Home/BlogAt long last, our Version 6 dataset paper has been published, with the online version available as of today:
UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products: Methodology and Results
We have been working with NCEI (old NCDC) to get the dataset and code archived there (contrary to some claims, our Version 5.6 dataset and code have been archived there for years). This takes time as NCEI has procedures, review meetings, etc., before they can host a dataset and code.
(I can download the PDF…maybe someone can tell me if it’s publicly available, too.)
UPDATE: Since the paper is paywalled, here’s our final submitted version.
Roy–
The pdf is only available on sale for $39. I can usually use my institutional membership (LBL or UCal) to get access, but apparently this journal is not recognizing my login or is not included in the accessible journals.
could you make a pdf copy available to your readers?
I’m reluctant to break the terms of the copyright. We were also sent this link, which I believe allows anyone to read it online…but I see some of the formatting is a little messed up:
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y?author_access_token=VBtfRaOAXOdGK9IeY4MdTve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY6gtkXBC4fVl_TPFTjtXmxAPwznbUdLk8i25GcYfq-3XUw9XoBpkdf46s-V2L4jOUZshBQ_jOV3SMLWdxqhSP-FG7ERFegWzt26TR8sf8ViWA%3D%3D
it is free here
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y
Thanks, the link does allow online reading, but not saving. There is a glitch, at least for me, that prevents reading some crucial numbers. The glitch appears to consist of a tab following certain symbols (Gk “beta” in a couple of cases) that causes a 7-10 character displacement of the number and therefore overwriting. For example, the value of a3 from equation (1) on p. 123 is unreadable. Equation (2) on the same page is also messed up.
More errors occur on p. 127 concerning trends inthe LS, TP and LT regions. Also on p. 129 in Summary and conclusions regarding the error margin (although elsewhere one can see it is 0.04 per decade).
Can you say whether this is a 1-sigma or 2-sigma error? Assuming either of these, your value of +0.10 per decade for the ocean is not significantly different from the HadSST3 value of +0.12 per decade. But your land estimate of +0.16 per decade would be significantly lower than the land estimate of +0.26 per decade from CRUtem4. But perhaps your ocean estimate is significantly different from the Karlized figure?
Regarding copyright–What the journal has copyrighted is the typeset version (with page numbers) that appears in the printed or online copy. Most of the journals I deal with allow public distribution of, for example, the material (Word or pdf file) that was submitted to the journal (e.g., without page numbers). I for example have sent my submitted (not typeset) papers to ResearchGate for free public access.
If that’s the case, I suppose I can make a pdf of my submitted paper…there were just a couple typos in one of the tables which I’ll need to fix.
OK, I’ve added a link to our final submitted version of the paper at the end of my post, above.
It would be strange/unusual if you, as the author, do not retain copyright.
No it wouldn’t. Authors frequently sign it away in order to get published.
Congrats, Roy, on this important milestone. I look forward to reading it.
I’m still curious why this paper came almost two years after UAH started publishing their v6beta. Perhaps to influence the Paris conference?
Look forward to online temp data apps updating to UAH6.0 now it’s published.
I’ve emailed Paul at woodfortrees and Kevin Cowtan in that regard.
Congratulations, Dr Spencer.
Woodfortrees has already supported UAH6.0 since August last year.
WFT is using the Beta6.5 link, which ceased updating last October.
WFT has often been out-of-date. You can’t trust it, IMO.
You can always figure out which data set is being used. There are links, and if that’s not enough a bit of sleuthing pinpoints.
It has 2 advantages over the other apps: it has more functions and more data sets. Charts are more easily linked.
The big disadvantage (to my mind) is the lack of uncertainty estimates.
I know how to figure out the version. But I’m saying WTF has not been updated to the current version before. I don’t trust them without checking.
I check just about everything. Trust but verify.
Many don’t check. They shouldn’t have to “check” when using WFT — it is the obligation of the providers there to provide the most recent data.
The owner is under no obligation whatsoever to provide anything. He made it to help people explore data. He is not a climate researcher, he makes no money from the app. It’s not even his secondary focus.
I email him from time to time, as do others, with updates. Eventually he gets around to it. He doesn’t have to respond at all.
“The big disadvantage (to my mind) is the lack of uncertainty estimates.”
And, the big disadvantage of uncertainty estimates is that they have to rely upon a model, and if the model isn’t accurate, the uncertainty estimates are garbage.
barry says:
“The owner is under no obligation whatsoever to provide anything.”
Then he can watch his site sink into insignificance as users recognize his data aren’t the latest available.
I’ve never trusted WFT, and keep my own spreadsheets on the data.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/05/wood-for-trees-you-cant-trust-it.html
And, the big disadvantage of uncertainty estimates is that they have to rely upon a model, and if the model isnt accurate, the uncertainty estimates are garbage.
I think you’re confusing trend analysis with global circulation models. Not remotely the same thing.
Do you know which regression analysis UAH use to derive the trends they publish?
“I think you’re confusing trend analysis with global circulation models.”
That’d be no. In prescribing uncertainty bounds to a trend, you have to know the character of the process or processes that would tend to mask the trend you are dealing with. If you assume a particular type of model, and the actual data display something totally other, then your uncertainty estimate is going to be speculative at best.
What do you think is the optimal way to derive a linear trend from global climate data? Would you apply statistical tests to discover it, or would you assume?
Ah, I see you’ve answered below.
Why Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences — a less than 10-year old journal based in Korea?
Our first choice would be an AMS or AGU journal, but they have one or more gatekeepers who inevitably get involved in the review of papers with “Spencer” or “Christy” as authors.
I might remind you of the Climategate email passage “Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Trenberth also managed to get an editor to resign because Remote Sensing published one of my papers (which was never retracted though)…Trenberth apparently had some influence over that editor in the research realm.
Many of these journals are now tightly controlled to prop up the IPCC narrative.
APJAS is a high-quality journal.
Roy,
This is obviously bad to have bias, but it is also an opportunity for new journals to emerge, especially those in developing countries. This is the beauty of Science. In a decade ‘Science’ might be a “science tabloid” looking to regain its reputation and a new suite of jourals emerge. The struggle is part of the story and legacy. Just be glad u are not the junior guy who wanted to start into this mess.
There are journals emerging all the time. Some legit, some not. One predatory journal asked for a fee to publish papers, and one intrepid researcher submitted a paper with the title “Get me off your F*****g Mailing List,” the contents of which was that sentence repeated over and over, and even some diagrams with those words.
The researcher received notification his paper was accepted, and was asked to pay the fee.
Hopefully Dr Spencer was not required to pay a fee.
I believe that you have to pay publishing fees for most pubs (El Sevier, Springer, etc); especially if u want the paper open access.
Yes, that’s right. I was trying to be funny. The story is real enough, though.
Dr Spencer – The Trenberth quote you cite from the stolen emails referred to IPCC reports. It did not refer to gatekeeping at individual publications.
Are you claiming that Wolfgang Wagner was lying when he cited his reasons for resigning? That seems a fairly serious charge. Either that or perhaps you should just drop the innuendo. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/09/journal-editor-resigns-over-contrarian-climate-paper
Kevin…”The Trenberth quote you cite from the stolen emails referred to IPCC reports. It did not refer to gatekeeping at individual publications”.
You’re not that naive are you? A good part of the Climategate emails revealed alarmists like Michael Mann urging others to affect the peer review process. Phil Jones urged his cronies not to cooperate with an FOI request submitted by Steve McIntyre to get access to Had-crut data for independent verification.
Gordon, give me access to six of your private emails, and I will convict you of the most heinous crimes imaginable. (As lawyers say.)
DA…”Gordon, give me access to six of your private emails, and I will convict you of the most heinous crimes imaginable. (As lawyers say.)”
My emails are not shared between top climate scientists some of whom are Coordinating Lead Authors on IPCC reviews. Furthermore, those shared emails were making statements of fact that were hidden from the general public.
Trenberth expressed exasperation that the warming has stopped and claimed it was a travesty that no one could explain why. He was a Coordinating Lead Author with the IPCC at the time, why was the IPCC not revealing that uncertainty?
Rather than pointing out the warming appeared to have stopped they announced it was 90% likely humans are causing global warming.
Roy…Trenberth also lamented in the emails that the warming has stopped and it is a travesty that no one knows why. When the emails were revealed he did some major back-pedaling and claimed the warming was still there but the instruments lacked the sensitivity to detect it. That evolved into, “the missing heat is being stored in the oceans”.
Roy…”I might remind you of the Climategate email passage Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
That was a statement from Phil Jones, keeper of the Had-crut record, who is partnered with Trenberth as Coordinating Lead Authors at IPCC reviews. I believe they followed through on that threat, did they not, and blocked a paper by John Christy et al?
Sorry for reposts…your site censor doesn’t like the word Had-crut, without the hyphen.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
“Our first choice would be an AMS or AGU journal, but they have one or more gatekeepers who inevitably get involved in the review of papers with Spencer or Christy as authors.”
Roy: What is your evidence for this?
I’d honestly like to know.
PS: I don’t think you have any evidence.
Dr Spencer – isn’t it more likely that the fact you self-published this paper here on your blog 2 years ago (April 28, 2015) and that it’s just another in a long line of revisions to an already existing dataset that precluded it from being in a headline journal?
Or do you have proof that your paranoid, black helicopter, tinfoil hat theory is credible?
I think the question should be did he and the team submit the manuscript to those journals, and are the rejection letters valid?
I can show you (I wont), personal rejection letters about the solar climate link that government researchers took a hard stand “dont publish this”. Other physicists specializing in the solar component had only good things to say as a review. The editor went with the govt reviewer based on the certainty and rage they presented. The reviewers primary reason and logic to reject can be shown to be mathmatically invalid. Basically they said you can not detect solar periodicity of 23 years in 50 years of annual data. That is an invalid position because you can detect stationary periodicity in half the cyle duration (12 years). The certainty isnt as high as when n… increases, and SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO increases, but the point is they seemed to be making stuff up to defend a position. You all should try to publish a skeptical paper. I was naive and really this event served as a wake up call for my career. This was a major reason i didnt go into academia. I decided to work around the system. Im a young scientist and patient. Im almost ready to kick back. I believe in science and the method bc the empirical data wins in the end. The establishment has created an opportunity to create a new way to capture science. He who laughs last laughs best. Its actually exciting.
aaron,
The editor went with the govt reviewer
Who are govt reviewers? Are these reviewers who are supported by fed grants? That is probably most reviewers.
Review is typically anonymous, so how do you know who they are?
UAHv6 now available at the York Uni trend app – which is great because it includes the confidence interval (uncertainty range).
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Takes no more than 10 seconds to use. Click to choose your dataset, type the start and end year, then click ‘calculate’.
Note: if your end year is 2016, it will plot the data up to and including December 2015.
Kevin Cowtan is a trustworthy person. He promised to integrate 6.0 in his trend computer as soon as S & C would manage to publish the paper.
Barry–many thanks for the link. It gives a trend value for UAH 6.0 of.124 degrees C per decade whereas Dr. Spencer’s article refers to 0.11. I recall using v6.0 a few months ago and getting (I think) the same value as the link. Perhaps the 0.11 value was before the recent El Nino (the paper probably took 2 years to get through the process.)
The current trend for UAHv6 is 0.12 C/decade. You can see the global trend given near the bottom right on the UAHv6 data page.
Roy first blogged about the new data set in April 2015. The 0.11 figure was given there as the trend Dec 1978-Mar 2015.
If you use the app and set 2015.026 as the end date, you’ll get the trend to March 2015 at 0.11 C/decade. No discrepancy.
Note: You can get small differences by using different linear regression models. The app uses an ARMA (1,1) model that works with a moving average and auto-regression function to reduce autocorrelation. Roy may have used a different linear regression model, but results would not be much different in any case over this time span.
Aargh – it’s a typo day.
Set the end date to 2015.26. That gives the trend on the app from Dec 1978-Mar 2015.
barry…”The current trend for UAHv6 is 0.12 C/decade”.
That’s strictly a numerical trend, based on numbers only. How can you have both a flat trend from 1998 – 2015 and an overlapping trend of 0.12C/decade from 1979 – 2015?
You spend far too much time with numerical analysis without looking up every so often to see what is really going on.
Gordon Robertson says:
“barryThe current trend for UAHv6 is 0.12 C/decade.
“Thats strictly a numerical trend, based on numbers only.”
What else would you like to base it on — the phases of the moon??
Gordon Robertson says:
“How can you have both a flat trend from 1998 2015”
That trend wasn’t flat.
For god’s sake, learn how to calculate these things for yourself, instead of continuing being the fool.
Gordon,
Can you not see I’m answering someone’s question about an online trend analyser? It seems to me you scroll threads for some point I make without reading the conversation and getting the context.
If you want a proper chat about trend analysis just ask a question or a make a point instead of scolding. Reading the comments you’ve made around the topic, including the last one, you may benefit.
For example, the uncertainty interval on the ‘flat’ trend overlaps with the long-term trend.
Punch in some different time periods to the trend app Lance and I are talking about (link below), and observe the uncertainty interval widen and narrow with longer and shorter time periods. If you don’t understand what that means, I’ll explain it. If you do, then I don’t understand what your issue is.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
“The app uses an ARMA (1,1) model that works with a moving average and auto-regression function to reduce autocorrelation.”
No. It doesn’t reduce anything. It assumes an ARMA(1,1) model for the autocorrelation. And, that is an inaccurate model.
The acronym for the type of autocorrelation is often used for the regression technique that incorporates the model to compensate for it.
If there is structure in the residuals of a GAMM model, an AR1 model can be included to reduce the effects of this autocorrelation.
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/itsadug/vignettes/acf.html
At skeptic site The Blackboard, Lucia uses AR models (1 and 2) to reduce autocorrelation.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/correcting-for-serial-autocorrelation-cochrane-orcutt/
Nick stokes prefers AR1, the K Cowtan prefers ARMA (1,1)
I don’t promote a particular method (ie, assume the type of autocorrelation), but sometimes, as above, I note what kind of regression technique was used to inform the reader.
However, for pretty much any topic covered here (such as global TLT temps since 1998), it makes little difference whether an AR1 or ARMA method is used. Both currently give the basic same result – the uncertainty is much wider than the mean trend.
It makes a HUGE difference. An AR(2) model can exhibit cyclical and quasi-cyclical behavior. And, we see cycles in the data. In fact, we see a strong, long term cyclical influence in the data, with a fundamental mode on the order of about 60 years and many strong harmonics as well. You would probably need at least an AR(6) to reasonably model that (fundamental + 2 harmonics).
These influences have to be accounted for if you want to get a good estimate of the underlying trend. E.g., if the data exhibit a clearly defined ~60 year cyclical component, and you try to fit a trend to something other than ~60 years, your trend estimate is going to have an error that alternates in sign every ~30 years.
NOTE: I say ~60 years as a shorthand. The period is not precisely 60 years. Moreover, since the data are stochastic, the period can vary randomly, with some cycles a bit longer, and some a bit shorter. Models that assume deterministic cycles cannot capture this behavior precisely. You either have to go the whole 9 yards and formulate an extensive model that tracks every significant variation, and produces uncertainty estimates with due consideration, or you can eyeball the data and get at least a qualitative description.
