Home/BlogNOTE: This is the fourteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is still in peer review.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2016 is +0.55 deg. C, down 0.16 deg. C from the April value of +0.71 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.17 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.94
2016 05 +0.55 +0.65 +0.44 +0.72
Cooling from the weakening El Nino is now rapidly occurring as we transition toward likely La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.
The “official” UAH global image for May, 2016 should be available in the next several days here.
The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta5”) should be updated soon, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0beta5.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0beta5.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0beta5.txt
Roy, thanks for the update. Looks like the TLT is finally starting to make the anticipated big plunge. The main question is how low will it go?
Ive been tracking the daily and monthly NCEP CFSR/CFSV2 posted by the University of Maine (UM) Climate Change Institute (CCI). Based on final daily estimates posted for May 1-18 and preliminary May 19-31 estimates, I get a monthly global temperature anomaly of 0.44C referenced to 1981-2010, which is down 0.12C from April. Trend and seasonal graphs are posted here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
I see Ryan hasn’t posted his CFSv2 T2m value for May yet.
Roy, Joe Bastardi recently posted a comment on WUWT saying he thought it was 0.425C. The last WxBell estimate for May month-to-date as of 06Z on May 31 was 0.416C. The WxBell estimates have been running about 0.2C lower than the UM CCI estimates for the last several months. I’m not sure why.
Oops. Make that running about 0.02C lower for WxBell vs UM CCI.
The errors are in the measuring. Its the crux of why global average temp is such a stupid parameter.
Well using the rational cycle theory as if you want to get the real answer as to what’s really happening with the earths climate we can see that the peak of this previous 11 year solar cycle was February of 2016 while one of the strongest el ninos on record also peaked in November to about the same time. All these factors along with the end of the peak 206 year solar cycle helped result in a temperature spike that slightly over goes the 1997-98 elnino since the 11 year cycle wasn’t at its peak at that time. According to John l Casey one of the best climatologists in the U.S. He releases his press release in April of 2016 saying that after February which as I said earlier was the peak of the 11 year solar cycle combined with the record warm El Nio what we should now expect are rapidly declining global temperatures until we reach a cold bottom in the 2030s. Man made co2 has very little to do with global temps. Yes it can turn into a big problem in the long term if we don’t switch to a more efficient energy source within the next century but the idea that algore says is causing all these stupid catosrtophic events that are supposed to happen but aren’t. According to Al gores statement increasing co2 to the ghg budget should result in a continued increase in global temperatures but this is simply not the case because since 1998 there has been no global warming yet co2 was at a record high in the atmosphere last year something the warmists are too embarrassed to admit because they don’t want to be seen to the public community with egg smuthered all over there face. So instead they say that there has been a “global warming hiatus” to cover there claims! I encourage you to do the research your self and search “dr Roy spencer latest global temps and you will see what I’m saying! Have a nice day
There’s nothing like a cold bottom!
This solar cycle theory sounds fascinating. The sun clearly must be a major factor in climate.
Could you provide some more info regarding this “206 year cycle” theory? I googled a bit but nothing really turned up. When I look that data for sunspots, I see a lot of variation, but I can’t see any 206 year pattern.
For instance, here is sunspot number and also a beryllium isotope proxy. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
Here is a longer carbon isotope proxy. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
None of these seem to show any distinct 206 year cycle. Can you show (or link to) the analysis that identifies those cycles in some statistically significant way? When were the peaks?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ctY6tbyEUkE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T9I6sqDnmS8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KhxRU_mqUSY
http://www.veritence.net/assets/Veritence_Commentary_Monday_April_11__2016_Peak_Global_Warming.pdf
Sorry, but I still don’t see it.
John Casey’s video is long on politics but short on science, with basically no data about solar cycles. Maybe his book is better, but the video merely *claims* a 206 year cycle that neither he nor you seem to be able to support with any actual mathematical analysis.
One video does show a vague coincidence between the last three cycles (22,23,24) and three cycles about 200 years ago (3,4,5), to try to justify a 206 year cycle. But going back 200 more years, the cycles are not at all the same. In fact, you would have to argue that the most recent 206 year cycle is NOT what is going to happen (sunspot activity picked up again shortly after Cycle 5 and the globe warmed). Your prediction would be based on the PREVIOUS “206 year cycle”, where the sunspot cycle actually DID drop off and the Little Ice Age happened.
Yes, there could well be a connection. But until you have solid mathematical analysis along with solid theories about solar cycles, I don’t see much more than a “hypothesis”.
So present actual math and/or theory. Point to specific data in the videos. Or be content knowing you have a fascinating hypothesis that *might* be shown right in the future, but is currently just a fascinating hypothesis.
Did you even bother check out the links I sent you? Here’s another link:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
Math shows us over the past 100 years that since 1998 and between 1940 and 1980 there is no steady increase in global temperatures and according to the global warming theory we should continue to see a steady warming trend of co2 was the main driver of climate change. This simply hasn’t happened. Do the research yourself and this time provide links to wvidence that support your claims please
And yes I suggest you get johns book dark winter.
“…according to the global warming theory we should continue to see a steady warming trend of co2 was the main driver of climate change.”
False.
CO2 is not the only driver of short-term changes.
I’m sure you know this. Why ignore it, then?
“CO2 is not the only driver of short-term changes.”
CO2 is a VERY MINOR (if any) driver of ANY change in climate..
It is a NON-ISSUE.
I defy you to prove otherwise, with REAL science.
oops.. you have NO IDEA what real science is,
you are, after all, only a low-end Sci-fantasy writer in a back-stream left-wing rag.
Climatechange4realz,
1) Yes, I did look at the links, as is evidenced by my comments about specific information in the videos. So instead, it appears you did not read my response.
2) No theory says CO2 is the ONLY significant driver. So your “should continue to see a steady warming trend” is a strawman.
3) Even if CO2 were not involved at all, that is not proof that any counterargument you propose must be right.
4) Even if the sun HAS been driving the climate changes, you have presented no compelling argument that sunspots will decline. In fact, if the sun follows the pattern from 206 years ago, the sunspots will remain low for just one more cycle and then increase. So this would mean a warming trend starting again around 2030, not a cooling trend.
So … you have an interesting hypothesis. But until you can convince people that your predictions for future cycles are *robust* and that they will NOT follow the recent 206 year pattern, you are really just guessing about catastrophic cooling in the coming decades.
@showmethedata really? How can you say that? What do you think has been driving the climate before mans fossil fuels came to existence for the past billions of years then? Also co2 is not a cause of climate change at all co2 is an effect of climate change. If the temperature increases there is an increase in co2 only 800 years or so later as Murray salby states in the video in the link I sent you. You cannot assume that adding to an effect will cause the cause to get worse because the effect happens because of a cause not the other way around. Co2 never is and never will be a driver of climate change at all simply because past data shows us it never was. Effects like PDO, AMO El Nio and La Nia are also AFFECTS caused by the sun. Do you think co2 could have caused that? No. Face it man made climate change is the biggest scientific hoax ever to be perpetrated on man kind and there’s nothing you can do to deny it. The climate is and will always continue to change according to the sun. I’ve showed you the data mr. “show me the data” now are you going to except it or not?
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689
Here’s an interesting link from prof Miss Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria, about the solar cycles and the double dynamo theory of the sun.
