Home/BlogThe Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2015 is +0.26 deg. C, down a little from the February, 2015 value of +0.30 deg. C (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
2014 01 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.029
2014 02 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103
2014 03 +0.170 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001
2014 04 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.092
2014 05 +0.326 +0.325 +0.328 +0.175
2014 06 +0.305 +0.315 +0.295 +0.510
2014 07 +0.304 +0.289 +0.319 +0.451
2014 08 +0.199 +0.244 +0.153 +0.061
2014 09 +0.294 +0.187 +0.401 +0.181
2014 10 +0.365 +0.333 +0.396 +0.189
2014 11 +0.329 +0.354 +0.303 +0.247
2014 12 +0.322 +0.465 +0.178 +0.296
2015 01 +0.351 +0.553 +0.150 +0.126
2015 02 +0.296 +0.433 +0.160 +0.014
2015 03 +0.256 +0.409 +0.103 +0.082
We are probably past the point of reaching a new peak temperature anomaly from the current El Nino, suggesting it was rather weak.
The global image for March, 2015 should be available in the next several days 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)
AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this..
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
David,
Let’s see, the decade is not yet half over and you’re saying….?
Let me be more clear: you should hope Salvatore is wrong. Warming is the way we should want the climate to go.
Certainly I hope he is wrong but, March indicates another month of stable temperatures which, considering the IPCC projections, would lead one to believe cooling is not far off.
Woe be unto the human race if too much cooling occurs. Imagine snow over Ohio and Iowa through the summer. Is this what the IPCC and their sycophants desire?
Enjoy the spring! Harbinger of warmer weather.
In David Appell’s strange little world, if the planet has been warming sporadically for 300 years, and if it continues to warm sporadically, this vindicates all his predictions about man made global warming causing the end of the world. He doesn’t want to talk about climate model predictions. And if he is forced to talk about them, you’ll be guaranteed he’ll write something completely insane anyway. Consider his latest thought bubble –
Global warming = more energy in system
More energy in system = stronger winds
stronger winds = spreading out of sea ice
global warming = more sea ice. QED.
It really gets as stupid as that. And he completely believes this theory…
Good points, Salvatore.
@Salvatore…”Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator….”
It needs to be explained why CO2 sampling at Moana Loa is taken in areas of warm water, where the oceans are out-gassing CO2. On the other hand, ice core samples are taken from colder ocean regions like Antarctica where the oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.
In either case, the concentrations of CO2 are apt to be much higher than in the atmosphere at large. The IPCC cherry-picked the value 280 ppmv from Antarctic ice cores to represent the pre-Industrial era atmospheric density while cores nearby were reading as high as 2000 ppmv (Jaworowski).
The link between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures is so weak as to be non-existent. The past 18 years without a warming trend and the past 33 years of UAH data sets showing little or no warming (Christy) prove that conclusively.
Gordon, there are now many stations measuring CO2 around the globe and they show remarkably similar readings. With the exception of seasonal variations all the data shows readings within 10ppm. This nifty little video gives you a snap shot of all the data since the inception of mauna loa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jvP7BqVi4&feature=player_embedded
As well, there is a VERY strong link between carbon growth and temperature as this graph of the uah data set and mauna loa growth rate shows:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
This is just a power grab. No matter what the real data shows, those who are in power will find yet another way to gain more control of the unwashed masses.
I posted this elsewhere, but explains how it is simple to control mass mindsets:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave
Worked for a Carbon Management company back in 2006, left after finding it was a total fraud. What ever happened to the Hockey stick theory in Al Gores’ inconvenient truth. Discovered that sun warms and cools planet over 100’s if not 1000’s of years, with various lag factors. We are slowly heading down into a cooling phase.
Tim: the hockey stick has been replicated many times by now, some using independent mathematical techniques. For example
“A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
Here’s a huge collaboration of several dozen scientists:
“Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Mr. A: You do realize that it’s difficult to attribute climate change to humans if was warmer in the past than it is now…
” Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.”
You are right last interglacial was hot enough to increase sea level 6m higher than today and CO2 did not compare, but that can be attributed mostly to more solar irradiance from orbital parameters being more constructive or in phase than today. Of course, it does not mean CO2 is causing modern warming bc we are currently just descending from the orbital maximum and remain near the peak of irradiance from orbital forcing. So if other intrinsic forcing like the pdo or extrinsic forcing like direct solar activity were to peak then the warming last century could relate to those natural forcing processes. The solar activity peak is now over and the pdo has reversed. So we should see cooling if this is the case (as opposed to a reduced rate of warming), but unlike some i believe there are step changes and thresholds in the system that initiate feedbacks (snow distribution and albedo or modifications to ocean currents for example). Once a threshold is crossed it is likely for there to be a lag between the forcing and climate response. So it is not obvious as to when the cooling should start. We have to be patient. That said if by 2020 there is not cooling (not a la nino event), then i would think we are seeing some warming from CO2.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The most vocal human-caused climate change scientists (e.g. Hansen) have said loudly that
“Thus, although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun ”
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html#.VR_hxxPF_GI
So solar irradiance can be used to explain cooling, but not warming?
