Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February 2017 was +0.35 deg. C, up a little from the January 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 26 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 +1.16 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.65 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.41 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.27 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
The slight warming in February came from Northern Hemisphere land areas. The tropics have cooled by about 1 deg. C from the peak El Nino warmth of 1 year ago.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for February, 2017 should be available in the next several days here.
The new Version 6 files should be updated soon, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Thank you! The average over two months is 0.325 which would rank in fourth place if it stayed this way. This is a ranking that would be expected in an El Nino year. The weak La Nina at the end of 2016 seems to have been impotent so far.
The La Nina conditions fizzled out, before there was a fully fledged La Nina.
ENSO is presently in positive territory. Whether it continues that way is yet to be seen, and of course it is no where near yet reaching El Nino threshold criteria. It is quite conceivable that we will see back to back El Ninos with 2017 being an El Nino year.
As you know there always appears to be some lag before the satellite responds to/picks up on ENSO conditions, and it always appears to be more sensitive to El Nino than it is to La Nina. Perhaps because with El Nino there is much more convective warming of water vapour rich air ascending to LT levels.
What data set are you using to claim that “ENSO is presently in positive territory”? The last month given for the ONI is December and for the MEI it is January. Both are negative. I hope you are not using the SOI to make that claim.
Too bad Climate deniers looks like an EL Nino maybe / just maybe on the way!!
El Nio WATCH: likelihood of El Nio in 2017 increases
The El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) remains neutral. However, recent changes in both the tropical Pacific Ocean and atmosphere, and climate model outlooks surveyed by the Bureau, suggest the likelihood of El Nio forming in 2017 has risen. As a result, the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook status has been upgraded to El Nio WATCH, meaning the likelihood of El Nio forming in 2017 is approximately 50%.
All atmospheric and oceanic indicators of ENSO are currently within neutral thresholds. However, sea surface temperatures have been increasing in the eastern Pacific Ocean and are now warmer than average for the first time since June 2016, while the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has been trending downwards.
Seven of eight international models surveyed by the Bureau indicate steady warming in the central tropical Pacific Ocean over the next six months. Six models suggest El Nio thresholds may be reached by July 2017. However, some caution must be taken at this time of year, with lower model accuracy through the autumn months compared to other times of the year.
El Nio is often associated with below average winterspring rainfall over eastern Australia and warmer than average winterspring maximum temperatures over the southern half of Australia.
The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) has little influence on Australia from December to April. Current outlooks suggest a neutral IOD may persist until the end of autumn.
All that heat – jeez where is it coming from?
Ross Brisbane says—“Too bad Climate deniers…”
JK—Do you really believe that some people deny climate???
thanks
JK
It was not my claim, but there is data supporting it: the daily Nino 3.4 index is now positive:
http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Of course its only one of the Nino regions, but its one that is widely used as an indication of present conditions. Also, the BOM has now shifted to “El Nino watch” conditions, with the POAMA model plume now predicting the most likely outcome a transition to El Nino thresholds by July. Note that these models have the lowest skill at this time of year (northern spring/southern autumn), so these predictions are by no means a certainty.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Here is the model plume diagram:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks
And today Nino 3.4 is back to zero. You can’t draw conclusions from a couple of weeks of data.
The BOM don’t. The average weekly anomaly has been positive (or zero) since the week starting Feb 12.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Sea-surface
The trend has been upward since January. Sure, there is daily variance. But most dynamic and statistical models now predict either either continuing neutral or El Nino conditions by July/August.
La Nia has faded so its only natural that its downward pressure on atmospheric temperatures has ended as well and temps bumped back up slightly, nevertheless there is no chance 2017 will be as warm as 2016 or even 2015. Even if El Nio develops (which is not known for certain) it won’t be until late summer at earliest far too late to be the prime determinant of this year’s climate.
At this point, it is warmer than 2015.
UAH
RANK YEAR deg.C.
01 2016 +0.50
02 1998 +0.48
03 2010 +0.34
04 2015 +0.26
05 2002 +0.22
06 2005 +0.20
07 2003 +0.19
08 2014 +0.18
09 2007 +0.16
10 2013 +0.13
True, so far 2017 is warmer than 2015 but there are still 10 more months to go where anything can happen.
If “anything can happen” to temps in 2017, why are you so confident that it will not be as warm as 2015 when currently it is?
Re la Nina – depends which metric you use. According to the Australian Bureau of meteorology, it never happened. NOAA have 2 indices, ONI (still at la Nina values as of January), and MEI (Nina never happened). Japanese Meteorological Association were reporting la Nina conditions until recently, but have now advised that those conditions did not persist long enough to qualify as a fully fledged la Nina.
But any year with an El Nino should be at or below average temperature. It shouldn’t be a near record high.
You’ve got that the wrong way around. Surface temps get warmer with an el Nino. Strong la Ninas cause cooler surface temps.
Dr. Spencer,
I have been following your blog for some time and appreciate the work you do. This latest update shows a continued trend of slightly positive temperatures in the satellite record. I wanted to ask for your critical opinion on my thoughts of the subject.
When I look at the reconstructed temp/CO2/ocean level data from such sites as “johnenglander.net” ..
http://www.johnenglander.net/chart-of-420000-year-history-temperature-co2-sea-level/
and others as well, I keep seeing a pattern that I can’t shake. If I were to assume CO2 as the independent variable and the cause of temperature change, then temperatures should be in the 2C to 3C range above your average. If I am reading the long term charts correctly. But if I treat CO2 as the dependent variable, it all makes more sense. It has been mention many times that CO2 is a trailing indicator of temperature which implies a rise temperature causes the rise in CO2. This can be explained by the CO2 cycle as temperatures rise, CO2 sequestered in the ocean/frozen tundra is released. Increased CO2 creates greater plant production which in turn slow temperature by converting more sunlight to stored energy. Thus at the inflection points we still see a rise in CO2 because there is still CO2 being released, but as the temperatures fall, plants become less productive and CO2 begins being sequestered in the ocean and dying plants.
I think adding biomass to the chart (specifically photosynthesis related plants) may be helpful in the study of how our planet regulates temperature. It would interesting to see if it is more correlated.
I would appreciate any feedback. I am more of a Environmental Planner/data analyst and was more curious of what I am missing here.
Thank You
It’s possible that past CO2 changes were mostly the result of temperature change, and now the temperature change is mostly the result of the CO2 change. They aren’t mutually exclusive. This would imply that there’s a sort of positive feedback between temperature and CO2, maybe for the reasons you state.
I looked at the issue a couple years ago using C13/C12 data, and the anthropogenic source wasn’t really very obvious in CO2 *trends* (anthro and vegetation C13/C12 ratios should look the same as I recall…the seasonal cycle in the vegetation source showed up very well):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/
Thank You, just read the previous post, it was interesting and informative. I will think about that and do some more digging. I have always believed most of the recent CO2 increase is driven by human activity and warming just added to it. The added CO2 added more plant life which slowed the increase in temperatures that would have naturally occurred based on the reconstructed data. Just not sure how much I can rely on the reconstructed data. I do believe (at least at this time) CO2 does affect atmospheric temperatures, just not significantly.
Thanks again
If not mutually exclusive as you suggest, then this begs the questions:
What is the response time to the present high level of CO2? When will we see temperatures commensurate with >400ppm?
Why does one see such good correlation between temperature and CO2 during the satellite period where CO2 lags (not leads) temperature changes by about 9 months?
Is the response time over land and over the oceans different?
‘When will we see temperatures commensurate with >400ppm?’
Isn’t the delay measured in several decades at least? Or, to be more specific, a first response to rising CO2 can be seen fairly quickly, but development of the full response takes decades.
Ocean temperatures tend to lag land temperatures because of the extra heat capacity.
I once used the standard IPCC forcing equation to calculate the expected increase in warming due to CO2 and feedbacks since 1880 and compared it with the temperature.
The best fit was with a 25year lag between the CO2 increase and the corresponding temperature increase.
Different models put the lag at between 20 and 60 years.
The lag is in phase, and it is almost precisely 90 deg. That makes the time lag frequency dependent, being equal to pi/2 divided by the frequency in rad/unit-of-time. Long term, lower frequency, changes have longer time lags. Higher frequency oscillations have shorter ones.
You’ve been watching too much of the non-sensical Salby videos.
No, I’ve been looking at the data. This is not something out of the ordinary, you know. It’s usual to have frequency dependent lag. That’s why we have concepts like phase delay and group delay. What is unusual, even impossible in natural, continuous time systems, is to have a non-frequency dependent lag (linear phase).
Don’t drink the Kool-Aid. People who do not understand systems theory are the ones who disparage Salby. They are idiots. Don’t be an idiot, too.
richard,
Lag response of global temps to CO2 is reckoned to be about 30-40 years. This is the time it takes the upper oceans to equilibrate with the forcing. There are longer and shorter lags (20-60 years) but most of the literature converges on 30-40.
As for the 9-month lag, I believe that comes from detrending the data and/or analysing the differential. What this amounts to is emphasising short-term changes (vegetation changes from ENSO events thought to be the cause) but – by design – cannot infer long-term responses.
A few global indices correlate well with the interannual variability of el Nino/la Nina events: global temps, global sea level, and CO2 fluctuations.
analysing the differential
Tsk, I mean the derivative.
Dr. Roy – “This would imply that theres a sort of positive feedback between temperature and CO2, maybe for the reasons you state.”
It’s surprising how poorly understood this simple inference is among our, er, scientifically agnostic brethren. There is at least one predicted feedback that I can think of, and that is the ocean-temperature feedback effect on dissolved CO2. Fortunately, I believe we are still a long way off seeing that activated. But it seems entirely plausible that it would show up in the geological record.
Elliot…”Its surprising how poorly understood this simple inference is among our, er, scientifically agnostic brethren”.
The problem is with the inference of a positive feedback. There is an equation for positive feedback and it includes provision for gain. That implies an amplifier and there is no such amplifier in the atmosphere.
A huge misunderstanding with positive feedback is that the PF causes amplification. Totally wrong. PF is only a part of a system in which a separate amplifier amplifies both the natural input signal and an in-phase PF signal. If the feedback signal is out of phase with the natural input signal it is negative feedback, with the net result being an attenuation of the output signal.
If you are going to use the term positive feedback with reference to an amplifying system then you must use it correctly. In climate science, as I understand it, a positive feedback is regarded as a not so negative negative feedback. In other words positive feedback in climate science is a negative feedback.
In electronics, a positive feedback with reference to servo systems is a reference to a control voltage fed back as a correction voltage. There is no amplification inferred in such a positive feedback, it is a reference to the voltage polarity only.
Gordon Robertson,
Your analogy with a servo control has one large flaw; there is no reference or control input in the system. Without such an input, the system is simply an amplifier.
Gordon Robertson – I’m an engineer, and I tend to use the term “feedback” as an engineer uses it, rather than a climate scientist. Dr. Roy has mentioned in the past that engineers typically raise an objection based on the differing usage. However, in this case your analogy is poor. Feedbacks in real, physical systems in the natural world can rarely be successfully captured by a single equation, as many of the variables themselves vary according to temperature or some other factor and there are nonlinearities. One obvious one is phase change – the rate of movement of gases in and out of the ocean in reality would be governed not just by vapour pressure but by surface area, and this in itself varies nonlinearly due to the formation of floating ice. Rate changes can introduce latency, which can cause oscillation. Then there are ocean-current changes, sea-level rise, changes in plankton activity…
The solubility of CO2 according to temperature varies in a way which is well understood and also easily testable. It is even of major use in the foodstuffs industry. I see little reason to doubt the general understanding that a warming ocean will eventually emit more CO2 due to reduced solubility than it will absorb due to increased concentration.
Solubility of a gas in a liquid is not so much a concentration in the liquid varying only with temperature, but more a ratio of concentration in the liquid to concentration (or pressure or partial pressure of the gas) that varies with temperature. I see global warming reducing the ratio of oceanic to atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but to an extent much less than the increase of atmospheric concentration. A 2 degree C warming reduces equilibrium ratio of dissolved CO2 concentration to atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 6%, which is small compared to the increase of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial to now, let alone the increase from pre-industrial to projected for later this century. As in, I expect the ocean to continue being a net sink while we continue adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
A chart of amount of CO2 dissolved in water as a function of temperature and pressure of the CO2 gas over the water is at:
http://sites.chem.colostate.edu/diverdi/all_courses/CRC%20reference%20data/solubility%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20in%20water.pdf
I figure the change for a 2 degree C warming to be the change for warming from 10 to 20 degrees C, raised to the .2 power. The ratio of solunility at 20 degrees C to solubility at 10 degrees C seems to be around .74 and solubility seems to be close to proportional to pressure over a wide range of pressure.
“As in, I expect the ocean to continue being a net sink while we continue adding CO2 to the atmosphere.”
The general understanding is that this will invert beyond a certain temperature rise. I think it’s beyond me to presume to offer an “explanation”, but I can suggest a few reasons: We’re not just adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Heating due to CO2 also adds water vapour, and we are adding methane and nitrogen oxides as well. We are also increasing the rate of heating through reduction in sea-ice. So the CO2 we are adding is yielding more heat than could be inferred from the equilibrium temperature due to CO2 forcing alone. The same goes for the increase in partial pressure, therefore – it will be greater than could be inferred from equilibrium temperature based on forcing alone.
The lag of CO2 over temperature in the palaeological record, therefore, seems to me to fit a picture of an ocean-temperature feedback. This is very easy to explain in terms of such a feedback. I’m not yet aware of any such easy explanation in its absence.
Elliott Bignell:
Back when the sum of CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere was largely constant, temperature shifts shifted CO2 between the oceans and atmosphere and that resulted in a positive feedback.
But suppose humans increase atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 700 PPMV and the oceans are warmed, suppose, by 5 degrees C (I expect much less), then the oceans will continue to be a net sink. The solubility of CO2 in water will be reduced about 14%, but that reduction is in the equilibrium ratio of dissolved CO2 to atmospheric CO2.
Even using the historic Pleistocene rate of 20 PPMV atmospheric CO2 change per degree C of temperature change, a 5 degree C warming would cause the equilibrium to shift by 100 PPMV of atmospheric CO2. If that 5 degree C of warming is caused by adding more than 100 PPMV of CO2 to the atmosphere, then the oceans will remove CO2 from the atmosphere, not add CO2 to the atmosphere.
Even if the rate should be twice the Pleistocene historic 20 PPMV increase of atmospheric CO2 per degree increase of temperature if the upper ocean should have twice as much dissolved CO2 later this century as it had a century ago, then a 5 degree C warming would increase the equilibrium atmospheric CO2 by 200 PPMV. (This will decrease towards 100 PPMV as CO2 in the upper ocean drifts to the lower ocean over the following centuries.) But because 700 PPMV is more than a 200 PPMV increase from 280 PPMV, the oceans will still remove CO2 from the atmosphere instead of adding it.
“Its possible that past CO2 changes were mostly the result of temperature change, and now the temperature change is mostly the result of the CO2 change. They arent mutually exclusive.”
They kind of are. That would represent a positive feedback cycle. It could only be stable if one or the other influence petered out in the long term, and before it did, we would see exponentially increasing indices of both.
The temperature change to CO2 dynamic shows no sign of petering out since at least 1958. The CO2 to temperature dynamic, if there is one, has to be the one to give out within that timeline. It simply cannot be a significant contributor within the aggregate system.
Bart says:
“They kind of are. That would represent a positive feedback cycle.”
That’s precisely what that represents — temperature and CO2 are in a mutual feedback loop.
That hardly means temperature must increase exponentially, as other negative feedbacks eventually come into play, like the Planck feedback, and especially enhanced weathering from (1) warmer temperatures, (2) more precipitation (higher water vapor in atmo), (3) the higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and (4) because more rock surface appears due to melting ice caps and melting glaciers.
Wrong. As there is an integral relationship from temperature to CO2, the loop gain is always greater than unity at some frequency. It cannot be stabilized even with T^4 radiation.
The gain of temperature before feedbacks other than T^4 radiation from an increase of CO2 is finite at all frequencies. There is some amount of positive feedback that can be added without causing instability.
The Planck feedback, including consideration of change of heat returned to the surface by water vapor and other greenhouse gases due to change of their temperature (assuming their concentrations do not change), is about 3.3 W/m^2 per degree K temperature change. It is a negative feedback, as in radiational heat transfer from the surface to outer space increases by 3.3 W/m^2 if the surface warms by 1 degree. A positive feedback added to this does not result in instability if it is less than 3.3 W/m^2 per degree.
Wrong. There is an integral relationship between temperature and CO2. It is a valid relationship for at least the past 59 years. Depending on how far back that relationship holds, the gain grows without bound as you get lower in frequency.
Ergo, there cannot be a significant CO2 to temperature relationship over at least the past 59 years. In fact, you probably need at least a decade in frequency separation to have a well-behaved system, which means there cannot be a significant CO2 to temperature relationship over the past 590 years.
The aggregate response of the climate system to increasing CO2 is effectively zero over any interval of interest. That is what the data tell us the dynamic must be, and that is what the data show, as the long term trend in temperature has been the same for the past over-one-hundred years, and shows no sign of alteration based on increasing CO2.
The integral relationship between CO2 and temperature has a bound. A step in CO2 level causes a ramp in temperature, but the ramp does not go on forever. The ramp levels off after some amount of time. The response of temperature to CO2 is not a true integral but a lowpass filter.
‘Wrong. As there is an integral relationship from temperature to CO2, the loop gain is always greater than unity at some frequency. It cannot be stabilized even with T^4 radiation.’
As usual, Bart confidently tells people they are wrong when in fact he is the one who is wrong.
Bart says:
“It cannot be stabilized even with T^4 radiation.”
Wrong. And see above, “enhanced weathering.”
“The integral relationship between CO2 and temperature has a bound. A step in CO2 level causes a ramp in temperature, but the ramp does not go on forever.”
Not forever, no. But since at least 1958, long enough that substantial effects of positive feedback would have been seen were temperatures significantly sensitive to CO2. They haven’t been. They aren’t.
So far low solar effects having not much impact upon the climate but it is early and some of the important solar parameters as far as having a climatic impact are still much above my criteria such as the solar wind, ap index which need to come down and will as sunspot activity continues to be very low.
COSMIC RAY COUNTS ,SOLAR FLUX,EUV COUNTS are quite low and in my criteria . Still I will admit the AO index has been positive not negative thus far which I did not think would be the case, due to low solar conditions.
The upshot is thus far the climate is being controlled thus far 100% by ENSO and overall sea surface temperatures.
AGW no effect ,as well as solar thus far.
The test is happening however and we will know much more in the not to distant future as very low solar conditions will be the rule and probably will be getting even lower.
ENSO has to always be weighed when looking at the data.
The other item of importance is most are of the mind the climate changes very gradually not so ,not when it changes to another regime and we shall see.
Often significant lags are reported in the climate system. Dont forget that heat is stored in currents. Some currents are decadal even century scale periods. Only time will tell.
Your study, the CO2 man made global warming hoax, don’t mean anything because in the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong.
“I will be proven correct along with many in my camp that predict this will be the decade of global cooling and a large part of that cooling will be due to LOW solar activity. Mark my words.
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
DA…”…the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong”.
That has been the alarmist mantra since 1988 when James Hansen made a fool of himself and Al Gore by going on national television and predicting a catastrophic climate change. By 1998 he had partially retracted his gloom and doom, blaming it on his computer, which he must have programmed.
Even with the current warming burp, the global average is sitting very close to the 0.25C average it has maintained the past 18 years. Since 1988, there has been little or no warming according to the UAH 33 year report.
How long must we wait while you wallow in your denial?
Gordon, we know the answer, and Hansen was right.
Salvatore, though, hasn’t ever been right, and repeatedly says cooling is just around the corner…..
Dave,
The thing about this “NOT SOLAR” position is that you disregard lags. ENSO, PDO, ocean currents all provide mechanisms to delay resoponses to forcing. Plus lags are commonly recorded in climate records. Like the lag of CO2 behind isotope temp records in vostok. I think Salvatore has softened his position and i think you should stop bullying with past predictions from 7 years ago. We all learn. That is why im here at least.
