting for different baselines, this month UAH LT was 0.18 C above RSS LT, and over the past 12 months has averaged 0.12 C higher.
Any progress or new ideas on what might be the difference?
Thanks, Dr. Spencer. I have updated your graph in my climate and meteorology pages.
Very busy at work but quickly want to clarify regarding the sun bc i feel some people like bassman and david a are sincerely interested. We are at the peak of an 11 yr cycle so in 5 yrs we should see cooling from the sun once we are at the minimum of the 11yr cycle. The sun has been in a long term max (defined here as the 11yr running average to filter the high frequency 11 yr schwabe cycle) from about 1950 to 2001. The peak of the long term trend was 1957 then there was a gradual decline until 2001. For comparison from 1910 to 1950 the suns activity increased by 240% in the long term trend, where as from 1950 to 1990 it dropped only 20% (I can not calculate the long term average for the current cycle until this cycle is complete). But based on strength of the solar peak of the 11yr cycle, the transition from 1905 to 1957 was 240% increase whereas the decrease from 1957 to 2001 was only 21% so they say the same thing basically. Then came the big drop from the peak at 2001 to the peak in 2014 we saw a 45% decrease in solar activity. The total solar activity from 1950 to 2001 was the strongest in more than 10,000 yrs. I wish i could post a graph but hopefully you understand there was a big jump from 1900 to 1950 then a sustained maximum until 2001, and then a big jump down to where we are now. However, we are this instant at the short term peak of the 11yr cycle and waiting for the activity to drop soon.
Yes, slight cooling should start soon (as I predicted three years ago) – see this comment.
You say that “by 2014 the decline should be steeper” but there has been no decline. Temperatures in 2014 are comparable with those in 2003.
then there has thus been no warming either
David, I agree that you can’t just look at Satellite data for the reason you suggest, it is too short and there are several comparable cooling episodes or hiatuses in the much longer HadCrut 4 data that make this event par for the climate course. The HadCrut obviously gets a little less confident with time but it goes back 150years and is calibrated with the satellite data now. So I think it is a reasonable and useful estimate for global temperature.
However, as Fonz implies this Hiatus is different because the CO2 with the massive feedbacks as modeled by the IPCC was supposed to prevent such hiatuses that were there in the natural system- it was supposed to override the entire system. Show me the hiatuses in the IPCC models like this? I believe they are correct if CO2 had strong feedbacks to the minor warming it causes, but that does NOT seem to be the situation. What this Hiatus means to me is that nothing really has changed because of CO2- it is business as usual, gradual warming until it stops or reverses. This entire century of warming could be a random walk in a complex system that likes to self order for centuries. I think the sun’s output or activity drives the system for very high-frequency climate change (century Scale and less- even PDO or ENSO). You continue to have one fallacy in your logic you assume that “ALL” the warming has been from CO2: I can list a dozen other things that could have contributed.
My expertise is in cyclicity of rocks and fossils like wood- I can tell you abrupt climate shifts are the norm and not unusual. There is nothing I see as special if sea level jumps 20 feet- we get the peak to the ongoing 5th order sea-level transgression, just like last interglacial 120 to 125k yr ago. It is a small peak on the curve that the next intelligent life form after us would not even notice because orbital parameters will eventually bring us back into the grips of an ice age. Sea-level rose 21 feet higher last time and that is a fact! It is true, we are loosing insolance from Orbital parameters today so that is not causing the warming not, but maybe the sun’s activity is. We use sea-level to correlate rocks, because they change patterns based on sea-level changes so it is a very developed science called sequence stratigraphy. This is why most published geologists are not alarmed by the trend. This event is noise in a system that has been going long before we arrived and will keep going long after we are gone. The great thing about studying paleoclimate is you get the range and bredth of Earth systems- sometimes a snapshot of time from 5 million years ago, other times 250 million years ago. This planet is dynamic. CO2 is not the bully in the climate system- it seems more like the little boy following along for the ride.
Doug,
I am going to engage with you here because I have been thinking about the nature paper I read and shared with you about the hot mantle from radioactive decay. The realization that there is additional heat in the mantle has me curious if there actually might be something to the gravity heat drive into planets to explain the extra heat inside the earth. I have a question and would like a simple answer not a fight- if your model were correct for explaining internal heat, then would you expect the earth to contiune to warm through time as more heat was transported?