Maybe this can help to look at the dynamics of the multi-century cycle of the sun superimposed on the decennial cycle.The frequency numbers may be slightly different, but qualitatively it deals with the “short” sun cycle and the “longer” ones. It’s linked also in the article to Maunder and Dalton minima…
She wrote me the following as additional explanation:
“We have also produced the curve backwards to 3000 years showing very good correspondence of the known minima and maxima beside the one reported by Sporer in the 14-16 centuries derived from abundance of carbon isotope C14. We suspected that merging the direct curves for sunspots (17-21 centuries) with the proxy of isotopes is not fully validated as the isotopes exist on the Earth and always carry the effects of any terrestrial events not known to us. We turned out to be correct, as the medieval reports show a great increase of cosmic ray activity in our own Galaxy revealed by appearances of supernovas and huge Auroras seen in the Earth.”
Interesting stuff. cheers, Christian
So, CO² not the main control then of temp, then.? Quelle surprise
Logic doesn’t follow. “CO2 is not the only driver of short-term changes =/= “CO2 is not the main control then of (period unspecified) temp.”
Nothing clever or cogent about fiddling language.
Mainstream view: CO2 has been the dominant driver of global surface/lower troposphere temperatures since the mid 20th century/1979. On scales shorter than a couple of decades (surface)/25 years (lower trop), other effects can dominate.
It’s no simpler than that. Arguing the point is legitimate. Misrepresenting it isn’t .
Barry, the mainstream view is a scramble to cover their failed AGW hypothesis. You would do well not to cite mainstream views/science except as an example of what one should avoid.
Observations tell us that CO2 determines nothing concerning climate, the ever flowing “mainstream” of pseudoscience notwithstanding. The mainstream is a Cloaca Maxima.
Right, Mainstream science is lame. What has it ever done right anyway?
For that matter- mainstream plumbers, doctors, and auto mechanics shouldnt be trusted either. They usually are wrong about their so-called expertise. better to do it all DIY.
Or better yet, trust a guy, on a blog, who says he knows stuff!
You would do well not to cite mainstream views/science except as an example of what one should avoid.
Precisely what I did – to help SR avoid misrepresenting it.
In that case strike out “would”.
No Barry it’s not. In fact it is actually an effect of climate change. Wherever the earths climate goes co2 goes likewise only 800 years later. I suggest you watch Murray Sally’s presentation on this subject of matter.
Roy, can’t thank you enough, and Dr Christy, for all your effort.
This COULD be it folks. We might be saying g’bye to warmer global temps for the long haul. At any rate, we should all have a lot of fun watching where this thing winds up. We may be freezing our back sides off a decade from now, but at least we’ll have that warm “told you so” feeling deep down inside…
Dr. S., it’s nice to see your data set over there at wuwt. I hope you keep that up as they could use your data at this critical juncture in time. It’s good to make a positive out of the negative of your “blog hiatus” like that…
Have fun, everyone; it’s kind of like watching the ball drop on new years eve…
Do you foresee that molecular properties of carbon dioxide changing over the next decade?
Davy, 10 years from now carbon dioxide will STILL not be a heat source.
Crazy Davy, it’s all about climate sensitivity, of which nobody really knows. If climate variability is entering a cooling phase, then low climate sensitivity won’t be enough to bail us out. Wait, watch and see…
David Appell,
With 15 micron IR fully thermalized within a few meters of the earth’s surface, there is no more RF to be had from that band. AGW RIP.
Saturation will not happen, because the atmosphere radiates too, not just the surface.
Read Pierrehumbert’s PT article, with sidebar “Saturation fallacies.”
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Perhaps it does! No one said that man is not responsible for any warming. I stated in one of my comments that if we don’t switch to a different energy source besides spewing carbon dioxide from our tail pipes of our vehicles etc. it could create a problem for the long term. However I think that within the next 100 years we would have uses so much fossil fuels that there wouldn’t be anymore. No more extra co2, no extra heat obsorbers, no extra heat obsorbers, no man made global warming
Again, saturation is a myth.
Read RP’s article.
Wrong. Plenty say that AGW is DOA. No warming attributable to AGW yet, not by my science.
So much for PierreHumbert, Appell.
Neither of you understand the term “saturation” as applied to the absorbency by CO2 of the 15 micron IR radiated at the surface. Doubling atmospheric CO2 has no effect. CO2 is a fizzle, 85% redundant to water vapor and clouds. Sorry.
You’re wrong.
Learn the science.
You are wrong, unlearn your pseudoscience.
Hey Davie, your pseudoscience paper was hilarious. The poor guy makes glaring errors in both of the first two sentences!
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 × 1017 joules of energy from the Sun.”
‘Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
Can you find the errors?
Yes, the first error is to read Pierrehumbert.
(smiley face)
mpainter, it seems you understand some of the basics, but not some of the important implications.
1) Only the middle of the 15 um band is “saturated”, but not the “wings”. Adding more CO2 makes the wings closer to saturation, thus changing the IR properties of the atmosphere and hence changing the energy balance.
2) At”redundancy the the “top of the atmosphere” (where the bulk of the 15 um band of radiation that escapes to space is generated), by definition, the band is NOT saturated. Adding more CO2 changes the radiation from the top of the atmosphere, thus changing the IR properties of the atmosphere and hence changing the energy balance.
3) CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere, while clouds and water vapor tend to be near the surface. The IR escaping to space impacts the overall energy balance for the planet. So the “saturated” 15 um band from CO2 absorbs 15 um radiation from lower (warmer) clouds and water vapor and land and oceans, emitting its own 15 um IR from the higher (colder) regions. Hence the “redundancy” you mention is not an important factor. IF the clouds were *above* the CO2, then the overlap within the bands would be quite important.
Tim, thanks for your comment.
There is water to the tropopause as vapor/clouds. Again, there is no RF in the upper troposphere, merely a flux, from kinetic to radiant and back. Nothing changed. The posited RF is not there, as shown by radiosonde and satellite data.
Also, Tim, the 15 micron emission TOA is due to cirrus, imo. I doubt that CO2 plays much of a role here.
I should finish my thought: water vapor/clouds to the tropopause is redundancy for CO2 “wings”. This bird flaps but never flies.
Also, Geoff Wood makes an interesting comment below on the temperature gradient of the troposphere and atmospheric thermodynamics. There is no question in my mind that the Trenberth type earth energy budgets are egregious, even absurd.
If 15 micron IR is saturated, why is some leaving the top of the atmosphere?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Davie, you don’t know?
Have you NEVER studied radiative heat transfer?
Don’t you know? Clouds radiate it, CO2 radiates it.but that is only kinetic energy transduced to radiant; energy already present in the atmosphere. Why can’t you understand that what the surface radiates is absorbed within a few meters. That is saturation. The entire component of surface emissions 15 micron IR is absorbed. Double CO2 and…the entire component of surface emissions 15 micron IR is absorbed.
Ray P talks around that. The bottom line is there is no RF left in that band, not even in the shoulders because that is already absorbed by water vapor and clouds.
The interaction between the CO2 molecule and thermal radiation from the Earth surface takes place through resonant vibration along the axis of the CO2 molecule at 20,397GHz producing a dipole moment which interacts with photons of energy equivalent to 14.77micron wavelength.
The process of interaction involves an upward moving photon encountering a CO2 molecule, being anihilated and having its energy transferred to the CO2 molecule vibration at 20,397GHz.
This vibration of a dipole moment results in the generation of electromagnetic radiation in the form of a new photon at the same 14.77micron wavelength. This new photon will be radiated in a random direction roughly one third of the time in upward downward or sideways directions.
This process is repeated over and over with the photons generated in the net one third upward direction eventually escaping into space.
This is why the spectral notch from CO2 only cuts two thirds of the way into the Earth’s thermal raduation spectrum.