This is why good science has been lost to good political narrative–alarmists have an explanation for everything based on a political agenda. Global Warming is now Climate Change because the models are wrong.
The evidence is starting to reveal the truth. Those that have over-committed their scientific reputation to models that don’t match reality have now reduced themselves to attacking the scientists that seek the truth.
But hey, there’s a lot of great beers coming out of NASA these days!
Certainly the sun causes warming and cooling. The orbital parameters are currently declining slightly so moderately cooling would be anticipated, so the warming last 60 yrs is against that trend. However the insolation from orbital forcing remains near the warm peak and will for 500 more years. For me, the AGW crowd does not consider the suns activity changes (different from orbital parameters) properly and they disregard the impact of cosmic rays. Suns orbit is the relative position between earth and sun, whereas suns activity is the character of the output of the sun itself. So when Hansen says that statement he is implying the suns irradiance change (part of output) is very small so the very active sun during the warming is not considered significant to global warming for them. I dont think that is a fair case and believe that there assessment of the sun is not based on data. There should be scenarios with a much stronger sun (from cosmic rays and cloud cover) that are not considered because this data ruins their argument for high sensitivity to CO2.
Ah yes, the heavily criticised and widely debunked Marcott study. Once again cranks peddling junk science papers…
Appell, I remember a little while ago you were making a huge fuss about people hiding their real identities. Now you are doing the same the thing yourself. Surely everyone will conclude that you are sleazy hypocrite?
David A,
Which proxies show the hockey stick when not combined with instrumental data?
I am not claiming there are none, but I would like to know if there are any.
I think you mean which reconstructions, not which proxies. There are hundreds of different proxies you can pick and some go dramatically up, some go dramatically down and lots do nothing especially interesting at all.
@David A…”Tim: the hockey stick has been replicated many times by now, some using independent mathematical techniques. For example….”
The best debunking of the hockey stick I have seen yet came from the late John Daly. The hockey stick is based on tree ring proxies where one tree was used to cover an entire century in places.
Daly points out that no trees are found in the oceans, which cover 73% of the Earth’s surface. No trees are found in polar regions. No trees are found in tundra regions, deserts, on prairies, or on mountains above a certain elevation.
Daly reckoned that no more than 13% of the planet’s surface was covered by the hockey stick, and given the conditions mentioned, it cannot be claimed to represent global temps or even regional temps.
Furthermore, in the latter 20th century, the proxy data began showing a decline while real temps were rising. The hockey stick crew were unfazed. They simply clipped off the offending data and replaced it with real data (hide the decline). That became known as Mike’s Nature Trick and in the Climategate email scandal, IPCC grand poobah, Phil Jones, the keepr of the IPCC surface record, bragged of using it to make cooler 1940s temps seem warmer.
Problem is, they used data from fudged surface data sets. If they had used UAH temps, the hockey stick would have resembled a short-ended field-hockey stick.
Craig Loehle, who has expertise with tree ring proxies, pointed out their glaring inadequacy. Tree rings will grow in warm, moist climates but not in warm, dry climates.
In an investigation, the National Academy of Science, which had become laden with climate alarmists, let them off lightly. However, NAS told them they could not use pine bristle cone to represent the 20th century, as MBB had done. Take away the bristlecone and the hockey stick falls flat on its face.
The IPCC could not get rid of the hockey stick fast enough. They changed it’s parameters drastically, limiting it’s scope from 1850 onward. Even at that, they included so many error bars and alternatives that the hockey stick is now referred to as the spaghetti graph.
“the hockey stick has been replicated many times by now, some using independent mathematical techniques”
Yes, and the IPCC suddenly “discovered” it after their 1990 report and have used it ever since.
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Comparison-charts.jpg
Since the world considers the IPCC as the authority on this topic, it too suddenly adopted the hockey stick.
Funny how climate history for almost 2,000 years can suddenly be rewritten and represented as a high confidence measure of past global and regional temperatures(that oddly made the past much colder) at exactly the same time that great concern over dangerous warming from humans emerged.
David you can not reconcile any of the atmospheric processes AGW theory called for with the reality of what has actually occurred.