Disregard that previous post i misread my notes in a hurry at work… hang on.
Okay I used a symmetrical extrapolation around the current solar peak to complete and project the current cycle to the next trough in 2019. I calculated a 153% increase (different than above due to my math error) in long term solar activity from 1928 to 1954 (26 years), then a 32% decrease between 1954 and 1997 (43 years), and a 44% decrease since 1997 to 2014 (17 years). I think this is the least biased and most accurate way to describe the sun’s activity. There was a rate of change of 5.9% increase a year for 26yrs, then an average of 1.57% decrease per year for 43 years during global warming, and finally a 3.25 percent decrease per year during the great hiatus. We are currently have a sun that is 73% the strength of the average solar activity calculated from 1700 to 2014.
Could you tell us to what do your percentage changes refer. Is it the sunspot number maxima? If so are you aware that early estimates are almost certainly wrong.
Yes John it is SSN, and I know there is some error, but not back to 1900, the error is a break at about 1700. The go to data set is: .
The correlation between SSN and TSI, UV light, and cosmic rays is very strong, so this is a very good proxy and powerful for understanding climate.
The other way to do this is apples to apples and just use SSN counts with no corrections- a much longer data set exists and it very, very similar to the one I provided here.
A
1.4 degrees C/century of AGW is nothing to be concerned about.
2 degrees of warming globally will be much more in the Arctic. It is a disastrous scenario to be avoided at all costs. 3-4 degrees is unthinkable.
No, see that sort of thinking gets us into trouble. Not all costs and not unthinkable. For example, nobody is advocating that everybody take their suicide pills to avoid 2 degrees of warming.
Tell me seriously bassman. If part of the necessary cost of avoiding 2 degrees of warming globally was to use military force to conquer India and China, would that be part of the price you’d be willing to pay? Because if not, I don’t understand what you and guys like you are hoping to accomplish. China openly says they aren’t going to cut emissions until they’re good and ready. So, what costs are you prepared to incur to change THAT?
p.s. – for a simpler demonstration of the same principle, are the progressives willing to pay the price of swallowing their dislike of nuclear power to curb emissions? I don’t even see that small step happening, and from a group I’d think would be most motivated to find a solution to rising emissions.
In other words, you are dreaming. It is never going to happen.
“…hope to accomplish…”
Pretty much what the sidekick of John Wayne in an old movie on TV hoped to accomplish:
They are in a gun battle blazing away into the distance. And the banter goes:
JW “That old scatter gun is completely useless!”
SK “You don’t mind if I shoot do yuh!? It makes me feel good!”
JW “Well, just feel good the hell away from me!”
Really?
When do you expect the 2K of year averaged global warming in Arctic?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
I mean, do you expect them during summer or winter?
Note that, thanks to the water change of state, during summer the temperature is quiet stabilized there (note that in last two summers the temperature had been below average indeed), most of changes happen during the very cold polar winters when ice never melts.
Maybe you are not aware that polar melting is more driven by winds than temperature.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Why?
Look the last 70 years. The T has only increased in a twenty year period after the great positive shift of the PDO of 1977.
Even so, the whole period shows an increase of about 0.6C or less than 0.1 per decade. Whatever CO2 is supposed to do, it certainly takes a lot of annual leave and sleeps on the job a lot. If it was my employee I would have dismissed it years ago for sheer laziness.
Bassman, you do know that last interglacial 125000 yrs ago the sea level peaked at 6m or about 20 feet higher than present. This could easily happen even without man…. so why is climate change disastrous?
How many humans were there on earth back then?
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains
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 .15% 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.
Earth’s Impending Magnetic Flip” – Scientific American
Posted on September 30, 2014 by BobFelix
“A geomagnetic reversal may happen sooner than expected,” says this article in Scientific American.
“The European Space Agency’s satellite array dubbed “Swarm” revealed that Earth’s magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than previously thought, decreasing in strength about 5 percent a decade rather than 5 percent a century,” the article continues. “A weakening magnetic field may indicate an impending reversal.”
So far, I agree. But then the article veers way off course.
“Earth’s magnetic north and south poles have flip-flopped many times in our planet’s history—most recently, around 780,000 years ago,” the article asserts.
I completely disagree with that statement.
Why? Because it ignores magnetic excursions.