Check my Hansen Mars Challenge
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf which contains virtually identical spectra from Earth and Mars both showing the spectral notch from CO2 only cutting two thirds of the way into the spectrum even though Mars has at least 9 times more net CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth.
100% right, Norm. And just to emphasize what you wrote:
“This new photon will be radiated in a random direction roughly one third of the time in upward downward or sideways directions.”
“This process is repeated over and over with the photons generated in the net one third upward direction eventually escaping into space.”
These two sentences seem to be the hardest for Warmists to understand.
If you want to divide the radiation up like this, then roughly 1/6 goes up, down, north, south, east, and west, so the notch would only be 1/6 . Or 1/2 up and 1/2 down, so the notch should be 1/2. There is no justification for 1/3 beyond coincidence and wishfulthinking.
In fact, this whole geometry argument is wrong. There is a notch only because the CO2 emitting the radiation is rather cold.
I agree that the flux is completely isotrophic. Imo, the 15 micron TOA is cirrus, mostly.
So if we dont see cooling after la nina then do you change your positions about stronger solar forcing?
Im not sure bc lags are very real and temp changes from forcing can be delayed for 100s of years due to various ocean currents acting as buffers. However, it has been a decade since solar activity dropped.
I guess im watching closely.
Aaron, your’s is the reason that i’ve used non-definitive lingo in my comment such as “COULD” and “might be”… We don’t really know exactly how this will play out. We do know that we’ve seen weak solar cycles in the last hundred years that resulted in flat temps. This may (or may not) be the first back to back weak solar cycles that we’ve seen in a long while. So it would seem that this might show us something new. This is where the “fun” comes in. We’re actually going to see what happens right before our very eyes! Win, lose or draw, we should learn something in the coming decade. (and there will be lots to talk about)…
What we will learn is that politicizing science in order to accomplish secular ends distorts science, and lessens the trust of those who should be able to trust.
AGW has become, for many, a religion. To deny it is heresy.
Yet the belief in it is supportive of the political ends of people such as Barack Obama, who wish to dictate to the rest of us what to believe and how to live. For them, the pseudoscience is a way to convince the unwashed masses of the correctness of their radical agenda.
When, and if, the climate turns colder, will these true believers reverse course? Of course not. I suspect they will turn again to blaming industrialization for the cooling, just as they did 30 years ago.
For them the issue is not about climate or science, but the inherent evil of mankind. Industrialization is only one enemy: they wish Malthus was correct.
Testing…
Lewis, if it does turn colder, the cat will be out of the bag… This paradigm has been so much more visible than the 70s global cooling scare. Too many people will see this thing for what it really is. AND a great number of scientists (97%?) will jump ship just like dr curry did. So i don’t think it will be business as usual if we see an extended period of cooling…
That’s exactly right Lewis!
Lewis: Just disprove the science of AGW.
If you could, you wouldn’t need to make all kinds of ridiculous accusations about religion and true believers and all that. Those are just distractions you’re throwing up, precisely because you CAN’T disprove AGW.
I can. See my comment above. The 15 micron band is saturated. There is no more RF to be had from that band.
David,
If you weren’t a true believer, you wouldn’t act so emotionally about the subject.
My point stands.
Lewis
(Nor can AGW be proven…)
The BOM ENSO 3.4 index will have a NEGATIVE anomaly next week. I expect UAH Global will drop negative by spring/summer 2017.
Negative anomalies are NOT indicative of warming.
NOAA’s Nino3.4 anomaly went negative last week:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst8110.for
Different baselines, no big whup.
Except that the BOM terminology is opposite to what one would expect.
A negative anomaly at the level shown indicates El Nino.
Here’s the link:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Understanding graphs can be sooooo hard….
Geran:
While your graph is correct there is little point reading it and then you predicting that the BOM 3.4 SST graph may be -ve next week when NOAA already had that measure in negative territory last week. David Appell made this observation
Look at the ENSO BOM SOI index, which is exclusively a BOM index. It is the opposite of the other anomaly measures; a strong -ve is indicative of El Nino.
“Sustained positive values of the SOI above +7 typically indicate La Nia while sustained negative values below −7 typically indicate El Nio. Values between about +7 and −7 generally indicate neutral conditions.”
It has only just turned into positive territory still being in El Nino territory on 19th May.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/influences/timeline/
tonyM, do you have a chemistry BA from a nondescript school?
You are beginning to remind me of someone.
Let’s see if your color vision works.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
No I don’t but your form of non seq
No Geran,
But your form of non sequitur argument would leave even a B.A. skeptical of whatever talent to which you may lay claim.
Stick to BOM and its measures and don’t try to conflate and obfuscate by introducing another measure not related to BOM.
In 1999 the Co2 molecules went on strike for better working conditions.
It seems now their requests are granted.
Nobody knows here.
UAH LT linear trend since Dec 1999: +0.09 C/decade.
NOAA global surface: +0.19 C/decade.
Show me links for those charts david
Download the data and calculate. I have.
Lol nice answer David
Dr Spencer supplies the link to UAH data in the top post. Best to do it yourself. Are you going to just take someone’s word for it? (Obviously not, or you would have acquiesced to begin with) I mean, CC4R could just gin up a fake graph. How would you know?
Verify for yourself. Only way to be sure.
I got a trend of 0.125C/decade for UAH6.5 TLT Jan 1992 to May 2016 (OLS regression)
http://s1006.photobucket.com/user/barryschwarz/media/uah6.5%201992%20-%20may%202016_zpsqou0jknz.png.html
I got a trend of 0.134C/decade for RSS, same period (AMRA 1,1 regression).
http://s1006.photobucket.com/user/barryschwarz/media/rss%201992%20-%20may%202016_zpsiysahpvg.png.html
Do you believe it now, CC4R?
Oops, I misread the start date. From 1999 to present then:
UAH6.5 0.104C/decade Jan 1999 May 2016 (OLS)
http://s1006.photobucket.com/user/barryschwarz/media/UAH6.5%201999%20-%20May%202016_zps946ps9zf.png.html
RSS 0.83C/decade, same period (AMRA 1,1)
http://s1006.photobucket.com/user/barryschwarz/media/RSS%201999%20-%20May%202016_zpsbqzpghyv.png.html
Youll get a positive trend line for any period longer than a year up to the present, with variable rates depending on the start date. You can cherry-pick very carefully to get a really low trend if you want.
And there’s barry with ultimate zero-understanding cherry-pick.
so funny !!
Andy – did you not notice that someone else picked the start date?
And did you not notice that I said you can pick any date longer than a year before present and always get a positive trend in UAH6.5 data set?
No? Too interested playing the man, I guess.
Which start date do you think is reasonable? And why?
Cherry picking a La Nina start to an El Nino end? Only a completely dishonest person would do something like that.
Richard M, meet David Appell, resident disinformationist. Dishonest does not come close to describing his tactics.
Peter Loo picked the time interval, just me.
He was wrong that there’s been no warming over that interval.
If you were able to dispute the math you wouldn’t need to resort to name calling.
An honest person would have stated that using that interval was not valid. Mr. Appell could have been honest. Instead, he chose to jump on it knowing full well he was being dishonest. This is why AGW believers have zero credibility and Mr Appell is a well known liar.
The entire UAH record (37+ years) isn’t long enough to be a valid record of climate change.
Richard, I showed that the quoted conclusion for the quoted period was wrong. That is, some here can’t do basic math.
There was a strong La Nina from mid-1998 to early 2001.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
From mid-2001 (July) to present, HadSST shows a linear trend of +0.10 C/decade.