Cheers,
A
AaronS says:
“The thing about this NOT SOLAR position is that you disregard lags. ENSO, PDO, ocean currents all provide mechanisms to delay resoponses to forcing.”
But they don’t CREATE warming — they simply redistribute energy.
But the data clearly show the ocean is warming. Why? It’s not from increased solar insolation — it’s from the added atmo GHGs.
Okay Dave im with you on this one. I just read Salvatore quote at that link. Wow.
Also, the paper you cite is a fascinating paper. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html.
I hesitate to draw conclusions from a short data interval (as they suggest themselves), but this is really interesting. The sun simply needs more research. In a 2007 AGU i was told the sun doesnt vary bc it is the solar constant (some in the field still believe that). So the concept of a dynamic sun is relatively new and there is much to learn as we go through a decline involving a larger 90 yr cycle with satellites.
Aaron wrote:
“In a 2007 AGU i was told the sun doesnt vary bc it is the solar constant (some in the field still believe that). So the concept of a dynamic sun is relatively new and there is much to learn as we go through a decline involving a larger 90 yr cycle with satellites.”
That can’t be right — it’s been known for decades (at least) that solar irradiance isn’t a constant, both by proxies and now by satellite measurements.
It happened. It was an old school Cal Tech prof. I sat and talked with him afterward. He said he was aware satellites were showing flux, but felt the variation was insignificant. It was a dogma from his generation and peer group.
Well, you professor was wrong. He should have listened to the data.
Salvatore’s prediction:
Your study, the CO2 man made global warming hoax, don’t mean anything because in the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong.
Does ‘few years’ = 7?
Salvatore has been predicting global cooling for years. I wonder if he will still be predicting it were the global temperature to rise for the next 20 years.
I’ve asked Salvatore to give a fixed deadline, but he has not been able to do so. He hasn’t given a parameter to falsify his theory. Which makes it not-a-theory under the scientific method we’re all familiar with.
“Antarctic temperatures hit unprecedented high of 17.5C as continent’s warming accelerates”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/antarctica-temperature-high-record-global-warming-seas-climate-change-melting-ice-a7607211.html
Oh No!!!
We are all doomed. There appears to be some less than accurate reporting going on.
It is reported that: “Loss of Antarctic ice has soared by 75 per cent in just 10 years” whereas leaving aside 2016, Antarctic ice has been growing.
I guess that Facts are not a strong point at the Independent. Or perhaps it is just that they do not live up to their name. Either way, there appears an issue.
“…at [sic] the Independent…”
You do realize that it is just an online ghost of “a newspaper,” owned by a Russian Oligarch? When it ceased to be printed, its paid circulation was just 58,000.
Rubbish about this link about Antarctica being old.
The article is soundly SCIENCE based in our newspapers
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/as-australia-scorches-sea-ice-spread-around-antarctica-hits-a-record-low-20170218-gufxpn.html
Look at the charts – open your eyes.
Stop the DENIAL. Multiple lines of evidence not just sea ice LOWS in Antarctica happening now!
Ross brisbane…”from your link…”
“More significantly, Australian and US scientists reported unprecedented ocean observations that showed Totten glacier, the continent’s largest, is more exposed to warmer ocean waters …”
Warmer water in the Antarctic??? The water temperature is around 34C, just above the freezing point of water.
Why do you guys read these tabloids? I thought that sort of propaganda only existed in the British media.
The water only has to be higher than the freezing point to melt ice near it. If warmer water flows in, the ice melts more quickly.
Antarctic sea ice set a record high only about 2.5 years ago.
Indeed. These fluctuations tell us little. The long-term trend is slightly positive. That tells us little, too, being a small part of a global picture.
To be clear, we’re discussing land-ice (as it meets the water) not sea ice.
https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/830933998972989440
https://twitter.com/hashtag/Antarctic?src=hash
The above is DIRECT reporting of latest Sea trends etc in the Anarctica (2017)
Bye bye denial advocates – Your last bastion Antarctica region is melting again. This one shows somethings are seriously up regards global Warming TRENDS.
Sorry Deniers
None of those links are about long-term trends. They are about recent conditions over less than a year. The trend is still downward over the full record. We have no idea if the record lows of the last few months are anomalous or something that will persist.
But sea water only melts the ice shelf directly, not land-based ice. So 34C is roughly 6C above the melting local melting point, or 10F. That’s enough to melt ice pretty quickly in water, if not in air.
This summer air temps on the coast were high too. That leads to rotten ice, which is very fragile. 50F is plenty for rotten ice to form.
This a REHASH
from March 15
2015!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150331-antarctica-hottest-temperature-climate-change-global-warming-science/
The UN Report was just the endorsement of old records. It also states that the highest temperature ever recorded beyond 60 S still stands at 19.8 C, recorded January 30, 1982 on Signy Island.
Right now,at Vostok Station, it is -48 C feels like -63 C. Doubt there is much melting going on there.
Melting over the high parts of the ice shields is unlikely to show up for a long time. Of more concern is the increased rate of drainage observed around the two collapsed shelves on the Larsen peninsula, and the advance of the sea beneath other glaciers. The shields could drain off in large part before ever reaching melting point.
Signy was just a Foehn wind. I seem to recall that Esperanza gets them too. Such a strictly local cause can raise temperatures 14 C in minutes.
Dean: Just a warm wind that metaphysically appeared on Antarctica’s horizon occasionally warming things up. Mysterious climate high energy states brought to you from your sponsor: The DENIAL ICE CREAM fairy and its factory churn out.
Translation: Don’t bother Ross with the facts. We don’t need no stinkin’ facts. Run for your lives! The sky is falling!
Sorry its NOT at all. In 2017 – Google search engine does not fair well in your searches of latest results on Antarctica’s climate trends.
Now read the article of SMH properly, Thanks!
dr no…”Antarctic temperatures hit unprecedented high of 17.5C as continents warming accelerates”
Once again, they are generalizing the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula to the entire Antarctic continent. The latitude of the location on the Peninsula is closer to South America than it is to the heart of the continent.
That ruse has already been tried by Mann et al when they insinuated Antarctica has warmed the past 50 years.
This is plain bad science.
I suppose the absence of your ice cream tooth fairy warms up everything or should I say cool when present.
But alas I still look your cooling ice cream tooth fairy.
Still she’s hard to find with so much melting ice cream in the hands of her typical whingers and bullies around here.
It wasn’t Mann, it was steig, and his study was ‘audited’ by skeptics who found that the continental average had warmed, but only half as much as estimated by Steig et al.
Gordon Robertson says:
“This is plain bad science.”
It certainly isn’t, and not just because the WAIS is certainly part of the continent. It’s because there are lots of ice shelves there, holding back glaciers. When the ice shelves go (as Larsen C is about to), glaciers over land more readily run to the sea, and that increases sea level rise.
Its possible that past CO2 changes were mostly the result of temperature change, and now the temperature change is mostly the result of the CO2 change.
DR SPENCER SAYS IN THE ABOVE.
My reply is thus far this period of time in the climate is not unique in any way when viewed against the historical climatic data.
The rate of surface temperature change is now about 30 times larger than when the planet left the last glacial maximum.
Curious, what is the timeframe on the rate of change annual, decade, other? Would love to get the comparable data going back to the last glacial maximum. I did not know it existed.
Thanks
I haven’t been allowed to reply her all day. I took my data from Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a…..
…global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.4 C
global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is +0.0 C…
…so the average temperature change is 3.4 C in 7000 years, or ~ +0.005 C/decade
Polar ice cores have near annual resolution going back 800,000 years for some cores. A few other cores have been taken from lower latitude glaciers that (IIRC) cover the period from the last ice age.
The rate of surface temperature change is the same now as it has been since the end of the LIA. Atmospheric CO2 concentration only started rising rapidly in the mid=20th century, well after the temperature trend was in place.
Warmists do not deny this. They simply ascribe the earlier warming to a fudge factor due to aerosols, for which rather-too-conveniently, no measurements exist. But, regardless, that still means it was natural, so the meme that current warming is unprecedented via natural means is false on its very face.
Bart says:
“The rate of surface temperature change is the same now as it has been since the end of the LIA.”
Wrong by a factor of over 3.
Wrong. The long term trend is almost precisely constant. There is a ~60 year wiggle on it, but the short term trend from 1910-1940 was almost precisely the same as that from 1970-2000, and the former was definitely not CO2 induced.
You wrote, “since the end of the LIA”
Yes. The long term rise since the LIA is essentially constant at about 0.7 degC/century. The ~60 year additive periodic term is just riding on top, and averages out. In alternating ~30 year intervals, it adds or subtracts a little more than that, giving us eras of pause or slight downturn on the downcycle, as in the interval of roughly 1940-1970, and 2000-now.
Bart – you said:
“The rate of surface temperature change is the same now as it has been since the end of the LIA.”
What time period do we use to assess the trend ‘now’ as opposed to the trend since LIA?
I assume it has to be about 60 years, to even out 30-yr oscillations.
So, if LIA ended in 1870:
Had4 trend to present = 0.06 (+/- 0.007)
Had4 trend 1957 to present = 0.13 (+/- 0.022)
The recent mean trend is twice as much as the whole record.
The change in trend is statistically significant.
If you think my choices of period are invalid, could you offer better ones? Different end point for LIA, for example?
What is the proper period for the trend “now” that avoids over-contamination from 30/yr oscillations?
IOW, how do you corroborate what you’ve claimed while including the caution on multidecadal natural variations?
It is so very annoying. I am going to have to try to put this is code to get past the site filter. I have no idea what it is keying off of. I wish I could link to the plots directly.
Plot HC4 from 1910 to 2010, taking out a 0.7 degC/century trend. You will see what is left oscillates up and down with approximately constant amplitude.
What causes the oscillation? Oceanic overturning. Specifically, the AMO. Add it to the plot with a -0.3 degC offset, and you will see the detrended temperature series lies right on top of the AMO.
I meant oceanic oscillations, not overturning.
It’s so easy to plot, and it comes screaming out at you. We’ve been on a steady trend for over a century, well before CO2 could have been a major player.
BTW:
“Had4 trend to present = 0.06 (+/- 0.007)
Had4 trend 1957 to present = 0.13 (+/- 0.022)”
Your error bars are gibberish. These are not i.i.d. samples. You cannot calculate error bars without knowing the underlying autocorrelation.
Use your eyes. It’s incredible how much faith naive pupils will put into canned routines without even doing sanity checks on the data. They will believe what the routines tell them even when they can see with their own eyes that the assumptions underlying those routines are not satisfied.
You are ending your fit in a massive El Nino, and your starting point is arbitrary as well – I said the period is approximately 60 years, not precisely 60 years.
Just go beyond the chaff. Plot the past century, like I said, and take out a 0.7 degC/century trend. You will see a more or less centered oscillation which is consistent with the AMO. What you can see with your own eyes is better than the result of a canned fit routine.
Bart,
You said the trend “now” is the same as it was from the end of the LIA.
Please give a time period for “now” that would satisfy your concerns about oscillations and Nino peaks.
(Trend analysis was ARMA (1,1) which suppresses autocorrelation. CI is the standard 95% confidence interval. At 60 years, Nino peaks and autocorrelation are going to make very little difference to the trend)
So please, offer something where I can calculate the “now” trend that you say is the same as the overall trend since the end of LIA.
The true trend. A trend is not a trend estimate from a canned routine.
Don’t calculate. Open your eyes. Take out the affine function that visually best evens out the upper and lower peaks. Don’t use canned routines. Use your eyes.
BTW: ARMA(1,1) does not “suppress autocorrelation”. It is a guess at the autocorrelation. And, with evident trend and periodicity, these data are at least AR(3) over the timeline of interest.
Stop using canned routines whose assumptions you do not understand. They are not applicable. Use your eyes and your brain.
Again, the prescription is: Take out the affine function that visually best evens out the upper and lower peaks. Minimize the infinity norm of the residual, not the 2-norm.
When you do that, you find the residual is remarkably periodic, and highly correlated with the AMO. That argues that what we are seeing is the trend plus variability produced by ocean oscillations. There has been no observable change in that pattern for over 100 years, well before CO2 could have caused it. There is no observable significant contribution from CO2 at all.
Bart,
This is what you said.
“The rate of surface temperature change is the same now as it has been since the end of the LIA.”
I’m trying to verify the statement.
In what way did you calculate the rate occurring *now*?
What is the time period?
Look at the entire record. Use the method I described. The long term rate is about 0.7 degC/century, and has been since at least the turn of the 20th century.
You have not described what you mean by the trend *now*. Those were your words. Describing oscillations doesn’t clarify at all. Trend since the end of the LIA to present is noted above. What is the start date for the more recent trend? Please answer directly.
I am not permitted to reply here.
Roy: Why are so many comments being blocked these days?
“The long term rate is about 0.7 degC/century, and has been since at least the turn of the 20th century.”
Wrong.
David, I’m not seeing my posts being blocked more than usual. We know this site has quirks.
There are at least 2 ‘words’ outside the moniker and socks of he-who-cannot-be-named that prevent posts.
A b s o r p t i v e
H a d C R U t 4
Links that prevent posts can always be converted at
http://tinyurl.com/
I’ve never had tinyurl kill a post.
The acronym
N S I D C
also prevents posts.
Bart says:
“Atmospheric CO2 concentration only started rising rapidly in the mid=20th century, well after the temperature trend was in place.”
For small perturbations, CO2’s radiative forcing rises linearly, not as the logarithm.
Epic flail, and out of step with mainstream climate science.
Not at all. Read any textbook on radiative transfer.
You’re just winging it now. In point of fact, supposed forcing for the entire modern era is very close to linear.
log(1 + eps) := eps
We’ve only changed from about 290 ppm to 400 ppm, and log(400/290) = 0.32 = log(1+110/290) := 110/290 = 0.37.
Try a new tack.
Mainstream climate science agrees that the earlier bout of accelerated warming was not very significantly due to CO2 forcing. See discussion with Barry below.
You have to factor a lagged response to forcing if climate sensitivity is based on ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – range of 1.5 – 4C per doubling CO2). Lag is 30-40 years.
If using TCR (transient climate response), you can compare warming in near-real time (no lagged response). TCR range is 1 – 2.5C at the time of doubling.
TCR premised on a 1% increase in atmospheric CO2 per year.
That rationalization doesn’t work either, because the temperatures fell from 1940-1970.
Physics is not rationalization. If you’r assessing forcings and aren’t allowing for thermal inertia from the oceans which cause a lagged response, then TCR is the better metric.
Well, you are rationalizing, so what does that tell you?
If you don’t understand just say so. If you do, you have no need for non-sequiturs and can reply to the point.
Your approximation is off by 15%. Try again.
I guess I have to spell it out: if physics is not rationalization, and you are rationalizing, then you are not doing physics, n’est pas?
Bart, IPCC posits earlier warming was driven by solar and CO2 combined, and possibly a lowered rate of volcanism (fewer aerosols). Solar and volcano has been steady for the later period.
That is just rationalization, Barry. The two intervals had essentially the same change, yet the putative forcing from CO2 in the first was significantly less, and the majority of the rise had to be from natural causes.
So, it is a lie to say that the last interval of accelerated increase circa 1970-2000 is unprecedented by natural causes. It is not unprecedented. One only has to go back ~60 years previous to find a similar period essentially driven by natural causes.
I think you’re rationalizing here, Bart.
IPCC attempts to account for various contributions to long-term temp change. Indices for solar (sun-spot record and terrestrial proxies) and volcanic (historical records and terrestrial proxies, like ice core contamination) indicate trends consistent with warming for the first part of the 20th century, and at the same time CO2 is rising, but slower than current.
A rationalization is argumentative – rhetoric. Research on attribution is empirical (with uncertainties). Not the same thing.
Rationalizing – you say “the majority of the rise had to be from natural causes,” and “essentially driven by natural causes.” This is just an assertion, isn’t it? Seeking to minimize CO2 influence and emphasise natural.
Where is the empirical basis?
The CO2 record is freely available. You can easily do the calculations to show that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the interval 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 are inconsistent with it being equally responsible for both periods of warming. If the more recent interval’s warming was driven by CO2, then the former one was mostly driven by something else.
There is no disagreement about this. It is why the IPCC infers aerosols were responsible for the former.
That’s it. Analysis done. There is a readily discernible interval in which nature unequivocally drove temperatures higher at the same rate as in recent history. Therefore, the claim that the recent bout of warming is unprecedented, and thereby must be driven by human activity, is invalid on its very face.
You’ve completely changed the subject.
Attributing causes to global temperature change is an empirically based pursuit, not rationalization. CO2 is not the only index. There are also solar and aerosol records, and many others besides. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but that fact is not going away.
The indices gathered indicate that early 20th century warming was a combination of increased solar, possibly decreased aerosols (less vulcanism) and CO2 increase.
The empirical measurements, indices and methods to derive this are laid out in studies and in the IPCC reports (particularly AR4). You can read about how the data was gathered and applied, and also about the level of uncertainty through the processes.
You’ve said that natural causes influence global temperature. Of course they do. But why then are you only looking at CO2 and ignoring the natural causes?
Chaff.
The question is whether current warming has any naturally caused precedent. It does.
The example you give (early 20th century) has CO2 rise occurring, so it’s not a pure sample of natural forcings.
Can you confirm that you believe the surface temp data to be valid? This is implied by your use of them without caveat.
Do you believe that the early 20th century data is as solid as the latter part of the instrumental surface record?
“The example you give (early 20th century) has CO2 rise occurring, so its not a pure sample of natural forcings.”
Not nearly enough to account for the warming. We’ve been over this. Even the IPCC does not ascribe the majority of warming in that interval to CO2.
“Do you believe that the early 20th century data is as solid as the latter part of the instrumental surface record?”
We’ve known how to read thermometers for a long time. The number of stations reporting starts to drop off significantly starting at about 1910, so data before that become more uncertain very quickly.
However, I hope you recognize that you have asked a loaded question. I surely do not put much faith in, e.g., the GISS record, either recent or long ago, as it has been “adjusted” frequently and uses dodgy infilling methods. It is probably equally bad though between the early and the latter.
Yes, the IPCC does not ascribe the majority of the warming from 1900 to 1950 to CO2 forcing. But you’ve been saying that means that all of the warming for that period must be from natural causes. That doesn’t follow at all.
If not GISS, which dataset do you think is valid enough to back up your comments?
“But youve been saying that means that all of the warming for that period must be from natural causes.”
If you want to debate straw men, be my guest.
One more time the way I see it ,is thus far the oceans in particular ENSO are governing the climate 100%.
Why are the oceans warm. My answer is due to very high solar conditions from 1840-2005.
What happens, and WHY? The sun spots appear to be associated with more energy reaching earth, and solar minima are associated with less heat, or global cooling. The oceans are vast reservoirs of heat for earth and by Le Chatelier’s principle will try to react so as to minimize any change in solar heating. Thus the oceans and weather react to release heat from the oceans to the continental masses at minima. In this time Peru receives both more heat and more water. But if Peru gets more water, some other area must get less… in fact most will get less since there is less total energy to produce water vapor. Thus el nio is associated with drought in most places. Australia, areas of Indonesia, the US high planes and the Russian/ Asian steppes all suffer. The monsoons also fail in India. The el nio brings added water from the ocean, to costal Peru and moderation (warming of the coldest months, cooling of the warmer months) of the pacific Peruvian costal climate, but also dumps water causing mud slides etc. in California. Thus it is a truly global phenomena.
http://www.nexialinstitute.com/climate_el_nino.htm
Le Chatelier’s principle describes the qualitative behavior of systems where there is an externally induced, instantaneous change in one parameter of a system; it states that a behavioural shift occurs in the system so as to oppose (partially cancel) the parameter change. The duration of adjustment depends on the strength of the negative feedback to the initial shock. Where a shock initially induces positive feedback (such as thermal runaway), the new equilibrium can be far from the old one, and can take a long time to reach. In some dynamic systems, the end-state cannot be determined from the shock. The principle is typically used to describe closed negative-feedback systems, but applies, in general, to thermodynamically closed and isolated systems in nature, since the second law of thermodynamics ensures that the disequilibrium caused by an instantaneous shock must have a finite half-life.[3] The principle has analogs throughout the entire physical world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle
Therefore, the oceans will accumulate less heat.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
ren says:
“The oceans are vast reservoirs of heat for earth and by Le Chateliers principle will try to react so as to minimize any change in solar heating.”