I will send you an example and then let us see if you can reconcile it.
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/new-result-shows-co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/
Curious why the cooling effect of CO2 wasn’t highlighted in this study?!? Seeing as the temperature in Alaska cooled by roughly 4 degrees during the time frame covered by the research.
Having a fancy way to isolate the CO2 emission spectrum only measures the CO2 level. The overall heat of the air is based on temperature. By combining the CO2 data with the temperature data, one might conclude the strength of CO2 absorption/emission makes the atmosphere a more efficient heat transport mechanism from surface to space.
Nice! Ive been waiting to hear the other side of that nature paper. Thanks for sharing. Good thing is it establishes a standard measurement that can now be tested as CO2 climbs higher. Of course it will be forgotten or in an obscure journal if it doesnt support the agw dogma.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/12/agw-falsified-noaa-long-wave-radiation-data-incompatible-with-the-theory-of-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/
There you go Dave.
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
David , here is past historical climatic data which shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Those are cartoons, taken most from, it looks like, Wikipedia or blogs. Blogs aren’t science. The second cartoon, for example, is ridiculous, because no one knows CO2 that well going far back in time (the data points are ~ 10 M years apart), and without accounting for a much cooler sun far back (-1%/110 Myrs), posting CO2 alone doesnt say anything.
You can post cartoons all day long. It’s the science behind them that matters, and the cartoons never go into that.
Anyone who continues to cling to the Theory O’ Hockey Stick is well acquainted with cartoons …….
Well said Jake.
David…”Blogs aren’t science”.
Who said? The only requirement of science is that you follow an orderly approach to experimentation (scientific method) so it can be verified by others. That excludes peer review, which is not a requirement of the scientific method.
Since the IPCC depends solely on peer review, and does no scientific experimentation or validation of it’s own, it cannot be classified as a true scientific body. All it offers is consensus and exploitation of science by zealots with an agenda.
Well stated Gordon Robertson!
Have a great day!
Hi John, Happy Easter. Yours truly is back from my lenten sabbatical. I gave up two things for lent, the spencer blog and rum! Needless to say, i missed one more than the other. (…and it weren’t the blog) When i left, Will was taking a bite out of “Big Appell” & now he’s STILL taking a bite out of Appell! Some things never change… It’s amazing, though, what taking a break from this can do for one’s perspective. You get the quiet of your own thoughts to see things in a different light AND to ascertain where you’re going with it all. PLUS, it doesn’t hurt to have all the rum cleared out of my head so i can think again! (both abstinences, then, complimented each other) I look forward to reading your posts again and especially “having a great day!”…
Hi Fonzarelli,
Thank you for the post and I do hope you and your family had a great, Happy Easter as well! You stated:
“I gave up two things for lent, the spencer blog and rum!”
You know I can see that these two items work in tandem. You really cannot appreciate one as well without the other. The blog definitely will drive many men to drink. Btw, did Richie Cunningham go with you? I notice being the Fonz, you did not give up skirt chasing but I suppose one can only ask so much. Perhaps that’s what Richie gave up which leaves him only with rum and the blog. Must have been an ordeal. Glad to see you back and…
Have a great day!
Well, there’s this:
“Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/?wpmp_tp=1
Yes. Of course, for the 20th century we have thermometers.
No, “not of course”. This junk science paper was only peddled around the internet by cranks BECAUSE it made various bogus claims about 20th century warming. Which even Marcott then backed away from.
Why use the word “of course” if you know the paper is junk? Ah, because you want to fool people and score an activist point, of course.
Appell, you really are remarkably sleazy.
How can a claim that there was warming in the 20th century be bogus?
John “How can a claim that there was warming in the 20th century be bogus?”
When it is preceded by a mini ice age of 400 years???
It comes down to whether it is true warming or rebound warming. Of course, warming is warming, but there is a big difference between true warming from a known warming agent and rebound warming following cooling from a cooling agent.
The latter is known. The Little Ice Age was likely caused by the Maunder Minimum, a variation of solar output. If the solar problem was resolved and the planet began to recover from a cooler period, is the warming due to anthropogenic CO2 or to a natural rebound effect with a solar cause?
If the warming is known to be due to a reversal in solar variability, then the anthropogenic cause is bogus.
Hi John,
You ask:
“How can a claim that there was warming in the 20th century be bogus?”
If the warming resulted from bogus data or if the finding of warming resulted not so much from measurement as adjustments to data or outright data manipulation, Spurious warming may result supposedly, unintentionally from methodological changes in data acquisition, as shown in a previous post regarding inconsistency and changes in temperature recoding times for surface data going back through the last century and beyond or intentionally.