The incipient La Nina will extend the flat trend for several more years. In fact, a slight cooling is likely with the onset of the blue phase of the PDO and the AMO. We shall see no more warming for thirty years or more. Maybe never if the earth sees another stepdown like in the LIA. One thing is for sure: CO2 don’t work.
Unscientific conclusion. Wrong about the PDO.
“30 years” is just your same old opinion, without an iota of science to back it up, ignoring again the warming that has and is taking place.
Time to start presenting science to back up your claims, instead of just spouting them. ’til then….
No more RF left in the 15 micron IR, David.
Or do you claim that energy transduced from kinetic to radiant and back again constitutes warming? Learn to recognize junk science, David. You will be much happier if you do.
David, here’s another calculation for you:
If the present rate of decline in the global temperature anomaly continues, we could see the lowest monthly temperature anomaly recorded during the whole satellite temperature era.
AGW: Adios Global Warming.
Linear trend sinced UAH LT peak (2/2016) is -10.3 C/decade. (Not statistically significant at all.)
So you think the Earth will reach absolute zero Kelvin in about 290 years.
Yes, that’s definitely convincing.
“.. the Earth will reach absolute zero Kelvin in about 290 years.”
###
Can’t help yourself, can you David? You just have to exaggerate, doncha. Just have to. Must be those quarks in your soup. Or quirks.
It was you who wrote, “If the present rate of decline in the global temperature anomaly continues, we could see the lowest monthly temperature anomaly recorded during the whole satellite temperature era.”
Just what do you calculate the “decline” to be?
.. the Earth will reach absolute zero Kelvin in about 290 years.
###
Whose comment, David, yours or mine?
Just what do you calculate the decline to be?
Yours, David. You see, it’s on the internet, which never forgets. Tsk, Tsk. Junk science leads one to this.
What do you calculate the decline to be?
I don’t think you have such a number.
As usual your claims are half-baked hand waving.
You guys seem to be arguing about internal variability from Enso. I think to establish a trend you need to at least smooth through the ENSO (elnino lanina) cycle. A 5yr running average does a decent job. There is over 1 deg C temp change during a major ENSO event.
No, one ENSO cycle isn’t enough (and, actually, there is no such thing — ENSOs don’t come in well defined cycles).
Even cycles like the PDO and AMO are ~50-60 years long. So to draw conclusions about climate change you should at least look at intervals that long. (So UAH & RSS don’t yet cut it.)
What claims do you invent for me, David?
##
mpainter says:
June 1, 2016 at 9:00 PM
David, heres another calculation for you:
If the present rate of decline in the global temperature anomaly continues, we could see the lowest monthly temperature anomaly recorded during the whole satellite temperature era.
AGW: Adios Global Warming.
###
David Appell: “So you think the Earth will reach absolute zero Kelvin in about 290 years.”
Nope, by year’s end. 7 x -.16 = -1.12 or -.57 global anomaly, the lowest of the satellite era.
David, do you imagine to score off of skeptics by appearing obtuse? Or do you think that you can blow enough smoke and fog to disguise your fractured thinking?
Give up, David.
Mpainter,
You say “David, do you imagine to score off of skeptics by appearing obtuse?”
This is what the AGW religion has led to: terming those who don’t agree with a particular line of science as skeptics.
Sad. But the purpose seems to indicate a desire by the true believers to use guilt and peer pressure to obtain compliant belief. Some politicians are attempting the threat of force and others withhold money (grants). It is all emotional pressure.
This is no different than the Islam method of subjugation.
“The second instruction is that unbelievers should be called to Islam; in fact, the Qur’an says you cannot wage war against unbelievers until you have preached to them. The third instruction is that if they do not convert to Islam, then, they must be fought. The fourth instruction is that if they surrender, or convert, then you must stop waging war. If they do not convert or surrender, then they must be killed. This is the optimum route for Islamist expansion: A tidal wave of war, subjugation and conversion”
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/islam_unbelievers.html
And just what is “the present rate of decline in the global temperature?”
David Appell says:
June 2, 2016 at 5:53 PM
“… some here cant do basic math.”
##
Basic math, David. Keep trying, it’ll come.
Oops, I misread the start date. From 1999 to present then:
UAH6.5 0.104C/decade Jan 1999 – May 2016 (OLS)
http://s1006.photobucket.com/user/barryschwarz/media/UAH6.5%201999%20-%20May%202016_zps946ps9zf.png.html
RSS 0.83C/decade, same period (AMRA 1,1)
http://s1006.photobucket.com/user/barryschwarz/media/RSS%201999%20-%20May%202016_zpsbqzpghyv.png.html
You’ll get a positive trend line for any period longer than a year up to the present, with variable rates depending on the start date. You can cherry-pick very carefully to get a really low trend if you want.
Barry, are you pulling numbers out of your ass again?
He seems to have forgotten what the 1990 IPCC report said:
The IPCC was wrong. (Matthew England and the ABC mislead Australians)
“The Facts:
The IPCC used the word prediction in 1990 and predicted a best estimate of 0.3C with a range of 0.2C 0.5C per decade
Even with the most generous overestimate of current trends, the temperature trend has fallen below their lowest estimate, while CO2 emissions were higher than expected. The 1990 predictions can not be called true, consistent or to have occurred by any definition in any English dictionary.
The IPCC Prediction was Wrong
The quote from the first page of the Executive Summary of the Summary for Policy Makers, FAR 1990:1
Based on current model results, we predict:
Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C 0.5C) [IPCC FAR summary]
The caption on Fig 8. IPCC FAR Summary makes it clear that the realized temperature is a prediction caused by Business-as-usual emissions. The predictions are linear from the year 2000.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/the-ipcc-was-wrong-england-and-the-abc-mislead-australians/
From Roy’s own temperature chart shows that from the peak in 1998 to the peak this year,there is no warming trend by the 13 month running mean.Definitely well below the minimum .20C warming over the past 17 years time.
Dr. Jones has provided data sets running back to mid 1800’s showing nearly identical per decadal warming rates of all three distinct warming periods.
There is no clear increasing AGW signal coming out of this.
Barry, by your own calculations you have rebutted the IPCC minimum decadal warming projection trend from 1990 onward of at least .20C,which has become .30C for this century.
Thank you.
I don’t think so. Cite?
It is in all the IPCC reports since 1990,here is a sample from the 2007 report:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1C per decade would be expected.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
It’s in the 2007 AR4 report only, just as you cited. That prediction is not in any of the other reports.
2007 + 20 = 2027. We’ve got a bit of a wait to see how that pans out.
And “about 0.2C” means 0.15C to 0.25C over 2 decades.
You should calculate the trend from 2007 to present for any of the global surface/lower tropspheric data sets. You might be surprised.
Barry, your number for the RSS trend looks off by a factor of 10(?)
Yep. Typo.
The El Nino was only ever going to be a transient effect.
Gone now Strong La Nina predicted.
AMO starting to head downwards.
The Sun having a snooze.
This is probably the last year of the zero temperature trend of this century.
A cooling trend is coming that will be a wake-up call to all those sucked in by the AGW alarmism.
Nicely put “in a nutshell” there, Andy… This should be as much fun as we have had in a long, long time. (chilly to be sure, but fun!)
“The Sun having a snooze.”
It was almost spotless on May 30th. The averaged 10.7 flux is down to 89. We will not know for at least eight years if the Sun is just snoozing or has taken a Mogadon.
The reaction of the atmosphere to the gradual reduction of ozone-destroying gases will also be interesting, but will not be a clear test, for a decade or two, of the theories of Professor Q B Lu et al.