I have recommended that last method to you in the past. Take the entire data set – cut it off at maybe 1910 +/- 10 or so years because its quality nosedives before that – and subtract out the trend until you get +/- peaks more or less matching. You will see that what is left is a very regular ~60 year periodic residual. That regularity argues in favor of a systematic process that alternates in direction every ~30 years. If you consider the trend you took out + that ~60 year regularity, there is very little else remaining that needs to be explained. And, that pattern of trend + ~60 year periodicity has been in place since long before CO2 concentration could have set it in motion.
DA…”That trend wasnt flat.
For gods sake, learn how to calculate these things for yourself, instead of continuing being the fool”.
The IPCC claims it was flat from 1998, as did UAH. Only you claim otherwise, making you the fool.
You gotta’ learn to think outside the box, Barry. Fitting trends to data is not the end-all-be-all of data analysis. Painting by the numbers does not qualify you as an artist, and drawing straight lines through data is about that skill level for a scientist.
Yes, agree that cyclical, or non-linear behaviour won’t be well fit by the regression models in the packages on the net. But as I’ve said before, the supposed cyclicity remains unverified. Sure there’s a sinusoidal shape in the time series, and fitting for it may even statistically reduce the error. But the causes of that shape are less well-known. Some assume it’s PDO, others choose another ocean/atmosphere oscillating system or a combo. But without a definitive physical basis, we don’t know if that cycle will repeat. We only have a phase and a half (90 years) of fairly reliable data. You probably know that this is not a god enough sample size to assume cyclicity.
EG, a simple plot of PDO/Global SSTs. The correlation breaks down after the mid-80s.
PDO/SSTs
Seems the PDO cycle doesn’t match global (or not in the last 30 years). The wiggles don’t match well. So what is the physical basis that causes supposed cyclicty in global temps?
Try the AMO.
But, the very fact that we are discussing this tells you that it is, at the very least, way premature to conclude that we are seeing effects of CO2.
I think the fact that we are looking at stuff has little bearing on what full-time researchers understand about it. Speaking for myself, I am completely unqualified to gainsay experts. I’ve learned a fair bit over the last 10 years, but not remotely the kind of detail and knowledge that dedicated researchers have. I don’t delude myself.
I often see people speak as if a topic has never been considered. “Have they ever looked at that great ball of fire in the sky? Maybe they should!” I see stuff like this constanlty. Yes, they’ve looked – and continue to look at the sun/vocanos/clouds/PDO/AMO/AO/cosmic rays etc etc etc, and stuff I’ve read about that no one has mentioned on blogs that I’ve read.
We seem to be doing pretty well having a conversation a bit beyond the usual biffo. Let me tell you how I got into it. You can ignore this ramble if you like, but my first experience ‘debating’ climate change on a forum many years ago kind of set the tone for everything that followed, and may explain my approach well enough to obviate assumptions.
I’m not an activist. You can chuck donuts in your SUV every day for all I care. I’m interested in understanding the science – uncertainties, what’s a reasonable line of inquiry and what is sheers speculation, what the scientific method is and isn’t.
In Feb 2007 on a forum far far away, I guy I was chatting with told me that the IPCC ignored volcanos – specifically sulfur dioxide – and water vapour. It was a month or two before the release of the 4th assessment report, and I said, “Let’s check your prediction when it comes out.”
I went through every chapter with a word search. In WGI alone I found about 700 mentions of water vapour and several hundred of SO2. There were whole sections devoted to water vapour (stratospheric/tropospheric).
So I did a word search under the same terms in the previous assessment. Same story.
This was an intelligent guy. Why did he make such a bald and obviously wrong claim?
So I read blogs and articles and soon was reading research papers, going to WUWT, (the late) Warwick Hughes’ website, Open Mind, Ill-Considered Blospot, realclimate and SkS.
I researched stuff people claimed. I learned what was certain (like man-made contribution of CO2 increase since the industrial revolution) and uncertain (like cloud monitoring and their effect on climate). I learned a lot of people said stuff like they knew it all when they didn’t know it all.
I learned some important things – shortcuts. People who made absolute claims should not be trusted. People who spoke reasonably about uncertainties of a given topic were probably worth listening to. These were the real skpetics, no matter which side of the climate debate they sat on.
Of course, one should always verify, trust or no. That’s my habit. The science is interesting to me. I’m only a layman. I’ve learned a bit, but not everything. And it takes patience to have a constructive dialogue.
Have to head out for a bit. But I’ve read up on the AMO, and will come back on that soon.
AMO/Had4 global surface temperature monthly anomalies 1900 to present, 12 month moving average, normalised
I’ve some thoughts on that plot, but you get the ball rolling if you like.
Gordon,
‘The IPCC claims….’ hence you are constantly appealing to their authority.
Yet in other posts you tell us:
‘Then again, you value authority that tells you what to think and I dont.’
Which is it? Think and calculate for yourself, or don’t think and look to authority? Make up your mind.
Bart,
Again, if your 60 y cycle on top of a constant trend is a robust feature of climate, it should be able to account for land-only data.
But it can’t as shown here:
http://tinyurl.com/j58lgnj
AMO/Global SSTs monthly anomalies from 1900, normalised
Maybe the comparison with SSTs is more appropriate.
The first question I would ask is if one component leads the another. I would expect, if AMO is cause of a cycle in global temps, that AMO leads.
So my first question to you, Bart, is how one would discern which component leads the other.
Nate, why is land-only a good metric to use against a proposed ocean driven cycle? Wouldn’t SSTs be the the better metric to compare?
Barry – They are necessarily correlated in time because the AMO index is basically the temperature of the North Atlantic with a linear trend removed. As such, it is a direct contributor to the global mean.
So, the line of attack should be, is the AMO genuinely a representation of an oceanic oscillation, or something else?
My research frequently leads me into investigations of the solutions of partial differential equations. I am keenly aware of the ubiquity of oscillatory behavior in bounded continuum systems. It would strike me as fundamentally odd if oscillations did not exist in the responses of the oceans to various irregular natural forcings, in both their physical dispersion and energy storage and dissipation patterns. We definitely see oscillatory behavior in the Pacific. Why not the Atlantic, too?
That is my background. Wherever I look in the climate data, I see familiar patterns that appear quite ordinary. I do not see anything that indicates a significant break with historical norms.
So, the AMO is in its downcycle and, assuming that is an oscillation that is responsible for the ~60 year pattern in the global mean temperature (GMT), one has to wonder why the global mean has not turned downward as well. A clue might be in the PDO, which shows a rather abrupt spike upwards in 2014. I suspect that is what is keeping the GMT in stasis right now.
But, it is coming down. A similar spike occurred in 1957, but returned to the historical pattern by 1961, and even crashed a bit lower before rebounding. If the current PDO comes crashing down within the next couple of years, and the AMO continues its downcycle, we are in for a crash in the GMT. That will certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons in the AGW debate. Grab some popcorn. It’s getting to the good part.
Nate – we have been over this before. Firstly, you are over-smoothing the data, and losing insight. The only reason that the land measurement still indicates an upturn is that the El Nino interrupted what was an unmistakable decline starting in about 2008. When the PDO crashes, that decline will be reinstated. You are hanging your hat on transient phenomena here. That is building your house on a foundation of sand. The day of reckoning will come.
Secondly, this is a cherry pick. The Earth is 2/3’s ocean, and what we are looking at is a fundamentally oceanic oscillation.
Thirdly, the ~60 year signal is clearly evident, even if the runup from 1910-1940 is not precisely the same as that from 1970-2000, as it is with the AMO and the GMT records.
What can I say? Land is land, and ocean is ocean. I would, however, point out that the land temperatures are more sensitive to development, e.g., forest clearing and UHI, which has been rather relentless over the past century. If there is a detectable anthropogenic signal in the land data, it is more likely that than CO2 driving it.
They are necessarily correlated in time because the AMO index is basically the temperature of the North Atlantic with a linear trend removed. As such, it is a direct contributor to the global mean.
This an assumption that my question is meant to test.
If AMO tends to lag global temps, for example, then the AMO is likely responding to changes global temps, not causing changes.
So I ask, how would you test for lags to see which component is generally leading?
Thirdly, the ~60 year signal is clearly evident
Would you say that a cycle is clearly indicated if you have a sample of less than 2 supposed cycles?
another way of testing whether N.Atl SSTs lead or lag global is to llok at hemispheric changes. If we assume that AMO causes cyclicity, then it would be reasonable to expect Southern Hemisphere surface temps would lag AMO/Northern hemisphere fluctuations. This does not appear to be the case, especially for the last 60 years.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/glnhsh.png
What statistical operations would you use to test lead/lag SH temps to AMO, Bart?
Bart Barry,
Ocean warming clearly impacts land temps, eg ENSO. Bart claims a 60 year cycle plus a linear ramp explains all.
No it doesnt.
The land temps show clearly that there is an increasing trend-a quadratic or exponential is required to fit the data (5 year smoothing does not change this). Where is that increasing trend from? Certainly not coming from the oceans cycles.
In addition, there is controversy about ocean temps in the 1940s due to changeover from civilian to military ships. GISS and NOAA show different behavior than HADSST. I dont think this is really resolved yet. The bump-up in ocean temps in 40s is much less apparent in land temps, a surprising decoupling..
“If we assume that AMO causes cyclicity, then it would be reasonable to expect Southern Hemisphere surface temps would lag AMO/Northern hemisphere fluctuations.”
That is an assumption. It is not necessarily so. In a standing wave solution, odd harmonics in latitude would produce a 180 deg phase differential, but an even harmonic is symmetric.
“Would you say that a cycle is clearly indicated if you have a sample of less than 2 supposed cycles?”
Moot question. The pattern that is evident in the GMT is also apparent in the land data, whether you consider it a systematic cycle or not.
Nate – If we are going to question parts of the data, we have to question all of it. You can’t just pick the parts that please you and keep them, and toss out the ones you don’t like. You can always find rationalizations to do so, but that is a quick way to let confirmation bias lead you astray.
All – We are not going to resolve this question until more data become available. I know that the patterns we are seeing are not induced by human release of latent CO2, because A) anthropogenic contributions are negligible to the overall flows and have little impact, and B) CO2 is temperature dependent, and a significant aggregate sensitivity of temperature to CO2 would then cause unstabilizable positive feedback.
So, I am just sitting back and waiting until it becomes undeniable in the data. Fortunately, I should not have much longer to wait, as we are at a turning point in the dominant cycle. Until then, I suggest you guys keep your minds open, because nature has a tendency to humble us when we think we are in control.
Moot question. The pattern that is evident in the GMT is also apparent in the land data, whether you consider it a systematic cycle or not.
That really doesn’t answer the question.
Proposition: AMO cycle is a product of the evolution of global temps. AMO does not cause the long-term fluctuations (which you call cycles), it simply aliases them. And the long-term fluctuations in global temps are not cyclical, but instead the result of other factors that are not cyclical (eg, aerosols, cloud cover, etc)
How would you test to reject that hypothesis and demonstrate real cyclicity?
I’m assuming we’re agreed that eyeballing and deciding there’s a pattern is really not sufficient.
Actually, it does answer the particular question. That was whether the land data displayed the alleged ~60 year pattern or not. It does.
You are asking a different question. As to whether it is a real cycle or not, we have these facts:
1) Cycles are ubiquitous in nature. They are generally a form of energy storage in bounded systems, in which energy is continually converted from one form into another and back again. We expect to see cycles in nature.
2) We have a persistently repeating pattern in the data. We only have a clear view of 3 half cycles so far, but the 4th appears to have started on schedule. The 3 clearly discernible are remarkably uniform in rate and extent.
If we assume the odds are 50/50 for each leg, then I estimate the odds of it being a natural cycle are 1-1/2^4 = 94%. On that basis, I expect it to continue once the latest surge in the PDO collapses. We shall see.
Bart
‘You cant just pick the parts that please you and keep them, and toss out the ones you dont like. You can always find rationalizations to do so, but that is a quick way to let confirmation bias lead you astray.’
Agree with this. Applies to you as well. Cant ignore data before 1910 without a good reason. Cant ignore land data without a good reason. Cant ignore what is clearly an increasing trend without a good reason.
Ocean data 1940s: All I am saying is that it looks odd, there is disagreement about to deal with it, and there are rational reasons to be concerned about. Land data does not have this concern.
Science is about trying to understand what happened-yes using rational thought.
“Cant ignore data before 1910 without a good reason.”
Good reason: The number of stations used in the averages declines sharply as you go back to the early 20th century, especially in the Southern hemisphere, which drops off a cliff in about 1910.
“Cant ignore land data without a good reason.”
Haven’t ignored it. But, it is a small part of the whole. You can’t cherry pick it.
“Cant ignore what is clearly an increasing trend without a good reason.”
Haven’t ignored it. Global temperatures do not show an increasing trend.
“All I am saying is that it looks odd…”
A subjective opinion. Land data look odd. Presumed acceleration from CO2 does not manifest until just before 1980, and falls again starting in about 2007, with the 2015 El Nino blip masked in your overly smoothed chart. Known UHI impact may not be adequately compensated, as rural stations do not show a significant trend (would link, but site filter will not allow).
Roy’s April 2015 blog post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
“You can see the global trend given near the bottom right…”
Spatially dyslexic today. It’s near the bottom left at the link.
You’re right.
Bart,
1940s Subjectively looks odd, yes.
Objectively has problematic change in measurement method
Objectively data sets portray it very differently:
http://tinyurl.com/gunp52a NO AA ocean
and
http://tinyurl.com/jcxppux G I SS and Had crut4 detrended
GISS is not a reliable source. Too many poorly justified “adjustments” and dodgy extrapolations over uncovered areas.
Bindidon, just wanted to point out, regarding a remark you made on the previous thread, that RSS baseline the anomalies for the monthly averages 1979-1998. To match baselines with UAHv6 you have to add 0.8C to the UAH anomalies (or subtract the same from RSS anomalies).
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Thank you Dr. Spencer for this good presentation.
SkepticalScience has now added the UAHv6 data to their trend app.
Dr Spencer, Looking at Fig. 9, do the NExtraT categories include the Arctic? I see the Arctic is also broken out as a category, but are they a subset of the NExtraT. If so, is all of the drop in NExtraT temps due to V6 reducing Arctic warming by 0.2C/decade?
How do the V6 Arctic values compare to other available datasets? It seems that most adjustments to Arctic data lately has been upwards – not downwards – and this seems like a very large adjustment downwards from V5.6 to V6; especially for an area that by all accounts is warming much faster than anywhere else on the globe.
Looking at the DMI N80 dataset since 1979 we’re looking at 0.84C/decade. Double the LT increase for V5.6 and quadruple the increase for V6. And the summer temperatures in DMI N80 are constrained by physics to little more than 0C until all the ice is gone.
Given this, of what relevance are the LT V6 numbers to what we actually see happening?
Kevin,
Its because of stratosphere cooling, the LT-Weighting is to “high” for arctic, since the world has no uniform Tropopause heigth (in arctic down to 6-8 Kilometers above Ground), the stratospheric bias is most intens on the polar sides.