Except this takes thousands of years.
Still waiting for the “rapid cooling” Dr. Roy predicted would follow last year’s El Nino. All the deniers here are squirming and sweating.
Tropics cooled by 1 deg C in last year, global average DID see rapid cooling…but not down to the “normal” level. Now looks like another El Nino is on the way, very unusual for after a super El Nino.
And where is that “permanent drought” in California the natural climate change deniers have been predicting?
Let’s see temperatures forecast for North America on April 12.
http://expert-images.images-weatheronline.com/daten/proficharts/en/cfs/2017/03/02/basis00/namk/tmax/17041212_0200.gif
Floods, landslides unleash havoc in Peru’s Andes
Wednesday, March 01, 2017 – 00:51
http://uk.reuters.com/video/2017/03/01/floods-landslides-unleash-havoc-in-perus?videoId=371218538
“… very unusual for after a super El Nino …”
How large is the sample space you have drawn on in making that claim?
We have fairly reliable data since 1950, and slightly less reliable data for the 50 years previous.
3 super el Ninos since 1950. 1 from 1900 to 1950.
That we know of. But, the pace of technological change was rather rapid in the 20th century, so you are not comparing apples with apples.
Don’t know what you mean. We have better monitoring in the latter half century? That’s why earlier half century is less certain, as I said.
Then, what does the statement mean? It’s loaded with portent, but with no quantification of uncertainty.
Oh, I agree with you. I was simply answering your question:
“How large is the sample space you have drawn on in making that claim?”
Barry,
Actually it was my question.
I already knew the answer of course. The whole point is that Mr Spencer’s claim “very unusual after a super El Nino” is nonsense considering we have had only two previous super El Ninos on record.
I’m interested in knowing where you found details about pre 1950 El Ninos. Is this concluded from the figures in the reconstructed MEI data set? Or is there a list somewhere of ENSO events before 1950?
Yes, so you did, Bob.
The MEI.ext shows no Ninos of the amplitude of the three big ones post 1950, though there are a couple of very long ones.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/
I googled around under various search terms, mainly including “1900” or “20th century,” and lit upon a few places that listed only one event during 1900-1950 as a very strong el Nino. That may have been generous, but the point wouldn’t have changed much if there none or three.
Much of California has been in a permanent drought for at least a century. While we occasionally have very wet rainy seasons, over the long term we have far more dry years than wet years. The state has been consuming more water than it receives in precipitation for about 100 years. The difference has been made up by imported water and groundwater pumping. For many decades the Central Valley has been subsiding owning to more water being drawn from the aquifer than has entered it. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/land-subsidence-san-joaquin-valley.html
Comments Dr. Roy.
Dr. Shapiro,
Can you please be more specific as to your concerns re: Global Warming? I seem to be unable to get a clear, specific answer to my question as follows:
1) What is the most obvious disastrous consequence of man-caused CO2 that will happen in NORTH AMERICA in the next 50 years?
I’m looking for the most obvious and the most disastrous climate event that will take place in NORTH AMERICA in the next 50 years. Obvious, Specific, Measurable, Time-bound, and Accountable forecast.
Don’t give me vague generalizations. Be specific. The MOST OBVIOUS disaster that we have not seen in the past due to increased catastrophic rate of climate change (next 50 years, North America).
What specifically frightens you the most?
I’m an accounting/finance professional that lives in a world of measuring, transparency, and accountability to plans, forecasts, and budgets.
Climate Warmists seem to live in a world that is unaccountable, vague, filled with technical obfuscation. My only explanation for this is that Climate Science is still in a phase of discovery and gaining understanding. Climate Science is not settled. Would you agree?
“Im looking for the most obvious and the most disastrous climate event that will take place in NORTH AMERICA in the next 50 years. Obvious, Specific, Measurable, Time-bound, and Accountable forecast.”
Stupid question.
Same as demanding to know the most obvious and the most disastrous FINANCIAL event that will take place in NORTH AMERICA in the next 50 years. Obvious, Specific, Measurable, Time-bound, and Accountable forecast.
So then why do you fret over future global warming and future climate change? You are unable to answer the question, “So what?”.
There’s a little bit of warming. So what? You can’t answer that question.
Warmists put zero skin into the climate change game and then ask the rest of us to participate in your silly Cap & Trade and Carbon Tax polices to prevent something out into the future that you cannot predict.
Again, why are you so frightened by global warming? You can’t answer and will not answer that question.
There’s global warming. So what?
That’s exactly what a frog in a slowly heating beaker of water would say.
I presume you pay for insurance against disasters?
Why? You cannot predict them.
I don’t pay for insurance against things that are unlikely to happen, nor against things that I would like to have happen. Nor do I forego saving for the children’s college fund to buy insurance for an asteroid strike. The former is more certain and a higher priority.
If you lived on the coast, would you pay for insurance from sea level rise, or stubbornly refuse and watch your home investment go down?
I would not pay for it unless there were actual evidence of rapidly rising seas. 8″ per century – I think I can deal with that on my own.
dr no…”Stupid question”.
Reminds me of a child stubbing his toe on a toy and calling the toy stupid. You don’t have the answer, why not say so?
Can you please give us your best cost estimate of 0.5 meters of sea-level rise? This did not happen in the last 50 years, but could in the next 50. It would be extremely disruptive to coastal communities.
People like to prattle on about how great more CO2 will be for plants and such. Water expands when warmed, so if the temperature of the oceans rise, then coastal communities are in for some major (and very expensive) changes. Miami is a good test case. They are already suffering from localized flooding events. It is only going to get worse, and there is no way to mitigate it.
JR
500mm in 50 years, where did that come from?
I guess one can simply calculate the cost of the observed 100mm sea level rise over the past 50 years and apply it to the IPCC projected sea level rise of about 150mm for the next 50 years (assuming the warming trend of the past 50 years continues and slightly accelerates).
“Water expands when warmed, so if the temperature of the oceans rise, then coastal communities are in for some major (and very expensive) changes …”.
At climate4you (sea-level general, mechanism 3) Prof Humlum explains:
“… temperature-driven ocean water expansion will therefore not in itself lead to lateral displacement of water, but only lift the ocean surface locally. Near the coast, where people are living, the depth of water approaches zero, so no temperature-driven expansion will take place here (Mörner 2015). Mechanism 3 is for that reason not important for coastal regions …”.
Climate4you is an excellent website for interested non-scientists (like me) IMO.
You are definitely a non-scientist if the quote from Humlum makes any sense to you. Humlum backs it up by quoting Moerner who is an even more suspect source of info than climate4you.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html
I suppose you know that climate4you is the mouthpiece of Humlum. It is a propoganda website and not a scientific website. By the way, the paper that Humlum cites as evidence appeared in what is regarded as a fake Indian journal
http://www.oajournals.info/fake-impact-factor-journals-list/
And to top it off, the paper Humlum cites doesn’t say what he claims it says.
You should inform Miami that there is nothing to worry about. They are starting to spend a half a billion dollars on a problem that Humlum claims won’t happen.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html
Blimey who can argue against such formidable logic!
Nils-Axel Mrner (born 1938), is the former head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005.[1] He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (19811989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (19972003)… Mrner has published books and papers on the interaction among isostasy and eustasy, the oscillating regional eustatic curve of NW Europe, the changing geoid concept, the redefinition of the concept of eustasy, the dynamic-rotational redistribution of oceanic water masses, and the interchange of angular momentum between the hydrosphere and solid Earth. His publications span over thirty years. His most cited paper has been cited about 30 times in early 2008.
Yeah, his qualifications are real suspect. Much better to defer to the computer “scientists” that run SkS. /sarc
Lots of scientists have such credentials.
So what? NAM is wrong, they all say.
Also you may be interested in this page on the relative global sea level changes since 1993 according to satellite altimetry:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html
Shapiro…”Still waiting for the rapid cooling Dr. Roy predicted would follow last years El Nino. All the deniers here are squirming and sweating”.
Here on the west coast of Canada we set a record for the coldest December ever. This winter in the Vancouver area has been miserable.
I have worked outside in the dry prairie air on a night shift in -25C weather. I’ll take that any day to -8C with a moisture-laden air. I live right on the water and it has been brutal outside in the sub-zero temps.
Please Gordon, just stop it. Two thousand and six was colder in Vancouver than last year by .5*C. And that was not even close to 1950 which was more than 7 full *C colder. Why do you make up this stuff? Its too easy to check. dailyhive.com/vancouver/record-december-temperatures shows a much different picture than you claim.
Meanwhile,
“Sydney weather breaks new record with summer the hottest on record”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-01/sydney-summer-the-hottest-on-record/8315672
Actually, almost the entire east coast of Australia from Sydney up to Townsville had record high summer temperatures. For Sydney, it was a full degree hotter than the 3rd-placed record.
And, the western part was abnormally cold. Regional weather is not climate.
Bart,
(Not sure why I can’t see a reply button for you.)
Yes – the west suffered from the strongly negative IOD. It is now back to normal. (And it was only the southwest.)
But let’s add something else to the mix:
Sydney has now had 62 consecutive months of above average temperatures. Do you think that might reflect climate?
The climate is always changing, in both the long and the short term. It does not mean that humans are driving it.
Bart says:
“The climate is always changing, in both the long and the short term. It does not mean that humans are driving it.”
He he.
Nor does it mean they aren’t.
Tell us what natural factors are now causing this rapid warming.
Don’t be shy.
Same ones that drove warming in the early 20th century.
“People are murdered all the time Your Honour, it doesn’t mean I did it”, he said with his hands covered in blood.
It’s red ochre. Turn’s out, the guy’s a painter. Meanwhile, three other similar murders took place while you had the guy in custody. That’s what happens when you jump to conclusions based on what you want to be true.
There goes the denier changing the evidence again, I did say BLOOD, not “something that looks like blood”. The typical lawyer trick … try to convince the uneducated jury (for ‘jury’ read ‘conservatives’) that there is doubt where there is none. I guess ever murderer goes free in your home town.
I recently looked at the January temps over all of Canada. Your little patch in the SOUTHwest was the only part of Canada that was significantly below average. This was shared by the NW USA. The vast vast vast majority of Canada was WAY above average.
GR wrote:
“Here on the west coast of Canada we set a record for the coldest December ever.”
Oregon’s warmest year in the records was 2015.
So what? (In terms of global change.)
I don’t think anyone’s squirming. We have a fascinating situation possibly developing where we are going to see back to back El Ninos, thereafter progressing into a solar cycle which will probably be extremely weak. I’m not at all certain this bodes well for the future prospects of continued global warming. Another huge tranche of heat released from the tropical Pacific followed rapidly by possible Grand Minimum type solar activity? Against this we have the theorised ‘dominant’ long term contribution of man-made CO2 to rapid global warming. Interesting decade ahead I would say.
“…a solar cycle which will probably be extremely weak…”
This is a recent new(ish) approach to this question:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00641.pdf
The Earth simply isn’t that sensitive to changes in solar irradiance, about 0.1 K/(W/m2) or less. GHG-warming will easily swamp any solar cooling.
Just read Dr No’s link to “the Independent”. It definitely had some shabby reporting. Here’s a less confusing summary:
– On 03/24/2015, the Antarctic continent recorded it’s highest ever temperature: 17.5 C
– the west Antarctic ice sheet lost 75% more ice in 2006 than it lost in 1996
– Antarctic sea ice extent was record low throughout the fall of 2016. (still record low so far in 2017)
Nonsense. Antarctic sea ice extent here. Went lower in 1993. Reached record high in 2014.
It’s just bobbling around. There’s nothing unusual about it, and the record length is less than 40 years long. You are jumping at shadows.
Your link is to Antarctic sea ice area, not extent.
Lowest extent in the satellite was this Wednesday, 3/1/17.
Big deal. Extent hit record highs in 2014, too.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
If a record low is evidence of global warming, then a record high must be evidence of global cooling.
It’s an idiot’s game. The variations are tiny relative to the total mass of ice in Antarctica. It’s just noise.
The Southern Sea was cooling, last time I looked (several years ago).
Yes, a record low is a big deal, especially if it represents the passing of a tipping point, as happened in the Arctic a few decades ago.
“Its an idiots game. The variations are tiny relative to the total mass of ice in Antarctica. Its just noise.”
That’s baloney and you know it. Right now the most important part of melting sea ice is the increase in the ice-albedo feedback, not whether or when “the total mass of ice in Antarctica” is going to melt. (That will be crucial later.)
Oh, please…
Another Bart reply full of data, evidence, and a cool-headed look at the science!
Lowest daily Antarctic extent since 1979.
01 March 2017 = 2.075 million sq/kms
Lowest daily extent in 1993:
18 February 1993 = 2.301 million sq/kms
Antarctic sea ice daily extent data
Dave and Barry,
That estimate for solar forcing is for total irradiance only. Magnetics also force climate. I know this paper is a mega regional climate record (Asian Monsoon), but I struggle to see how a galactic process can only impact regional climate and not be global. Also irradiance may be non linear because some spectrum like UV vary by orders of magnitude more than TSI. Also should not TSI and percent CO2 of atmosphere change by remarkably similar amounts (0.01%). Serious question is 0.5 W/m2 (IPCC TSI) really only 0.1 deg C?
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159
AaronS says:
“Magnetics also force climate.”
How?
Where does that show up in the paleoclimate records?
Dave. It is actually all over the place. Here is one example (same paper from above) where the authors explicitly isolate the magnetic forcing as the dominant factor on the asian monsoon. This empirical data combined with my own data (less significant because it is less regional) show it does.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html
How? It appears at times (not always) in places (not everywhere) the cloudiness and thus albedo respond to GCRI, which is generally a function of solar activity. The sun remains a huge mystery. But obviously global climate is a composite of regional patches.
Barry,
Id love to read a new paper. I think the difference will be that the scope the authors are looking at involves high frequency trends when the process is noted in 90 yr and longer solar cycles. There is a significant lag where climate response to solar forcing is decade sacle time behind the forcing. However, i dont know what paper you are talking about. Im most familiar with the big picture paleoclimate perspective. This decadal sub centiry scale data is not my expertise so I do love to learn this micro time perspective. That is why i am here.
Here again is a list of papers on GCR, clouds and recent climate change. IIRC all these are sub-centennial.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/papers-on-the-non-significant-role-of-cosmic-rays-in-climate/
The link you provide above, and the one a few posts before (which you say are the same?) are not the same.
From your link just above, this one:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html
Over the three-year study period, the observed variations in the solar spectrum have caused roughly as much warming of Earth’s surface as have increases in carbon dioxide emissions, says Haigh. But because solar activity is cyclic it should have no long-term impact on climate, regardless of whether similar spectral changes have occurred during previous solar cycles.
“If the climate were affected in the long term, the Sun should have produced a notable cooling in the first half of the twentieth century, which we know it didn’t,” she says.
The idea that scientists might not have quite understood the Sun’s effect on climate should not provide ammunition for climate-change sceptics, says Martin Dameris, an atmospheric scientist at the German Aerospace Center in Oberpfaffenhofen.
“The findings could prove very significant when it comes to understanding, and quantifying, natural climate fluctuations,” he says. “But no matter how you look at it, the Sun’s influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming.”
“All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic,” agrees Lockwood. “It might be that the solar part isn’t quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science.”
Barry,
that paper is the one i got from dave.This blog is hard to follow because comments get forced to bottom and can not be edited. Plus mony of the comments i make are not added. Anyway here are the two papers that show it is most likely that 1. Magnetic field strength influences climate. 2. There are lags in they system.
This is why I take the position some of the models should have a stronger sun and lower CO2 sensitivity. The transition from the G solar minimum at 1900 to the strongest solar max in 2000 years could explain more of (not all) the global warming from 1900 to 2000 than in any of the IPCC itterations.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
Answered you a thread down, here, Aaron.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2017-0-35-deg-c/#comment-239171
I fear we are losing the thread of the conversation with the format here.
AaronS says:
“Also should not TSI and percent CO2 of atmosphere change by remarkably similar amounts (0.01%).”
Not at all — CO2’s radiative forcing varies with its logarithm.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159
This is a curve-fitting paper. It makes three references regarding empirical data for a mechanism (refs 42, 42, 43), but when you read the references they are speculating on a physical mechanism. At best, one paper points to observations, but says the information is too sparse and incomplete to make a determination.
To me, this paper represents ‘bad science.’ It cites research that does not support what it claims.
Correlation studies are fine, but without an empirically robust mechanism, unconvincing.
Aaron,
Do you consider this paper to be definitive in any way? You seem to.
If I posted a recent paper indicating no link GCR/monsoons , how should we then read the situation?
Barry,
I do not but there are many others that show the same trend.
Imho the data is showing “most likely” the sun and earth’s climate have a connection via magnetics, which is my origonal position. Of the entire suite of climate models zero have it. That is just bad science.
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
There is a body of papers purporting to show a link between GCR and monsoons, and a few against it. I read a few of the pro-papers and there didn’t seem to be much consistency in timings or secondary mechanisms, for which no physical mechanism was demonstrated. The theory rests (from what I have read) on curve-fitting exercises. Even if some of them are sound, correlation doesn’t prove causation.
The few papers I read against pointed out problems with the choice of curve-fitting.
So I then revert to the physics. Is there a demonstrated connection between GCR and weather/climate phenomena. My mind goes back to CERN and recent papers of the last few years which indicate little no influence of GCR on cloud-seeding. This is the group doing empirical testing by ionising aerosols in a dedicated chamber.
On GCR and long-term temperatures, the preponderance of papers indicate no link, with some notable exceptions, particularly Svensmark’s studies.
So this is my opinion:
A physical link between GCR and long-term global temps/monsoons is not yet demonstrated. Yet there are studies indicating correlation – at different timings – between these factors. More so for monsoons, less so for global temps.
I’d say the jury is out on GCR and climate/monsoons, pending solid, empirical verification.
Imho the data is showing “most likely” the sun and earths climate have a connection via magnetics, which is my origonal position. Of the entire suite of climate models zero have it. That is just bad science.
‘Magnetics’ looks speculative to me. Modelers tend not to include processes that are speculative, or sometimes they will apply speculation to some models, but that is to explore the phenomenon and see if they can get answrrs about it. GCM runs tend not to include iffy connections, just the physics that can be accounted and parametrizations of well observed phenomena (like clouds ENSO). For example, rapid ice dynamics from melting ice sheets were not included in the 2007 IPCC modeling studies, even though there was evidence for it. It was too uncertain to include. In the latest IPCC report some semi-empirical models included it, now that they have a better handle on it, but these results were separated from the model runs that did not include rapid melt dynamics.
Indirect solar variations are even less certain, as far as I can make out.
Indirect solar variations are even less certain, as far as I can make out.
I put that poorly. The influence on climate of indirect solar variation is even less certain than rapid ice dynamics, as far as I can tell.
Barry it is hard to have a conversation here. Could easily code in a new comment section that makes it easier.
I dont disagree there is uncertainty in an indirect sun. Its a mystery, but i have collected, analyzed, written and published on the topic. This is why i see the evidence as so solid. It was in tree rings and varves from the same site.
Aaron
Reading the papers you’ve lined, the curve-fitting work is suggestive but not robust. The papers you have cited have different periods of actiivity, different periods of correlation. If the science was robust, there would be fewer discrepancies.
“We find with methods A and B a good fit,” says one group. “We were able to fit geomagnetic flux/GCR with methods D and C, says another group, but their peaks and troughs don’t match. One groups identifies a lagged response, another doesn’t, or a very small one. The 9,400 year study finds no statistically significant lag, for example. Quoting:
We did a correlation analysis and found that the strongest correlation is found for a slightly negative lag (22 y), which is consistent with no lag within the uncertainty
With discrepancies so large between papers, it’s difficult to conclude that the evidence is robust enough to be determined, and therefore to be included in models.