Many of us will not be around to see the whole game played out. Pity. I was looking forward to having a “Scythian” drinking cup.
50% chance of la Nina later in the year according to monitoring sites, strength undetermined – too early to call at this time of year.
Avoid wishful thinking?
“…50% chance of La Nina later in the year according to monitoring sites…”
NO!
50% chance by (Northern) SUMMER, 75% chance before end of 2016 [= “later in the year”]. (IRI ENSO FORECAST , 12th MAY)
Australian Bureau of Meteorolgy has already announced that conditions are NEUTRAL and a renewal of El Nino is extremely unlikely; the Bureau is presently on La Nina WATCH.
Fro the BoM ENSO page:
“Changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean and atmosphere, combined with current climate model outlooks, suggest the likelihood of La Nia forming later in 2016 is around 50%, meaning the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook remains at La Nia WATCH.”
I’ve basically quoted them.
IRI is one source. The BoM figure is based on a range of forecasts from 8 institutes. BoM’s own forecast is a brief dip into la Nina values in the near-term, and sitting around la Nina threshold for the rest of the year (mean sits above the la Nina threshold from October).
It’s too early to call, and BoM’s 50% chance seems the most reasonable just now.
But say 75% is it. I wouldn’t call that a “prediction.” I’d call it a 3 in 4 chance of happening.
Barry if your going to be a dumb idiot I suggest you do it on someone else’s website because this website and the people who comment on it seem to have more intelligence then you. Lmao!
Stop the ad hominem attacks and address Barry’s numbers.
Yawn.. need a tissue, do you .
That’s alright – the government data manipulators will adjust the data, again, so that it still shows a warming trend. There’s nothing to worry about here. Your climate grant funding is safe!
@two labs, yes indeed money is the root of all evil. These selfish spoiled governmental shills will continue to serve there man made global warming brownie delux until they have to switch it too something even tastier because people will start to get bored of the same flavor lol.
UAH adjusts their data too.
Adjustments are necessary to correct biases. Here is a great article explaing them well:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
True but GISS data looks absurd when u compare the strength of the Nino 3.4 data (sst) vs global temperature response for the 97 98 and 15 16 El Nino events. You can see they have decreased the 97 98 event somehow during corrections. Its most likely invalid method based on this sort of signal to response anaylsis.
“You can see they have decreased the 97 98 event somehow during corrections. Its most likely invalid method based on this sort of signal to response anaylsis.”
Signal-to-response analysis isn’t *at all* how the various groups do temperature adjustments.
Why should global temps match ENSO temps? Do you think global climate never changes?
Well there is a good relationship between an el nino in the ocean and the temperature response that does not hold for that data set. Ie big event in nino3.4 then a lag and big event in global data. The data set turns the 97 98 into a weak event but it was very big in pacifoc. I dont buy it. It will get really interesting during the next pdo when heat is coming back from storage… then they will prob make a new adjustment when to much heating. we shall see.
The 2 ENSO events are about equal across many metrics. Climate fluctuates, so there’s no reason to expect equal global temperature results from one super el Nino to another. 1982/83 was another super el Nino, but temps were cooler for that period because the background temperature was cooler. This is so regardless of which global temperature set you look at.
Of course, if one believed that climate never changes, then one might be persuaded to see it as you do.
This el Nino event was accompanied in UAH v5.6 with the highest monthly temp anomaly in the record. The first 5 months for 2016 have been warmer than the first 5 months of 1998. You reckon UAH are fudging their data?
David what kind of price of crap junk science article is that? Come on! You could do better then that! Why would this chart be adjusted? Dr Roy spencer and John Christi put together the data themselves trying to prove man made global warming is a big fat hoax! If they new that someone was adjusting there data they would sue them! Nice try!
I don’t think you’re really serious, but…UAH must adjust for a host of biases, such as satellite drift, satellite correlations over time, and more.
There is a long list of literature on this, quite technical. Some of the issues are still contentious. You should go read the papers.
UAH gives the most reliable temperature data and global temperature trends. Surface datasets are corrupted by spurious warming from several sources, not the least of which is anthropogenic.
UAH TMT is unaffected by diurnal or orbital drift. Satellite data is corroborated by radiosonde data.
Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets.”
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
———————-
Some of the interannual wiggles are bigger in RSS, and since 1998 or something like that, were showing less [warming] than the surface datasets. I suspect thats at least partly due to a problem in our dataset, probably having to do with the [time-of-day] correction. It could be an error in the surface datasets, but the evidence suggests that theyre more reliable than the satellite datasets, Mears said.”
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
David, again, UAH is corroborated by radiosonde data, with a .98 correlation between UAH and radiosonde data over North America and Australia.
For reliable temperature datasets, see UAH.
By the way, Carl Mears calls Roy Spencer and John Christy “denialists” every chance he gets. There’s your satellite guru, David.
What is the source of that claim?
N.A. and Australia are just 3.4% of the Earth’s surface area.
100% – 3.4% = 96.6%
I’ve heard others say the same as Mears.
John Christy is the source. See his Congressional testimony this year. Radiosonde data confirms UAH troposphere temperatures.
###
“Ive heard others say the same as Mears.”
Does Mears talk about radiosonde data? Do the others? No? You cling to junk science like a big blue tick, David.
Show me the science that says radiosonde data confirms UAH data.
I did. Show me how obtuseness constitutes science. You are floundering, David.
Seems the rotten Appell knows nothing about sample validation.
Then again, I would expect a low-end Sci-fantasy journalist to know anything…. about anything..
And DA keeps proving that point. Scientific ignorance is his one and only meme..
Andy:
I’ve seen your comments on several blogs over the years.
Never once have I ever seen you comment about the science.
Not once.
I’ve only ever seen, like here, name calling. Ad hominem attacks. Nothing but insults.
Clearly you can’t discuss the science. This is why I usually ignore you — you simply have nothing meaningful to contribute.
— David
You have yet to contribute anything except low-end sci-fantasy.
Lets sum up the facts,
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan surface data for 20 years
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling … (is this a CO2 thing as well?)
11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.
There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.
The ONLY warming has come from ElNino and ocean circulation effects.
“Never once have I ever seen you comment about the science.”
You wouldn’t recognise science if it bit you in the arse !
RSS did their own study and also confirmed radiosonde data verified satellite data.
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/validation
Once again we see proof that Mr. Appell is dishonest and confirmation that Dr. Mears is also dishonest.
@ David Appel….”Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets.”
I may be mistaken but I have it in my memory bank that Mears and RSS got into satellite data sets to prove UAH wrong. They ended up corroborating UAH data sets.
If I am correct, I would expect someone from the surface data set crowd to insist that surface sets are better. Just like modelers claim their ‘projections’ are correct and real data wrong.
“I may be mistaken but I have it in my memory bank that Mears and RSS got into satellite data sets to prove UAH wrong.”
Yes, you’re mistaken — a second measurement is vital to making conclusions.
“They ended up corroborating UAH data sets.”
You should look at their respective data for the middle troposphere.
RSS uses a climate model to derive their products. UAH uses empirical techniques. UAH better correlates to radiosonde data than RSS.
For reliable troposphere temperatures, see UAH. Stay away from the corrupt surface datasets.
You are correct on all counts, Gordon. Microwave Sounding Units yield very accurate temperature measurements. These give accurate readings for 95% of the globe. Surface datasets only cover about 30%, and very sparsely, compared to the satellites. These are also beset by a multitude of problems which corrupts the data. Stay away from surface datasets like BEST, which discards those which show no warming. Or GISS, with its fabrications. Or CRU, the product of the dishonest Phil Jones of ClimateGate notoriety.