Since UAH6.0 has increase in “Altitude”, the Trend in arctic has to come down because of this and thats why in TMT the Trend in arctic is also lower then in LT.
Christian – I do not believe that is the correct answer. The paper says:
“As seen in Fig. 2, the new multi-channel LT weighting function is located somewhat higher in altitude than the old LT weighting function, which could make it sensitive to cooling in the lower stratosphere that might potentially mask global warming effects (Fu et al., 2004). To quantify this, we applied the old and new LT weighting functions in Fig. 2 to the vertical profile of average global temperature trends from two radiosonde datasets, RATPAC (Free & Seidel, 2005) and RAOBCORE (Haimberger, 2007), also shown in Fig. 2. The resulting net difference between old and new LT trends is small, less than 0.01 C/decade. This is because the slightly greater sensitivity of the new LT weighting profile to stratospheric cooling is cancelled by greater sensitivity to enhanced upper tropospheric warming, compared to the old LT profile.”
Perhaps Dr Spencer can explain why there is such a large reduction in Arctic and if this is responsible for all or most of the reduction in NExtraT?
Kevin,
y, but its not enough because of unstabile tropopause heigth, could be okay for the tropics but not enough in the polar. On the other Hand, every increase in heigth over the polar regions, should always make a smaller trend, that because of physics, the higher latitudes have a more stabile atmosphere and the heat is more trapped near surface, its the opposite,in the tropics, where it should warm most in middle to upper Troposphere.
You can also look the warming profil of troposphere by models or by radio sonds, it will show u, that the warming in higher latitudes is most near the surface
Pruitt jumps the shark. While there is disagreement to the extent of global warming, with analysts like you at the low end, essentially no one is claiming that CO2 is not the main contributor to global warming. Except, now, the head of the EPA.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/epa-chief-carbon-dioxide-not-primary-cause-of-warming/ar-AAo4kQS?
It’s an astonishing claim.
Pete Mack…”Its an astonishing claim.”
It’s astonishing only in that it’s refreshing news. Finally, someone who is going to listen to both sides.
What other side? I know of no serious climate scientists who think otherwise at this point. Spenser et al claim the effect is not significantly amplified by water vapor, but they don’t claim that it’s an insignificant effect.
Pete Mack…”What other side? I know of no serious climate scientists who think otherwise at this point. Spenser et al claim the effect is not significantly amplified by water vapor, but they dont claim that its an insignificant effect”.
All I have seen Roy claim is that CO2 ‘might’ be causing warming. I have never seen him claim it does cause warming.
Pruitt is saying mainly the same thing, that there are diverse opinions on the subject. If you think all top level climate scientists think there is no doubt that CO2 is causing global warming, you are living a serious delusion.
“Pruitt is saying mainly the same thing, that there are diverse opinions on the subject.”
But there aren’t — except for people who have a vested interest in denying basic science (i.e. someone is paying them somehow to deny).
DA…”But there arent except for people who have a vested interest in denying basic science (i.e. someone is paying them somehow to deny)”.
You and other alarmists keep talking about basic science while the basic science in the form of directly acquired temperature data makes it clear there is no correlation between ACO2 and atmospheric temperature.
Gordon – there is no such thing as directly acquired temperatures. All measurements of temperature are indirect – some require more steps than others.
The correlation is obvious – what drugs are you on?
Gordon,
All I have seen Roy claim is that CO2 might be causing warming. I have never seen him claim it does cause warming.
Dr Roy Spencer:
“Thirteen years ago, Danny Braswell and I did our own calculations to explore the greenhouse effect with a built-from-scratch radiative transfer model, incorporating the IR radiative code developed by Ming Dah Chou at NASA Goddard. The Chou code has also been used in some global climate models.
We calculated, as others have, a direct (no feedback) surface warming of about 1 deg. C as a result of doubling CO2 (2XCO2).”
Scott Pruitt – throw him in the same bin as Patrick Michaels.
“In 2014, Pruitt was caught in a secretive alliance with oil and gas industry insiders aimed at tearing down environmental protections. Emails obtained by the New York Times show Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general collaborating with corporations and lobbyists to file lawsuits and challenge federal regulations on everything from fracking to air pollution.
One of those fossil fuel insiders was Harold Hamm, Trumps top energy adviser and CEO of the countrys largest fracking company. Hamm would go on to chair Pruitts 2013 re-election campaign. More recently hes made news as one of the biggest proponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline; its his companys fracked oil that would have flowed through the pipeline if it had been completed.
Meanwhile, Pruitt has received $318,496 in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 2002, leaving little doubt about whose interests hell protect as EPA head and its not people or the environment.”
dr no…”Meanwhile, Pruitt has received $318,496 in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 2002…”
Who cares? It’s like this recent hysteria against Russia. So and so spoke to a Russian. For cripes sake, who cares? It’s not a crime to talk to a Russian, unless you’re a Democratic wearing a bag over his/her head after being trounced by Trump and you need a convenient scapegoat.
Neither is it a crime to receive contributions from the fossil fuel industry. There is absolutely no proof that CO2 emissions cause global warming. It’s a theory that has never been proved.
Get over yourself, man.
Who cares?? Pruitt cares, obviously. He just told the most ridiculous lie (about CO2) to satisfy his paymasters. The man is corrupt from the bottom of his feet upward. And shameless about it, too.
Unfortunately, one of the “sides” you refer to, i.e., the “it’s not CO2” side, has been unable to produce any model that is anywhere as close to reality as the CO2-based models. Note that the CO2-based models aren’t all that great either, but they are significantly better than anything else I’ve seen. (Don’t bother, Salvatore, the solar models have been failing anywhere from pathetically to spectacularly for a quarter of a century.)
slipstick…”one of the sides you refer to, i.e., the its not CO2 side, has been unable to produce any model that is anywhere as close to reality as the CO2-based models”.
Come back to Earth, Slippy. The models programmed with CO2 as a forcing agent use values for CO2 warming picked out of a hat. In other words, the models were designed with the foregone conclusion that CO2 is a major warmer of the atmosphere.
Some rocket scientists like Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS and realclimate give CO2 a warming effect of between 9% and 25%. He’s a mathematician, where did he get such numbers?
The IPCC admitted no significant warming over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012. In fact, their margin of error suggests there could have been an insignificant cooling. CO2 was allegedly increasing during that period yet there was no warming.
It appears the side claiming CO2 has no effect are right.
Don’t let the facts dissuade you from repeating the denialists’ creed. Check this out:
“We were able to extend our techniques back to the late1950s and show that the rate of global warming has changed significantly in the past 60 years. One main outcome of the study is that it shows we are warming about 13% faster than we previously thought. Not only that but the warming has accelerated. The warming rate from 1992 is almost twice as great as the warming rate from 1960. Moreover, it is only since about 1990 that the warming has penetrated to depths below about 700 meters.
Prior work by the same team compared climate models to measurements, and there was excellent agreement on average.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/10/earths-oceans-are-warming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating
I’ll ignore the inaccurate “…IPCC admitted…”. No response? Really? What mechanism supplied the energy necessary to boost global temperatures to their highest levels in the modern record last year and hold the UAH TLT above the 1981-2010 average every month for the last four years and 11 months? Also, in an a system as chaotic as the Earth’s climate, why would you expect a linear, or even smooth-curve, response to rising CO2?
Gordon Robertson says:
“The models programmed with CO2 as a forcing agent use values for CO2 warming picked out of a hat.”
Another stupid, filthy, dumb lie by Gordon Robertson.
Even Arrhenius understood (and used) the logarithmic radiative forcing of CO2.
I’m through giving the stupid people here any latitude.
Slipstik…”Ill ignore the inaccurate IPCC admitted. ”
I have posted the direct IPCC quote with a url and page at least a dozen times yet you denialists continue to deny the IPCC claimed a global warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012.
It’s like debating a Jehovah Witness.
DA…”Another stupid, filthy, dumb lie by Gordon Robertson.
Even Arrhenius understood (and used) the logarithmic radiative forcing of CO2″.
Your emotion suggests strongly that your interest is not science but a religious-based environmental cause. No one who understands the science would lose it like you and provide such stupid answers.
Gordon,
‘suggests strongly that your interest is not science but a religious-based environmental cause’
Wow, that is quite surprising, coming from you, someone who:
– constantly insists there is no point to using stats, math, or data fits to derive trends.
-has very anti-science view when it comes to disease. (Explain to me how deaths from AIDS have been so dramatically reduced with anti-viral treatments, if AIDS is not caused by a virus??)
-has very anti-science (religious-based?) views when it comes to evolution.
-thinks quantum theory is all wrong.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Pete MackIts an astonishing claim.
Its astonishing only in that its refreshing news.”
If you think CO2 has no part in warming, you are beyond ignorant of science, and you don’t deserve an opinion here ever again.
There’s no need to take you seriously.
DA…”If you think CO2 has no part in warming, you are beyond ignorant of science, and you dont deserve an opinion here ever again”.
I’m the scientist here, you are a believer. I have asked you to back up your claims with fact and you cannot do it. All you offer is ad homs.
I want scientific proof that CO2 affects atmospheric temperatures not consensus. If you don’t know the difference you are not dealing in science.
He’s a laywer. Perhaps he will listen to both sides discussing whether the Earth is flat or round, too, and we’ll have a more balanced view of that in the Trump administration.
I gave you some links for global and regional projections, near-term and long-term in the previous thread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2017-0-35-deg-c/#comment-239021
Thanks. Like telling someone to read an SEC 10K document before investing.
Can you boil down the #1 most obvious, most impactful implication for North America in next 50 years?
I tried to weed thru the document and it was not transparently obvious what I should be alarmed about in next 50 years in North America.
One thing that is certain is that in 50 year’s time most of you denialists will be dead.
Please don’t ask to be cremated as you will only be adding more noxious gases to the atmosphere.
Obama says:
“Can you boil down the #1 most obvious, most impactful implication for North America in next 50 years?”
The world will be warmer by about 0.5-1.0 C (global mean surface temp).
Sea level will continue to rise, and coastal home owners will be whining for a government bail-out.
So what? For some unknown reason I can’t get anybody to answer the question, So what?
Please tell us specifically the climate disasters we will see in North America in the next 50 years that we have not observed in the last 50 years?
1) long term (30 years+)global warming will not exceed a rate of 0.20 C/decade over the next 50 years.
2) North American climate over next 50 years will be very, very similar to past 50 years. Nothing to be alarmed about.
3) SLR will be about 6 inches +/- 1.5 inches over the next 50 years in North America. If own a home or business that can’t handle that rate of SLR then you have 50 years to change your location. No urgency.
I gave you some links for global and regional projections, near-term and long-term in the previous thread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2017-0-35-deg-c/#comment-239021
Thanks. See my post above. Looking for the #1 most obvious climate disaster that will impact North America next 50 years?
Miami beach turns into Venice. It’s only 2′ above MSL, so every inch counts. No longer just King tides, but probably twice a month occurrences.
Obama,
If you do a bit of legwork, quote a thing or two from what I’ve linked, then I’ll know you’re not wasting my time and I will go and read the relevant sections to talk about them with you.
Sorry, but that’s how it works. I’ve spent way too many hours doing the legwork only to have the respondent dismiss out of hand what I’ve replied with. One learns from many repeats of that experience to help a bit, but not waste time when unsure of how the conversation’s going to go.
Also, you’ll get a far better idea of projections, their uncertainties and whatnot, by reading at source than by me paraphrasing.
BTW, do you understand that the whole idea of reducing CO2 emissions is based on the assessment of risk rather than predictions of definite futures?
The thing I always think of is that with this particular risk assessment, there is nowhere to go if things turn bad. We are conducting an uncontrolled experiment with our atmosphere. We’re inside the test tube and there’s no way to get out.
That makes the nature of the risk different from any other risks we can walk away from (and rebuild/restart the experiment) should the worst eventuate.
This isn’t meant to be alarmist. It’s just a fact. We will be stuck with what transpires.
That makes sense to me. Totally understand. There’s risk for folks that live along San Andreas fault, live on tornado valley, and where hurricanes occur, or where it gets super cold, or where there are cycles of droughts and flood.
What is not transparently clear is the clear description and scope of climate disasters that will take place in next 50 years that we have not already observed in the real world the last 50 years????
Can someone please tell me the most obvious climate disaster (#1 most likely) that will take place in next 50 years in North America not observed and unprecedented???
What is the boogeyman hiding in the closet I don’t know about that is going to get me and my children in next 50 years, in North America?
This is simply not clear.
That makes sense to me. Totally understand. Theres risk for folks that live along San Andreas fault, live on tornado valley, and where hurricanes occur, or where it gets super cold, or where there are cycles of droughts and flood.
These are actually different risk propositions. Those people can move somewhere else.
Obama says:
“Can someone please tell me the most obvious climate disaster (#1 most likely) that will take place in next 50 years in North America not observed and unprecedented???”
Is there some reason you are unable to read scientific reports, like the IPCC 5AR or the recent National Climate Assessment?
David stated:
“Is there some reason you are unable to read scientific reports, like the IPCC 5AR or the recent National Climate Assessment?”
Obama is looking for “scientific” reports, not the science fiction published by the IPCC.
Perhaps you should read up on the scientific method? It seems you were drunk, stoned or just plain AWOL during your university lectures on that topic? By the content of your comments, maybe you did not attend university. The typical IPCC climate “projections” simply do not meet the strict tenets of the scientific method.
The pursuit of true science requires that experiments be devised to to determine whether observations agree or disagree with the predictions derived from a hypothesis. The IPCC fails to provide this experimental data in their typical climate projections to the year 2100 (or other such long term date)
These type of IPCC projections also fail to meet the important scientific concept of falsifiability, which is the concept in hypothesis testing that a hypothesis cannot be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown to be false. At this moment in time, NO scientist has the ability to show any of these projections to be false, therefore they are not true scientific hypotheses. And YOU assume these projections as being TRUE!
Anyway, as the real Obama once stated, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won”. Your side lost, and your ideas are now relegated to the climate change three ring circus freak show, right next to the organ grinder and monkey.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“Obama is looking for scientific reports, not the science fiction published by the IPCC.”
See how easily you maintain your denialism?
You immediately dismiss what the science shows, for no reason at all other than that you don’t like the results.
This is exactly what conspiracy theorists do. And any attempt to correct them is just another part of the conspiracy.
You have built yourself a cozy little cocoon where you cannot be proven wrong, by the very definition of your cocoon.
You built it, and now you’re hiding in it.
David,
You did not address the real issue. You are CLUELESS regarding what constitutes REAL science. These IPCC projections DO NOT stand up to scrutiny when the light of the scientific method shines forth, and issues regarding falsifiability are weighed.
Go back to your circus side-show. If you do indeed have a university education, I would go back and ask for a refund. Why anyone listens to you is beyond belief.
Where is the testing mechanism for these projections as is required by the scientific method? Any IDIOT, such as yourself David, can make projections on what will occur in the year 2100 as far as climate is concerned. How can a REAL scientist go about to disprove these projections? THERE IS NO WAY TO DO SO. That’s why REAL science follows protocols such as the scientific method and falsifiability to avoid producing unscientific hypotheses, which is what these projections are.