Btw, since we remain in an ICE AGE warming likely has occurred. The question remains as to extent and causation.
Have a great day!
Hi Gordon Robertson,
You state:
“If the warming is known to be due to a reversal in solar variability, then the anthropogenic cause is bogus.”
It could be bogus even if no reversal in solar variability can be shown.
Have a great day!
How does that mean there was no warming in the 20th century???
The (very) big if.
OK. IF data such as UAH is bogus. Now I understand he was being hypothetical.
There is a great deal of stupid going on here. The bogus claim regarding 20th century warming was not over whether the 20th century had warmed (it did warm, just as it did warm in the 19th century and the 18th century). The problem was the Marcott claim that the rate of warming was unprecedented for the last 10,000 years. A lot of fuss was made about this claim and then it turned out it was based on a mathematical error. Egg on face all round. People like David Appell love to cite this paper but then never mention why the paper is so popular among cranks, or that it’s been debunked. The authors of the paper eventually admitted to their error.
Why can’t alarmists ever write anything without trying to distort what was written? And then they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/
Where is the data that it did warm in the 19th century and 18th centuries? Berkeley slows hardly any trend at all from 1750 to 1900 over global land areas.
Hi Will Nitschke,
You stated:
“The bogus claim regarding 20th century warming was not over whether the 20th century had warmed (it did warm, just as it did warm in the 19th century and the 18th century).”
It remains impossible to know or even have much of clue as to global mean temperatures prior to 1979. However, imo your statement regarding the 19th century appears doubtful. That time period witnessed two very large geological events unparalleled since that time in Indonesia at Mt. Tambora and Krakatau. Each produced such enormous quantities of particulate matter they’re believed to have reduced global temperatures and at Mount Tambora by several degrees and to have affected the climate years after the events. In particular I’ve read that the Mt. Tambora explosion may have reduced global temperatures by as much as 4-5 degrees celsius! The year of the explosion 1815 became known as the year without summer, crops failed worldwide, social unrest ensued, people slaughtered horses for sustenance and as a result the bicycle soon became invented as a means of transportation. Though a smaller explosion, Krakatau became better known because it occurred in the late 19th century after the invention of the telegraph and reportedly dropped global temperature some half a degree centigrade. The atmospheric effects of it’s explosion remained visible some 4 years after the event if I remember correctly. In any case, I wouldn’t book on 19th century temperatures myself.
Have a great day!
Gee, why didn’t the authors think of that? All they needed to make a hockey stick was simply cut off the proxy series at a convenient point and graft on the intrument record 🙂
and those thermometers were not even Digital until the 1960’s!
@NoFreeWind ….”…and those thermometers were not even Digital until the 1960′s!”
A digital thermometer in the early to mid-60s would have run on vacuum tubes, using an unwieldy battery, half the size of a car battery. Transistors were coming into general usage by the late 1960s but the technology was in it’s infancy at a consumer level. The kinds of ICs required for a handheld digital unit were still far into the future.
Even in the early 80s, many CPUs still used discrete transistors and the kinds of batteries we see today that are used in digital thermometers were non-existent.
Just a question. In the datafiles mentioned, there is on the bottom a trend for all the columns. Was dos this trend say? Is it per year, dacade or what?
Per decade, I think.
Yes — the trend, over the entire length of the dataset, in C/decade.
Seems to be a growing discrepancy between satellite and ground. NASA is headed towards a new record substantially higher.
If this paper is correct, UAH is underestimating the temperature trend.
Then the radiosondes must be underestimating it too. Most unlikely.
@Entropic man “If this paper is correct, UAH is underestimating the temperature trend”.
The only thing you need to know about the paper is that it comes from the University of Washington, a notorious hotbed of alarmists.
Indeed. UAH keeps growing faster than GISTemp since 1999: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/offset:0.43
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2009/trend/offset:0.43
Is there some point in an insignificant period like 6 years?
Mike, the LTs estimated by UAH are highly effected by the rate of heat coming out of the oceans especially the tropics.
Look at 1998. A huge amount of heat was put into the LT by that mega nino.
But the idea that the Earth hasn’t warmed since 1998 isn’t just wrong it’s simply ignorant.
Should 1999-2001 be indicative of the Earths warning since?
Not calling you ignorant. Just pointing out that the surface data sets measure different things.
If the Earth’s oceans are at records ssta wise but that is driven in the mid lats by near surface warming that is shallow not only is the amount of heat going into the lT less.
We are talking about 4-12C ssts being 6-15C. The surface obs will see a 2-3C change in surface temps
But if the equatorial Pacific which is 24-27C goes 2-5C above normal the amount of heat coming out into the Lt Is way higher.