“Microwave Sounding Units yield very accurate temperature measurements.”
MSUs don’t even measure temperatures, they measure microwaves from oxygen atoms.
UAH then uses a model to convert those into temperatures.
mpainter,
What is the percentage coverage of radiosonde measurements compared to surface measurements? Any idea?
Miker, there are some 800 plus radiosonde stations worldwide that take daily simultaneous measurements, according to my understanding.
Yes, David, they do measure temperature, and very accurately. Same principle as the ear probe that doctors use to get an accurate and instantaneous temperature of their patient. UAH troposphere temperatures are confirmed by radiosonde data. You don’t like the results?
Mpainter,
Personally I love the results. The radiosonde data for Australia is from the B.O.M. and for the USA from NOAA. Both impeccable sources unless you believe that there are two such organizations with the same name in each country. One corrupt organization which is responsible for the surface measurements and the other that is responsible for the radiosonde data which, unlike the former, is free from any corrupt influences.
If indeed there is only one organization that is responsible for both surface and radiosonde measurements, what is it about the the organization that one part attracts corrupt subversives while the other has no allure for these miscreants.
Is it the usual attractions of power, lust , infamy or some other factor which plays a part? Mpainter do you have an opinion on this matter?
An alternative explanation for this discrepancy is it that is does not exist and is simply a result of mpainters delusions. I personally prefer this latter explanation due to its simplicity.
By the way there about 6000 meteorological station that contribute to the corrupt global surface records while Christy used 59 radiosonde data sets to verify the UAH TMT data.
The other issue that undermines the credibility of the UAH TMT data is that varies drastically from version to version and beta to beta. For instance for Australia the trend numbers are for v5.6 : 0.13 C/decade, for v6 beta 1: 0.16, beta 2 : 0.15, beta 3 : 0.16, beta 4 :0.16 and finally for beta 5 : 0.11 . Similarly the values for USA bounce up and down like a yoyo. Does anyone know which version of the many was used by Christy?
Miker, you don’t like UAH? Or is it radiosondes that you dislike? Or is it both?
UAH gives the most reliable temperature data and global temperature trends
Can you explain why skeptics use RSS more often than UAH? Could it be that skeptics now cite UAH because beta 6.5 TLT has a lower trend since 1997/98 than RSS?
I’m convinced that’s why. All data sets are adjusted. Few (ie, not you) could analyse them in any detail to quantify a preference. “Colder = best quality!” is the metric. If we’re honest about it.
BarryK from another site…., is that you ?
No it’s a different Barry only this one is 100 times more retarted! Lol
From the viewpoint of the biosphere, warmer is better.
BarryK – no, that’s someone else.
Should I be surprised no one answered the question?
“Can you explain why skeptics use RSS more often than UAH?”
Barry, I’m a skeptic, but I use UAH more than RSS. So your premise is false.
Ditto, Barry. I prefer the UAH science, which is sounder and yields results better corroborated by other measurements. RSS seems to me as something to be avoided by careful scientists.
However, I do enjoy seeing the product of the flaming AGW Mears rubbed in the face of his comrades.
I see UAH in agreement with one data set (one radiosonde set) and not others (other radiosonde data sets). I’d have to be unreasonably selective to share your opinion.
I have a question for you, though. If the next revision of UAH made the data/trend warmer than RSS, and more in line with surface records, would you stick with UAH?
Barry, read up on radiosondes. You need to check out why datasets differ and by how much. John Christy’s four radiosonde dataset composite is used in his Congressional testimony, which see. I see no reason to question the high correlation between radiosonde and UAH data.
Spencer and Christy both exhibit the desirable trait of a careful, searching, inquisitive (and open-minded) approach which is the mark of good science. My experience with the AGW types is their doctrinaire approach that cannot assimilate observations to their views, nor consider findings adverse to their doctrines. This approach is reflected in the poor quality of their science.
Regarding Carl Mears and RSS, one perceives that he is eat up with the the global warming meme. His use of the term “denialist” in his public discourse is repellant.
Barry, you ask “If the next revision of UAH made the data/trend warmer than RSS, and more in line with surface records, would you stick with UAH?”
###
The RSS TLT has always been lower than the UAH. UAH has always been better corroborated with radiosondes. Why do you find my science so difficult to comprehend? Your hypothesis is too remote to consider.
The RSS TLT has always been lower than the UAH.
No, it’s been higher or lower depending on version and time period.
I use UAH because it provides a better breakdown of regions.
UAH and other data show that
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan surface data for 20 years
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino. (RSS and UAH match the trend of USCRN almost exactly)
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 2015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling
11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.
There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.
The ONLY warming has come from ElNino and ocean circulation effects.
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino
Mean warming trend of 0.15C over that period, UAH6.5 Beta version.
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
Correct. But there is a slight warming up to Dec 2015, and a higher warming to present (0.1C, Jan 2001 to May 2016).
At these short time periods, the noise outweighs the signal, so you can get largish changes in trend just by adding a year or two.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
Correct. The Antarctic is relatively thermally isolated from the rest of the planet due to circumpolar winds and tides. The Peninsula pokes outside this vortex, and has warmed rapidly. The Antarctic has warmed since 1952.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
The signal outweighs the noise. The variability is much larger than global, so more time is needed to obtain a signal.
This applies to every national data set. The variability is 2 to 3 times larger than global, so the signal is going to take longer to obtain.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 2015
Global land warming is 0.16 Jan 1979 – Dec 1997
Global land warming is 0.06 Jan 2001 – Dec 2015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
Iceland is the only country in the world not to have warmed since the 1930s. A result of cold freshwater runoff from Greenland melting. Fresh water is more buoyant than salty water. The North Atlantic region just South of Greenland is one of the few places in the world that have cooled over the long term.
The ONLY warming has come from ElNino and ocean circulation effects.
El Nino changes SSTs for a period of months. It’s a periodic redistribution of heat. It can’t add heat long-term to the system. PDO is likewise periodic, as is AMO and other ocean-atmosphere systems. They redistribute heat. The centennial trend is upwards. ENSO PDO, AMO, AO etc etc are not responsible for that long-term temperature evolution.
It is not skeptical to cherry-pick time periods and regions. It is not justifiable.
Or shall we talk about the global TLT warming from 2008, at a rate of 4C per century?
No, we won’t. Because I’m not going to cherry-pick data to sell something. Neither should you.
Google “pause 1998 RSS” and then “pause 1998 UAH.”
I got 2 million hits for the former, 44 thousand for the latter.
RSS has been used 44 times as often over the last 10 years than UAH to speak about a pause.
Results were more glaring if I asked the search to omit either term when searching for the other.
“pause 1998 rss -uah” = 2,340,000 hits
“pause 1998 uah -rss” = 22,500 hits
RSS used exclusively 100 times more often than UAH exclusively to talk about the pause.
Perhaps you have been inhabiting a select corner of the internet?
Barry,
Regarding your comments above concerning the UAH satellite data, I am wondering when UAH V6 will be complete (if ever) and has undergone peer review. There appears to be a prolonged pause in the beta updates as there has not been a new version since January, compared to an update every 2 or 3 months for 2015.
Interestingly each beta version has reduced the trend in temperature increases (as did the massive reduction of about 20% going from v5.6 to 6). The graph for the trends v6 for beta versions for the same period from Dec 1979 to March 2015 ( http://postimg.org/image/plfil2s4r/) illustrates this.
Using the trend line for this graph to extrapolate, it appears that by beta version 139, the trend will have reduced to zero.