You did not address the issue because you DON’T understand real science. All you did was hurl insults.
skepticgonewild,
Obama is looking for projections of climate/changes in weather patterns in 50 years time. Clearly you don’t like the IPCC. So what alternative source can you offer to help him answer his questions?
Obama,
Apriori there is no reason to assume that a change in climate is GOOD, yet you guys assume that it will be. Why?
Most of developing world is in tropics. More heat, and heat-waves are not welcome there.
We live in a world with lots of infrastructure built during a period of stable climate. Stability of the climate has been key to economic and political stability.
Coastlines, water sources, spring rain and temps in agricultural belts have been (relatively) stable for hundreds of years. Climate change will likely affect all of these.
A few possible outcomes of climate change:
Several major Asian rivers source from Himalayan glaciers. These are rapidly receding. Will this source of water, critical to vast agriculture, be stable? If not, is that a good thing?
Deserts are expanding in some regions, e.g. Australia. Good thing??
Monsoons are rel reliable and critical to vast agricultural regions. Will they remain so? Good thing?
The gulf stream predicted by some research to become unstable or shut down. Good thing??
You will say the warming is insignificant. But consider this. The temp during the last Glacial Maximum was 5C lower, and vast ice sheets covered N Europe and N America.
Now 2C is considered (even by Roy) to be a likely outcome. 2C is 40% of 5C, very likely QUITE significant for climate.
Obama…”For some unknown reason I cant get anybody to answer the question, So what? ”
I’ll take a stab. There won’t be any significant climate change the next 50 years, same as there wasn’t the previous 50.
We may still be recovering from the Little Ice Age so I’ll concede a fudge factor to allow from a slight warming. There won’t be anything to write home about.
A couple of frogs talking to each other.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Ill take a stab. There wont be any significant climate change the next 50 years, same as there wasnt the previous 50.”
Prove the latter. I’m positive you can’t. But go ahead and try.
BTW, the planet doesn’t “recover” from a cool period like the (nonglobal) LIA. The climate changes if and only if it is forced to change.
So what is the forcing behind modern warming? Don’t avoid the question, like you usually do.
“BTW, the planet doesnt recover from a cool period like the (nonglobal) LIA. The climate changes if and only if it is forced to change.”
LOL. Before humans, there was no climate change. ROFL.
When did global climate ever change without a forcing?
David’s not wrong. People claim current warming is because of a ‘recovery’ or ‘rebound’ from the LIA, but such statements assume a cause (natural) for the whole period to present, rather than offer a physical explanation.
There is a lot we do not know. We cannot make conclusions based on process of elimination when we do not even know what to eliminate.
We cannot make conclusions based on process of elimination
We see this from a different perspective. I see estimates, not conclusions. And it’s many processes, of which elimination is one.
Yep, there’s stuff we don’t know. But that doesn’t mean we know nothing.
If you weren’t so lazy, you could find this information from the (soon to be censored) US EPA:
Key U.S. projections
– By 2100, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by about 3F to 12F, depending on emissions scenario and climate model.
– The number of days with high temperatures above 90F is expected to increase throughout the United States, especially toward the end of the century.
– summertime temperatures in the United States that ranked among the hottest 5% in 1950-1979 will occur at least 70% of the time by 2035-2064.
– Northern areas are projected to become wetter, especially in the winter and spring. Southern areas, especially the Southwest, are projected to become drier.
Heavy precipitation events will likely be more frequent, even in areas where total precipitation is projected to decrease. Heavy downpours that currently occur about once every 20 years are projected to occur between twice and five times as frequently by 2100, depending on location.
– The proportion of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow is expected to increase, except in far northern areas.
– The intensity of Atlantic hurricanes is likely to increase as the ocean warms. There is less confidence in projections of the frequency of hurricanes.
– Cold-season storm tracks are expected to continue to shift northward. The strongest cold-season storms are projected to become stronger and more frequent.
etc etc
Please do your own homework.
You assessment of positive feedbacks? The top two have already been detected: water vapor feedback and the ice-albedo feedback.
What do you make of those results?
The results do not show warming accelerating
Obama says:
“So what? For some unknown reason I cant get anybody to answer the question”
I’ve answered many of your (pedantic) questions. Why lie about it and claim otherwise?
Pete Mack says, March 9, 2017 at 1:11 PM:
No. You’ve got it turned completely on its head. The “astonishing claim” is that CO2 is the primary cause of warming. Without ANY KIND of supporting evidence whatsoever from the real earth system. Now THAT’S an astonishing claim. And it’s even more astonishing that people actually continue to buy into it …
Kristian…”…And its even more astonishing that people actually continue to buy into it ”
I agree but I have ceased to be astonished by their religious fervor.
Without ANY KIND of supporting evidence
In what way do the the studies on attribution of recent climate change to various factors constitute no evidence?
barry says, March 10, 2017 at 5:52 PM:
You left out the part about “the real earth system”, barry. I’m specifically talking about actual empirical/observational evidence. From the real earth system. Not a bunch of model based attribution studies with a predetermined outcome …
And so my question to you becomes: In what way DO these studies on attribution of recent climate change to various factors constitute (real earth system) evidence that CO2 is in fact “the main contributor to global warming”?
Recent warming from a net accumulation of energy within the earth system resulting from a positive radiative imbalance at the ToA (more IN than OUT) is clearly caused by an increase in the INCOMING heat flux from the sun (+ASR) and specifically NOT by a reduction in the OUTGOING heat flux from earth itself (-OLR).
ASR anomaly, 1985-1999 (ERBS): https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/ersb-asr.png
Remember that ASR (“absorbed solar radiation”; the solar heat flux to the earth; net SW) is defined as TSI minus reflected SW (albedo):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-refl-sw-vs-pmod-tsi1.png
As you can see, TSI is not the determining factor here. It remains pretty much constant. The refl SW part (the albedo) is …
OLR anomaly, 1985-1999 (ERBS):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-olr.png
Net flux (ASR minus OLR), 1985-1999 (ERBS):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-net-flux.png
Over the last 32 years, the total atmospheric content of CO2 increased by 17%, or about half (!!) of the entire rise since pre-industrial times. To make matters worse, during the same period of time, the total tropospheric content of water vapour (TPW) also increased substantially, by at least 1.5kg on average on top of each m^2 of surface (or about 5%).
This rather consistent and, quite frankly, remarkable rise (since 1985) in the overall atmospheric concentration of IR-active gases, so-called “GHGs”, should – in theory – have strengthened the so-called “greenhouse effect” immensely, by reducing earth’s radiative heat loss to space at any given (altitude-specific) temperature through the raising of our planet’s ERL (“effective radiating level”) to space, and thus constitute a clear cause of warming:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
However, we do not observe ANY systematic reduction in OLR relative to tropospheric temps from 1985 to 2015-2016. There is no trace of any “enhanced GHE”, theoretically assumed to be caused by the considerable increase in atmospheric “GHG” concentration, anywhere in the real-world radiation flux data. The OLR is simply found to track tropospheric temps over time, the latter clearly the cause and the former a mere effect:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/uah-vs-erbsceres-20n-20s.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/tlt-vs-olr-trend.png
And so there is an obvious problem with the ‘theory’ … It does not match the real-world observations. The warming is clearly natural.
Im specifically talking about actual empirical/observational evidence.
Me too. Whether by direct measurement or by proxy, there are indices for solar fluctuations, GCRs, cloud cover, volcanic emissions etc.
Do they have everything down to the last molecule? Of course not (who does?)
But these empirical measurements are part of the study of causes of climate change. These form the backbone of the evidence. It’s not just Global Circulation Models, which some people seem to think is the sum of all research on climate and climate change (and why they seem to obsess about them).
You’ve attempted to attribute climate change using just the type of empirical measurements used by climate researchers. Do you imagine you’ve carved out a new frontier here?
Kristian,
The time period you’ve plotted begins near the low point of the solar cycle and ends in the high phase. I’m not surprised there is an upward trend for TSI over that period.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/plot/pmod/from:1985/to:2001/trend
If the data from the ERB satellites has been adjusted to account for the solar cycle, can you explain how it was done, or link to something that does?
barry says, March 11, 2017 at 7:49 AM:
No. We are obviously talking about different things. I am saying that there isn’t a single piece of actual empirical/observational evidence from the real earth system anywhere showing us that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes ‘global warming’. The actual empirical/observational evidence from the real earth system rather shows the opposite. That it specifically doesn’t cause ‘global warming’.
“Evidence” of what!? You look at TSI and volcanoes and thereby you have evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes ‘global warming’??
barry says, March 11, 2017 at 7:53 AM:
What exactly are you referring to here?
barry says, March 11, 2017 at 6:51 PM:
Does this mean you didn’t see this one?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-refl-sw-vs-pmod-tsi1.png
TSI is basically nothing, albedo (refl SW) is everything.
ASR is not the same as TSI, barry.
I am saying that there isnt a single piece of actual empirical/observational evidence from the real earth system anywhere showing us that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes global warming.
There are multiple tests done in labs and schools and on the net that show just that. Empirical testing of IR or temp changes in a volume of air when more CO2 is added. Tyndall first did it in the mid 1860s.
You look at TSI and volcanoes and thereby you have evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes global warming??
You gather an index, say for TSI. You compare the trajectory/ies over time with global temperature. If solar increases while global does, then you have an empirically based indication that the sun is responsible for temps. But you don’t stop there. You gather data for other metrics and see what else is tugging on the climate. You build up an ensemble of causes and regress them individually and multivariously against observed surface temps (or other metric).
This is what is done in attribution studies.
What exactly are you referring to here?
You put up a bunch of graphs, pointed at the trend of OLR/ASR, and said that these data can explain the evolution of global temps. You, too, are basing your analysis on empirically measured stuff.
It’s all over the IPCC reports. Thousands of interconnected studies of climate change causes by taking measurements and comparing them to the temp record (or other metric). It’s apparent even from a cursory read. There is usually a whole chapter dedicated to attribution in the reports of the last 30 years looking at natural and anthropogenic causes. It’s baffling that people present it as if the whole exercise is based solely on GCMs.
barry says, March 12, 2017 at 7:12 PM:
*Facepalm*
You don’t want to get what I’m talking about, do you, barry? Playing the ‘deliberate misunderstanding’ card.
So tedious …
barry, why are you playing stupid!?
How many times does this need repeating: Solar input to the Earth system is NOT measured in TSI. It is measured in ASR! TSI minus albedo (refl SW). How hard is this!?
The IPCC include only TSI and volcanoes in the ‘natural forcing’ bin. Volcanoes that don’t do anything to the climate beyond 1-3 years of direct stratospheric aerosol effect. And that’s the REALLY big ones. The rest is ‘anthropogenic’. “Internal variability” is just assumed (at least since 1951) to be 0. The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77, coinciding EXACTLY with the start of the modern era of global warming? PDV/IPO/ENSO, AMO? Nope. The obvious and substantial increase in ASR from the 80s to the 90s, as shown in the ERBS and ISCCP FD data? Not at all.
Here’s the relevant statement from AR5:
“The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period The observed warming since 1951 can be attributed to the different natural and anthropogenic drivers and their contributions can now be quantified. Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5C to 1.3 C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6C to 0.1C.”
That should give a net range of anthropogenic ‘contributions’ to the general global temperature rise between 1951 and 2010 of 0.6 to 0.7C. That’s equal to the entire rise:
http://tinyurl.com/zzbyugh
“The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1C to 0.1C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1C to 0.1C.”
That should make up a total natural contribution (from TSI and volcanoes + ‘ocean cycles’) to the general global temperature rise between 1951 and 2010 of exactly 0C. According to the IPCC.
These are not “attribution studies”, barry. They are simply exercises in dismissal of everything not ‘anthropogenic’.
And NONE of them bothers to show or consider ANY empirical evidence whatsoever of ANY ‘global warming’ caused by a rise in atmospheric CO2. It’s all about clearing away everything else, so that all that remains is the purely hypothetical effect from a rise in “GHGs”.
It is all too obvious, barry, that you don’t understand what the data I’m presenting here are actually telling us. That these graphs are the only relevant ones when it comes to finding out what caused ‘global warming’ over the last 32 years. It is clearly and evidently the Sun (from an increase in ASR, resulting from a reduction in cloud cover), and NOT an “enhanced GHE” (the OLR has simply gone up in step with the tropospheric temps).
This is all you need to know, barry. But first you need to gain an understanding of what the idea of the “enhanced GHE” is actually claiming as its specific mechanism for warming.
How many times does this need repeating: Solar input to the Earth system is NOT measured in TSI. It is measured in ASR! TSI minus albedo (refl SW). How hard is this!?
I gave an example of one metric to explain how attribution is done. I know what indices you are looking at.
Do the ASR trend you’ve presented include the solar cycle? Have you selected your period/s to account for bias in the start/end points WRT to the cycle?
How accurately is albedo measured? Are there any difficulties in satellites ‘seeing’ clouds?
Do you think it’s a perfect measurement, and if not, how good/bad is it?
(I’ll get onto OLR later)
ASR is not the same as TSI, barry.
ASR is TSI-cloud cover.
If there is an upward trend in TSI and no change in cloud cover you get a graph like yours.
That’s why I pointed out that the period you selected has an upward trend for TSI just because of how the period sits in the solar cycle.
You’ve provided a chart that shows no trend in TSI for the same period. What I suppose that to mean is that the sun’s 11-year fluctuation produces no noticeable change in solar output.
Would you agree?
TSI is known to change by up to 2W/m2 from peak to trough of a solar cycle. for the period you have nominated, solar cycle peaks were lower than in the middle of last century – about 1W/m2.
But this is not reflected in the PMOD TSI chart you’ve linked. Fluctuations in that chart barely rise to 0.4W/m2 – five times less the variation from solar cycle peak to trough.
How do you explain that?
barry says, March 13, 2017 at 5:41 PM:
Yes, even when knowing full well that TSI is NOT equal to “solar input” to the Earth system.
barry, I don’t know what to say to you. It’s like talking to a child, a child that does ANYTHING but paying attention to what is being said.
In my FIRST comment about TSI vs. ASR, I posted the following figure:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-refl-sw-vs-pmod-tsi1.png
What does it say above the graph to the left? “PMOD TSI anomaly”! THAT’S the solar cycle, barry. See how it matters hardly at all?
I told and showed you this already.
The ASR anomaly is the left graph minus the right one (“Refl SW”). The solar cycle is basically nothing, changes in albedo (mainly from cloud cover) is basically everything, when it comes to change over time in the actual “solar input” (ASR) to the Earth system.
Are you starting to get it, barry?
Nothing’s “perfect”. But it’s by far the best there is for this period. And no one’s managed to find any need for further adjustments/corrections to it since 2006. Read Wong et al., 2006, about the ERBS Ed3_Rev1 dataset, plus its Data Quality Summary. You should also read what the IPCC and GEWEX say about it. It’s a high-quality dataset, don’t you worry.
barry says, March 14, 2017 at 1:43 AM:
First of all, we’re talking “anomalies” here, not absolute values. So the PMOD solar cycle looks like this over the period in question (1985-1999):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/solar-cycle-1.png
The mean range from top to bottom is, like you pointed out, about 1 W/m^2.