A magnetic excursion refers to those times in the past when the earth’s magnetic field temporarily headed south. Sometimes it began fluctuating and then settled down. Sometimes it moved part way south and then moved back north again. Sometimes it moved all the way south and then back north.
To my way of thinking, just because the field quickly moved back north doesn’t mean that a reversal didn’t take place. If I fall down and then immediately jump back up, that doesn’t remove that fact that I did indeed fall down.
There have been many magnetic reversals/excursions during the last 780,000 years. To name a few are the Gothenburg, the Mono Lake, the Lake Mungo, the Laschamp, the Blake, Biwa I, Biwa II, Biwa III, Emperor, Big Lost and Delta. And many more magnetic reversals/excursions have probably occurred thee past 780,000 years that scientists have not yet identified.
“The flipping takes an average of 5,000 years,” the article continues. “It can happen as quickly as 1,000 years or as slowly as 20,000 years.”
Again, I disagree. Some studies reveal that magnetic reversals can occur far faster than that. I describe one such speedy reversal in Not by Fire but by Ice.
“In a study of lava flows at Steens Mountain, south central Oregon (which erupted during a reversal, by the way), Michel Prévot, Edward Mankinen, Robert Coe, and C. Sherman Grommé found that magnetic intensity had fallen to less than 10% of today’s in less than one year.
Perhaps in less than two months.
During a follow-up study in 1989, Coe and Prévot found that the field had reversed at the rate of three degrees per day.
Perhaps in only three weeks.
Not content with their earlier findings, Coe and his colleagues took another look. The earth’s magnetic field had reversed at “the astonishingly rapid rate,” their new study found, of six to eight degrees per day. Not only did it reverse, it fluctuated. Rapid fluctuations occurred many times during the reversal, said Coe. “Enhanced external [magnetic] field activity . . . from the Sun might somehow cause the jumps.” (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995) (Not by Fire but by Ice, Chapter 16)
And finally, the article asserts that “It is hard to know how a geomagnetic reversal would impact our modern-day civilization, but it is unlikely to spell disaster. Although the field provides essential protection from the sun’s powerful radiation, fossil records reveal no mass extinctions or increased radiation damage during past reversals. ”
This is so far off base that it would be laughable if it were not so serious.
Let’s look at the record.
The Gothenburg magnetic reversal of 11,500 years ago correlates with a huge mass extinction, when the mammoth, the mastodon, the sabre toothed cat, the short-fact bear, to name just a few unfortunate mammals, went extinct.
The Mono Lake magnetic reversal of 23,000 years ago correlates with a mass extinction.
The Lake Mungo magnetic reversal of 33,500 years ago correlates with a mass extinction. (Some studies even suggest that that is when the Neanderthal went extinct.)
Not only do magnetic reversals/excursions correlate with extinctions, many reversals occurred in sync with catastrophic glaciation. Here’s a chart showing those correlations.
By “at all costs” I meant GDP only.
2013 is the current warmest non NINO year on the UAH temp data set.
2014 is going beat 2013s record for the warmest non NINO year on the UAH data set.
So far 2014 has averaged a negative ONI on the year As well as 2013. So not just non NINO but also neg neutral ENSO conditions.
NCDC has essentially clinched breaking it’s own record.
Hadcrut is also on a near clinching pace for warmest on record.
GISS is very close and will likely tie or break it’s own record.
Again for all three of those surface temp data sets they are not only breaking their own records but those records came in NINO years.
There isn’t cooling. OHC has broken it’s trimonthly 6 of the last 7 periods. Including 5 in a row.
Here is the OHC data going back to 1996 annually. You can see the last few years OHC 0-700M start to rise substantially again.
What are global temps doing? EXACTLY
1996 4.544000
1997 3.245000
1998 4.303500
1999 5.943000
2000 5.856500
2001 4.117000
2002 6.788750
2003 9.951750
2004 10.24050
2005 8.411750
2006 10.43025
2007 9.478500
2008 10.05225
2009 10.12600
2010 10.36725
2011 10.86900
2012 10.94075
2013 12.60075
2014 13.38472
What percentage increase does that represent? Is it true that it is an increase of only 0.02% and if so, how will that heat come back out and cause a climate catastrophe?
Thank you for the clarity Chris. This blog needs it from time to time.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/03/its-official-global-warming-pause-or-standstill-extends-to-over-18-years-pause-has-endured-for-a-little-over-half-the-satellite-temperature-record/
The reality is global warming is no longer occurring.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
NEXT REALITY IS SEA SURFACE TEMP. HAVE BEEN DROPPING OF LATE.