Employing the approach that Roy Spencer used for beta 5, and accordingly adjusting the reference Earth incidence angle, this angle will have reached 90 degrees for version 139.
The UAH analysis would then be predominantly measuring either the 3 K signal from big bang background radiation or the very high temperatures of the solar wind.
Checked out your link, Miker. You appear to be peddling tail.
I had to Google the slang term “peddling tail” you used above, which confirmed my suspicions.
As they say ” it is all in the eye of the beholder”.
What in particular in the graph I linked to excited your interest in such salacious matters? I would hate to see how you would respond to a Rorschach blob. Personally i would stand well clear.
In terms of regional slang, here down under, we have a rhyming slang term “merchant banker” that appears to be particularly appropriate to your predisposition.
Roy…we seem to be back to the ‘Forbidden’ error on your UAH graphs. My primary browser, Firefox, will not display the graph, nor will IExplorer 11 or an older version of the Opera browser.
I have had several posts rejected although I did not post anything obnoxious, other than my own obnoxious opinion. Smileys still don’t show up i don’t think.
🙂 ….that was a hyphen followed by a dash followed by a curved bracket, which normal shows up as a character based smile or a yellow Smiley.
It’s a thing, Gordon. I’ve tried numerous experiments and can find no way to avoid whatever it is that stops some posts getting through. It’s not key words, not formatting, not links (although some key words are auto-moderated).
If all else fails, shrug.
@barry…”Ive tried numerous experiments…”
Barry, I find that hitting the page reload immediately following the acceptance of a post (after hitting ‘submit comment’) will often recover a post.
When I hit ‘submit comment’, I hover the mouse arrow over the page reload icon (on Firefox 46.0.1) and watch to see if the post appears immediately. If it doesn’t, hitting reload will often make it appear.
Occasionally not.
Thanks, I’ll try that next time.
the problem with graphs not appearing is a cache limit issue at the website hosting company for WordPress sites. I had to install a plugin which allows me to manually purge the cache to fix it. I’ve complained, and they are working on a way to purge the cache on a schedule. I try to do it a couple times a day for now, but I’ve seen the problem crop up in as little as a couple hours.
@Roy…”…the problem with graphs not appearing is a cache limit issue at the website hosting company”
Thanks for explanation, Roy. The graph appeared fine today. I was happy to hear of the decreasing global average but seeing it is even more pleasing.
I appreciate your running global average. It tells the whole story and it appeals to the calculus-related graph training I studied in engineering.
I am waiting to see how the running average responds when EN has run its course.
Just testing.
☺
That smiley came from posting the following characters sequentially: & + # + 9786 + ;
That is, remove all spaces and + signs to get one sequential string.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscellaneous_Symbols
It is a miscellaneous symbol from a Unicode block. The smiley is Unicode character U+263A (U + 263A)
☺
It’s certainly hard to squeeze a smile out of some people.
I’ll have a go….:) 🙂 🙂
Well I got one happy face …:)
☺
Lewis, you forgot the semi colon…
Let’s all be happy
☺
Painter, i don’t think david will ever be happy…
☺
1998 was, neatly, the warmest 12-month period in the UAH 6.5 (Beta) TLT record. The 1998 annual temperature anomaly was 0.484C.
For the first 5 months of 2016, the average is 0.6742.
The average of the first 5 months of 1998 was 0.5986.
The average anomaly of the remaining months this year must be 0.35C+ to break the 1998 record.
IOW, the next 7 months have to be cooler on average than the same months in 1998 for the 1998 record to stand. I’d say that this year’s result will depend more on weather, even if we flip into a la Nina.
Average anomaly of the last 12 months is 0.458.
Stupid post Barry!
Tubaboyz, can you please tone it down? We like to keep it polite around here. -Roy
It all depends on how steeply the global anomaly falls. The May drop was precipitous. We shall see if it continues to fall precipitously. I regard a La Nina as inevitable this year, as ordained by nature. The only question is how cool and prolonged it might be.
There is a massive blob of cold water (3 or 4 C lower than usual) just below the surface of regions 3.4 and 4, which is on its way to being exposed. But “inevitable” is a bit strong.
Dave, La Nina = upwelling and the upwelling started increasing in ENSO 1 & 2 over a month ago. This is the harbinger and the impetus of the coupled chain of events leading to full La Nina conditions.
What most people don’t realize is that the ENSO cycle is dependant on this upwelling (La Nina), or its absence (El Nino), and this is nothing but varying meridional ocean overturning circulation. This is now at full impetus.
Check the charts out. Do you see the tongue of cool SST extending for 4,000 west of NW South America? La Nina is not inevitable, it has already arrived. It simply will take a few weeks for this to be reflected in TLT.
ENSO events are measured as a tri-monthly value. 2 months of Nino/Nina levels is not categorised as such. We’re a little way off calling a for-sure la Nina based purely on observations.
Barry, the doubt is yours, not mine. La Nina = Upwelling. It’s happening now and it will not stop anytime soon. I am up on my oceanography, and that’s where the it all happens.
The doubt comes from various institutes that monitor ENSO. I’ve cited them (ig, BoM 50% chance). Personally I think it’s more likely than not la Nina will form, but I defer to the experts. They are less certain than you.
I have learned to disregard the “experts” in climate matters, especially those with political masters. I happen to believe that I see more clearly than the “experts”. Josh Willis comes to mind. There are plenty of others. You see, I am a skeptic. La Nina is here, you can bank on it. You are forgetting that predicting cooling is politically uncool.
“…2 months of Nino/Nina levels is not categorized as [an event]…”
Yes, it can be, if the conditions seem to “the experts” to be developing in a sufficiently clear-cut way.
For example, the Climate Prediction Centre of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration states the following:
“CPC considers El Nino or La Nina conditions to occur when the monthly Nino 3.4 OISST departures meet or exceed +/- 0.5 C along with consistent features. These anomalies must also be FORECASTED to persist for 3 consecutive months [my emphasis].”
It is an operational definition not a conceptual one.
Upwelling alone is not enough to define La Nina, unless the winds are steady enough to make the continuation of the upwelling nearly certain.
Of course, any forecast can actually turn out to be a goof.
Everybody has, at some time, filed out of the Stadium to get a head start to the parking lot, only to hear the roar from inside which means one missed the game changer.
Dave, you are right about the role of wind. The equatorial easterly is the main factor in the tongue of upwelling extending westward across the Pacific. This wind is a Walker Cell. It depends on cool SST to the east and warm SST to the west. Those conditions were met weeks ago and I believe that the Walker circulation now has been established. What some people fail to grasp is that the ocean/atmosphere coupling of a La Nina regime is now complete. Study the ocean current diagrams offshore western South America. You will now see the Humboldt Current turning left at Peru. This is the Walker Cell working.
Regarding ENSO, this is mainly fluctuations in the rate of meridional overturning circulation. The effects of this variable upwelling are El Nino, La Nina. But hush, this is also a big secret, for some reason.
mpainter got it in one, the la nina is self perpetuating once the initial upwelling begins . how long it lasts and how cool it gets depends on the body of cold water available . the hovmoller charts i have seen suggest there is rather a lot. how accurate they are i have no idea.
(snip) Climatechange4realz, if you want to continue posting here, please be less confrontational and insulting. -Roy
It seems to me in recent decades that the “world” is warming ONLY when there is an El-Nino going on,otherwise it is flat to a cooling trend.
Would that hold if we went back much further into the past?