However, this anomaly is of the instantaneous flux (or point flux as seen from space), the familiar 1366 (or, rather, 1361) W/m^2 value (“solar constant”), not of the average flux, which is 4 times lower [1361/4=] 340.25 W/m^2.
The real range of a solar cycle is NOT +/- 1 W/m^2. Globally it is four times less, about 0.25 W/m^2.
However, within the tropics the range is a little bit wider (about 20%), which means it’s about 0.3 W/m^2 from top to bottom in the 20N-20S latitude band:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/solar-cycle-21.png
Now, look at the y-axis of each of the two graphs in my “TSI” minus “Refl SW” anomaly figure. They span the same total number of W/m^2, 18 in all. Compare 18 W/m^2 with 0.3 W/m^2. How significant becomes the solar cycle …?
BTW, barry, here’s the trend in TSI over the period in question:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/pmod/from:1985/to:1999.92/plot/pmod/from:1985/to:1999.92/trend
This is a remarkably simple exercise that you could easily have managed yourself, don’t you agree?
This is a remarkably simple exercise that you could easily have managed yourself, dont you agree?
Why, yes, I wish I’d thought of that.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-version-6-dataset-paper-published-online/#comment-239912
Looks like I picked the wrong period when I did it.
However, this anomaly is of the instantaneous flux (or point flux as seen from space), the familiar 1366 (or, rather, 1361) W/m^2 value (solar constant), not of the average flux, which is 4 times lower [1361/4=] 340.25 W/m^2.
I’ve been asking you about the data sets. You presented a chart of PMOD solar data in Wm/2. It’s nearly flat compared to the others, which show a swing 5 times greater. How were the anomalies/baseline calculated?
I’ve asked about the TSI data a few times. You’ve expressed dire frustration that I’m not focussing on ASR. I’m trying to figure out how the data has been handled to derive the ASR profile.
I specifically asked if the solar cycle has been taken into account. I think – and I have to guess because you have not been specific – that the solar cycle has been reduced by anomalising to some baseline that follows the curve. This, of course, reduces the variability to near nothing, but it does not in any way reflect the actual changes in solar intensity, which has a real (not ‘averaged’) change of 1W/m2 from peak to trough.
In the WFT graph you simply scaled by 0.3 to obtain the values that matched your PMOD graph. C;early this was not the operation to acquire a variance of 0.25W/m2 in your original PMOD chart, so I ask again – how has the solar cycle been factored? What was the processing method to get the PMOD values?
They’ve been working on EDR4 for some years now.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2010-09/4-CERES.STM.201009.Clouds.pdf
I’ve read a number of papers pointing out significant difficulties with cloud capture, especially at night. You seem to downplay them. That would make sense, considering how wedded you are to your conclusions.
TOA flux estimates from ISCCP-FD and CERES are sensitive to changes in observing system and diurnal sampling, respectively, leading to uncertainties in continent-scale monthly mean TOA radiative fluxes of up to 5 W m−2 (Mayer and Haimberger 2012; Wild et al. 2013; Loeb et al. 2014). Loeb et al. (2009), for example, state that after removing global biases, uncertainties of up to 4.2 W m−2 (2σ) may remain in large-scale long-time mean net outgoing radiation based on extensive sensitivity studies. They further note that in the absence of bias correction, imbalances in CERES global annual mean net outgoing radiation are 6.5 W m−2. Uncertainties of this magnitude significantly impact analysis of trends and variability but are not prohibitive for documenting the mean state….
As noted above, extensive research has been conducted to assess potential sources of structural error that may be responsible for biases in satellite-based estimates of each of the fluxes depicted in Fig. 1. Uncertainty in atmospheric and cloud properties can have significant impacts on computed downwelling fluxes at the surface that can lead to biases of up to 4 and 7 W m−2 in DSR and DLR, respectively…
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00556.1
Test.
barry says, March 14, 2017 at 6:46 PM:
It’s quite obvious who’s wedded to his conclusions here. We could extend this “discussion” of ours indefinitely and you would never even remotely start actually addressing the plots I’m presenting, and the implications of what they’re showing. Why? Because they’re detrimental to your dogmatic conclusions about what drives ‘global warming’. What you’re doing here is exactly as Dr. Leon Festinger describes it:
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.”
This is you, barry. Spot on. You spend all your time and effort on this particular issue trying to find excuses that can allow you to avoid relating to it altogether, rather than actually relating to it, by meticulously focusing at all times on questioning the validity of the data I use (my “sources”). They simply cannot be accepted. And you question them not like a true sceptic, because a true sceptic would take pride in actually learning about the dataset he’s questioning himself. Before objecting to it. What you do here is simply looking for quotes – anything! – that fundamentally misrepresent the data, but which might come across to a third-party reader as supporting your side of the argument, that the data I use are somehow invalid, justifying your dismissing them off hand …
You continue to show your ignorance on this subject (and hence your dogged dogmatism) with your comments. You write:
Yes, this concerns the CLEAR-SKY PRODUCTS and the ABSOLUTE FLUX VALUES, not the all-sky anomalies, barry. And I already pointed this out to you. Do you listen? No. Why? Because you’re a man with a conviction. The data cannot be accepted.
Again, the cloud problem only arises when you want to REMOVE them from your final product. Clouds are there, after all. The satellite-borne radiometric instruments (like CERES) flying around our planet point their sensors down and receive a total flux of radiation. This flux naturally includes a cloud portion, that part of the total received flux that is emitted by clouds. But in the all-sky (which is the original, actually measured flux) we don’t care about quantifying this particular portion; it simply makes up part of the total. And we’re only interested in … the total flux, as directly measured. It is only when you want to look at clouds and cloud properties in particular (CRE products) or look at the atmosphere with clouds specifically excluded (clear-sky) that you need to know about and specify this portion. That’s when you need to create a cloud mask.
Cloud capture is a non-problem when all you’re looking for is the TOTAL RADIATION FLUX. ‘My’ data are All-Sky. Total flux. Directly measured. True, there are potential diurnal challenges in extracting the LW from the total, which is equal to the LW during nighttime, but LW+SW during daytime. But the procedures for testing and adjusting the daytime stability against the nighttime stability are solid and well-understood (read the final link below), employed also in the ERBS Ed3_Rev1 dataset.
From Loeb et al., 2009:
“While the radiances from instruments like ERBE and the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) are stable to a few tenths of a W m-2 per decade (Loeb et al. 2007a) and provide excellent regional coverage of the distribution of reflected solar and emitted thermal radiation from the earth, the absolute calibration is known to 2% in the shortwave (SW) and 1.5% in the longwave (LW) at the 95% confidence level. Instruments that measure total solar irradiance, such as the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) instrument (Kopp et al. 2005), are also far more stable than they are absolutely accurate. Consequently, it is not surprising that satellite observations produce larger net TOA flux imbalances than expected.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1
From the Data Quality Summary of CERES EBAF Ed4.0:
“Despite recent improvements in satellite instrument calibration and the algorithms used to determine CERES TOA radiative fluxes, a sizeable imbalance persists in the average global net radiation at the TOA from CERES satellite observations. As in previous versions of EBAF (Loeb et al. 2009), the CERES SW and LW fluxes in EBAF Ed4.0 are adjusted within their ranges of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the Earth atmosphere system, as determined primarily from ocean heat content anomaly (OHCA) data. In the current version, the global annual mean values are adjusted such that the July 2005June 2015 mean net TOA flux is 0.710.10 W m2 (uncertainties at the 95% confidence level account for XBT correction uncertainties and Argo sampling errors for 0-1800 m) (Johnson et al., 2016). (…) As noted earlier, we make a onetime adjustment to the entire record. Therefore, the time-dependence of EBAF TOA fluxes is tied to the CERES instrument radiometric stability.“
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/DQ_summaries/CERES_EBAF_Ed4.0_DQS.pdf
The “time-dependence” is of course the anomaly trend over time.
As you probably know, barry, although you appear not to, there’s a distinct difference between an instrument’s measuring ACCURACY and its measuring STABILITY over time. Yes, the CERES instruments have a definite problem with their measuring accuracy, concerning the absolute flux values. However, they have excellent measuring stability, pretty much as good as it gets, the best around, and this property concerns the flux anomaly values, the change over time: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/accuracy-vs-stability.png
The CERES instruments are in the first category.
The large uncertainties that you cite (several W/m^2) pertain to the accuracy, the absolute flux values. Specifically not to the anomalies. ‘My’ data are anomaly values.
Do you seriously believe, barry, that the highly recognised CERES team would publish an official radiation flux dataset, describe its stability as ‘excellent’, explicitly recommend its use in climate trend studies (and it routinely being used in climate trend studies) for that very reason, and do you think that today’s atmospheric science researchers would treat it as a gold standard benchmark against which to validate their own various earth system data products (including other, independent radiation flux datasets like AIRS, HIRS and ISCCP FD), if all they had to show for their efforts were an anomaly trend estimation carrying a 6.5 (!!) W/m^2 uncertainty range!?
From Loeb et al., 2016:
“The validation results presented in this paper suggest that the CERES Edition 4 data record falls within the stability requirements outlined in [Ohring et al., 2005; with our host, Dr. Spencer, as one of the co-authors]. For TOA radiation budget, Ohring et al. [2005] (Table 2) recommends a long-term stability of 0.3 W m-2 per decade for SW at the 95% confidence level. The CERES Terra and Aqua SW TOA flux comparisons shown here in addition to earlier comparisons between CERES Terra and SeaWIFS over the tropical oceans (Loeb et al., [2012]) fall within this stability requirement [~0.23 W m-2]. Similarly, Ohring et al. [2005] recommends a stability of 0.2 W m-2 per decade for LW TOA flux at the 95% confidence level. The comparisons between CERES instruments on Terra and Aqua and the AIRS OLR record also fall within this requirement [~0.16 W/m-2].”
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/3/182/htm
Again, barry, try to read up on a subject before you start throwing randomly dismissive objections at arguments made by people who do understand what it’s about.
barry says, March 14, 2017 at 6:45 PM:
And I’ve told you several times. I simply don’t understand your problem.
You can check all this for yourself. Go to the CERES data page:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php
– Click EBAF TOA, Browse & Subset.
– Click Edition4.0, Browse & Subset.
– Tick off Solar Flux, Incoming Solar Flux [TSI, from SORCE]
Remember to put in an email address at the bottom.
Then you can define a spatial data subset by plotting your latitudes and longitudes of choice.
My original plot is for the tropics, 20N-20S. But do compare with the global (90N-90S).
– Click Visualize Data (at the very bottom).
– Click any map.
– Click Area Mean Time Series.
What do you get?
You get the MEAN value. You can NOT use the full value when investigating earth’s energy budget, barry. You will have to divide it by four. Otherwise you’re not comparing apples with apples. The solar incoming flux will be WAY to large.
Now click Deseasonalize.
What is the mean anomaly range from top to bottom? Tropics? Global?
It’s not so hard, barry.
“if all they had to show for their efforts were an anomaly trend estimation carrying a 6.5 (!!) W/m^2 uncertainty range!?”
That IS all they have to show Kristian, the various CERES instruments are, as you write & cite, stable enough but not accurate enough as their raw ~6.5W/m^2 global, temporal imbalance is much too large. So, CERES Team use Argo data to calibrate results to surface thermometers.
30 minutes of reading their latest reports finds the CERES Team does not use some of their own early data because their best effort at that calibration results in CIs too large for meaningful results. Kristian does not compute CIs and thus comes to unmeaningful, inaccurate conclusions by using that early EBAF data which CERES Team studiously avoids. No need to download and make pretty plots of EBAF data Kristian, the reports do that for you, readers can get the CI meaningful, accurate conclusions from their published papers.
It’s not so hard to compute CIs, Kristian.
Barry,
thanks for the 6:46pm link to the L’Ecuyer et. al. 2015 Energy Budget survey paper. Confirming the pre-Argo bias correction calibration of CERES raw imbalance p. 8323:
“further note that in the absence of bias correction, imbalances in CERES global annual mean net outgoing radiation are 6.5Wm^-2. Uncertainties of this magnitude significantly impact analysis of trends and variability but are not prohibitive for documenting the mean state.”
Ball4 says, March 15, 2017 at 6:45 PM:
Er, no. They do not produce an ANOMALY TREND ESTIMATION with a 6.5 W/m^2 uncertainty range, Ball4. As you well know. So why are you here?
I’m looking at the anomalies over time (stability), not absolute values (accuracy). And if you read the Ed4.0 Data Quality Summary (linked above), you will see the stability quantified for SW and LW anomalies.
Now begone, troll.
Kristian, you remain unconvincing, CERES team raw data does indeed start with that 6.5 imbalance with inherent data uncertainty; this just shows how shallow is your work without dealing with those uncertainties in EBAF downloads. This causes your comments to become non-meaningful and inaccurate.
Properly compute the CIs and you will start to understand where and why your conclusions differ from the CERES team. The critical, informed reader is better served understanding the CERES Team published conclusions which report proper CIs, not Kristian’s self-published conclusions.
Pay attention to barry’s link to L’Ecuyer 2015: “Uncertainties of this magnitude significantly impact analysis of trends and variability..”. Deal with it. Your task is to first replicate the published work only then try to convince us you can extend CERES Team work.
Kristian says:
“The astonishing claim is that CO2 is the primary cause of warming. Without ANY KIND of supporting evidence whatsoever from the real earth system.”
You must be kidding.
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
That’s only the greenhouse portion – there are studies of other factors as well – volcano emissions, direct and indirect solar, clouds, in-system oscillation etc.
Barry, those are natural forcings, not anthropogenic, and all are much smaller than aGHG forcings.
You’ve lost the context of the conversation. Kristian asserted there was no ‘evidence’ for attributing climate changes (only modeling) Climate research looks not only at CO2 forcing (the papers you linked), but also solar, cloud, volcano, etc. Indices for these abound and are applied – empirical measurements. The empirical basis for attribution is not focused exclusively on CO2. And bending my point that way is only going to reinforce Kristian’s notion that this is all that ‘mainstreamers’ see. Reinforcing the notion that climate research ignores everything else, which is completely inaccurate. There is a much broader body of empirical research underpinning attribution of climate change than CO2 observation.
barry says, March 11, 2017 at 8:00 AM:
No, barry. I pointed out that there is no empirical/observational evidence from the real earth system showing us that an increase in atmospheric CO2 in fact causes ‘global warming’. You’re bending my point …
Kristian…”No, barry. I pointed out that there is no empirical/observational evidence from the real earth system showing us that an increase in atmospheric CO2 in fact causes global warming”.
You are wasting your time, Kristian. The alarmists on this site are more interested in playing statistical games on woodfortrees rather than trying to understand what the data is saying.
Barry thinks you can take UAH data, plug it into WFT and get a meaningful analysis while completely ignoring the admission of the IPCC that no average warming occurred from 1998 – 2012. UAH has claimed the same, claiming further that the temperature data from NOAA satellites since 1979 has showed little or no warming.