And as I’ve said before, we don’t have a solid emiprical basis for the mechanism. CERN has been finding that GCR influence on cloud formation is small to non-existent, for example.
Without a solidly demonstrated physical basis, the correlation studies (which find significantly different periodicities, lags etc) are interesting but unverified. There’s nothing solid enough yet to include in models.
I’m curious to know what you think of a lack of empirically verified physical mechanism for GCR and climate. You haven’t replied to that point yet.
I’m enjoying the conversation, by the way.
Realclimate give FAQs on GCMs. In 2009, this is what they wrote about direct and indirect solar in modeling:
How are solar variations represented in the models?
“This varies a lot because of uncertainties in the past record and complexities in the responses. But given a particular estimate of solar activity there are a number of modelled responses. First, the total amount of solar radiation (TSI) can be varied this changes the total amount of energy coming into the system and is very easy to implement. Second, the variation over the the solar cycle at different frequencies (from the UV to the near infra-red) dont all vary with the same amplitude UV changes are about 10 times as large as those in the total irradiance. Since UV is mostly absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere, including these changes increases the magnitude of the solar cycle variability in the stratosphere. Furthermore, the change in UV has an impact on the production of ozone itself (even down into the troposphere). This can be calculated with chemistry-climate models, and is increasingly being used in climate model scenarios (see here for instance).
There are also other hypothesised impacts of solar activity on climate, most notably the impact of galactic cosmic rays (which are modulated by the solar magnetic activity on solar cycle timescales) on atmospheric ionisation, which in turn has been linked to aerosol formation, and in turn linked to cloud amounts. Most of these links are based on untested theories and somewhat dubious correlations, however, as was recognised many years ago (Dickinson, 1975), this is a plausible idea. Implementing it in climate models is however a challenge. It requires models to have a full model of aerosol creation, growth, accretion and cloud nucleation. There are many other processes that affect aerosols and GCR-related ionisation is only a small part of that. Additionally there is a huge amount of uncertainty in aerosol-cloud effects (the aerosol indirect effect). Preliminary work seems to indicate that the GCR-aerosol-cloud link is very small (i.e. the other effects dominate), but this is still in the early stages of research. Should this prove to be significant, climate models will likely incorporate this directly (using embedded aerosol codes), or will parameterise the effects based on calculated cloud variations from more detailed models. What models cant do (except perhaps as a sensitivity study) is take purported global scale correlations and just stick them in cloud processes and effects are so tightly wound up in the model dynamics and radiation and have so much spatial and temporal structure that this couldnt be done in a way that made physical sense. For instance, part of the observed correlation could be due to the other solar effects, and so how could they be separated out? (and thats even assuming that the correlations actually hold up over time, which doesnt seem to be the case).”
You’ve probably already read this more recent realclimate article (2012). I like that it gives a link to a review paper, which gathers a bunch of papers and research and summarizes understanding to date.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/a-review-of-cosmic-rays-and-climate-a-cluttered-story-of-little-success/
Do you have an idea of how many petajoules are stored in the oceans, due to the fact that they couldn’t escape off the atmosphere?
There is stuff for good a dozen of El Ninos therein.
It’s not possible to say how much energy is stored in the ocean — because there are so many types of energy — internal, kinetic, mass energy, etc.
That’s why oceanologists only talk about *changes* in ocean heat content….
Dr.
Since single point records based on arbitrary time intervals are so popular amongst the posters here, I’d like to point (pun sort of intended) out that this is the warmest February during a La Nina or ENSO neutral period in the UAH TLT record.
Here’s what I posted January 5 2016:
“As to the future, while I am generally reluctant to make predictions for a system as chaotic as the climate, I’m here for fun and can’t resist. Based on the somewhat short dataset in the graph above and the ONI history, my “eyeball and gut” estimation is that, following the next La Nina interval, the LT will stabilize somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.3 deg. above the ’81-’10 average in the early 2020’s and monthly readings below the ’81-’10 0 line will be rare, if not non-existent. I’ll have a better feel for this after we see the monthly temperatures in the next few months. Of course, if another significant El Nino occurs during the next five or six years, all bets are off and we are likely well and truly in trouble.”
My “gut” estimation is unchanged, other than that, perhaps, the stabilization temperature might be a tad closer to 0.4 deg than 0.3.
That’s exactly the problem you seem to underestimate 🙂
Bindidon,
Note that my original estimate was based on data through Dec 2015, before the El Nino peaked. Stabilization temperature refers to average temperature over years. I analyze trends, not extremes, unlike so many posters here who seem to only look at the peaks on a graph and think that drawing a line between two samples, often outliers, out of a dataset of dozens or hundreds of samples is somehow meaningful.
Since single point records based on arbitrary time intervals are so popular amongst the posters here
Speaking for myself, the interest is incidental, not crucial. Like you, I talk about it because others seem to be very interested.
Actually, the average of the last nine months of non-El Nino temperatures have been the highest of any other 9 consecutive non-El Nino months in the UAH TLT record.
It’s funny how when a fact like this is presented, the deniers just run away and start up their nonsense somewhere else.
A fix to the above. Should start:
Dr. Spencer, thanks, as always, for your efforts.
Arctic, Antarctic, and global sea ice extent are all currently at record lows for this date. (All time low for Antarctica).
https://sunshinehours.net/2017/03/02/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-60-2017/
Extent is just area, yes? Let’s look at something that’s more accurate: mass/density:
– – – (two years ago)
“Mass gains…East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica…we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas…[losses might] catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years”
– – –
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
WizGeek,
The mass gains are in land ice, not sea ice, and are due to increased snowfall. The increased snowfall, by the way, is a result of rising temperatures and changes in wind patterns.
Also,
less sea ice extent means more sunlight is absorbed by the relatively dark ocean (compared to ice covered water which is bright white and reflects about 85% of sunlight).
There have been countless studies on Antarctic ice mass, all but one of which says it is decreasing. Yet deniers only ever refer to that one – why is that>
WizGeek says:
“Extent is just area, yes?”
No. (It accounts for melt ponds.)
California must be ready for more rain.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/nepac/h5-loop-rb.html
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomp.3.2.2017.gif
I’m always pleased to see the temperature on the positive side of the average. While flooding of coastal cities will be a problem, it is not insurmountable.
If, on the other hand, those who advocate policies to stop warming are successful and their policies are successful, we might well move into colder weather with associated snow and ice. That will be much more generalized and difficult to deal with.
But even so, where is that hockey stick?
Is there any scientific evidence that California’s Cap & Trade scheme has any impact on global warming?
I am not aware of any scientific evidence that government policies are capable of regulating the meteorological conditions on planet earth?
Lewis,
Not insurmountable, but very expensive.
By the way, it’s probably best not to mention hockey sticks on a site where climate change is a leading topic. *smile*
“While flooding of coastal cities will be a problem, it is not insurmountable.”
You’ve got to laugh.
Remember the 5 stages of climate denial:
Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We’re the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It’s a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It’s too Late
I think Lewis has just progressed to Stage 3.
Dr. No!
Progressed? No. Just where I am. The conclusions I have come to are not in your list of stages. But they are based on certain facts.
1. 20,000 years ago, the northern hemisphere was covered with sheets of ice. This was a recurring situation reflected by the Milankovitch theories.
2. We now live in an interglacial, being that some of the land is still covered in ice. See Greenland and Antartica.
3. The ice seems to be continuing to melt, which would lead one to believe that ocean front buildings, much like buildings in any flood plain, as in danger of ——
4. The fact that mankind, in his usual short term thinking, believes a building should remain where he puts it, without influence from Mother Nature, is a bit arrogant. Especially when he should know that the ocean front is a variable piece of real estate. Besides the oceans rising, there are the regular storms.
5. Then along comes the ability to measure temperature with great accuracy. Does this change anything? No, it only gives those who would dictate to others how to live, an argument that mankind is a bad actor. This, notwithstanding the fact that the electricity and heat created from the use of fossil fuels are what makes this ability possible.
6. It becomes obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense, that building on the coast is a fools errand. Yet the action continues upon every coast there is. In North Carolina those who build there arent fools, they use the state legislature to convey their high costs of insurance onto those who live inland.
7. I watch Dr. Spencers website to see which way the temperature trends. It is nice when it is positive. Else, we would be having more snow and ice.
Now it may be you think more snow and ice is a good thing, but millions of people who move from the north to the south think otherwise.
8. Then the arguments that it is not the rise in temperature that is the problem it is the speed! What speed? At this point, 35 years into the satellite record, the argument is about pause.
9. Finally, we, human kind built these buildings, we can build more. But the fact that they are expensive is very irrelevant. Mother Nature wont care.
Nothing you can do or have government force on me is going to make any difference, so its not that Im in denial. Im in acceptance. More accurately
I don’t build in flood plains and believe anyone who does should pay for their own hubris.
Lewis says:
“No, it only gives those who would dictate to others how to live, an argument that mankind is a bad actor.”
That’s your interpretation only.
Science simply says that anthropogenic GHG emissions are creating warming and, in turn, climate change.
My fear is before the cold really sets in we will have no plan for lower crop production due to a cooling world.
?
What planet are you on?
Trumpanus
The UAH results indicate insignificant warming. Certainly, there is no warming to compare with the IPCC predictions–(up to +0.5 C per decade with increasing CO2). The AGW theory is a failure.
Yet, the Warmists claim the UAH results prove AGW!
Of course, to them, everything proves AGW–more rain–AGW, less rain–AGW, hot–AGW, cold, AGW, more snow–AGW, less snow–AGW, Greenland losing ice–AGW, Greenland gaining ice, AGW….
They imagine the planet is warming, and their imagination is their proof. And, then they get scared!
Some people just like to be scared. That’s why vampire movies are popular.
(Oh, people don’t turn into bats either. It’s just fiction, like AGW.)
JDHuffman wrote:
“….to them, everything proves AGW….”
Not true! “Normal” is what we expect less of.
Please tell me what page of which IPCC report I should look at to find this claim of 0.5 degrees per decade.
Bob, as recent as AR4, the IPCC was giving a worst-case estimate of 0.64C/decade.
In AR5, they toned it down somewhat, but the “worst-case” is for the condition of continuing rise in CO2 levels, which we are currently enjoying.
This site does not allow links, but do a search on “IPCC temperature predictions”. You will find a history of failed predictions.
Enjoy!
JD, the IPCC’s most likely scenario for AGW temperature rise by 2100 is exactly on schedule. Why do you claim only the worst case scenario matters? The IPCC has clearly stated the most likely scenario, so your false worst case scenario only claim completely negates your whole argument.
Have fun!
IPCC quote:
“For example, the best estimate for the low scenario (B1) is 1.8C (likely range is 1.1C to 2.9C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0C (likely range is 2.4C to 6.4C).”
Notice all the choices of “likely range”. Warmists can then pick whatever “prediction” matches UAH so that the IPCC will never be wrong (in their minds).
Also, check out the Christy chart at this post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/models-vs-observations-plotting-a-conspiracy/
That diagram is four years out of date.
And the UAH model data is based on the same climate models that predict CO2 warming.
This, and more, was just discussed yesterday:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/
Yes, time marches on, but the facts remain.
Sorry, no — there has been lots of warming in the last 4 years….
Why do you use worst case scenarios to decide whether a model is correct or not?
Further (looking at AR4), the different scenarios don’t diverge until after 2020. For 2017, all scenarios show about a 0.4 degree rise over 2000 values. Sounds pretty good to me. The worst case projections involve acceleration later in the century.
That’s the point, Bob. A group of scenarios is not a prediction. It is an attempt to set it up so that later, one of the “predictions” will be somewhat close. The “somewhat close” keeps the Warmists alarmed.
Really? Would you please justify this assertion about “setting up for later” with facts, not just guesswork.
Really.
A quick example is predicting the outcome of a football game will be either of the two games playing.
That’s a “prediction”, but it’s a meaningless prediction. That’s basically what the IPCC has done.
The last few years, Warmists have been claiming Arctic fronts are now due to AGW!
As someone mentioned above, any day that is not “normal” weather is caused by AGW.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2017-0-35-deg-c/#comment-239023
JDHuffman says:
“A group of scenarios is not a prediction.”
Climate models don’t — and can’t — make “predictions.”
They make projections.
+David Appell
You can give these deniers these facts over and over again, but they will ignore them because they don’t suit their agenda. JDHuffman will almost certainly continue to use the word “prediction” because it is a more emotive word for his cause.
Why do you only show a 13-month running average? Isn’t the whole point of a running average to filter out short and medium term variations such as ENSO so that we can see a background trend? With a running average of the correct length, we should barely notice ENSO events.
ENSO is not a regular signal, nor of regular amplitude.
I would smooth to the scale of climate under the classic definition, which is meant to equalize known short-term fluctuation.
30 years, or 360 months.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:360
That’s the climate signal based on the classic definition (per World Meteorological Association).
Thanks, but I’d like Mr Spencer to answer.
Still waiting for your reply Mr Spencer.
For the record, ENSO has been slightly negative (or low neutral values, depending on metrics) since the last half of 2016.
Obama,
You inquired about future climate projections on the other thread.
Read the IPCC chapters of future projections. If your questions can be answered, they are answered there. There are global as well as regional projections, but the regional projections are less certain. There are also short-term and long-term projections.
Near-term projections
Long-term projections
Sea level projections
cool http://www.tadalafil.review/ , http://generic-viagra.click/ , http://canadian-pharmacy-online.review/ , http://zithromax.party , http://levitra-online.men
Spam! Ban!
Dr Spencer,
And where is that permanent drought in California the natural climate change deniers have been predicting?
Are you referring to media headlines or something else?
He might be referring to one of the many studies like this one …
https://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0705/drought.shtml
… which probably got funded because it matched what the folks making the decisions wanted to hear.
There is no mention of permanent drought in the study. Just a shift to more arid conditions, like the dust bowl years. It rained at times then.
Again we are referred to a headline.
OK, then how about this from one of your folk hero’s ….
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3858.full.pdf
…. at least stand up and take responsibility for all the falsehoods pushed during the past 25 years.
Another one:
http://news.stanford.edu/2015/03/02/temperatures-california-drought-030215/
Jake, the last paragraph of your 2015 PNAS article states “The good news, however, is that is only one possible future.” So not even Mann stated what you claim he said in your link, a falsehood.
You’re kidding me, right? So, basically, Mann get’s to do “research”, write a journal article which for all intents and purposes predicts a long period of drought, but with one sentence wriggles out of it just in case?
THIS IS NOT SCIENCE! Good lord ………
Roy provided the phrase – “permanent drought.”
I queried where he got this from: media headlines or something else?
Then people tried to show that serious researchers had said it.
They failed.
As you have.
The Mann article is a commentary. It’s not “research.”
You fail again.
Think and react slowly. You’ll have a better chance of remembering the conversation and getting your facts straight. If that matters to you.
No mention of ‘permanent’ drought in either link.
Keep googling, I guess. Maybe you’ll find more headlines.
Dr. No (formerly Dr. Shapiro),
We can absolutely predict financial disasters over the next 50 years. There’s a discipline called mathematics. Math tells us what financial disasters will take place (let’s use an 80%+ probability).
We know for a fact that both Social Security and Medicare in America is unsustainable unless we make changes and adopt entitlement reform. Mathematics.
The most obvious financial disaster facing North America is the high risk of financial collapse to both Social Security and Medicare in the next 50 years.
Young adults need to worry about this. And they do. Why? Mathematics.
Without taking BOLD ACTION, The economic and financial crisis of Social Security and Medicare is looming in the horizon (within 50 years). This is the most obvious financial disaster facing America today!!!
The likelihood of Social Security and Entitlement financial crisis is FAR MORE LIKELY than any climate disaster you can predict that we have never witnessed in the last 50 years.
In Fact, the climate over the next 50 years in North America will look a lot like the climate in North America the last 50 years.
You are unable to forecast any climate disaster facing North America in the next 50 years with any specificity.
fake Obama, Social Security is NOT an ‘entitlement’. Its paid for by all workers who work and put into it. Stop the rw propaganda and lies someday. Grow up.
“The most obvious financial disaster facing North America is the high risk of financial collapse to both Social Security and Medicare in the next 50 years.”
That is a subjective opinion which has nothing to do with statistics, let alone mathematics.
“The likelihood of Social Security and Entitlement financial crisis is FAR MORE LIKELY than any climate disaster you can predict that we have never witnessed in the last 50 years.”
Ok then. Quantify for us, if you can, the chances for this particular crisis and I will provide you with the chances for :
a global 2 degree rise within 100 years
a sea level rise
the loss of Arctic sea ice
an increase in heat waves
Obama (Mr Frog)
“We can absolutely predict financial disasters over the next 50 years. Theres a discipline called mathematics. Math tells us what financial disasters will take place (lets use an 80%+ probability).”
I think you are referring to Statistics – not Mathematics.
If you can “absolutely predict” implies 100% confidence – which is false.
If you can ESTIMATE the chances of a financial collapse, then you can estimate the chances of NO financial collapse. It will be non-zero by definition.
Dr. No (formerly Dr. Shapiro),
You used the analogy that we are like frogs in warm water in a slow boil.
Right now, the observable historical trend is less than 0.20 degrees centigrade of warming per decade.
Let me repeat the REAL WORLD DATA for you, Dr. No/Shapiro:
Observed warming is LESS THAN 0.20 degrees centigrade warming per decade.
Again, why does 0.20 degrees per decade frighten you so much???
Certainly, there must be some benefits with 0.20 degrees of warming. This does not sound like a threat at all whatsoever.
Again, what frightens you so much? Be specific, accountable, quantifiable.
Your vague generalizations do not cause me any concern and there is no reason to lose any sleep and NO URGENCY to take bold action.
A 2C warming over 100 years is more than a third of the warming that occurred over 5000 years at the end of the last glacial minimum. In that time sea levels rose by more than 100 meters.
There is no reason to expect that current warming trends will remain constant.
Well then we should see sea level rise of 100 meters. Correct?
All the data that I have seen from climate scientists is showing a historical trend of about 0.16 degrees centigrade of warming per decade (I’m just averaging surface and satellite data). I just simply stated LESS THAN 0.20 degrees. I think all the climate models are forecasting greater than 0.20 degrees.
So we should see sea level rise of 100 meters??
It is my understanding that the current trend of sea level rise is about 1 meter per 100 years. How is it going to jump to 100 meters.
Look, I totally understand that the rate may not be constant. I’m just trying to get the warmists to make some specific claims about the future.
For example:
1) Sea level rise next 50 years
2) Timing (range is fine) of when we will see the rate of warming will begin to exceed 0.20 degrees centigrade per decade.
3) Scope and magnitude of extreme weather in North America in next 50 years that has not been witnessed in previous 50 years.
Can you please be more specific as to why I should care about global warming? Be specific? What is the urgency?
All I hear is a lot of “OMG, We are all gonna die” type of hysteria. I’m just looking for more concrete, specific forecasts in North America in next 50 years.
Seems like a very reasonable request.
I’m sorry, I meant current rate of sea level rise is about 1 FOOT per 100 years. (Not 1 meter). I think I recall that the current observed trend is less than 15 inches.
For AVISO data, a quadratic fit to the data is slightly better than a linear fit. It gives
current SLR = 3.9 mm/yr = 15 in/century
current SLR acceleration = 0.054 mm/yr2.
Source:
ftp://ftp.aviso.altimetry.fr/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_Filter2m.txt
Obama says:
“Well then we should see sea level rise of 100 meters. Correct?”
About. In past episodes of climate change, sea level has changed about 10-20 meters per 1 deg C of warming/cooling.
Well then we should see sea level rise of 100 meters. Correct?
No.
1. 100 meter rise was after 5C warming. 2C warming – on direct comparison – would be 40 meters. Except…
2. There was more ice readily available to melt at the bottom of the last ice age, less now. If all glaciers and ice sheets melted that would contribute to a total of 70 meters, but there would be a contribution from thermal expansion of ocean waters.