Embedded in the Earth’s energy budget diagrams is the truth, hidden behind the massive and false upwelling and downwelling fluxes. The only energy that leaves the surface is the netted radiation potential. In the atmosphere’s energy balance we see that most of its energy comes from latent heat transfer (~60%), direct solar (~30%) and finally a piddling amount from long wave (<10%). Now this cannot be true if massive radiative exchanges occur between the surface and the atmosphere.
Very little energy in the long wave ever leaves the surface, and of this real energy loss, ~70% passes through the atmospheric window, only around 30% of real losses from the surface heat the atmosphere.
Secondly, the tropospheric thermal gradient is calculable without resort to opacity. For radiative heat transfer a thermal gradient is essential. In the presence of a gradient one of two things will happen; the gradient will evolve, or the heat transfer will remain a product of the gradient upon which it depends.
The persistence of the gradient calculated without opacity renders all surface to atmosphere and inter atmospheric exchanges products of this environment as they (in total) have not modified the tropospheric thermal gradient by any measurable amount, despite the non linear vertical opacity function. We can calculate through it from above to demonstrate the lack of increase in lower tropospheric energy or 'heat trapping' rubbish.
Pierrehumbert ridiculously contradicts himself by (correctly) stating that radiative exchange cannot produce a thermal gradient and also declaring that greenhouse gases heat the lower atmosphere and cool the upper 'thereby increasing the thermal gradient' !!!!
When in reality the tropospheric thermal gradient exists unmodified and unadulterated by anything other than the imagination of deceivers.
And how much of the gradient from surface to the tropopause is purely adiabatic?
Hi mpainter. The highest global mean value for the troposphere is about 7.5km due to the low tropopause height at the winter pole. From 7.5km the surface temperature as a global mean can be retrieved by assuming the adiabatic condition and adding latent heat as an addition to total heat capacity and modification of thermal response to thermal energy changes. Because of the accuracy of the result here and with Venus, the adiabatic assumption is validated. Although the assumption is that ‘no energy enters or leaves’ this equates to the long term sum of diabatic processes being near zero, which is more sensible. Either way there is no evidence of enhanced kinetic energy (raised temperature) where the opacity is highest near the surface other than one of equilibrium with the upper troposphere where the opacity is much lower.
The long wave radiative heat transfer between the surface and atmosphere and inter atmospheric is rendered an environmental product of the sustained, long term, gravitationally set thermal gradient, due to its dependence upon it and total inability to modify it.
Yep, tropical Pacific moisture. Help.
&!#@!! wurdpress fouled the nesting.
Nor can AGW be proven…
Is the flooding in Europe and Texas a sign of El Nino or a building La Nina?
The weather on the southwest coast of Canada has been plain weird. We have experienced June weather in May. It has always been the case that we could expect cool weather while camping at the end of May but not monsoon rains in May.
Then again, the human memory is prone to error.
We have an annual exhibition in Vancouver called the PNE (Pacific National Exhibition). They have entertained the idea of moving the exhibition from the last weeks in August to the last weeks of July because it has been too cold and wet the past few years in the latter half of August.
Gordon, I don’t know about Europe, but I suspect Texas is getting the residual El Nino effect. Usually, La Nina means drought for Texas.
Yep, tropical Pacific moisture. Help.
I am puzzled about something. If you go to:
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl
and click on ch06 and compare 2010 with 2016 for the month of May, then the area above the lines and below the lines are approximately equal. So I predicted that May 2016 would be very close to May 2010.
For UAH, May 2016 was 0.545 but May 2010 was 0.414.
For RSS, May 2016 was 0.525 and May 2010 was also 0.525!
Does anyone have any idea why UAH was so different than RSS?
Different baselines for a start. Different coverage. Different processing of data.
Every temp value is an estimate for both series. Correlation is high, but not perfect.
RSS May number for LTT global anomaly:
+ 0.5245 C
which is a drop of 0.2322 C from April; and a drop of 0.4534 C from the high in February.
“…UAH was so different than RSS…?”
The geographic cover is different. UAH uses data from virtually the whole globe; RSS from 70 S to 82.5 N.
And the missing bit in RSS analysis, from 70 S to 90 S, happens to have a positive anomaly at present. So there is the difference, exactly.
Thank you! That occurred to me later. So I compared south pole for May 2010 versus May 2016. In 2010, it was -0.84 and in 2016 it was +0.93.
UAH South Pole is 60S-85S. RSS is 60s-70S
“UAH South Pole is 60S-85S.”
Not anymore; it is now 60S-90S.
I was careful to say “a positive anomaly” and not “is warmer” – because, although technically accurate, that does not seem appropriate, while today’s temperature at the South Pole is
– 51 C .
No problem, just do as Mosh and BEST do and discard that figure as too low, being inconsistent with expectations based on the temperature at McMurdo Sound, some 3000 meters lower and 1700 km distant.
Test
How come I cannot submit a proper comment on this thread!?
Hi Kristian,
The problem seems to be WordPress. Long comments can go astray. Try composing your comment elsewhere then copying to the blog. There have been many complaints about this.
“…when there is an El Nino going on…”
We do not have the data to go “much further into the past” with such a question, as it would require a fine resolution.
The oscillation has been going on for thousands of years. Obviously the “integral” of the action is close to zero.
That is similar to a stock where the “up and down tramp” of the momentary price is largely “sound and fury signifying nothing.”
One might wonder what the equilibrium position of the world would be if we had a permanent El Nino or a permanent La Nina state.
Anyway, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Experimental Climate Prediction Centre has issued a Forecast Summary as of May 30th and that is:
“The model is forecasting strong La Nina conditions in the winter of 2016/17.”
“One might wonder what the equilibrium position of the world would be if we had a permanent El Nino or a permanent La Nina state.”
##
Permanent El Nino: expansion of the biosphere towards the poles; the tropics, temperate zone, etc. expanded poleward.
It’s all about SST. In the middle Pliocene there were deciduous forests at 80N Latitude (!), some 3.2 mya, or about 600 K years before the start of the Pleistocene.
The ice age is analogous to a permanent La Nina: cooler SST. I reckon that Holocene SST at about halfway between ice age and mid-Pliocene. One thing is certain: these astonishing temperature differences are not caused by CO2.
ONI weighs ENSO on tri-monthly averages of NINO3.4 SSTs. The March April May average (MAM) is 1.1 C, a negligible tenth of a degree warmer than the same quarter in 1998.
1998
Mar 1.32
Apr 0.86
May 0.67
Av 0.95
2016
Mar 1.50
Apr 1.11
May 0.64
Av 1.08
According to this index NINO3.4 is still just at el Nino levels. This will probably change by next month.
The latest WEEKLY level for Nino 3.4 is -0.2 C which is 0.7 C below El Nino.
It goes back to that big blob of cold water below the surface of the Pacific. If it is fully exposed to the atmosphere it is a strong La Nina, for sure, starting soon.
(☺)
Tri-monthly (ENSO) record per ONI
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Monthly values NINO3.4, upon which the above is based
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
BoM have different criteria for declaring la Nina (and el Nino).
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/#tabs=Criteria
Like ONI method, SSTs must exceed a certain value for 3 months. Looks like we’re on the way, but we’re not there yet.
I have been busy with moving and doing some other hobbies but now the moment of truth has arrived as solar cycle 24 has finally declined to the levels I think have been needed to promote sea surface temp. to drop along with global temp.
Again lag times have to be appreciated.
I have been wasting my time saying the same correct things over and over again with so many thinking he is wrong look at the global temperatures well folks that that is now in the process of changing and over the next year and I believe my theory and thoughts will start to become more relevant.
El Nino was entirely linked to the temp. spike this past year.