I have already asked them to explain how you can have a flat trend for 18 years of a 35 year database with an overlying trend of something like 0.12C/decade?
Barry and David Appell are lost in number crunching and not willing to consider what the so-called experts at the IPCC have been telling them. Appell has even claimed the IPCC is wrong, based on a fudged statistical analysis from NOAA.
Gordon,
Here you go again asking us to bow to IPCC authority rather than thinking for ourselves.
‘Number crunchng’ is a waste of time? How do you think scientists should spend their time?
You ought to try number crunching sometime. It will be refreshing.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Appell has even claimed the IPCC is wrong, based on a fudged statistical analysis from NOAA.”
Here Gordon gets in multiple lies in one sentence, which is not easy to accomplish.
What does one do with people who lie as simply and naturally as they breathe? Who refuse to consider the facts given to them, and twist and turn with no regard for the truth?
I pointed out that there is no empirical/observational evidence from the real earth system showing us that an increase in atmospheric CO2 in fact causes global warming. Youre bending my point
Yes, I did indeed lose your point. CO2 increase is empirically verified in the lab to cause IR occlusion and warming of the volume of air. This type of empirical measurement goes back to the 1860s with Tyndall. But it didn’t stop there. The optical properties of CO2 are well understood. IR occlusion in seen very clearly with added concentrations, in an environment where more precision is availiable than with the monitoring systems we have in the real earth system.
Yes, that’s a very nice starting point. For a hypothesis. But then you need to go out in nature and TEST whether your observed LAB effect causes net warming also out there in the actual open, dynamic Earth system. Which is NOT like a lab.
That’s how science works. We don’t want to know whether CO2 absorbs IR or not. We already know that. What we want to know is whether this property actually causes net warming of the surface and atmosphere as the content of atmospheric CO2 goes up. We DON’T know this. We only ASSUME it. And so in order to know, we need to TEST this specific assumption of ours – based ON our lab results – against reality, which is inherently more complex than our controlled experiment in the lab.
And here’s the test:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/tlt-vs-olr-trend.png
Result: It doesn’t do anything! We specifically do not observe an effect from the rise in atmospheric CO2 on Earth’s total temperature radiation flux to space. There is no discernible systematic reduction in heat loss relative to tropospheric temps. And so we simply cannot find evidence of an “enhanced GHE” …
“And here’s the test:”
Kristian – you remain unconvincing, proper tests use calibrated data and confidence intervals (CIs). Kristian repeatedly uses early CERES data that is not calibratable (per CERES Team) and Kristian does not show meaningful CIs. Thus Kristian’s self cited conclusions are meaningless.
For proper calibration, meaningful CIs, accurate conclusions and corroborating cites see published CERES Team reports, for example Loeb 2016 and its cites.
Yes, I’d want to see documentation of the data set used, any known issues, whether and what kind of measurement bias has been removed, and specifically whether the solar cycle is accounted for.
barry says, March 13, 2017 at 6:06 PM:
*Sigh*
The data is clearly designated, barry. Read the Data Quality Summaries of the ERBS Ed3_Rev1 and CERES EBAF Ed4.0 products, with particular attention to the All-Sky SW and LW parameters. It’s all readily available for you. Find the data yourself and plot it. Plus read Spencer et al’s new UAHv6.0 paper …
Why do you pretend you don’t already know about these datasets, barry? You seem desperate to find an excuse to simply wave them off so that you won’t need to relate to what they’re actually telling us at all: “Lalalalala, I can’t hear you!”
“WASHINGTON The new chief of the Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus and his own agency”.
What does ‘mainstream scientific consensus’ have to do with the truth in science?
Pruitt will sort out the EPA (his own agency) by getting rid of the deadwood and believers from the Obama cult of pseudo-climate science.
Good on ya Scott, looking forward to it.
Is California is ready for the warm rain?
http://www.lightningwizard.com/maps/North_America/gfs_cape_usa24.png
Go Donald – drain that swamp and put in your own pet animals.
“Senate Republicans are still rubber-stamping the den of crooks and conspiracy theorists Trump is drawing from to stock his Cabinet.
Early nominees like Betsy DeVos and Jeff Sessions, who managed to sneak in before stories about secret phone calls to Russia took over the headlines, encountered some pushback and protest, and were confirmed by narrow party-line votes.
Pruitt is just as terrible a pick as DeVos for education secretary, Sessions as attorney general or Andrew Puzder, who was a terrible choice to be labor secretary and ended up withdrawing.”
We are doomed. The end is near. The sky is falling. Blah, blah, blah.
It will be very sorry to farmers when the frost comes back east US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/03/10/0900Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-121.67,49.16,684
Is New York is ready for the blizzard?
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/new-york-ny/10007/weather-radar/349727
Obama says:
“We are doomed. The end is near. The sky is falling. Blah, blah, blah.”
This is the kind of language you rely on that keeps you from taking the science seriously.
When are you going to try to understand?
https://image.webservices.ft.com/v1/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fftalphaville.ft.com%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F07%2F1520.jpg?source=Alphaville
What does your link purport to show? Tell me, and THEN I’ll click on it.
dr no …”Go Donald drain that swamp and put in your own pet animals”.
I have nothing in common with Trump but I am having a hoot watching detractors self-destructing over their imaginations and political-correctness.
The value in Trump is the utter destruction of the politically-correct society we have nurtured and taken for granted. Some idiot in a local Canadian magazine proposed that Putin is planning to interfere in the running of Canada. I doubt if he even knows where Canada is never mind planning to interfere in our administration.
Recently, our first lady, Sophie Gregoire, wife of Canadian PM Trudeau, came out gushing on Womens’ Day that women should do something special for the men in their lives like holding hands. She is also an avid climate alarmist. Get the connection? Women around the world were livid with her.
Idiots like Merkel in Germany and May in the UK are frantic about the fiction pouring out of the Democrat headquarters about Putin interfering in the US election. Merkel did the opposite of what Trump is proposing with certain refugees and immigrants and she now faces the wrath of a German nation totally upset with her.
They are warning us to fear Putin. May visited Trump, while gushing over him in photo ops, then went home and dissed him. Toffee-nosed snot.
I have news for you ladies, I fear both of you far more than I fear Putin or Trump.
The US have had far worse Presidents and no furor was raised over them. There was Reagan, Nixon, and George Bush Jr. Reagan laid the basis for the US financial collapse in the 2000 decade by deregulating banks.
Kennedy and his brother made no bones about messing around with women like Marilyn Monroe on the side and Clinton was caught having oral sex with an employee in the White House. Another Kennedy got a woman killed while messing around with her behind his wife’s back. He fled the scene of the accident. Not a peep out of the Democrats or the politically correct.
Trump utters a few unkind words about women, which he later confessed were nothing more than locker room talk, and he gets crucified. Come on guys, how many of you commenters out there have never participated in a joke that denigrates women?
The only mistake Trump has made is telling us what he thinks. Does anyone truly believe that the other presidents were not racists, concerned about extreme religions, sexist, etc. George Washington had slaves for cripes sake.
Gordon, your diatribe merely proves again that your attitude to climate change is based on emotion rather than rationality.
Probably most likely due to your age.
It is fun being paranoid, isn’t it.?
I have yet to see anything — anything — Gordon has written that *wasn’t* based on emotion.
He can’t prove any of his claims even if his life depended on it.
DA…”I have yet to see anything anything Gordon has written that *wasnt* based on emotion”.
You don’t see me losing it emotionally and calling you a liar as you do me. I have called you an idiot, which is apt, but I usually qualify it with a scientific argument.
Gordon: I call you a liar because you frequently tell lies here.
I’m just being factual.
Just above, Gordon, is one of your lies:
“I have already asked them to explain how you can have a flat trend for 18 years of a 35 year database with an overlying trend of something like 0.12C/decade?”
Pruitt will sort out the EPA (his own agency) by getting rid of the deadwood and believers from the Obama cult of pseudo-climate science.
Mostly the same people that did research when Bush was president and spent most of his term rejecting the IPCC.
They’re not Obama’s lackeys. They held a consistent view regardless of which president was in power.
The political view changes with each new government. The research view has been much more consistent.
Because the researchers are the same guys, and you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
You see, Gordon, even Bart agrees they didn’t suit their science to the government of the day.
Kevin – you are mistaken. The paper being kept out was for a journal and they were trying to make sure it wasn’t accepted for the deadline to make into the ICPP report. If you are suggesting Dr. Spencer hasn’t experienced gate keeping just come out and say it. And prove it.
Well, one could ‘prove’ it by citing the numerous articles Spencer and Christy have in major journals and reports, and that UAH data is included in the IPCC.
But that doesn’t say much about gate-keeping. Perhaps it’s been tougher for Spencer and Christy.
Point is, your challenge is impossible to meet prima facie. None of us can connect motive and action on this question.
But I’d have to wonder why S&C would receive harsher treatment for their version 6 paper. It basically aligns with RSS data. What would be the point?
barry…”But Id have to wonder why S&C would receive harsher treatment for their version 6 paper. It basically aligns with RSS data. What would be the point?”
Because their work disproves catastrophic anthropogenic warming and the catastrophes projected by climate models.
Lindzen receives similar treatment. He was experiencing delays submitting papers and when he enquired as to why he was told he is regarded as controversial due to his skeptical theories.
Several skeptical climate scientists have been removed from their jobs as state climatologists for no other reason than their skeptical beliefs.
Henk Tennekes an important skeptic was forced to retire early due to his skepticism.
This kind of reaction to scientific belief is unacceptable in science.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Lindzen receives similar treatment. He was experiencing delays submitting papers and when he enquired as to why he was told he is regarded as controversial due to his skeptical theories.”
Prove it.
DA…”Prove it”
https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/lindzen-choi-special-treatment/
If you had an objective interest in the science you would already be aware of the distinguished career of Lindzen and you would not have to ask for proof.
Since your mind set is still locked in the paranoia that scholars like Lindzen are influenced by oil companies it proves to me your inability to think in an unbiased manner. You are supporting a cause of some kind and you have no interest in objective science.
GR: I’m well aware of Lindzen’s career. As Pierrehumbert says, Lindzen has made an interesting and useful career out of being wrong.
“It’s okay to be wrong, and [Lindzen] is a smart person, but most people don’t really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin ever more clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of being wrong. And that’s okay because if you are wrong in an interesting way that advances the science, I think it’s great to be wrong, and he has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate science.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/09/established-science.html
> “But Id have to wonder why S&C would receive harsher treatment for their version 6 paper. It basically aligns with RSS data.”
No it does not. UAH is diverging from RSS. UAHv6 does not align with RSSv4.0. UAHv6 does align with the RSSv3.3, which has known cooling biases that have been corrected in RSSv4.0.
UAHv6 is also diverging away from RATPAC more than v5.6.
So as nearly every other temperature data set is showing growing convergence, UAHv6 is the only one going the opposite way.
Hence a lot of people’s “harsh treatment” (aka skepticism) of UAHv6.0.
rconner…”UAH is diverging from RSS.”
RSS was set up initially to disprove the work of UAH but they ended up corroborating it.
I regard RSS as an alarmist site and I have written to them about that. Specifically, I asked them why they use graphics with bright oranges and rust colours to indicated warming, an inference of fire and extreme heat.
I think UAH is the only truly objective source available. Roy provides the best graph available for the temperature anomalies from 1979 till present with a red running average curve. The rest provide crude bar graphs and mickey mouse graphics.
rconnor, UAH TLT and RSS TLT are virtually identical. This is the lower tropospheric record, nearest where we live.
My point is that RSS had no trouble publishing their version 3, where TMT, TLS and other channels were similar to UAH. In fact, RSS ran cooler than UAHv5.6, but they did not complain of gatekeeping and got their papers published.
UAH is not the fly in the ointment people imagine it to be.
> “UAH TLT and RSS TLT are virtually identical. This is the lower tropospheric record, nearest where we live.”
Be careful with what versions you’re comparing.
UAHv6.0 TLT is “virtually identical” to RSSv3.3 TLT. UAHv5.6 TLT was warmer than RSS TLTv3.3.
RSSv3.3 had a known cooling biases. They’ve corrected this for the TMT channel in v4.0 but not yet for the TLT channel.
So, as I said, UAHv5.6 to UAHv6.0 now diverges more from RATPAC and RSSv4.0 and aligns more with RSSv3.3 that has a known cooling bias.
When your adjustments bring your data set in closer alignment with another data set with a known cooling bias and further away from every other data set, it’s certainly something to be skeptical about.
I’m aware of all that. It doesn’t really respond to my point.
In 2010 the RSS revision from version 3.2 to 3.3 resulted in a lower global TLT trend, particularly from 2002, which resulted in a lower trend since 1998. Why didn’t the “gate-keepers” prevent them from publishing the new version in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic technology?
Could it be that the “gatekeepers” aren’t as active as presumed?
> It doesnt really respond to my point
Your original point was:
> But Id have to wonder why S&C would receive harsher treatment for their version 6 paper. It basically aligns with RSS data. What would be the point?
Firstly, UAHv6 aligns with the previous version of RSS (v3.3) that had a known cooling bias in it. It does not align with the updated version that corrects the cooling bias (v4.0). So to say [UAHv6.0] aligns with RSS data is misleading at best. UAHv6.0 aligns more closely with RSSv3.3, a data set with a known cooling bias, and diverges from RSSv4.0, where the cooling bias is corrected, and RATPAC.
Many people are skeptical of UAHv6.0 treatment of diurnal drift and the treatment of NOAA-14 to NOAA-15 (where the divergence really starts showing). This is on top of a rather poor record of UAH needing others to spot errors (Wentz and Schabel 1998 re orbital decay, Mears et al 2005 re diurnal drift, Po-Chedley et al 2015). This suggests there may be a point for the harsher treatment [of] their version 6 paper, outside of some grandiose conspiracy of gate keeping by every major journal.
> My point is that RSS had no trouble publishing their version 3, where TMT, TLS and other channels were similar to UAH. In fact, RSS ran cooler than UAHv5.6, but they did not complain of gatekeeping and got their papers published.
Maybe, just maybe, theres no conspiracy to suppress cooler data sets from publication and instead they are evaluated on their merit (see above for a discussion on the merit, or lack thereof, of UAHv6.0)? Crazy, I know!
Yes, RSSv3.3 had a cooling bias in it and it was published. However, the cooling bias was found *after* publication of v3.3. So they updated to v4.0 to correct for it. But UAHv6.0 makes adjustments that align it closer to RSSv3.3, with full knowledge that RSSv3.3 has a cooling bias. So its not that difficult to imagine why RSSv3.3 would go through but UAHv6.0 could be met with skepticism*.
Allow me to put it this way – I could argue that the reason why Im not playing for Barcelona FC is because of gate keepers in their ranks. Or I could apply some skepticism to my own abilities. But I find the former is much more comforting. Others might feel the latter is more truthful but I think theyre just part of the conspiracy preventing me from playing with Messi. What do you think?
(*Note: Its unclear that there was even any gate keeping to be had as its not even clear that Spencer *tried* to publish in AMS or AGU (re-read his comment). But either way, its just silly. Spencers just pushing some conspiracy theory about Trenberth blocking his publications. Hes offered no evidence to support it. The quote he used from stolen emails was in relation to the IPCC, not a journal. It also had nothing to do with Spencer or Christy.)