3. Great ice sheets depress the land they sit on. More ice becomes available to melt when the land rebounds from less weight (ice below sea level rises above sea level).
4. IPCC projects a mean sea level rise of 44cm by 2100 if there are strong emissions reductions undertaken (from now), with zero global anthro emissions being achieved by 2070. At the higher end, increased CO2 emissions brings an upper bound of 98cm by 2100, with semi-empirical models projecting more than a meter by 2100 at the upper bound if anthro CO2 emissions continue to rise throughout the coming century.
6. The lower bound estimates have sea level continuing to rise, even after zero emissons at 2070, indicating the inertia of sea level rise. IOW, the response (and response rate) lags the forcing by some decades).
7. These estimates are only to 2100. With unabated emissions over the course of the next few centuries, upper bound sea level estimates are more than 3 meters.
Sea level rise over the 20th century (tide gauges) was about 17cm, or 1.7cm/decade.
Current rate (from 1993 – full satellite record) is about 3.4cm per decade, twice as fast as last century.
Caveat: acceleration has uncertainties, and the rate may only have changed by a little if you account for those uncertainties. But uncertainty cuts both ways. The rate change could be greater than 2X.
You’ve said elsewhere you prefer the mean figures (“close enough”), so by that rubric sea level rate has doubled that of last century in the most recent 24 years.
More precise figures: Sea level rose 100 meters over 6000 years (not 5000). There were faster periods within (mainly due to collapse of parts of ice sheets injecting large pulses of freshwater) as well as slower periods.
Average decadal rate of seas level rise over the 6000 years is thus 1.7cm/decade, same as 20th century.
Barry,
What you are telling us is that we are continuing a process started thousands of years ago. That some times the melt was faster sometimes slower.
If this is true, how can you differentiate current melting from the historical pattern?
Since you can’t, why then should we be concerned with Alarmists predictions of catastrophe due to mankind’s minor contribution?
Lewis says:
“What you are telling us is that we are continuing a process started thousands of years ago”
Started how?
Are those rhetorical questions or are you genuinely wanting conversation?
Honest question.
What you are telling us is that we are continuing a process started thousands of years ago.
No, the great sea level rise out of the last interglacial ceased about 8000 years ago. Little change since then. Also, the warming then was caused by orbital variation. By that standard we should be in a slow process of cooling over tens of thousands of years.
That’s one huge difference in patterns between then/now.
I’m not interested in telling you what you should be concerned with. But if you want to know why there is concern about global warming consult the IPCC. Don’t believe what blog authors tell you about it. Get it from the source. You can learn about differences between the transition out of the last glacial maximum to recent patterns there, too.
Obama (Mr Frog)
“Certainly, there must be some benefits with 0.20 degrees of warming. This does not sound like a threat at all whatsoever.”
Can you be more SPECIFIC? What are these so-called benefits?
How do these compare with the negatives? – be QUANTIFIABLE.
“Your vague generalizations do not cause me any concern and there is no reason to lose any sleep and NO URGENCY to take bold action.”
Now you are being silly. There must be a non-zero chance of a warming of at least 2 degrees.
To walk away from this possibility is UNACCOUNTABLE, IRRESPONSIBLE and (one for the road)
UNETHICAL.
Please provide the scientific evidence that California’s Cap & Trade scheme has any MEASURABLE, QUANTIFIABLE, impact on the meteorological conditions anywhere on planet earth?
What scientific data/evidence to we have that mankind can regulate the rate of global warming per decade?
This is just silly, nonsense.
I look forward to your reply.
Please provide the scientific evidence that Californias Cap & Trade scheme has any MEASURABLE, QUANTIFIABLE, impact on the meteorological conditions anywhere on planet earth?
Of course there would be no significant change if only California slowed down emissions while everywhere else continued emitting.
Please God let’s not start talking politics.
Yes there would be a change. Global warming happens one CO2 molecule at a time. It will be mitigated in the same way.
The ‘change’ under those conditions would not be distinguishable from projections. We would not be able to verify it, if any.
If AGW CO2 can’t produce anything more than insignificant warming (if any), how can it prevent the next ice age? It’s coming and nothing we can do will stop it. David Appell and crew won’t stop dissembling until they look like hatchet jack.
Darwin wrote:
“…than insignificant warming (if any)”
1 C of global warming isn’t “insignificant,” when the difference between now and 2 miles of ice over Chicago was only 5 C of cooling.
Re: the next ice age:
“…moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years.”
– “Critical insolationCO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception,” A. Ganopolski et al, Nature Letters, Jan 2016
doi:10.1038/nature16494
Yearly emissions are now at about 40 GtCO2/yr, or 11 GtC/yr. Assuming that stays the same, in terms of preventing the next ice age we’ll be at the lower limit of 1000 GtC in about 35 years, and at the upper limit of 1500 GtC in about 80 years.
So, in fact, it will be easy to stop the next glacial period, and already it may be essentially impossible to not stop it.
David:
The idea that anthropomorphic CO2 will prevent the next ice age when it can’t even produce a statistically significant signal above natural climate variability (in 20 years (RSS), is beyond absurd. Now tell us the pause never happened…
Darwin Wyatt says:
“The idea that anthropomorphic CO2 will prevent the next ice age when it cant even produce a statistically significant signal above natural climate variability (in 20 years (RSS), is beyond absurd.”
Not true. But my comment here was deleted.
from Ganopolski et al:
moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years.
– Nature Letter, Jan 2016, doi:10.1038/nature16494
Humans have already emitted about 600 GtC through 2016, and are now emitting about 40 Gt CO2 (11 GtC) a year. Assuming this doesnt increase with time, the lower limit of 1000 GtC will be reached in about 35 years, the upper limit in about 80 years.
The next ice age is toast.
I see now that my previous comment deleted. My apologies.
…wasn’t deleted….
Anthropomorphic – wrong word. Means having human-like characteristics. As in, looks human.
Right, my mistake thank you.
From where did all the heat originate that brought Earth out of the latest glaciation? Prove it isn’t more of the same.
Serious? The heat came from the sun.
Yes, but why did the heat from the sun change?
Orbital factors (see: Milankovitch cycles).
The fall into and rise out of the last glaciation was caused by changes in the earth’s orbit. The increased insolation at the end of the glaciation caused CO2 levels to rise, and the increased greenhouse effect amplified the warming.
DA…”Darwin wrote: than insignificant warming (if any)
Is that the same Darwin who proposed the theory of evolution, a theory that makes no scientific sense and could not pass the requirements of the scientific method?
Mind you, I can forgive Darwin his gaffe since he lived before anything was known about DNA. Since DNA contains codes which are read by RNA to form specific amino acids, that produce specific proteins, a good scientist like Darwin would have immediately wondered where the codes came from.
Random processes like natural selection could not possibly have produced intelligent codes that contain the essentials of life. However, biologist Rupert Sheldrake took it one step further. He claimed that the essentials like amino acids are like the raw materials required to build a building and that life via natural selection is like requiring the raw materials to form themselves into a building, by sheer chance.
Of course, I fully expect ad homs from you on my question of the theory. Then again, you value authority that tells you what to think and I don’t. The only proof you will supply of the theory is that ‘everyone knows that’.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Is that the same Darwin who proposed the theory of evolution….”
It’s the commenter above who goes by the name of Darwin Wyatt. Try to pay attention.
Not interested in your blinkered, anti-scientific views on evolution.
Hello Barry
RSS just came out at 0.440 for February from 0.409 in January. Were you still interested in doing for RSS what you did for UAH in this blog post?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/19/how-imminent-is-the-uah-pause-now-includes-some-january-data/
Yes, I’ll do it again. Be a while, though. I’ve got some commitments to take care of.
Thank you! There is no rush. I was thinking it might be best
to put your final product at the WUWT test site here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/test/
And when I see it, I will incorporate it with my part and send it to justthefacts. Does that sound good to you?
If you think of additional things you wish to add, perhaps in light of feedback last time, by all means do so.
I’d rather post somewhere where we didn’t have to wait for posts to be authorised. Some of my posts get deleted at WUWT. One of the gate-keepers seems to have some animus with me.
I’ll post here just now, but it would be better if we took our conversation elsewhere. You have a blog, don’t you? Can I post there?
Hello Barry
What I was actually wanting was the corresponding RSS data. As you said earlier, not much changes from month to month in terms of your first set of slopes. However you did have good new information from
Next months anomaly would have to be lower than 0.2C to reduce the trend slightly. to the end. I could use that for this month’s post if you wish. (WFT does not cover UAH6 past October for some reason.)
As for your other concerns, a lot of your comments went through last time at WUWT. It seems as if most people have problems at one time or another for no apparent reason. As for going elsewhere, I will discuss this with justthefacts. He could give me your email address as well as give you my email address. I do not have a blog, but perhaps we could use his.
On the other hand, two people appreciated what you just wrote. I would not be at all surprised if these two and many others would not also appreciate knowing how RSS compares to UAH in this way.
So while it is not totally off topic, I will see what justthefacts has to say.
RSS – they put up a login recently and I’ve forgotten the password.
Do you know of a way to access RSS data without jumping through that hoop?
Here you are:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
WFT is also up to date to February for RSS.
Excellent, thanks.
I’ve done the RSS numbers just below. I’ll do no more here, but wait for an email.
For the record, timestamps showed that it took me 1 hour 20 minutes to do that work and check it through.
Yes, happy for jtf to give you my email.
WFT is still using the Beta 6.5 link, which stops in October.
Paul rarely updates there, but he gets to it eventually. Seems like a busy guy.
Here’s the same investigation with RSSv3 TLT global data. Here is the full record with 12 month averages for visual accompaniment to the following.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12
Ordinary least squares linear regression, trends in degrees Celsius, the mean trend from January 1998 to:
Feb 2016: 0.019 /decade
Mar 2016: 0.028 /decade
Apr 2016: 0.035 /decade
May 2016: 0.038 /decade
Jun 2016: 0.041 /decade
Jul 2016: 0.043 /decade
Aug 2016: 0.045 /decade
Sep 2016: 0.049 /decade
Oct 2016: 0.049 /decade (higher to 4 decimal places than Sep)
Nov 2016: 0.050 /decade
Dec 2016: 0.048 /decade
Jan 2017: 0.052 /decade
Feb 2017: 0.053 /decade
Unlike UAHv6 there is one month (Dec 2016) that lowered the then warming trend slightly. I’ve plotted monthly data and the trend to Nov 2016, and you can see the Dec 2016 anomaly is below the trend line. That’s why December lowered the then trend slightly.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016.90/trend
Otherwise, every other month after the peak warm month of Feb 2016 increased the trend, even though they were all cooler than February. The trend rose because subsequent months were warmer than the trend itself, except December 2016.
For the ‘pause’ from 1998 to resume next month, the March anomaly would have to be -3.6C.
For the pause to resume by December 2017, the annual average anomaly for 2017 would have to be -0.02C.
The last time an annual temperature anomaly was this cool or cooler in the RSSv3 TLT dataset was 1993 (-0.118C).
However, January and February 2017 have been 0.41 and 0.44 respectively, so for the pause to resume by December, the average of the next 10 months would have to be -0.12C.
The last time this happened was in 1992 (-0.19C).
For a pause to resume by 2020 (Dec 2019), the three year averaged anomaly 2017 to 2019 for RSS would have to be -0.04C.
The last time a 3 year average was that cool or cooler was 1992 through 1994 (-0.09).
For the pause to resume by 2020, we’d need to see temps of the next three years similar to those of the early 1990s. Check the graph above to see what that looks like.
Thank you very much! Jtf has not responded yet, however at this point, I will just take the information from the two posts (this RSS post and the other with additional information on UAH) and send it off to jtf. I will try to give you 48 hours notice before publishing.
Werner, I hope you realize these kinds of calculations are trivial to do using a spreadsheet.
I’m happy for to take over, David.
Im happy for to YOU take over, David.
barry…”Some of my posts get deleted at WUWT. One of the gate-keepers seems to have some animus with me”.
He probably has the same issues that I have with your posts here. You make unfounded claims, like the hiatus ended in 2016. That’s after raising issues over me posting proof from the IPCC that such a hiatus occurred.
The problem is Barry that your are an out and out alarmist and the objective truth is not something you want to discuss. You are not nearly in the same class as David Appell, however, who is about as myopic as it gets.
When I call DA a troll I mean it in every sense of the word. He is here to disrupt, not to contribute. I think your intentions are good, I just wish you’d put your ego aside and look at the data as it is, not as a group of political advocates at the IPCC tell you it is.
Please, stop defending those idiots and be your own man. John Christy is his own man and his integrity is intact. Read what he has to say about his experience with the idiots at IPCC reviews.
Lord Monckton and I have also made this claim. It is NOT unfounded. The slope from December 1997 to January 2016 was very slightly negative which we described as a pause. (Call it a hiatus if you wish.) But with the February spike, the slope from December 1997 became positive.
That’s right, Werner. The end of the pause was called by skeptics – Monckton kicked off, who was a serial purveyor of the pause while satellite temp trends were flat or negative, and announced it was over when they went positive.
Werner Brozek says:
“The slope from December 1997 to January 2016 was very slightly negative”
Was it statistically significant?
Gordon Robertson says:
“You are not nearly in the same class as David Appell, however, who is about as myopic as it gets.”
Then start proving me wrong, with data and evidence — not with your usual lies.
My understanding of Dr. Ross McKitrick is that you can have statistically significant warming or cooling, but you cannot have a statistically significant slope of 0.
Werner, you wrote it was “slightly negative.”
Now you say it has no statistical significance. So why offer it?
He’s talking about the mean trend. Yes, it’s not statistically significant.
To readers here: what follows is a first draft post meant for WUWT. Werner and I will go elsewhere to work on this when we agree on a venue. I don’t intend to clog up this blog with stuff intended elsewhere.
Last month I was curious to see how predictions were going of a return of the ‘pause’ that started around 1998 and ended in early 2016 in the lower troposphere data. As discussion was occurring at Dr Roy Spencer’s blog, I used the UAHv6 TLT data which he compiles with John Christy, even though the methods paper for version 6 has not yet been published.
For visual accompaniment to the following, here is the full UAHv6 record in 12 month averages.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12
As the warmest month of last el Nino year was February in the UAH dataset, I started with that as the benchmark to see how the 1998 trend evolved from the height of the last el Nino over the following, cooler months.
The questions I was wanted to answer were, “Is the 1998 trend cooling after the last el Nino?” and, “How would temps have to evolve since the recent el Nino for the ‘pause’ to resume?”
This is the update to last month’s figures now we have the February anomaly.
Calculated with ordinary least squares linear regression, trends are in degrees Celsius. Start point is Jan 1998. End point is:
Feb 2016: 0.011 /decade
Mar 2016: 0.020 /decade
Apr 2016: 0.028 /decade
May 2016: 0.034 /decade
Jun 2016: 0.036 /decade
Jul 2016: 0.038 /decade
Aug 2016: 0.041 /decade
Sep 2016: 0.045 /decade
Oct 2016: 0.047 /decade
Nov 2016: 0.050 /decade
Dec 2016: 0.050 /decade (higher to 4 decimal places than Nov)
Jan 2017: 0.054 /decade
Feb 2017: 0.055 /decade
Interesting to note that while the globe has cooled since the height of the last el Nino, the mean trend since 1998 has steadily risen. This is because the anomalies, though generally cooling with a few upticks, have remained above the trend line. Here’s the trend to present since 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2017.18/trend
Next month’s anomaly would have to be lower than 0.2C to reduce the trend slightly.
To get a flat or negative trend since 1998, the March anomaly would have to be -3.8C.
The decimal point is in the correct place!
For the 1998 trend to return to flat or negative values by the end of this year, the annual average anomaly for 2017 would have to be -0.16C.
We have 2 months data already, at around 0.5C warmer than that, so what would the average temperature anomaly for the rest of 2017 have to be to get a flat/negative trend since 1998?
-0.26C (Mar-Dec)
The most recent year the annual average anomaly was that cool was in 1985. The annual average then was -0.35C.
With 2017 predicted to be an el Nino or ENSO neutral year the chances of a flat trend by December are very slim. As I expect some warming with atmospheric CO2 increase, however one may argue the magnitude, I think it is unlikely we will see a year as cold as 1985, barring a volcanic eruption of greater magnitude than the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.
Consequently, I think it is unlikely the ‘pause’ will return at all if 1998 is used as the start date.
In comments last month Werner asked how cool the annual anomalies would have to be to get a flat trend if there were a succession of cool years. For the trend since 1998 to go flat by 2020 (December 2019) the annual average temperature anomaly for the three years Jan 2017 to Dec 2019 would have to be:
0.05C
When did we last have 3 consecutive years as cool or cooler than that?
2007 to 2009: 0.05C
However, January and February 2017, being 0.30 and 0.35C respectively, would raise the three year average to 0.6 if the rest of the months through 2019 were 0.05C.
So we have to go further back in time to get a cooler 3-year average. Most recent is:
1994 to 1996: 0.0C
Those predicting imminent cooling from lower solar ebb or ocean-atmosphere oscillations may expect to see annual temperatures like the early 1990s sometime soon. I am less confident of that. Time will tell.
Good.
I hope it stays warmer.
Lewis says:
“I hope it stays warmer.”
What about the 3B people in the tropics? Or do you only ever think about yourself?
Interesting work. Thanks, Barry.
So what you’re really saying is we’re not going into an ice age yet?
barry…”Interesting to note that while the globe has cooled since the height of the last el Nino, the mean trend since 1998 has steadily risen”.
If this stuff interests you why don’t you return to university and study it formally? Why waste your time with amateur graphs at woodfortrees? I found through experience that you can manipulate the wft graphs to show what you want by a judicious application of parameters.
BTW…the hiatus did not end in 2016. That was a conclusion by the charlatans at NOAA who manipulated the SST to show warming that their own satellites did not detect.
You’re out of touch, Gordon. The end of the ‘pause’ was called by skeptics when the satellite temp trends from 1998 went positive early 2016. Nothing to do with NOAA data.
Here’s a post at WUWT wondering if the pause will resume.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/03/after-el-nino-will-the-global-warming-pause-continue/
It is questions like this – from skeptics- that spurred my simple investigations. “What would it take for the pause to resume?”
Gordon Robertson says:
“BTWthe hiatus did not end in 2016. That was a conclusion by the charlatans at NOAA who manipulated the SST to show warming that their own satellites did not detect.”
Another lie, for which you have offered no evidence whatsoever.
Just like Trump.
If this stuff interests you why dont you return to university and study it formally?
Not so interested I want to live like a pauper and study math.
But I already know why the mean trend increased while global temps went down in the last 12 months. I explained why in the next few words you elected not to quote.
Typo in the fourth paragraph.
Darwin, I gave you all the numbers. Which do you disagree with, and why?
Nice try. Enough experts have called bs on you hoaxers that it’s become public consensus, hence trump… Bunch of commies.
Darwin, which of the numbers I gave you do you disagree with?
Clearly you don’t understand them well enough to know, hence your vague, general reference to “experts.”
Plenty more experts are warning of climate change than denying it.
The solar wind accelerated.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00877/v0x4vwpick7j.gif
The temperature in the Arctic has decreased.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Is this the end of winter?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00877/blipkkyixbgb.png
No!
Winter is expected to last 11 months. (Sheesh!)
Not only 5 months!
So the Arctic had a week long cold snap (which is now over), and temperatures still didn’t get down to the long term average. We must be headed for an ice age. LOL.
More of snow in California.
http://www.intellicast.com/National/Radar/Current.aspx?location=USNV0076&animate=true
I remember when the Warmists referred to California as in a state of permanent drought. So hysterical.
Climate cycles seem to be a reality and impossible for mankind (leftists) to regulate.
Maybe, California’s aggressive legislative policies to “FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE” has something to do with more snow in California? Anyone have a study of the cause-effect?
Also, California will have that $64 Billion Choo-Train soon. But no new investment in reservoirs or water distribution systems.
Here’s some more specific math forecasts for Dr. No (aka Dr. Shapiro)…
If California doesn’t take bold action on its Pension Liabilities then I predict in 50 years there will be a financial crisis of epic proportions in the State of California. Specific and Quantifiable.