That the primary reason for the discrepancy.
UAH is running 3rd warmest on record so far this year.
4th warmest last year.
And that is with the tropics being average to slightly above.
If the current major subsurface enso warmth turns into a strong nino you will see UAH go up big time.
@Chris Biscan “But the idea that the Earth hasn’t warmed since 1998 isn’t just wrong it’s simply ignorant”.
You are claiming the IPCC is both wrong and ignorant.
In the 2013 review they admitted a ‘hiatus’ in warming since 1998. The hiatus claim was accompanied by temperature trends which were in the hundredths of a degree C, temps considered as no change. The accompanying error margins suggested there may even have been a negative trend since 1998.
BTW, hiatus means stopped.
Actually, the meaning the IPCC gives for hiatus in their “Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years” is:
“a much smaller increasing linear trend”
Not exactly the same as “stopped” and not statistically significantly different from the previous rate of rise either.
David A
It seems difficult now to determine, even with modern instruments and coverage, what might be an average world tempurature. Reliable ocean temp assessments have just been developed.
To think that the proxy derived temperatures of past centuries is anything more than trende and rough temperature estimate is unsupported, except within a small group of like minded scientists who’s livelihood depends on supporting each other.
Satellite data is estimating global temps to hundredths of 1C. Limited proxy values, tree rings, sediments, corals and ice cores etc are not only geographically limited but also only infer temperature.
The two should not be combined.
hmmm, Mann’s the Hockey Stick included temperature proxies didn’t it
Yes, but he knows how to detrend them properly.
David, I can not believe this is the way you go about defending your position.
It is not convincing. You are in denial.
David says:
April 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Those are cartoons, taken most from, it looks like, Wikipedia or blogs. Blogs aren’t science. The second cartoon, for example, is ridiculous, because no one knows CO2 that well going far back in time (the data points are ~ 10 M years apart), and without accounting for a much cooler sun far back (-1%/110 Myrs), posting CO2 alone doesnt say anything.
You can post cartoons all day long. It’s the science behind them that matters, and the cartoons never go into that.
Reply
David, why don’t show or prove with data why every thing I have presented in my post at 8:45AM is not correct?
This is about where the global temperature trend from this point in time will be heading and it will not be up.
Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
I have updated your graph in mu climate and meteorology pages.
“David A” pontificates about cartoons.
Does it get any funnier?
David Appell seems to be posing as David, David A and Dave now. I remember a year ago he was making a huge fuss about ‘Goddard’ not using his real name on this blog. Now he hides behind multiple identities himself. Apparently if ‘deniers’ do something it’s morally wrong, but if he does exactly the same thing, it’s morally right.
David has yet to respond to my post at 8:45 am Apr 03,2015
David the climate has been quite stable over the past 150 years in comparison to earlier times long before the AGW issue was in play.
That would ordinarily end a discussion of this kind if it were not agenda driven. AGW has nothing to stand on, no data to show this time in the history of the climate of the earth is somehow different then from the past and no atmospheric processes that AGW predicted that are actually taking place.
This theory will be gone as a viable theory before this decade ends.
Where do you get the data for earlier times?
Chris Biscan is right to point out ocean dynamics driving air temperature changes. The 1998 peak is still the dominant feature of the UAH record.
This is not about CO2. It has everything to do with water heated by shortwave solar radiation, stored and circulating in complex patterns, driven by the temperature differential between the equator and the poles. Scientists are gaining insight into the temperature dynamics of our water world.
“From 1920 to 2012, there are roughly two warm IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) phases (1924–1945 and 1977–1998, with warm SSTs in the central and eastern tropical Pacific) and two cold IPO phases (1946–1976 and 1999–2012, with cold SSTs in the same region). The most recent cold IPO phase is still continuing. We found that phase switches of the IPO are concurrent with major climate transitions over the globe, including abrupt shifts in SST, SLP, T and P.”
Living on our water world means our temperatures and precipitation fluctuate according to ocean circulations and oscillations, especially ENSO and IPO patterns in the Pacific basin.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/climate-report-from-the-water-world/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jvP7BqVi4&feature=player embedded
What effect does the internal temperature of the earth have on the climate? Is it included in the climate models? I doubt that the mantle thickness stays constant since eruptions are a breakthrough of that thickness.
I have read that a volcanic eruption can lower the temperature 2 degrees for a couple of years. If that is the case then any model that predicts the climate for the next hundred years would have to predict when, where and how strongly the volcano’s will erupt. If they cannot then the science is not settled. If they can they should publish it to save lives.