Dr Spencer, was there much difference between your first and second submission? Did the first review help in any way?
Spencer never answers these kind of questions.
Pete Mack,
A couple of questions:
1) CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Most of this CO2 is very, very necessary. A small portion of this CO2 is man-caused. The rest is natural. How can such a teeny tiny amount of CO2 drive climate change? What % of climate change is due to this teeny tiny amount of CO2? Can you give me the % of CO2 in the atmosphere that will result in no climate change-anything above this % causes climate change? What % of climate change is due to non-CO2 forces? What is your #1 top priority, best government policy solution to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere to a level so that we don’t have climate change?
‘Tiny amount’ is a qualitative thing, not quantitative. Rhetoric.
Like to see how rhetoric works, even true stuff?
A room with 100pm hydrogen sulphide in the air will cause eye damage. the smell of rotten eggs disappears because the olfactory nerve is paralysed. By 300pm pulmonary edem can occur. At 500-1000ppm 50% of people die, depending on length of exposure.
Tiny amounts…
1ppm LSD in a glass of unchlorinated water will give you hallucinations.
0.00000000015% of your body weight in botulinum toxin will kill you.
0.04% of arsenic in your bloodstream can kill you.
And so on.
Does this prove anything about CO2 in the atmos? Of course not.
But it should clear up any misconception that “tiny amounts” must inevitably have small impacts.
OMG. CO2 …………arsenic LSD botulinum toxin
OMG… read to the end of the post.
And read the 2nd sentence while you’re at it.
Sheesh. What would it take to get people to understand context?
Here is an excellent visual representation of the changes that small amounts can bring – and handily, it deals in the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light, to be exact).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
So you are saying that CO2 has the poisonous impact similar to LSD?
Ok.
Then it should be really easy for you to tell me the climate disasters that will take place in next 50 years in North America due to too much LSD in the Sky!
Reminds me of a Beatles Song.
barry …”Tiny amount is a qualitative thing, not quantitative. Rhetoric”.
No, Barry, what you are indulging in is rhetoric, avoiding answering a question using semantics.
Obama asked a reasonable question, how do we know that such a tiny amount of the atmosphere can cause the kind of warming that would lead to catastrophic climate change? Why do so many scientists claim that when they cannot provide the physics and/or thermodynamics to explain how it is possible?
It should be easy enough. Since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, and the molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapour and carbon dioxide make up most of the atmosphere, it should be simple to calculate the heat provided by each. Why is there no information available on that?
Likely because it has never been done or is impossible to do.
Since heat in the atmosphere is dependent on the average kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere, one would think it reasonable to conclude that the contribution of each molecule to temperature would depend on the total equivalent mass of each type of molecule.
In that case, oxygen and nitrogen, accounting for 99% of the atmosphere between them should account for 99% of the heat in the atmosphere.
The anthropogenic theory has convinced many that the atmosphere is warmed solely by radiative energy from the surface. There’s no proof of that, it has never been measured collectively. The notion comes from equations and gas theory.
It makes far more sense that atmospheric gases are warmed directly by solar energy and by the physical contact between the solar-warmed surface and the atmosphere. Then the heat is transported into the atmosphere as masses of atoms/molecules by convection.
In that case, most heat in the atmosphere (99%) should be provided by nitrogen and oxygen.
So you are saying that CO2 has the poisonous impact similar to LSD?
Read my post again, second sentence and the last two.
How can you get what I’m saying so wrong?
Sheesh. What would it take to get people to understand context?
Obama,
Did you check out this visual representation of ppm having an effect?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-version-6-dataset-paper-published-online/#comment-239732
Thanks Barry, I like those numbers.
A small portion of this CO2 is man-caused.
Man-made increase (124ppm) from pre-industrial concentration (280ppm) is 44%. I wouldn’t call that small.
So what? Fine. You are obviously brilliant.
I’m looking for the practical implications in North America in the next 50 years?
CO2 = Arsenic.
It should be easy to describe the scope and magnitude of unprecedented climate disasters in North America in next 50 years?
Crickets or links to SEC 10K documents. Nothing boiled down similar to how we know what will happen when taking LSD.
What should I be most alarmed about next 50 years in North America?
barry…”Man-made increase (124ppm) from pre-industrial concentration (280ppm) is 44%. I wouldnt call that small”.
You have no proof of that, it is a theory based on CO2 bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice. As Jaworowski pointed out, the bubbles change to solids (clathrates) under pressure and when they are drilled out as ice cores, melt water from the drilling interferes with the CO2 concentrations. Not only that, there is no proof that conversion from CO2 to clathrate and back is one to one.
Jaworowski also pointed out that the IPCC cherry-picked concentrations to suit their anthropogenic theory. The 280 ppmv to which you refer was cherry picked from a range of concentrations nearby that ranged up to 2000 ppmv.
Let’s not forget either that the 280 ppmv was taken during the Little Ice Age when global temps were 1C to 2C below normal. In those conditions, the oceans would have cooled and sucked a lot of the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Jaworowski claimed that 280 ppmv could have been 30% to 50% higher. That’s a range of 364 ppmv to 420 ppmv.
We should have learned from MBH98, when Mann et al tried to use tree ring proxies to reconstruct temperatures over the past 1000 years. In the latter 20th century, the proxies were showing cooling while the atmosphere was showing warming.
Proxies are unreliable and should be used only in a theoretical context.
Gordon Robertson says:
“it is a theory based on CO2 bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice. As Jaworowski pointed out, the bubbles change to solids (clathrates) under pressure and when they are drilled out as ice cores”
The bubbles re-form when they are in the lab at atmospheric pressure.
Gordon Robertson says:
“In the latter 20th century, the proxies were showing cooling while the atmosphere was showing warming.”
This is the so-called “divergence problem,” and it only holds for far northern latitude proxies. It was the “decline” that Phil Jones was “hiding.”
On the Divergence Problem in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes, Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289305.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf
CO2 = Arsenic.
Read again. You failed to comprehend the first time.
Gordon, Jarowoski has never drilled an ice core for climate data, is wrong, and is a lone crank against the rest of the community who actually do that work. You cite him and call yourself a skeptic?
I challenge you to find someone else who says what he says, who doesn’t simply cite him as an authority. Just one independent researcher who comes to similar conclusions he does.
Good luck.
barry…”Jarowoski has never drilled an ice core for climate data, is wrong, and is a lone crank against the rest of the community who actually do that work”.
That really answers my question with objective science.
Did you find any other researcher with actual experience of what he is critiquing that agrees with him?
How objective are you? Do you hold fast to Jarowoski without question or do you apply real skepticism and see if his opinions are borne out?
Why do you highlight one guy over the rest of the community whop have actually done ice core drilling for climate research? Convenience? Or did you spend any effort to satisfy yourself that his unique views are sound?
Obama says, March 10, 2017 at 12:54 AM:
It can’t. And it doesn’t. ‘Climate change’ is all natural, don’t you worry.
When will we get real skeptics who make conservative, qualified statements?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-version-6-dataset-paper-published-online/#comment-239854
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-version-6-dataset-paper-published-online/#comment-239855
Are those meant to be examples of cautious and qualified remarks? Or are you so sure of your conclusions that there is no uncertainty to mention?
Do you even understand what these data are telling us, barry? You can check out the uncertainty of ERBS, CERES and UAH for yourself …
You say we have evidence that CO2 does cause global warming. Where’s your cautious and qualified remarks about that …?
Testing for radiative changes while accounting for clouds and insolation is fraught with difficulties. Capturing cloud cover from satellites has proven to be particularly difficult and and comes with a large uncertainty estimate.
Capturing the optical properties of CO2 in the lab is a far more deterministic enterprise. Observing heat changes in a volume of air from CO2 increase is also robust under lab conditions.
Observing changes in OLR in the wavelengths associated with only CO2 is tricky (for some of the same reasons that ASR estimates are difficult). Early attempts were of short duration and extrapolation to long-term changes was non-viable. As the records grew longer that uncertainty diminished, and we see what is expected from enhanced ‘Greenhouse’. Some caveats apply regarding intersatellite calibration and instrument/satellite degradation.
Do you think I’ve caveated sufficiently? Why do your remarks lack such caveats?
barry,
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/barry.png
Kristian says:
“How can such a teeny tiny amount of CO2 drive climate change?
It cant. And it doesnt.”
Real world measurements disagree:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Real-world measurements easily show that it doesn’t:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/tlt-vs-olr-trend.png
CO2 blocks–today–roughly 10% of the earth’s power spectrum in the transmission window left by water vapor (and other less important molecules.) It’s not an insignificant amount. You can calculate it yourself as the missing area fraction due to CO2 in the observed spectrum:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/MODA.jpg
By the way, this is really basic, Wikipedia-level stuff. If you haven’t educated yourself to the extent of knowing the basic theory, you have no business arguing the merits of AGW theory. You are arguing at the level of tribal affiliations.
At this level, it’s HS physics level. Learn it.
PPS: to be fair, the same holds for people making comparisons to arsenic and hydrogen sulfide. Guys, the actual facts work a whole lot better than unsupported analogy. Learn it. Wikipedia really does have a number of good articles on the subject, starting with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Pete Mack…”to be fair, the same holds for people making comparisons to arsenic and hydrogen sulfide…”
If you are going to use thought experiments like that, would it not make sense to find out how arsenic, H2S, and Barry’s LSD work? What does the effect of arsenic on the human body have to do with CO2 warming the atmosphere? Neither process has anything in common.
LSD affects tiny receptors in a small part of the brain. It doesn’t take much in a relative sense. However, heat in the atmosphere is proportional to the number of molecules and their energy levels. Heat is the average kinetic energy of atoms in general.
When gases are mixed, the pressure of the gas can be calculated for partial pressures of each gas. Dalton’s Law states that the total pressure of gases in a container is the sum of the partial pressures contributed by each gas.
Another equation that is similar suggests that Vx/Vt = Px/Pt = Nx/Nt
In words, the partial volume of one gas divided by the total volume of all gases equals the partial pressure of one gas divided by the total pressure of all gases which equals the partial number of atoms of one gas divided by the total number of atoms of all gases.
Since temperature is related to volume, pressure, and the number of atoms in an ideal gas by PV=nRT (n = number of atoms, R is a gas constant), then it stands to reason that the contribution of warming to the atmosphere by CO2 at 0.04% is insignificant compared to the 99% contributed by N2 and O2 combined.
I think the anthropogenic theory, based purely on radiation, has done a great disservice to science by taking a general gas problem and turning it into a myopic view of gases.
Then again, most people studying the anthropogenic problem come from backgrounds in math (Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS), computer science, astronomy (James Hansen, NASA GISS), geology (Michael Mann), etc. Their understanding of basic physics and chemistry seems to be lacking.
None of them seem to care it seems far more important to them to spread the propaganda that we are headed for climate gloom and doom.
What does the effect of arsenic on the human body have to do with CO2 warming the atmosphere? Neither process has anything in common.
All you had to do was read my original post without blinkers. Where I said:
“Does this prove anything about CO2 in the atmos? Of course not.
But it should clear up any misconception that tiny amounts must inevitably have small impacts.”
Even children understand what an analogy is.
barry…”But it should clear up any misconception that tiny amounts [of CO2] must inevitably have small impacts”
If you understand that why are you supporting a theory in which ACO2 is given an impact on warming by modelers from 9% – 25%? The IPCC claimed ACO2 is only a few percent of natural CO2, based on 390 ppmv.
In fact, if you understand it, why are you not skeptical of both the GHE and AWG theories?
I think you need to re-assess your position, cobber.
You’re making the same, qualitative statement. Paraphrased: “Small amounts can’t have a significant impact.” That’s simply not true.
Rhetoric like that doesn’t convince. Quantitative analysis is what’s needed.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The IPCC claimed ACO2 is only a few percent of natural CO2, based on 390 ppmv.”
Wrong.
Gordon Robertson says:
“In fact, if you understand it, why are you not skeptical of both the GHE and AWG theories?”
Does the atmosphere store heat?
Then there is a greenhouse effect.
Q.E.D.
barry… “But it should clear up any misconception that tiny amounts [of CO2] must inevitably have small impacts”
If you understand that why are you supporting a theory in which ACO2 is given an impact on warming by modelers from 9% 25%? The IPCC claimed ACO2 is only a few percent of natural CO2, based on 390 ppmv.
1) The logic makes no sense here. I’ve said above that small amounts can have large impacts.
2) 9-25% is the figure for the contribution of total atmospheric CO2 to the GE, not anthropogenic.
3) Anthro contribution to total CO2 is 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
4) If global water vapour concentration were to increase the percentage CO2 to GHE may very well stay the same (9-25%), even if surface temperatures rise in response.
Fixed formatting error:
barry… “But it should clear up any misconception that tiny amounts [of CO2] must inevitably have small impacts”
Gordon… “If you understand that why are you supporting a theory in which ACO2 is given an impact on warming by modelers from 9% 25%? The IPCC claimed ACO2 is only a few percent of natural CO2, based on 390 ppmv.”
1) The logic makes no sense here. Ive said above that small amounts can have large impacts.
2) 9-25% is the figure for the contribution of total atmospheric CO2 to the GE, not anthropogenic.
3) Anthro contribution to total CO2 is 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution (280 –> 400ppm)
4) If global water vapour concentration were to increase the percentage total CO2 to GHE may very well stay the same (9-25%), even if surface temperatures rise in response.
Pete Mack…”CO2 blockstodayroughly 10% of the earths power spectrum in the transmission window left by water vapor…”
Since the water vapour spectrum overlies the CO2 spectrum, that’s a neat trick. [sarc off}.
Another arm chair expert.
How many scientific papers have you read in your life ?
How many did you understand?
dr no…”How many scientific papers have you read in your life ?”
Is that specified in the scientific method, that you have to read papers to do science? Is peer review a requirement of the scientific method?
I wonder which papers Newton read before he developed his theories on gravity and calculus? Oh, I forgot, he invented those theories, he’d have no papers to read that could explain his theories.
I’m into applied science. We do the science rather than talking about it. If you don’t understand the science you can’t apply it.
Of course, theorists like you read all the papers, call for peer review, and don’t know the first thing you are talking about. That’s plain in your responses to these posts.
I visualize you alarmists sitting in the first pew at the Church of Climate Alarm, in your best bib and tucker, receiving lectures from your authority figures like James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and their main man over at skepticalscience, John Cook.
“I wonder which papers Newton read before he developed his theories on gravity and calculus?”
Comparing ourselves to Newton are we?
Please forgive me, I didn’t realise you were such a genius.
Go back to bed and dream on.
Dr. No,
GR was not comparing himself to Newton but for you to misread and say he did indicates much about you. For instance, an inability to comprehend what you read. So when you say you have read some paper I suspect you know the words, but not what the paper says.
See how that works?
Lewis
dr no…”How many scientific papers have you read in your life ? How many did you understand?”
How many are there?