“Heres some more specific math forecasts for Dr. No (aka Dr. Shapiro)
If California doesnt take bold action on its Pension Liabilities then I predict in 50 years there will be a financial crisis of epic proportions in the State of California. Specific and Quantifiable.”
Obama (Mr Frog),
1. I don’t know who is offended more, me or Dr Shapiro
2. I cannot see any “specific maths forecasts” -only somebody’s political opinions.
3. In any case, they are worthless and useless since I doubt that you and I will be around in 50 years to see if you were correct.
RSS has Feb LTT up by 0.04 C, almost the same as UAH’s rise of 0.05 C.
That is “TLT” of course:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Ren do u think the cold blob in the nw pacific is causing the the excessive rain and snow in North ca oregon and wasington?
In 2015, the Sun magnetic activity was the highest in this cycle.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif?time=1486360210000
Polar vortex at that time was strong, as can be seen on the ice in the central Arctic.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
The reason for the cooling of the northern Pacific Ocean is in the stratosphere.
Excess ozone visible over eastern Siberia from October caused the jet stream has been divided into two branches. The first was a in the north, the other fell to the level of California.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00877/g1o9dp3srua1.png
This pattern was visible practically all winter.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.png
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/50km_night/anim_full.html
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/weus/rb-animated.gif
We had record high temps when the nw pacific blob was warm in the portland or vancouver wa metro area .
The scale of the threats posed by global warming were outlined at length in a recently published book, Climate Change and the Health of Nations, by the late Australian National University academic, Anthony McMichael.
Europe’s severe heatwave killed 70,000 in 2003 and 55,000 died in 2010 in Russia, demonstrating more developed nations were also home to vulnerable people when temperatures spike.
The extreme heatwave just prior to Victoria’s Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 also killed more people than the fires themselves, buckled railroads and overloaded the electricity grid, Professor McMichael noted. (Last month’s record heatwave triggered power cuts in South Australia and pushed NSW’s power sector to the limit too.)
While history offers many examples of how past climate change affected societies – usually detrimentally – the prospect of more rapid shifts will likely stretch rich and poor nations alike.
“We cannot predict the consequences for human populations but they may be dire – especially if runaway climate change occurs, Professor McMichael wrote.
http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/guqxlk/herold.pdf
Ross…”Europes severe heatwave killed 70,000 in 2003 and 55,000 died in 2010 in Russia…”
No one has provided a shred of proof that any of the heat waves are related to anthropogenic causes.
How many people die of natural causes in Europe and Russia? In the EU, the death rate is estimated at 10 people per 1000 per year. The population of the EU is 508,000,000. Divide that by 1000 and you have 508,000. That’s 508,000 units of 1000 people. Multiply by 10 and you get 5,080,000 deaths per year in the EU.
Please…someone check my math. I am still dozy from a long sleep.
Your article attributes 55,000 deaths in the EU to a heat wave. How many of those were near death and part of the 5,080,000 expected to die? How did the article prove the heat wave caused the deaths?
As Mark Twain claimed, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Plenty of research on drought-related mortality and climate here.
http://tinyurl.com/hzbzq7e>Research papers on heatwaves and mortality
Bad formatting: fixed below.
Research papers on heatwaves and mortality
The 2003 deaths in the heat wave were tragedies upon tragedies. They were mostly elderly. Some occurred because family members went on vacation and there was no one to check on the elderly left behind. Many of the victims did not know who to contact. Many just did not take any action. yes, it was a heat wave, but human negligence was just as key to the deaths as the temperature.
The 2010 heat wave in Russia was not unprecedented, but with higher populations than decades ago, the impact was more severe.
Presumably families went on vacation before 2003, and before 2003 many of the victims did not know how whom to contact. So why was the 2003 heat wave so bad?
And what was like the 2010 heat wave in Moscow?
GR says:
“Your article attributes 55,000 deaths in the EU to a heat wave. How many of those were near death and part of the 5,080,000 expected to die?”
There are always people near death and people expected to die soon.
So why did so many extra die in Europe in 2003?
No answer, GR?
Why not?
Ross Brisbane
I am not sure you checked out the history of Heat Waves yet but they are nothing new. The globe has warmed maybe 1 C in about 100 years. This would not cause heat waves that kill thousands. If it is several degrees above normal in some region (say Australia). It would have to be lower somewhere else since the total temperature change can only be a plus one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves
If you study heat waves to any depth you will find they are a weather phenomena caused by some form of blocking pattern. As long as the blocking remains excessive heat can build in a region (also drought). When the blocking event is broken so goes the heat wave to form somewhere else.
In your examples of Europe and Russia what type of weather are these regions experiencing now?
Of course, the concern is not what is happening *now* so much as what will happen in the next 30, 60, 100 and 200 years if the surface keeps warming.
barry…”…if the surface keeps warming”.
It has not warmed on average since 1998. The IPCC has called it a warming hiatus and the temperatures provided in both articles we have produced attest to that. You have not denied the hiatus you have simply obfuscated it by arguing that it is temporary.
We are still waiting to see where the recent warming burp will lead but even if it remains, followed by another hiatus, the cause will be unknown. Anthropogenic warming could not happen in burps every 20 years.
Let me see now, yes, I think you (GR) have progressed to Stage 2.
i.e. you half-heartedly agree that it is warming but deny it is anthropogenic
Remember the 5 stages of climate denial:
Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny Were the Cause
Stage 3: Deny Its a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: Its too Late
Dr. No,
No, you’re wrong. You try to make your position more plausible by reprinting some imaginary psychological pablum which makes you appear rational.
Let us go the other direction.
stage of Climate Alarmism
1. Believe there is a problem
2. Believe mankind is the source of all problems
3. Believe mankind has the ability to remedy any problem by sacrificing some for the good of the whole
4. Believe those who lead, the elite, shall not suffer, just the proletariat.
5. Believe any who disbelieve shall be persecuted for the sin of agnosticism
Dr. No, as have all Mann sycophants, has long been at stage 5.
This is typical of most totalitarian leftists in today’s Western Civilization where their method of dealing with those who dare to disagree is to:
1. Deny their right to an opinion
2. Shout them down
3. Boycott their work
4. Have them removed from their jobs
5. Riot against them
Notice these are all methods of the totalitarian left.
Not very tolerant of others are they. An example: if a black person dares to offer an opinion not along the party line, he is immediately denigrated as not black. Even the Smithsonian Institute joins in this in their treatment of Justice Thomas.
Those who believe in the US Constitution and, more importantly, the rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence are not among them.
Dr. No, where are you proud to place yourself?
Lewis, let me correct you:
The 5 stages of Climate Alarmism
1. Identify a problem (as a result of careful observation)
2. Believe mankind is partly responsible (as indicated by scientific research)
3. Believe mankind has the ability to remedy the problem by acting sooner rather than later (which will prove to be damned expensive in the long-run)
4. Believe those in power should listen to the experts (rather than listen to RWNJs such as mad Lord Monckton)
5. Believe deniers should singled out and their wilful ignorance and stubbornness exposed.
(like I am doing right here)
The method of dealing with those who dare to disagree is to:
1. Deny their right to an opinion? No, we question their qualifications
2. Shout them down? No, we point out the many flaws in their arguments
3. Boycott their work? No, we reject their scientific illiteracy and sub-standard papers they try to publish in quality journals.
4. Have them removed from their jobs ? Not really, most of them are retired engineers, chemists, geologists or are too old to worry about.
5. Riot against them? No, I would prefer to see them quietly fade away and leave science to the scientists (in any case, they all probably have amassed arsenals of weapons so rioting against them does not sound particularly safe)
Dr. No.
If so, you are in a small minority.
All you need do to see it is your imagination running free is pay attention to how many of the true believers do exactly as I say.
Everything I listed is in the news and has to do with the leftists, those same type people who espouse climate alarmism, and how they treat those who disagree.
Personally, I have been threatened and shouted down, in a restaurant for saying I liked something a leftist disliked.
Pay attention, you are associating yourself with totalitarians.
Another thing dr no.
Questioning one’s qualifications is treating those who disagree with you how?
With respect for their opinion? No, it is an ad hominem attack. Again, you dance with totalitarians. Are you one in disguise?
Lewis
I agree with you point on the debate with Dr. No.
I liked your counter 5 Stages.
I think the Left has lost their way. They used to use reason and love to convince hard-core bigots of their incorrect thought processes. Now they use intimidation to shut down any conversation or debate they do not like.
I am not claiming Dr. No is this type, it is just my observations of the Left’s behavior in general, not a specific observation on a particular left leaning person.
I like ideas of the left and progressives if they are done in an open fashion with the understanding not everyone accepts their views. I think the rich of the world do control far too much wealth and are unwilling to spread it around to those willing to work for it. A more balanced system could greatly ease some of the violent tendencies of the World.
Norman says:
“I think the Left has lost their way. They used to use reason and love to convince hard-core bigots of their incorrect thought processes. Now they use intimidation to shut down any conversation or debate they do not like.”
Funny. To those who think, it is the right who has lost their way: anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-American.
Lewis says:
“5. Believe any who disbelieve shall be persecuted for the sin of agnosticism
Dr. No, as have all Mann sycophants, has long been at stage 5.”
Supporting evidence?
Norman…”I am not claiming Dr. No is this type, it is just my observations of the Lefts behavior in general, not a specific observation on a particular left leaning person”.
Norman…we have a political party here in British Columbia, Canada, the NDP, who used to be socialist. A while back (1974), a Vancouver lawyer, Harry Rankin, who was a real democratic socialist, wrote a pamphlet called ‘A Socialist Perspective for Vancouver’.
In the pamphlet he claimed the NDP were not a socialist party and at the time I tended to disagree. Today, I agree with him fully. It’s not that socialist have lost their way it’s that true socialist no longer exist, in general. They have been replaced by wannabee socialists who don’t have the guts to stand up and fight like the old socialists did.
The NDP has been infiltrated by special interest groups and political-correctness. Rather than form their own movements, idiots who are climate alarmists and eco-nuts have taken over good socialist parties along with their brethern in other special interest groups.
Socialism used to be about people, particularly the working class. Today it has become the face of every malcontent who has something to say but who does not have the guts to step up and be counted.
Please don’t confuse those idiots with real left-wingers.
dr no…”Lewis, let me correct you:
The 5 stages of Climate Alarmism
1. Identify a problem (as a result of careful observation)
2. Believe …..”
In 5 of you 6 points you use the word ‘believe’. What does belief have to do with science? You can believe what you want but the scientific method requires you to prove it.
Climate alarmists have proved nothing. You are correct in that they are all believers, albeit believers with no proof.
Gordon,
It has not warmed on average since 1998. The IPCC has called it a warming hiatus and the temperatures provided in both articles we have produced attest to that. You have not denied the hiatus you have simply obfuscated it by arguing that it is temporary.
By January 2016 the mean trend from 1998 in every global temperature data set was positive. It has stayed positive since. I’m not *arguing* that the pause is temporary – it’s over.
Upthread I calculated what it would take for the pause since 1998 to resume in the near future. That’s not *argument*, that was just math, too.
barry…”By January 2016 the mean trend from 1998 in every global temperature data set was positive. It has stayed positive since. Im not *arguing* that the pause is temporary its over”.
You alarmists are continually insisting that short term trends are insignificant. You raved about that in a rebuttal to my claim that the IPCC called the so-called hiatus from 1998 – 2012 a hiatus.
Now you are blethering about a warming that is not even a year old. We have no idea where the trend is going.
When conversations are spread out over days, it’s easy to forget the context.
I made it clear that I was following the rubric of skeptics. They do not bother much with statistical significance (until it comes to 2016 temperatures compared to other years – funny that).
“Insignificant” – do you not understand the difference between the qualitative word ‘significant’ and the quantitative phrase ‘statistically significant’? That would explain much.
Trends that are not statistically significant cannot be claimed to show warming, cooling, flatness or otherwise. I’ve been consistent on that. I’ve also talked to skeptics in the context they prefer, such as the simple calcs above.
Gordon Robertson says:
“It has not warmed on average since 1998.”
Gordon is an even worse liar than Trump. And that’s not easy to accomplish.
UAH LT v6.0 linear trend in last 18-years = +0.13 C/decade
What do you do with someone who cares so little for the truth that they lie about everything? Literally everything.
DA…”Gordon is an even worse liar than Trump. And thats not easy to accomplish”.
According to your logic, the IPCC are liars too. They claimed a 15 year warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012.
I don’t know where you got the linear trend for UAH. Did you calculate that yourself plugging UAH data in woodfortrees?
UAH is in full agreement with the IPCC regarding a flat trend from 1998 – 2015. In fact, John Christy is on record as claiming little or no warming since 1979.
You are mistaking the numerical calculations for an overall trend from ‘1979’ till present with the actual trend from 1998 onward. I have tried to tell you about taking data out of context but you won’t listen.
In the UAH 33 year report it is well explained that the first 18 years of the UAH data shows little or no true warming. There was no true warming till the 1998 EN pushed the temps above the baseline. If you’d pay attention you’d see that the first 18 years represents data that is mainly below the baseline, meaning it represent cooling.
You alarmists miss that repeatedly. The 0.13C/decade trend does NOT represent a true warming trend over the range. You are throwing out a number you clearly don’t understand.
Gordon Robertson says:
“According to your logic, the IPCC are liars too. They claimed a 15 year warming hiatus from 1998 2012.”
Are you really so dense as to keep you from understanding that new and better data have come in from 5-6 years ago?
Gordon Robertson says:
“In the UAH 33 year report it is well explained that the first 18 years of the UAH data shows little or no true warming.”
Still yet another Gordon Robertson lie.
The UAH LT v6.0 linear trend for the first 18.0 years of its record is +0.09 C/decade.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I dont know where you got the linear trend for UAH. Did you calculate that yourself plugging UAH data in woodfortrees?”
I calculated it for myself, using the UAH LT v6.0 data.
Why can’t you do the same, Gordon?
Norman…”If you study heat waves to any depth you will find they are a weather phenomena caused by some form of blocking pattern. As long as the blocking remains excessive heat can build in a region (also drought)”.
Norman…Australia is at one end of the ENSO system, which extends across the Southern Pacific Ocean to the west coast of South America. It’s weather is subject to El Nino/La Nina and it makes sense Australia would be among the hardest hit when it comes to weather extremes.
The climate alarmists will pounce on anything to further their failed cause. The longest spate of heat waves happened back in the 1930s. The highest temperature in the US occurred in 1934 and the droughts of the 1930s in the US and Canada have never been seen since.
Gordon, It is more like you have a blocking phenomena over your rational brain.
It is more likely Gordon’s brain has been affected by cold snap there in Canada.
dr no…”It is more likely Gordons brain has been affected by cold snap there in Canada”.
I categorically deny that. It is well known it was too much indulgence in alcohol and drugs in the 1970s.
Gordon, that’s funny. Genuinely.
Ross…”Gordon, It is more like you have a blocking phenomena over your rational brain”.
Shame you did not know that Australia is the western terminus for ENSO.
The longest spate of heat waves happened back in the 1930s. The highest temperature in the US occurred in 1934 and the droughts of the 1930s in the US and Canada have never been seen since.
I’m aware of the dust bowl years and the droughts that occurred in those years, but is there a reference you can point to that corroborates more drought then than now?
Preferably some decent statistics, not a wild-eyed blog reference.
barry,
This list of 25 might convince you. It is a list of the top 25 global droughts and it seems the US 1930’s made number 2 on the list.
http://list25.com/25-most-severe-droughts-ever-recorded/
Also this link shows the Heat Wave index and the 1930’s peaked at about 6 times higher than any other period in the US. Gordon Robertson is spot on with his comment and I think any evidence you would choose to look at will confirm what he states.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
If you remain unconvinced here is another.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2015/05/13/forget-california-north-america-has-faced-far-worst-droughts/#7827f86932dd
First link is a list of severe droughts worldwide. It doesn’t respond to Gordon’s assertion about 1930s US drought compared to other decadal drought in that country.
Second link isn’t specifically to the topic, but there is a better link at that site that is:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought
This corroborates Gordon’s remarks. Thanks.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The highest temperature in the US occurred in 1934…”
Gordon, you are a bald-faced liar. As I’ve told you before, 1934 is only the 6th warmest in USA48’s record (going back to 1895).
Ahead of 1934 are:
1) 2012
2) 2016
3) 2015
4) 2006
5) 1998
6) 1934
DA…you’re out of touch. 1934 still the warmest year in US.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2007/08/14/red_faces_at_nasa_over_climatechange_blunder.html
Fake data.
The real data shows you are again lying.
And citing an almost 10 yr old blog post isn’t convincing in the least.
Why are you so fearful of looking at the data?
Eh? Those blogs were written 10 years ago.
2012 and 2016 are the warmest years by far in the US temp record. 2012 is 1.5F warmer than 1934.
No, this is not ‘Karlised’ data.
Norman says:
“The globe has warmed maybe 1 C in about 100 years. This would not cause heat waves that kill thousands.”
In fact, the probability of heat waves rises exponentially when temperature changes linearly:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-very-warm-events-are-much-more.html
Blocking is a manifestation or outcome that causes the heatwave. The sun plays its role for sure. But blocking of itself does not explain the climatic shift and drift to more intense heat wave. This occurs in an increasing warming world as first cause the answer is found.
The DENIAL then by deniers is not the heat wave outcome but rather the first cause of the higher energy state in the place.
But why then this “carry on” about splitting hairs about %. The fact remains that deaths are caused by heatwaves should be of concern no matter the numbers involved.
Then we have on the other hand the non-read of actual PDF with denial commentary. If you care to read it is also a study in the EFFECTS of increasing heat waves on the poorest of our world.
It is something that Roy Spencer and John Christy keep harping on about cheap energy as excuse for non-action to justify non-poverty outcomes in 3rd world countries. That is not strictly the whole problem. The problem lies in the deaths associated to livestock, death of subsistence farming crops, their failures along with water resources that become scarce in a warming world. Equatorial inhabitants it is shown by this outstanding study suffer more then others as a consequence of global warming. Africa being the major candidate for Global Warming effects on livelihood and growing poverty.
Fatal 32-car pileup kills one, injures dozens near Tamaqua, Pennsylvania
This 32-vehicle pileup occurred as a result of a snow squall that swept through Schuylkill County on March 3, causing I-81 northbound to to shut down.
Pennsylvania Mar 05 2017.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00877/8vrkh1oae827.png
Ross…”The sun plays its role for sure. But blocking of itself does not explain the climatic shift and drift to more intense heat wave”.
Yes, but an extra powerful El Nino does. Australia is at one end of the ENSO system and you’re bound to suffer more than others on the planet.
Tsonis et all did a study of ocean system over a century, like ENSO, the PDO, AMO, etc., and concluded those systems operated in and out of phase with each other. When in phase, the planet warmed and when out of phase, the planet cooled.
Tsonis himself asked why we are wasting time examining the anthropogenic theory when we have evidence the oceans are causing the warming/cooling.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Tsonis et all did a study of ocean system over a century, like ENSO, the PDO, AMO, etc., and concluded those systems operated in and out of phase with each other. When in phase, the planet warmed and when out of phase, the planet cooled”
These cycles don’t create heat, they just redistribute heat.
But AGW *does* put more heat into the lower atmosphere and ocean.
The most Important threat to life and health in sub-Saharan Africa in the immediate past has been HIV/AIDS:
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/decline-and-recovery-of-life-expectancy-in-africa-1960-2010-wikipedia0.png
Otherwise African nations are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they wish to remain global economic laggards or develop their economies along the lines of China and now India without Western do-gooder interference.
Chris, So we DOWN PLAY the effects, societal break up, wars famine, deaths, lack of water, crop failures, starvation, poverty, failed farming indirectly caused by global Warming trends to more catastrophic heat waves and make the epidemic of AIDS in Africa an excuse! to ignore all other. Don’t you realise how fundamentally flawed and insensitive your logic is.
You know by giving one village reliable CLEAN drinking is not a hand out! Supplying a village with power from one Wind Mill generator gives life and hope to countless THOUSANDS.