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/518244706904707072
I SAY AMEN.
Same positions(on both sides) being stated by the same people who project the same level of extremely high confidence and use the same strategy of embracing arguments that support their position, thus reinforcing it and rejecting science that contradicts or questions their position.
Numerous cognitive bias’s have a way of controlling the human thought process. They are easy to recognize in “other” people……or so we think(a cognitive bias in itself) but by definition, it wouldn’t be a cognitive bias in us, if we recognized it, since that would mean we actually have the awareness/knowledge of seeing another side to an issue that is legit but we are unknowingly viewing that issue with tunnel vision.
In other words you can’t know this and not know this about yourself simultaneously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Cognitive bias’s have sort of a positive feedback to them. The more you think you know about something, the more new information about it that confirms what you think you know will be stored as knowledge in your brain this reinforces what you think you know and makes you more likely to accept new information that favors this view.
In some realms, this provides the ideal set up/environment for effective brainwashing using propaganda.
After awhile, the victim of the brainwash has views that get pretty far fetched but they gradually evolve to that extreme so slowly, that they don’t realize it has reached such an extreme.
Another person/group, as an outside objective observer will be dumbstruck that the brainwashed person/group can be so convinced about something as to completely ignore evidence that contradicts their views.
It’s even worse when the observer/group has cognitive bias’s in the opposite direction of another group.
Then, you have extreme polarization, where faith based views reign supreme and authentic science is based on what you decide is relevant.
We live in a world dominated in most realms by cognitive bias’s.
What rules is often not truth or authentic science but the effective ability of the group(and their view), to grab the most power and hijack the idea/plan or theory and convince the most people to follow them like the Pied Piper.
Since there is tremendous uncertainty in this field, the presentation of facts and projections with so much certainty is disingenuous or even delusional.
Mike Maguire says: Since there is tremendous uncertainty in this field, the presentation of facts and projections with so much certainty is disingenuous or even delusional.
Very cogent!
I wonder how much a person changes their views when asked to testify in front of Congress?
Sufficient look at the data.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/mspps/np_images/amsua_ts_des.gif
Maybe you prefer to live.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=32.90,97.04,419
What I have presented is easily falsified if wrong. I have put out specific solar parameters which I feel will have a climate impact, based on the historical climatic record.
Either it happens or it does not happen.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/modern-science-refutes-global-warming-alarmism.php
I’m struggling to understand what your position is with regards to AGW. On the one hand you claim that the sun is the main driver of climate change then, on the other, you link to an article which discusses the Lewis/Curry paper. This is the paper which estimates that ECS for a doubling of CO2 is ~1.64 degrees C.
Now, if the paper is correct and climate sensitivity really is 1.64 C then then it’s hard to see where your predicted cooling is coming from.
John,
If memory serves me right I believe the 1.64c is well within natural variability.
Howcome the lower stratosphere hasn’t cooled for over twenty years?
I’ll bite. Should it?
BBould, Ignoring disagreements about solar variation and forcing that gets discussed here often, scientists have a descent understanding of natural variation and can quantify its influence. The current energy imbalance is way beyond what natural variation could influence even by very conservative estimates. Great page by NOAA about this below:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/canwarming.pdf
Thanks bassman,
I didn’t say it was 1.64. I believe if it turns out to be that number, and if memory serves me, it’s well within natural variability. If that number is not well within natural variability, then my memory served me poorly and please forgive me.
The NOAA apparently disagrees as do many others but only time will tell for sure, and I’m willing to wait to find out what happens.
For me anyway, any day above ground is a good day!
Let’s see where the oceans are high temperatures. CO2 does not matter, only the water vapor, water and air circulation.
Click on the map.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global_small.fc.gif
Thanks for any other informative website. The place else may I get that kind of info
written in such an ideal means? I have a mission that I am simply now
running on, and I’ve been at the glance out for such information.
Aaron, the uncertainty goes both ways. We are already seeing neg impacts from current warming, even an additional 1C to 2C would be long lasting and mostly destructive to human well being.
My spouse and I stumbled over here different page and thought I might check things out.
I like what I see so i amm just following you. Look forward to
looking over your web pwge repeatedly.
my weeb site sojigle.wordpress.com (Betsy)
Hello! Reality check!