Sheesh – your anti-socialist rant is not appreciated.
You see “fishing rods” are not a hand out. But food hand outs are as is trite comment about Cornwall’s stupid theology on cheap energy theory.
Libertarians, as many Climate deniers is a disguised from of ultra capitalism that does not really give a rats tail about anyone except their own nation. Every man for himself.
Capitalism, as differentiated from political systems, has given man the best living conditions ever, more widely spread and still spreading, where not held back so socialistic political systems. Of which, libertarianism is not one.
Lewis says:
“Capitalism, as differentiated from political systems, has given man the best living conditions ever, more widely spread and still spreading, where not held back so socialistic political systems. Of which, libertarianism is not one.”
a) The US already has a lot of socialism — much of it benefiting you.
b) Many partly socialistic countries in Europe, as well as Canada and Japan, have societal health Americans can only dream of.
It is a sad thing that the notion of Unions has come to be treated with disdain by more people over the last 20 years. Gordon’s comments are simple and direct, honest, and a good potted history. Like most institutions, public and private, rot creeps in, corruption happens. This doesn’t mean unionism is bad. On the contrary, worked well it is an important collective arrangement to balance power with employers. Why anyone would expect a 20-year old entering the workforce would be able to negotiate a contract on equal footing with a lawyered-up corporation is beyond me.
Fair play is what matters. That’s what unions, at their best, seek. Some employers also work that way. But not all of them, and especially not in larger companies.
Lewis..”Capitalism, as differentiated from political systems, has given man the best living conditions ever, more widely spread and still spreading, where not held back so socialistic political systems”.
Have to disagree, Lewis. Had it not been for socialists in the form of unions, clawing benefits from capitalists, like better wages and conditions, safer working conditions, pensions, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and so on, capitalists would not have given those benefits at all.
If you want proof, look to places like Asia where they still have sweat shops and child labour. The living conditions to which you refer were fought for by unions and that forced capitalists to treat their non-union labour better to prevent them joining or forming unions.
Please don’t be taken in by the demonization of the word union. It is nothing more than ordinary people banding together because they thought they were worth more and wanted better treatment than what employers were willing to give. In the beginning, when unionists first formed, employers hired thugs to beat and kill striking workers and governments used the police and the anti-labour laws to intimidate them.
It is a sad thing that the notion of Unions has come to be treated with disdain by more people over the last 20 years. Gordons comments are simple and direct, honest, and a good potted history. Like most institutions, public and private, rot creeps in, corruption happens. This doesnt mean unionism is bad. On the contrary, worked well it is an important collective arrangement to balance power with employers. Why anyone would expect a 20-year old entering the workforce would be able to negotiate a contract on equal footing with a lawyered-up corporation is beyond me.
Fair play is what matters. Thats what unions, at their best, seek. Some employers also work that way. But not all of them, and especially not in larger companies.
Ross Brisbane
Here is an article on heat related deaths in Australia covering an extensive time period.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114000999
The conclusion of the article is that the rate of death from heat waves has been declining (changes that have been made increased air conditioning for the really hot days).
Ross Brisbane
I was trying to find data on global heat waves (duration, intensity and number) and so far I have not been able to locate data.
I can show you how easy it is to distort information then get it published to create a false reality (fake news).
Here is a submitted article. It seems good and well and does show the data I was looking for with US cities. It seems to show an increase in heat waves.
http://urbanclimate.gatech.edu/pubs/Habeeb_2015.pdf
You would like an article like this one because it will reinforce you beliefs. However it is a very distorted article when viewed from a bigger perspective.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
This is the EPA heat wave index. If you look at the decade of 1960 and 1970 the index was at a very low. If they had started even one decade earlier the graphs would not show an increase at all.
From the EPA index it does not look like heat waves are going up at all in the US. Not sure why the US would show no upward trend but the larger global system would. Why would the US be isolated from heat waves?
I just wanted to show how even peer reviewed articles can distort reality. Why would they choose 1961 as a starting date when they can easily see it is a low point in the long term average.
Norman says:
“Not sure why the US would show no upward trend but the larger global system would.”
The US area is only 1.9% of the globe’s.
The 30-yr trend of USA48’s mean temperature is +0.23 C/decade — *higher* than the global trend.
David Appell
My problem is I can’t find a study of global heat waves (intensity, duration, number) to see if they are indeed increasing globally or not. I will continue to look but am not too hopeful of finding such data. I know computer models project more heat waves in the future. I would like to know how the number has changed since the 1900 period to today, we know the globe has warmed some (how much depends upon which global graph you choose) and if a global heat wave study came out you can match what an increasing global temperature has done. Heat waves are defined as 5 C over the normal high temperature for a period of at least a couple days.
David Appell
You have to love it! You go after how small the Contintental US is compared to the globe if people use this as an example in a post but you are more than comfortable to use a smaller area (Australia) and use it on your blog as a subject of a post on dangers of global warming. isn’t that inconsistent application of logic? One study is not good because it covers too small an area (and does not show dangers from global warming) but if it proves global warming is a danger or threat it does not matter the area involved.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/03/global-warming-made-australias-record.html
Norman, what I wrote about Australia is true.
The problem, Norman, is that you didn’t look at the data to see that the USA48 has been warming *faster* than the globe…. (most land areas are).
And since we live on land, the global average isn’t what’s most important to us, it’s the global average over land….
And the global average over land is rising about 50% faster than the global average over land+ocean.
So 2 C global warming = 3 C land warming = 5.4 F land warming.
Not sure why the US would show no upward trend but the larger global system would.
No one expects uniformity. One can’t extrapolate to the globe from a single country.
Different regions have different warming rates over the same period. The Arctic region, for example, has warmed more than twice as fast as the rest of the globe. That’s even the case using the UAH dataset, of which the recent revision lowered the Arctic trend since 1979 more than the global trend.
Chris Hanley says:
“Otherwise African nations are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they wish to remain global economic laggards or develop their economies along the lines of China and now India without Western do-gooder interference.”
What a blinkered and ignorant understanding of poverty.
Chris Hanley…”The most Important threat to life and health in sub-Saharan Africa in the immediate past has been HIV/AIDS…”
According to the scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, the most important threat to Africans is malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections such as malaria.
Montagnier has claimed recently that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. He claims further that the aforementioned afflictions affecting Africans defeat the immune system through oxidative stress. He claimed AIDS is oxidative stress.
His solution is to feed the people, give them clean drinking water, take care of parasites such as mosquitoes and worms, and give them antioxidants to combat oxidative stress.
Prior to the invention of the viral AIDS theory by some scientists desperate to find a solution, the condition killing Africans was called wasting syndrome, or Slim’s Disease. The causes are known and I listed them previously. Some sadly misinformed people in the WHO have blamed it on the sexual transmission of HIV when it is blatantly obvious what is the real cause.
In Sub-Saharan Africa in particular, malnutrition alone has caused diseases like kwashiorcor, beri beri, and pellagra. Their immune systems are shot due to a diet based on maize (corn). It is terribly cynical to blame those Africans for killing themselves with an unidentified virus through sexual transmission when they are obviously starving to death from lack of proper protein.
I say unidentified virus because Montagnier admitted in an hour long interview that he has not isolated HIV, purified it, or even seen it. His team hypothesized the virus based on RNA strand in cells taken from a man with AIDS.
Even at that, Montagnier stated clearly that many humans in North America are exposed to HIV and if their immune system is strong the HIV won’t affect them.
Luc Montagnier has no credibility whatsoever.
Among other idiocies, he thinks there is something to homeopathy.
—
That reminds me of a joke.
Did you hear about the homeopathy patient who suffered an overdose?
Apparently he forgot to take his medicine.
Even more snow in California.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/sacramento-ca/95814/weather-radar/347627
Significantly reduced the water level in reservoirs in northern California.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/resDetailOrig.action?resid=SHA
To understand Earth’s changing radiation environment: Regular monitoring of the stratosphere over California shows that cosmic rays have intensified more than 10% since 2015. Because of a recent decline in the solar cycle, more and more cosmic rays are reaching the inner solar system and penetrating the atmosphere of our planet. Earth’s magnetic field should protect us against these rays, but geomagnetism is weakening. Globally, Earth’s magnetic field has declined in strength by 10% since the 19th century with changes accelerating in recent years, according to measurements by Europe’s SWARM satellites.
http://spaceweather.com/
So what? There is no evidence these changes lead to climate change.
A significant fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.
— Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements, Eimear M. Dunne et al, Science (27 Oct 2016).
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/26/science.aaf2649
Among this site’s many other faults, it also strips out quotation marks.
Because why would they possibly matter, right?
Works if you delete then retype them. Same with various symbols, like the minus sign.
Historically, the stock market rate of growth is in the range of 4% to 7%. This is consistent over the long term. The future stock market return will also be in this same range in the long run. All financial planners use this range or % return for financial retirement planning purposes.
And, of course, there will be wild swings up and down. The stock market will not have this rate of growth every year. There will be lots of volatility.
Dr. No, This is an example of financial forecasting that is Specific and Quantifiable and Accountable.
Dr. No, We also have in Finance, The Capital Asset Pricing Model that provides specific, measurable value to stock forecasts. Specific and quantifiable.
So, Dr. No….I will make a forecast of the climate for the next 50 years in North America.
1) In the next 50 years in North America we will witness climate that is very, very similar to the climate in North America that we experienced in the last 50 years. There will be little change. Certainly, nothing to be alarmed about.
2) In the next 50 years the long term global warming trend will not exceed 0.20 degrees centigrade per decade. The average of surface temperature measurements and satellite measurements will show a historical long term trend of LESS THAN 0.20 degrees centigrade per decade.
If the consensus long term warming trend exceeds 0.20 degrees centigrade/decade THEN I will be proven wrong. And you can hold me accountable.
This is an example of specific, measurable, and accountable.
And this, Obama, is one of the most ridiculous, superficial and redundant comments I have read during the last twenty years.
BTW, 0.2 C / decade means 2 C / century: that’s more than two times as much as what we have observed during… the last century.
Two hundred years ago, that wouldn’t have been a problem at all. But in one hundred years it might be one.
I’m not sure people working in huge (re)insurance companies will welcome what you seem to understand under ‘specific, measurable, and accountable’.
Just because it rained 2″ last week does not mean it will rain 104″ over the next year.
That type of extrapolation only occurs in the beliefs of Warmists.
This is why people make climate models. (And, no, they do not show a linear change over the 21st century.)
Obama (Mr Frog),
don’t tell me you are a financial planner !
Here is a sobering fact for you – financial planners have no more skill than a roomful of monkeys when it comes to picking the stock market. Those who do well in one year invariably do poorly the next. You may well have some fancy models and software packages to play with, but all you are really doing is fiddling with statistics. There is absolutely no real science or mathematics involved.
An iron clad law about stock picking is that THE PAST IS NOT A RELIABLE GUIDE TO THE FUTURE.
The same applies to climate science, what happened in the past is not particularly useful when attempting to predict the future. However, it is also true that a useful short to medium term method of forecasting is to follow the trend (“it is your friend”).
As for your attempt to be specific, measurable and accountable –
1. North America is not specific. The climate of the next 50 years is not specific.
2. There will be “little change”. That is not measurable – who defines the magnitude of “Little”?
3. You cannot mix the UAH trends with surface measurement trends. You may be interested to know that, while the surface warms due to enhanced greenhouse gases, the stratosphere will actually cool!
So when the globally averaged surface temperature trends more than 2C/century, you cannot hide behind upper atmosphere temperature trends. That would be UNACCOUNTABLE.
dr no…”The same applies to climate science, what happened in the past is not particularly useful when attempting to predict the future”.
There are bona fide climate scientists like Pat Michaels who do exactly that and they have been far more successful predicting future climate states than any model or any alarmist.
There’s no good reason of which I am aware that says taking the climate from 1970 – 2000 should not predict the climate from 2001 – 2030. Only those with the anthropogenic religion deny it, looking everywhere for proof of anthropogenic warming and climate change.
There have been situations in the past like the Little Ice Age that could throw a wrench into the works. We have no idea what is coming. Still, based on the immediate past it seems a safe bet to predict the immediate future based on the immediate past.
If we’re wrong, we’re wrong. What I don’t want to see is alarmist theorists making stupid predictions that have never been right since they started predicting in 1988.
“There are bona fide climate scientists like Pat Michaels who do exactly that and they have been far more successful predicting future climate states than any model or any alarmist.”
Goodness gracious – you have really shot yourself in the foot this time.
“A review of claims made by the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry.”
For a litany of his failures see:
https://skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-history-getting-climate-wrong.html
I like this one:
“In a Washington Times op-ed [in 2001] Michaels declared that the Prius would “never” make a profit for Toyota and suggested that demand would always be “weak” because “no one except diehard technophiles and hyper-greens are willing to shell out several thousand extra for a hybrid”:
Toyota Motor Corp. (7203)’s Prius, a niche oddity when it went on sale 15 years ago, jumped to the world’s third best-selling car line in the first quarter as U.S. demand and incentives in Japan turned the hybrid into a mainstream hit.
+1, Dr No.
As far as I can tell, Pat Michaels gave up publishing in the peer reviewed literature long ago. Wonder why….
Gordon Robertson says:
“Theres no good reason of which I am aware that says taking the climate from 1970 2000 should not predict the climate from 2001 2030.”
I know of one (and you should too): feedbacks.
“If were wrong, were wrong. What I dont want to see is alarmist theorists making stupid predictions that have never been right since they started predicting in 1988.”
Explain this:
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017.png
Gordon says:
climate scientists like Pat Michaels… have been far more successful predicting future climate states than any model or any alarmist.
Ignoring the political rhetoric, let’s check Patrick Michaels’ ‘predictions.’
1999 he said,
“I’ll take even money that the 10 years ending on December 31, 2007, will show a statistically significant global cooling trend in temperatures measured by satellite.”
UAHv6 trend 1998-2007 = -0.072 C/decade (+/- 0.437)
RSSv3 trend 1998-2007 = -0.051 C/decade (+/- 0.427)
Not remotely statistically significant.
1992 he said,
“Here’s an easy prediction: By the year 2000, plus or minus a few, the vogue environmental calamity will be an ice age.”
Dead wrong there.
1992, based on past trends he said,
“IPCC Assertion: ‘The Northern Hemisphere [where everybody lives and almost all of the world’s food is produced: scary] will warm faster than the Southern.’ Fact: According to the last 30 years’ data from any source – satellites, ships, or Pop’s thermometer – the opposite has been occurring. Our figure subtracts Southern Hemisphere temperatures from Northern ones since 1950, and if the United Nations is right, the trend line should be going up. Instead, it is pointed significantly downward.”
Temp trends for the Southern Hemisphere showed slightly more warming than Northern from 1950-1992. Did this past trend continue as Patrick Michaels expected it would?
Nope.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.png
Seems to me his predictions have been pretty poor. Including his extrapolation from past trends on the last point.
Obama,
What are the odds you will be alive in 50 years to check the result?
Obama…”In the next 50 years the long term global warming trend will not exceed 0.20 degrees centigrade per decade”.
I would not stake the farm on that. The last 18 years has produced a maximum trend of 0.005C/decade according to the IPCC and their error margins suggest that could have been a cooling trend. They called it a hiatus and some hopefuls call it a pause.
Based on rewarming from the Little Ice Age, I am regarding it as a done deal. I think the warming is likely ended except for small variations here and there.
Huh?
You don’t think that “In the next 50 years the long term global warming trend will not exceed 0.20 degrees centigrade per decade”
i..e. you think that it will? (exceed 0.2 deg per decade)
I think you don’t know what to think.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The last 18 years has produced a maximum trend of 0.005C/decade according to the IPCC”
Q: Who quotes a trend that is already several years out of date?
A: Those trying to mislead.
The last 18 years has produced a maximum trend of 0.005C/decade according to the IPCC and their error margins suggest that could have been a cooling trend. They called it a hiatus and some hopefuls call it a pause.
You’ve got that wrong in 3 different ways.
1. The latest IPCC report was in 2013. They calculated the trend since 1998. That was 15 years at the time.
2. The (wrong) figure you gave wasn’t the maximum trend, it was the mean trend.
3. The mean trend was 0.05C/decade. Not 0.005.
The actual figure given for the 1998-2012 trend was:
0.05 (0.05 to 0.15) C per decade
The maximum trend, then, was 0.15C/decade since 1998.
It’s higher now.
The minus sign was swallowed by the blog. The uncertainty range given by the IPCC for surface temp trends 1998-2012 was:
0.05 (-0.05 to 0.15) C per decade
Question for Dr. Roy. You now have more than 35 years of data from your satellite measurements. Why don’t you show the long-term trend in your data with a linear least-squares fit trend line as JMA does with their data?
Why? What evidence do you have that an affine function is a proper model for these data?
“Affine function” = big word that attempts to impress when most people interested in real communication would simply say “linear function.”
The question is, how well does a linear function fit the data? Pretty well, in this case. Anyone can, of course, try other fits.
That is really a giveaway. You are clearly not comfortable with math.
A linear function is an affine function, but an affine function is not generally a linear function. And, a linear function would not even remotely resemble the data.
Below the chart where you miss a straight line depicting the OLS trend, you see four links each pointing to a file containing the anomalies for different atmospheric layers.
At the bottom of each file you see the OLS trends for 27 different zones and regions of the Globe.
Ha! This time I managed to bypass the strange cerberus exterminating 70% of our comments.
It’s ridiculous, isn’t it?
Yes.
Mark: UAH does show this trend — it’s in the bottom left of all their data pages.
Shapiro…”Question for Dr. Roy. You now have more than 35 years of data from your satellite measurements. Why dont you show the long-term trend in your data with a linear least-squares fit trend line as JMA does with their data?”
What’s wrong with the graph he supplies on this site with the red running average? Too complicated for you, or too close to the truth?
Shapiro…”Why dont you show the long-term trend in your data with a linear least-squares fit trend line as JMA does with their data?”
Statistics as applied to data must be applied within the context to which the data applies. There are at least two distinct contexts in the 35 years of data such the pre 1998 El Nino range and the post 1998 EN range. The post 98 range has no trend.
Obviously there are extenuating physical circumstances going on that are not apparent. We need to understand those contexts better before blindly applying numerical methods to the data over the 35 year range.
Drawing a straight line trend through numerical data while ignoring the different contexts is something someone inexperienced in statistics would do. Or someone trying to prove a point with smoke and mirrors.
The first 17 years of the UAH data could be plotted with a straight line trend but it does not represent warming from anthropogenic causes. It is largely a rewarming from volcanic aerosol cooling. Following the 1998 El Nino, the trend is flat.
If you just want a rough average of the data then your straight line could apply but it won’t mean anything. The line will have nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.
How do you propose to reconcile a discontinuity like that with a straight line trend? It’s not only a discontinuity it’s a step discontinuity. The pre 1998 slope reaches the baseline and is suddenly pushed to about 0.8C by the late 97 EN. The following LN does not return the data to the baseline as it should, the post-98 EN produces a sudden warming of nearly 0.25C, where the flat trend is located.
When I look at Roy’s UAH graph I see a re-warming slope from 1979 – 1997 then a flat trend following that. The IPCC has confirmed the flat trend, calling it a hiatus. How do you replace such a discontinuity with a straight line?
Please…put away the number crunching till you can explain those two distinct contexts.
“When I look at Roys UAH graph I see a re-warming slope from 1979 1997 then a flat trend following that. The IPCC has confirmed the flat trend, calling it a hiatus. How do you replace such a discontinuity with a straight line?”
Ha ha ha.
Poor Gordon cannot ascend a flight of stairs because, according to his logic, it represents a series of hiatuses which lead nowhere!
Gordon Robertson says:
“When I look at Roys UAH graph I see a re-warming slope from 1979 1997 then a flat trend following that.”
Another lie, based on an inability to calculate.
UAH LT v6.0 linear trend since 1/1998 = +0.05 C/decade.
Though the interval is too short to be representative of climate change.
DA…”Another lie, based on an inability to calculate.
UAH LT v6.0 linear trend since 1/1998 = +0.05 C/decade”.
Appell, you’re a number cruncher.
You can’t see what I’m talking about because it doesn’t fit with what your alarmist authorities have told you. I don’t care about authority, if I’m right I’m right, if I’m wrong I’m wrong. The important thing to me is the science and that it be interpreted correctly.
LOOK AT WHAT THE DATA IS SAYING!!! Never mind the numbers, look at the context from which the data was acquired then fit your data into the context.
If you do that, you’ll see it is not possible to draw a linear trend line through UAH data over the range and have it be meaningful. A trend of 0.14C/decade across the 1979 – 2017 range has no meaning even though it has to be stated to satisfy number crunchers like you.
It’s the same as claiming the global average temperature is 15C. What does that mean? Nothing.
A trend line across the UAH range begins in a negative anomaly region (cooling), crosses the baseline at a major El Nino event, and ends in a positive anomaly region (true warming).
Does that not mean anything to you at all?
Does it mean nothing to you that two major ENs occurred after the 98 EN yet not one occurred the previous 18 years before 98?
A number cruncher would not be looking for anything like that and that’s why number crunchers get so easily lead astray.
Gordon, you are now talking pure nonsense.
You are happy to believe the numbers when they appear to support your denialist claims, but
you reject them otherwise. A sure sign of a confused and desperate mind.
Does that mean a big snowstorm?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/03/07/1500Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-103.23,42.30,1037
Curious about the adjustments from UAHv5.6 to UAHv6.0 I plotted temps with trends since 1998 for both data sets.
Comparison
As far as I can make out, this is the largest change between revisions for any global temperature data set. But for some reason those people who believe adjustments are automatically a crooked practice never bring this particular data revision up.
So that alone makes you curious barry?
What about
– downloading the two UAH files
– loading them into an Excel map
– computing the difference between the two for each zone
– plotting the differences
— first for the Globe which standalone look quite big:
http://tinyurl.com/gnbozzy
— then overlaying the Globe’s diffs with those for the North and South Poles:
http://tinyurl.com/j3nsppk
Amazing, isn’t it?
Yes, I know about those differences, espec WRT the North Pole data.
I didn’t need to bring them up to make the point. Sometimes less verbiage is better.
Barry, I wrote about UAH’s changes at the time:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-dataset.html
Some of the regional monthly changes are YUGE — over 1 C! Max was 1.43 C.
Imagine if NOAA changed a monthly anomaly by 1.4 C — we’d never hear the end of it. But because it was UAH, so-called “skeptics” couldn’t have cared less.
Here’s another demonstration of some of the huge changes UAH made from v5.6:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/remarkable-changes-to-uah-data.html
Moreover, I’m wondering about the offsets you applied for the two 6.0 plots in your WFT chart.
Because both datasets have exactly the same climatology: the mean of the absolute values for jan 1981 till dec 2010.
Thus the offset is zero here (in fact, probably due to rounding errors, 0.0006 – 0.0009 = -0.0003).
Who are you writing to?
What is a “WTF” chart?
“Because both datasets have exactly the same climatology: the mean of the absolute values for jan 1981 till dec 2010.”
Even if that’s true (I’d have to check), that proves almost nothing.
1. I was answering to barry (my comment is on his reply line, like yours.
2. I simply misspelled WFT. That to discover really seems to have been a challenge, as I can see.
3. Nothing is simpler than that: all UAH files for the four layers, even the 2.5 grid, are based on the same climatology (see the files ‘monacg’ in each layer’s directory). Please read the notes at each file’s end.
4. Of course that proves something! If you don’t know that, how then do you know how baselines are constructed?
Bindidon says:
“4. Of course that proves something! If you dont know that, how then do you know how baselines are constructed?”
Baselines are completely arbitrary. And it’s very easy to switch from one to the other.
Bindidon…”I simply misspelled WFT”.
I say WTF all the time when I read alarmist logic. Go on, look it up.
Hint: What the **** ???
Oh I see right now that you were the one having misspelled WFT in your own comment… It stands for “Wood For Trees”. Why don’t you know that?
If you want to cite a WFT trees chart, then provide the URL instead of expecting us to read your mind.
Bindidon, the RSS baseline is the monthly averages from 1979-1998, not 1981-2010 (UAH).
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
In short, RSS have a 20-year baseline, and UAH updated to a 30-year baseline some years ago.
To match baselines, add 0.08 to UAH anomalies.
Above 1500 m will be in California still snowing.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/03/06/1500Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-125.93,40.82,1806
Need to prepare for the blizzards in the Dakotas.
Let’s see how the current is distributed temperature (ozone) in the stratosphere over the Arctic Circle.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00877/f9r316ucxbwc.png
The increase in the speed of the solar wind and a drop in temperature in the stratosphere.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00878/aqq5tbpodfnc.gif
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00878/wvdwqgi3htju.png
Waves in the stratosphere precede the pressure anomalies.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JFM_NH_2017.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2017.png
Operational SST Anomaly Charts for 2017.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.3.6.2017.gif
The current temperature in Alaska.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00878/ebe1frypl2w6.png
ren…”Operational SST Anomaly Charts for 2017″
ren…anything you see with regard to NOAA is science fiction. One of their own employees spilled the beans on how they cherry picked warmer temps on the SST.
Utter garbage – your still in la la land.
“…you’re…La La Land.” [smh]
Gordon Robertson says:
March 7, 2017 at 12:26 AM
One of their own employees spilled the beans on how they cherry picked warmer temps on the SST.
That’s no more than lie, and you probably even know it. Bates never spoke about Karl & alii cherry picking any ‘warmer temps’.
Try to read this instead of the ridiculous Dail Mail shit:
http://tinyurl.com/zzejkuw
bindidon …”Thats no more than lie, and you probably even know it. Bates never spoke about Karl & alii cherry picking any warmer temps”
Here ya go:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/
“The treatment of the buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data. They were adjusted upwards 0.12C to make them homogeneous with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and they were never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose for the buoys. Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data”.
NOAA are cheats. They have been re-writing the historic temperature record using smoke and mirrors and data that does not need to be upgraded because it was good in the first place.
Who do you trust? NOAA or the notorious Patrick Michaels ?
” In 2010, Patrick Michaels estimated that about 40 percent of his funding comes from fossil fuel industries:
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?
PATRICK MICHAELS: I don’t know. Forty percent? I don’t know. [CNN, Fareed Zakaria GPS, 8/15/10, via Think Progress]”
dr no …”Who do you trust? NOAA or the notorious Patrick Michaels ?”
No question…Pat Michaels. I would not trust NOAA in the least.
I don’t care if he is funded 100% by Western Fuels, it depends entirely on how he conducts himself as a scientist. When James Hansen was spreading propaganda about global warming/climate change, Pat Michaels was the only one who stood up to him.
Hansen was funded by private interests while employed as head of NASA GISS. He had friends in high places, like Al Gore, who got him onto national television to spread his propaganda. Michaels could not compete with him financially and when Western Fuels offered to fund him he accepted.
You are cynically suggesting that any money from oil companies is dirty. Sure, they have a conflict of interest in funding Michaels but that in no way proves Michaels is lacking integrity.
Everything I have read from Michaels is straight up. I have a strong background in science and I don’t put up with any scientist spreading propaganda in the name of science. You, on the other hand, seem to accept such propaganda as if it is true.
I can only re-iterate:
1. He is funded by oil companies.
2. He has been proven wrong so many times it is embarrassing.
3. He has only only published four peer-reviewed climate articles in the past 10 years.
Putting him on a pedestal is laughable.
Comment here not allowed.
A substantial comment here is still being blocked by Roy’s blog.
DA…”A substantial comment here is still being blocked by Roys blog”.
Substantial??? You are a legend in your own mind.
Still not permitted to post a substantive reply here. What is Roy afraid of?
Still not permitted to publish a Bates quote and a link.
Gordon, refute this
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-bates-story-is-over.html
DA…”Gordon, refute this…”
Nothing to refute. Bates only indicated that NOAA rushed out a paper to accommodate the Obama Clime Action Plan for the Paris climate talks.
Here’s the real story from the horse’s mouth:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
“In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below”.
Not only was Karl withholding, Obama withheld critical information about his Climate Action Plan from Congress.
Bates did not claim there was scientific misconduct involved it was me who accused NOAA of that based on them slashing 5000 surface stations globally and using a model to synthesize the missing temperatures data.
Bates complained about the breaching of scientific protocol by Karl and NOAA in order to enable Obama. More of the Climategate nonsense.
Information provided by the National Weather Service shows significant snow totals that accumulated between March 4 and 8 a.m. March 6, 2017. / National Weather Service.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/weather/8sx1jv/picture136698583/binary/SNOW
Is California rest of the rain?
http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Satellite/Infrared.aspx?region=hipacsat&animate=true
A cold front in the attack.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00878/6xviccm05dx6.png
Strong wave temperatures in the stratosphere and its effect on the temperature of the Arctic Circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2017.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Temperature of ice in the Arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/anim/plots/icetemp.arc.1.png
One month does not a trend make. Nor do six months make a trend. But I do think it is noteworthy that the stratospheric temperature is now back up to -.22. For over 8 months there has been a warming trend in the stratospheric temperature. Back in 1993, we had three readings of -.22 or colder. Since the end of major low-latitude volcanic eruptions, we have not had the trend in stratospheric temperatures that was claimed to be a fingerprint of CAGW.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2016.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_EQ_2017.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
1) So not confuse the lower stratosphere for the stratosphere.
2) Do not dismiss changes in ozone.
3) The UAH LS v6.0 trend since 1/1993 is -0.06 C/decade.
When the ice will melt in the Arctic?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00878/eo1mn8hrw896.png
When the ice will melt? Melt is has for years many.
You’d better get ready for the glacial rain.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00878/gy1nwa5k79bl.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
ren…”When the ice will melt in the Arctic?”
Never…as long as the Earth has a tilt and remains in the same orbit…and the solar output does not increase drastically.
David Appell has replied that the ice has been melting but he lives in a delusion that the two months of Arctic summer represents the entire Arctic year. Same with the rest of the alarmists.
As of January 2017 there were 3 metres of ice covering the Arctic Ocean from the North Pole to the Canadian northern shores. It has to be mighty cold to do that with salt water. Even if CO2 increased 100 fold and even if it could warm the atmosphere, the lack of sunlight for 6 months of the year will ensure the Arctic is NEVER ice free.
Alarmists need a reality check.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/anim/plots/ice.arc.1.png
Ice drift.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/anim/plots/icedrift.arc.1.png
What determines the amount of ozone in the stratosphere?
The emission core of the Mg II doublet (280 nm) exhibits the largest natural solar irradiance variability above 240 nm. It is frequently used as a proxy for spectral solar irradiance variability from the UV to EUV associated with the 11-yr solar cycle (22-yr magnetic cycle) and solar rotation (27d).
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
The low-latitude major volcanic eruptions continued past 1993. But even before those eruptions stopped have major impact on stratospheric temperatures, we had temperatures as low as we have now.
Inquirer…” Since the end of major low-latitude volcanic eruptions, we have not had the trend in stratospheric temperatures that was claimed to be a fingerprint of CAGW”.
You might want to check your info. Seems to me the alleged hot spot was supposed to be in the Troposphere, not the Stratosphere. At any rate, no one has ever found it and I doubt if they ever will.
After the strongest eruptions of volcanic dust in the stratosphere absorbs infrared radiation.
“When even more highly gas charged magma reached Pinatubo’s surface on June 15, the volcano exploded in a cataclysmic eruption that ejected more than 1 cubic mile (5 cubic kilometers) of material. The ash cloud from this climactic eruption rose 22 miles (35 kilometers) into the air.”
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/
Separate fingerprints. A cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere was supposed to be another fingerprint of CAGW. However, we now see that the cooling stratosphere was the result of low-latitude major volcanic eruptions. Stratospheric temperatures have essentially flatlined since the end of those eruptions.
Volcanic effects disappear after a few years. They cause the ‘spikes’ in the record. They have nothing to do with the long-term trend, which is clearly cooling.
100%
Long-term stratospheric temps.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLS/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
Trend since 1994 – when Pinatubo effects were virtually nil:
-0.07C /decade
2016 was the coolest year for the stratosphere in the instrumental record.
Data
Infra-red radiation in the stratosphere is closely related to the amount of ozone. Ozone converts the energy UV radiation in the infrared radiation. Therefore, the temperature in the stratosphere depends on the UV radiation which depends on the magnetic activity of the sun.
Ozone, O3 ,is a strong absorber of longer wavelength (200-340 nm) UV radiation and the absorbed energy heats the atmosphere. The ozone layer is responsible for the stratosphere’s increasing temperature with height***. Without ozone, mixing between the troposphere and stratosphere would be much faster and the structure of our atmosphere quite different.
The reaction of O atoms with an oxygen molecule requires a collision involving a third body to remove excess energy and momentum otherwise the newly formed ozone molecule would almost immediately decompose. The third body, ‘M’ in the diagram, can be a nitrogen or another oxygen molecule. In the rarified conditions of the stratosphere two body collisions are infrequent and three body ones even more so. Ozone formation is therefore slow.
http://resilience.earth.lsa.umich.edu/Inquiries/Inquiries_by_Unit/Unit_9_files/image006.jpg
The temperature of the stratosphere is not solely determined by ozone. If you click on the graph you can see the short-term effects of major volcanic eruptions as two large spikes near the beginning of the record. It also seems the predicted long-term decline of stratospheric temps from increased CO2 has occurred.
F10.7 CM RADIO EMISSIONS
The solar radio flux at 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) is an excellent indicator of solar activity. Often called the F10.7 index, it is one of the longest running records of solar activity. The F10.7 radio emissions originates high in the chromosphere and low in the corona of the solar atmosphere. The F10.7 correlates well with the sunspot number as well as a number of UltraViolet (UV) and visible solar irradiance records. The F10.7 has been measured consistently since 1947, first at Ottawa, and then at the Penticton Radio Observatory in British Columbia. Unlike many solar indices, the F10.7 radio flux can easily be measured reliably on a day-to-day basis from the Earths surface, in all types of weather. Reported in solar flux units, (s.f.u.), the F10.7 can vary from below 50 s.f.u., to above 300 s.f.u., over the course of a solar cycle.
The F10.7 Index has proven very valuable in specifying and forecasting space weather. Because it is a long record, it provides climatology of solar activity over six solar cycles. Because it comes from the chromosphere and corona of the sun, it tracks other important emissions that form in the same regions of the solar atmosphere. The Extreme UltraViolet (EUV) emissions that impact the ionosphere and modify the upper atmosphere track well with the F10.7 index. Many Ultra-Violet emissions that affect the stratosphere and ozone also correlate with the F10.7 index. And because this measurement can be made reliably and accurately from the ground in all weather conditions, it is a very robust data set with few gaps or calibration issues.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/f107-cm-radio-emissions
http://www.spaceweather.ca/auto_generated_products/solradmon_eng.png
DA:
Maybe you can explain again how a trace gas (anthropogenic co2) in an already trace gas (natural co2), in a sea of greenhouse gases (water vapor etc) is going to stop the ice age that basic earth science dictates is upon us when it can’t even stop the theory ending pause or the coldest it’s been in 50 years?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/03/07/biting-cold-poised-to-invade-eastern-u-s-this-weekend/?utm_term=.d3ca3a9ec8d4
“Meteorologist Ryan Maue tweeted that temperatures in the Canadian Arctics lower atmosphere challenged the coldest levels observed in March since at least 1958.”
Abstract
Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 0.4C and 1.5 0.4C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65 warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
Darwin Wyatt says on March 8, 2017 at 1:56 PM
I understand your point.
But…
1. Natural CO2 was all the time on Earth before its anthro brother came around. It has been a null sum all the time.
2. In 1978, Joseph W. Chamberlain wrote an amazing report about trace gas effects:
‘Elementary, Analytic Effects of Climate: I. The Mean Global Heat Balance’
Among other very interesting points, Chamberlain shows in section 4: ‘Radiative Effects of Minor Constituents’ how even ppb traces can influence the climate.
See equ. (27) on page 12! It’s hard to believe.
Given that we have raised CO2 concentrations from 280 to 405 ppm, how exactly is 125 parts out of 405 a “trace”?
Is per week winter will move to the eastern US?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00879/8rzc6f47wipc.png
Any comments Dr. Roy.
…. Results from global climate models are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the increase in odds of warm Februaries was caused by natural forcing agents such as solar activity, which has declined since the 1960s, and volcanic eruptions. Meanwhile the model results indicate that past historical increases in greenhouse gases have raised the odds of warm Februaries in the CONUS considerably. The observed trend is compatible with the effects of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. Since past and projected future greenhouse gas increases will continue to raise the temperatures, the frequency of winter months like February 2017 should be expected to increase over the coming decades.
Overall, we find that the chances of seeing a February as warm as the one experienced across the lower 48 has increased at least threefold because of human-caused climate change. The record-warm February of 1954 was, at the time, a very rare event (probability about 0.5% per year) but similar events should now be expected every few years…..
https://wwa.climatecentral.org/analyses/us-heat-february-2017/
The troposphere has not warmed quite (sic!) as fast as most climate models predict:
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png
from: http://www.remss.com/research/climate
1) Assuming that man-caused global warming and man-caused climate change due to man-caused CO2 is settled science…no doubts…95% certainty….
2) Assuming we will see harmful man-caused climate change over the next 50 years in North America that will have a dangerous impact on us and out children…unprecedented climate disaster we have not observed in the previous 50 years…we should be alarmed…
3) Assuming you are King of North America for the next 50 years and have unlimited power and unlimited resources to institute climate, environmental, and economic policy over North America….
What would be the 1 or 2 top priority policies/regulations would you institute to reduce man-caused CO2 to such a level that you would reduce man-caused global warming rates by AT LEAST 0.10 centigrades of warming per decade by the end of your 50 year reign as King of North America??
In other words, your goal is to limit the rate of global warming to no more than 0.10 degrees centigrade per decade over the long term (30+ years)??
I have never gotten a clear answer to the question, “So what policies do you recommend that will have a measurable impact on the meteorological conditions of North America?”
Can someone please address this REASONABLE and HONEST question? Please. I have zero desire to debate the efficacy of your plan…I am only looking for CLARITY…this is a fair and honest question.
HERE IS MY CLIMATE FORECAST BASED ON TWO FACTORS
FACTOR NUMBER ONE – ALL of the solar conditions must meet my criteria. Thus far all have with the exception of the solar wind /ap index but that should come in line soon ,as sunspots vanish. The coronal holes will dry up which is temporary keeping up the solar wind speed and ap index .
FACTOR TWO – The upcoming probable El Nino, but this is very temporary and will last worst case scenario 9 months.
So let’s say a moderate El NINO develops and last around 9 months that would take us to the end of 2017 /early 2018.
At that time that is when the global temperatures will fall below the 30 year running normal.
It will be fast not slow when it happens.
Look at the period 1275-1325 the climate changed quickly.
Now if El Nino should fizzle and major volcanic activity picks up this dramatic cooling below the 30 year avg. will come before the end of year 2017.
So my climate outlook is, this is the end of the warm period. It has one year or less to go and when it ends the global temperatures will fall fast and be below the 30 year running normal and stay there.
If my two factors take place and the global temperatures do not fall I will be wrong.
I know two things for sure which are this period of time in the climate is in no way unique and AGW does not exist. at part.
So you’re putting off your ice age yet again. It’s funny how adapt 2030 predicted it would start in 2015, now he’s put it off until 2019. How long can this go on before you give up?
The only thing wrong with all this guess work is the climate does its own thing. In the UK the climate in the Scottish borders has changed barely at all. Summers are no warmer than when I was a boy. .We have slightly warmer winters and that’s about it.nothing in the country side has changed at all.sea level rise is so slow nobody notices.hardly the catastrophe that all the computer guess work says it is .If you want to know about climate go out and talk to the guys that work outside in all weathers.much more reliable than all your guesses.time to live in the real world guys get a job or hobby
Thank you for nice information. pls visit mine 🙂
here
here