A year ago we learned that in 2012 the USA reduced its consumption of coal by 40 million metric tonnes while Mainland China increased its consumtion by 67 million metric tonnes. Here are the figures, one year on. In 2013 the USA reduced its consumption by another 24 million tonnes and the Communist Party of Mainland China presided over a further increase of 50 million metric tonnes – in accordance with its overall published plan to continuously increase coal use.
China burns more coal than the rest of the world put together. CO2 policy is “Made in China”.
‘CO2 policy is “Made in China”.’
Allowing for hyperbole (India counts, Indonesia counts etc.- but that just adds to the point about developing countries), obvious enough. 80% of the coal is used for electricity production – which the rulers deem a NECESSITY, not a luxury.
In the medium term, the only sensible way forward for a world which wants to conserve its fossil carbon for more valuable uses than burning, is the thorium nuclear generation pathway. As was proposed by the astronomer Fred Hoyle in a litle book I read – sigh!- forty years ago. I discussed it at the time with the chief designer of Canadian nuclear power stations,who said “of course – but it will be a hard sell. The politicians are incapable of understanding breeders. And, anyway, the public take their nuclear science from that f**** Jane Fonda crowd.”
I pay a quick visit day-to-day some blogs and blogs to read articles, except this blog gives feature based writing.
The fact of the matter is that the media and environmentalists are not interested in a mature and honest discussion.
If they were they would seriously consider nuclear power.
“…media…not interested…”
This month is the first anniversary of the English “storm to end all storms” – as it was primly and conservatively described in the news outlets. The weather-map looked like it would bring an above-average blow, and the whole country had an orgasm of pleasure about the coming catastrophe. Of course, the Media was full with gloating “scientists”, howling “It’s because of global warming”.
In the end, nothing much happened.
The Media was flooded afterwards with pundits apologising for their scare-mongering, and saying they now doubted their models and assumptions.
I made the last bit up.
“Being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry” — probably goes back Ann Coulter 2002
“…nothing much happened…”
A bit of railway track fell into the sea in the West Country.
Still, if you deliberately build a railway 50 meters inland and only a few meters above normal high-tide mark…
John Finn my position.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains more meridional.
Thanks for one’s marvelous posting! I actually
enjoyed reading it, you will be a great author.
I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and definitely will come
back very soon. I want to encourage yourself to continue your great work,
have a nice day!
Oceans gaining heat even faster than we thought. Sorry buts it’s true and a really big deal. There never was a pause in warming!
Breaking:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/oceans-getting-hotter-than-anybody-realized-18139
Sorry Bassman but I believe they may be wrong.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/
Evidence of deep ocean cooling?
Apparently they prefer model results over observational.
Roger A. Pielke Sr @RogerAPielkeSr
Follow
RE: [assumes] observations.. inaccurate.. the models were correct” http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/#comment-635444 … For model results to trump observations is absurd!
6:43 AM – 6 Oct 2014
Shorter press release, there were 2 papers published today mentioned in the previous link, this is the official press release
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Durack/dump/oceanwarming/140930_Duracketal_UpperOceanWarming-MediaRelease.pdf
See above.
People should heed the work of the brilliant 19th century physicist who was first to determine the size of air molecules. Josef Loschmidt was also first to explain (indirectly) through his gravito-thermal effect the answer James Hansen et al sought as to why planetary surfaces are hotter than radiating temperatures. We don’t need Hansen’s hypothesis about back radiation and the consequent (but necessary) garbage about the Second Law applying to a combination of independent processes. What is in this comment has profound consequences. Think on it!
Second Figure in the key and in my opinion most shocking chart. See below.
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Durack/dump/oceanwarming/
I find the language of the papers interesting. The press release uses the words “likely” and “climate models simulate” and “large suite of climate model simulations” and “results suggest”. Then we are told the measurements have been done since 2004.
Let me make a suggestion. When there is 100 years of accurate measurements, come back and restart the conversation.
What seems obvious is that there is a limited amount of information available, which is being used in computer programs, of questionable accuracy, for predetermined results.
On a different tack, why didn’t the oceans soak up the ‘hockey stick’ heat? Why did they just start soaking up the heat since the atmosphere stopped getting warmer? Curious that.
Mine, of course, that is just an estimate of the likely political model, which my lengthy experience finds to often be accurate.
@ClimateOfGavin: @SJvatn …but since it changes estimates of the recent ocean heat uptake, it pushes estimates of sensitivity higher. Esp. for L&C.
From Gavin Schmidt just hours ago. This study is a really big deal.
Kinda quite definitive whodunnit.
I know the sun is involved and I know the clouds and wind are involved too in the upper 2000 metres of ocean heating. There may be a host of other factors but it kinda excludes lonely CO2. Whew, for a while I nearly bought the CO2 dunnit hypothesis. You are a real, good detective.
Instead, the Chargers were GIVEN the first down and scored on the subsequent play.
The team should be lucky to have such an opponent in week 3, for
a game they couldn’t win would present serious challenges down the road.
Those who are ready for a change at quarterback aren’t ready for a change in the quality of regular season play the Eagles have enjoyed over the
last decade.
Lewis, the surface is still warming, the oceans are gaining heat at an accelerating rate (sea level rise is a good verification). In a 100 years, that is an incredibly absurd statement. This paper acknowledges it’s own uncertainty (good science) and clearly shows conservatively that climate sensitivity is likely 1C higher than previously thought. This easily puts us beyond 2.5C with current BAU emissions.
There is no valid physics supporting the conjecture that carbon dioxide raises the Earth’s surface temperature, and you cannot produce any, now can you? So why do you continue to play a part in supporting the greatest hoax in the history of the world?
Jimbo you are either stupid or uninformed. You really think we cant plot the data from the page in excel and add a trend line? No one thinks there is not warming on the graph but it is much less than anticipated by the ipcc models. The page is about the difference between the model predictions and data. A little warming is probably a good thing for man. Ironic to call us a flock when you seem like the mindless follower of the church of AGW.
Bassman you cant compare apples to oranges the PDO just flipped of course the oceans are now taking in heat, just like they released it during the positive phase and contributed to warming. This is the problem if something is cyclic then you need data over the entire cycle for calibration and then compare cycles to see a change. So should we subtract out the released heat from the oceans during the peak of global warming in the 1990s because the oceans were in a breath out heat phase? CO2 was supposed to override all of this based on IPCC models.
Yes, we are still in the last hundred years or so of the 500 years natural warming which is very similar to that between the Dark Ages and the Medieval Warming Period. In due course we will have 500 years of natural cooling similar to that between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. The last little burst of warming will be about between the years 2029 and 2058, with continued very slight cooling till at least 2027.
You have absolutely no valid physics which can prove carbon dioxide should war the surface. If you think you have, produce it here and I will show you what’s wrong with it. If you can’t produce any, then you should discontinue promulgating garbage about human involvement in warming.
I have an “in” with the Australian Government and I expect them to be the first in the world to rubbish the carbon dioxide hoax, probably within the next four years or so. (I am not prepared to elaborate on this.)
Just because the oceans hold more thermal energy than the atmosphere does not mean that they control the temperature. Solar radiation mostly passes through the thin surface layer. Yes, it gets absorbed in the regions below that, but these are colder regions and so they do not transfer that thermal energy back to the warmer surface in the non-polar regions where most of the sunlight entered. Instead the thermal energy in those waters (usually colder than 10C) follows isotherms until it reaches the surface in polar regions.
Nor does radiation from the colder atmosphere raise the temperature of the warmer surface. And the Sun’s radiation cannot explain the surface temperature of the ocean surface in the first place, so slowing of radiative cooling by water vapour and carbon dioxide (not evaporative cooling etc) does not explain the surface temperature either.
The only phenomenon that can be explained with valid physics and which does explain the ocean surface temperature is the gravito-thermal effect, first explained by Josef Loschmidt, and never correctly rebuked because it is a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The gravitationally induced temperature gradient, just like the density gradient can each be proved to exist using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The back radiation conjecture depends upon a concept wherein thermodynamic equilibrium would be isothermal, but that is totally contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and hence the greenhouse conjecture depends upon an assumed violation of the Second Law, and thus it is smashed.
Let’s see what happens with magnetic activity of the sun in this cycle 24. These are long-term changes.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
It’s not often that one chances to have the first comment and the one hundredth comment of a blog post. So I’ll just say great discussion every one (yes, even you appell) and turn out the lights on this one. Good night…
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
In the meantime surface sea temperatures cooling off.
Reply
https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Climate_Truth_File_100614_Online.pdf
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/deltaCO2vsTemp.JPG