Linus Pauling, regarded as one of the best researchers in chemistry of all time, once claimed that a double blind study was not required when an outcome was obvious. Along the same thinking, I don’t see why we need so many papers on AGW when it is apparent they are all wrong.
No point in me reading drivel.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Along the same thinking, I dont see why we need so many papers on AGW when it is apparent they are all wrong.”
Why is this apparent, Einstein?
You aren’t even trying to understand my argument.
Just LOOK at the spectrum I linked. The effect of CO2 is obvious. Also, look up ‘IR transmission window.’ Any calculation has to be done relative to that window.
“…roughly 10% of the earths power spectrum in the transmission window left by water vapor…”
Totally beside the point. This gives you a secant line. It does not tell you the tangent. It does not give you the aggregate incremental sensitivity of transmission to additional CO2 concentration.
The function is necessarily concave, and must inflect, at some point, on basic principles. Beyond the inflection point, the sensitivity is negative. We do not know where we are on that curve, but the evidence indicates we are near the inflection point.
“…the evidence indicates we are near the inflection point.”
What evidence indicates that?
Pete Mack…”You can calculate it yourself as the missing area fraction due to CO2 in the observed spectrum:”
You can calculate all you want, science requires measurement and data. Where’s the data that confirms CO2 is warming the atmosphere?
Teeny tiny? Without that teeny tiny 0.02% that was in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution, this planet would be an ice covered ball only a few degrees warmer than Mars. So if that teeny tiny amount of CO2 was doubled, what do you think might happen?
Based on historical data, where concentration has been as high as 18X what it is today with comparable temperatures, very little.
This shows how much carbon we could put in the atmosphere, if we could not care less.
Very dangerous at this level of solar insolation.
18x ? Not since humans have existed. Comparable temperatures? How comparable? Do you have a citation?
“Not since humans have existed.”
Are you then a Creationist, who believes humans sprang from the dust about 6000 years ago?
Bart,
Homo sapiens arose about 200 thousand, not 200 million, years ago. You still haven’t provided any source showing that temperatures were comparable at 7200 ppm atmospheric CO2 or when this occurred.
Slipstick says:
“18x ? Not since humans have existed. Comparable temperatures? How comparable? Do you have a citation?”
Swart and Weaver, Nature Climate Change (Feb 2012).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n3/full/nclimate1421.html
They find a total fossil fuel resource base of 12,500 Pg carbon (petagrams), which if all burned would lead to 10-33 C of warming.
PS: Humans have emitted about 600 Gt carbon so far, so
12,500/600 ~= 21
(1 Pg carbon = 1 Gt carbon)
SS: Earth’s temperature has certainly been higher in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
when CO2 was higher, even though the Sun was weaker. We’re at a relative low point right now, not in small part because global atmospheric CO2 is relatively low.
CO2 levels were higher than today when Nakalipithecus roamed.
… roamed about 9 million years before humans existed.
Lest anyone wonder about the context, this is the quote that set it.
“Not since humans have existed.”
What is “human”? Homo Sapiens is a rather constrained definition. The meme is that conditions were somehow different when humans evolved. Where do you place the starting point? The line goes all the way back to the first eukaryote.
Obama says:
“1) CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Most of this CO2 is very, very necessary. A small portion of this CO2 is man-caused. The rest is natural. How can such a teeny tiny amount of CO2 drive climate change?”
What keeps you from studying the science, like the rest of us have to do?
Are you blind? Can’t read? Kept caged in a dungeon?
David,
I know it’s hard for you, but do try to keep your undesirable snark in hand.
You’re not very good at it and it detracts from your ‘fake?’ physics degree.
Another Lewis reply with no science whatsoever.
His speciality.
David,
I have never pretended to be a scientist, unlike you, just a businessman who comes here to read, observe the changing temperature and learn.
When someone, like you, who pretends to be a scientist, goes on continually with belittling remarks, none of which are scientific (or do you have citations for your snark) then I feel invited to join in.
Since you can’t keep up and would rather me not comment, I suggest you stick solely to science.
Lewis
Typical Lewis — left sputtering ad hom insults.
Learn some science, man.
Obama says:
“How can such a teeny tiny amount of CO2 drive climate change?”
What effort have you made to understand this for yourself?
Obama,
CO2, as you probably know, is the main non-condensable GHG. In its absence most water would be condensed, and the earth would be quite frozen.
Hence that teeny .04% CO2 does an awful lot.
‘A small portion is man-caused’ The increase since 1800 is .012 % on top of natural .028%. You consider the increase of .012/.028 = 43% to be a small part?
I am Enrique, from Jaime I University, Castellon, Spain. I have been able to download your article without problem.
Thanks
Welcome.
Congratulations to Spencer, Christy and Braswell!
And might I pitch in with a solid piece of real-world (observational) corroborating evidence in strong support of the validity of the new dataset (UAHv6.0), the top of atmosphere outgoing long-wave flux (OLR). OLR, Earth’s final heat loss to space, is, after all, mainly a simple radiative effect of tropospheric temps, and so would be expected to track them closely over time.
With that in mind, here’s UAHv6 tropical TLT vs. the combined ERBS Ed3_Rev1 + CERES EBAF Ed4 tropical OLR data (W/m^2 converted to K via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation), from 1985 to 2015 (2016):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/uah-vs-erbsceres-20n-20s.png
March 15 shown powerful blockade of circulation over the Canadian Arctic.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00879/i49jmvozeksk.png
That’s hilarious, since today is only March 10th.
Just as hilarious and absurd as fake IPCC climate projections to the year 2100.
What’s wrong with the projections, specifically?
David,
It’s hard to explain to someone who does not understand science. Read up on falsifiability and the scientific method.
It is pure speculation that CO2 is adding any net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere. Negative feedbacks could be negating all of any such warming. You can’t say one way or the other.
One thing we *can* say is there is no sign of any extra warming in the Earth’s atmosphere that we can attribute to CO2.
The 1930’s was as hot or hotter than today, and the period from 1910 to 1940 had the same amount of warming as the period from 1978 to today, yet we don’t attribute the warming from 1910 to 1940, to CO2, so why should we attribute the current warming to CO2? Answer: We shouldn’t, because there is no evidence on which to base such a claim. Speculation is not evidence.
TA says:
“It is pure speculation that CO2 is adding any net heat to the Earths atmosphere.”
Another one.
What prevents you from reading the science? I mean the hard core science of radiative transfer, not a headline in the Drudge Report.
I read the science. I don’t see any evidence that humans are causing the climate to change from burning fossil fuels. If you have such evidence, please provide it and I’ll shut up.
Here you will be provided with theory.
The only proof you will get will be statistical relationships and an effort to outtalk you.
I suggest reading some of Dr. Spencer’s other links, found on his homepage, for a basic understanding.
You will find he is fairly objective and open to new facts.
“Here you will be provided with theory.
The only proof you will get will be statistical relationships and an effort to outtalk you.”
I figured as much. Lots of handwaving. And namecalling. Who needs that?
I notice no evidence was provided showing humans are causing the climate to change. I wasn’t expecting to see any, btw, because there isn’t any.
I’ve been “reading the science” since the time climate scientists were worrying about global cooling, before they started worrying about global warming, when the trend changed, and I haven’t seeen one firm bit of evidence that humans are causing the climate to change in all that time, up to and including today.
Still waiting on the evidence. I’m beginning to think there isn’t any.
TA says:
“I notice no evidence was provided showing humans are causing the climate to change.”
Besides the shipload of indirect evidence scientists recognized over a century ago, there’s this:
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Appell,
You’ve been told this before, but here goes again …
For actual evidence of an “enhanced GHE” causing ‘global warming’ you need to provide:
1) GLOBAL data (or at least data from full 20N-20S, 40N-40S or 60N-60S bands), not data from a couple of local sites.
2) TOTAL radiation flux data, not just from one narrow sliver of the entire spectrum.
3) ALL-SKY data, not clear-sky. Clouds are part of the real world.
4) Data showing how increased “radiative forcing” is actually a cause of net warming of the surface (and/or troposphere), meaning a tight and consistent lead-lag relationship, like with “dSun-dT” and “dENSO-dT”.
Not one of your links provide any of this. And so are all useless.
“Besides the shipload of indirect evidence scientists recognized over a century ago, theres this:”
And what climate changes has this caused? Demonstrate how today is different from say the decade of the 1930’s. That’s actually not a fair comparison since the 1930’s was hotter than today, and had much more extreme weather than we are having today.
According to Hansen’s 1999 U.S. temperature chart, the 1930’s was 0.5C hotter than 1998, which makes it hotter than 2016, too.
Here’s a comparison of the U.S temperature charts and the bastardized global surface temperature charts:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-06-at-6.41.34-AM.gif
Of course, it will be said that the U.S. temperature chart does not represent the entire globe, but I would contend that the U.S. temperature chart is the proper temperature profile for the globe and is much more representative of the true temperature profile, than the surface temperature chart, which is garbage created by CAGW promoters to scare people and get money and fame.
All you have to do is examine unaltered temperature charts from around the globe and you will see their temperature profile is very close to Hansen’s 1999 U.S. temperature chart, and have no resemblence at all to the bastardized surface temperature charts.
There has been no human-caused global warming/climate change. It was hotter in the 1930’s with less CO2 in the atmosphere. Now we have lots of CO2 in the atmosphere, but we are not even as hot as the 1930’s, and the weather isn’t extreme like in the 1930’s, it is exceptionally mild instead.
I repeat, there is no evidence that humans are heating up the atmosphere and causing the climate to do things it wouldn’t ordinarily do, radiative forcings or no radiative forcings.
Why would 2% of the Earth’s surface area be representative of the whole globe?
Why do you say the US temp record is the best metric? Why not England (longer temp record) or France, or Germany, or Australia?
For the UAH satellite record (1979-2017), the USA has warmed faster than the globe.
In fact, the rate of change for the US is comparable to the surface data over the same period. While UAH global trend is the lowest out there (comparable to RSS satellite record).
You reckon we should abandon the satellite global record and focus exclusively on the US for what is really happening to the globe?
Obama, the 2007 IPCC has projections grouped by country. You can look up America specifically in one chapter. That should make it very easy for you.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11.html
Read the whole section on the US. It’s not too long, and will give you insight beyond your questions, which will be useful in a discussion.
The US publishes a National Climate Assessment every few years:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
The National Climate Assessment is one of the worst use of tax money that I have ever seen. It is full of misrepresentation, misdirection, and deception. It uses every trick that I teach my statistics class to be on the lookout for. it is disgraceful that the government funds such a product.
No evidence given.
I think that one will not answer his specific questions, which are about what may happen in the US by about 2050 or so. A quick browse indicated that projections were for end of century.
He actually said in the next 50 years.
What a shame reports aren’t written specifically to his orders.
From barry’s IPCC 2007 link, re temperatures:
“All of North America is very likely to warm during this century, and the annual mean warming is likely to exceed the global mean warming in most areas.”
Rate of TLT warming globally since 2001 is 0.09 C/dec; lower 48 US states the rate is 0.19 C/dec over the same period (source: UAH, TLT v.6).
Too short a period to draw any conclusions but so far IPCC forecast looking realistic.
TFN
Good.
Warmer is better.
Why?
Where is the effing ignore button?
Because the snow and ice preclude my garden from growing. More importantly if interferes with farmers doing what they do and, if it continues, will cause massive starvation.
It that enough for you David?
Or are you so obtuse you need a 5′ snowdrift in July to explain it to you. (rhetorical question)
So all you care about is what’s good for you.
Do you feel any ethical concerns or obligations towards other people on the planet or people living here for the next 100,000 years?
Why start the trend in 2001, less than half the record, if it’s “Too short a period to draw any conclusions?”
Full period for UAHv6, the lowest trend of all global data sets, Jan 1979 to Dec 2016*.
Global trend = 0.12 C/decade
USA48 trend = 0.16 C/decade
That’s directly from the UAH data. And you can see the comparative trend results for the full record at UAH itself [Link]. Bottom of the page gives the global and regional trends.
* Used only complete calendar year averages to reduce autocorrelation. Regardless, results match those given at the UAHv6 page.
barry says:
“Why start the trend in 2001, less than half the record, if its Too short a period to draw any conclusions?”
The IPCC 2007 report explicitly refers to warming “during this century” (as quoted). ‘This century’ began in January 2001, did it not? Hence the trend I quoted starts in January 2001.
TFN
What’s the full quote?
I doubt it applies to the issue at hand. (US temps/global)
It’s a decent rule of thumb that land temperatures are rising about 50% higher than the global mean surface temperatures.
So 2 C of global warming will bring 5-6 F of USA48 warming.
I hope Lewis can arrange to follow his garden northward.
Dr. Spencer,
What effect has the decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere had on calculating temperatures? Looking at the decline in oxygen levels since before satellite era (http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/) I could make the claim that your measurements are biased cool because there are fewer atoms of oxygen in the air to derive your measurements from unless you have factored in this change since the beginning of the satellite record.
This is a very good question.
I hope you get a reply.
14 and 15 March the heavy snow in the Northeast USA.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/03/16/1200Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-104.93,47.24,786
The California Department of Water Resources is advising the public of increased outflows to the Feather River near the Oroville Dam, the state agency announced Saturday.
Waterflow is expected to rise from 11,000 to 13,000 cubic feet per second beginning Saturday afternoon, with additional releases expected for the following week. The increase has prompted DWR officials to advise members of the public to steer clear of the waterway.
The department has been releasing water to the damaged Feather River through the Thermalito Diversion Dam and the Thermalito Afterbay River Outlet to meet environmental requirements.
Lake Orville is currently at an elevation of 850.5 feet, with inflows at about 12,000 to 18,000 cubic feet per second into Lake Oroville in the past 24 hours, a DWR press release said.
Crews have worked around the clock to clear the approximately 897,000 cubic yards of sediment and debris clogged in the Feather River underneath the Oroville Dams fractured spillway, DWR said.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article137967178.html
In the central Arctic ice extent has increased and is at the level of 2013.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
ren,
You linked to the wrong file.
Here is the whole region.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_Hemisphere_ts_4km.png
Looks to me like it’s a statistical tie for a new record low.
Just an honest mistake I’m sure.
Check carefully.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_Hemisphere_ts_4km.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
ren’s comment is correct for the Central Arctic, but ignores the whole Arctic, which is currently at record lows currently for the time of year.
Why he prefers the Central Arctic is puzzling. One could choose a number of different Arctic regions and get different results, some at record lows, some not. Obviously the whole Arctic is going to give a clearer picture.
According to NOAA data, total Arctic sea ice extent for yesterday, 3/11, was the lowest in their records for that date.
data source:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/N_seaice_extent_daily_v2.1.csv
But not in the Central Arctic.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
For sure it is not in the Canadian Arctic.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r09_Canadian_Archipelago_ts_4km.png
Why are you emphasising these regions? And why are you not also pointing out the regions with record low sea ice concentrations for this time of year? What explains your bias towards certain regions and not others, or indeed the whole Arctic?
Some regions are more sensitive to transient phenomena of winds and currents. Multiyear ice has been increasing for many years now.
Lock ozone in the Arctic will extend the winter in the northern hemisphere.
http://199.212.19.52/tmp/fk-4-n-to-e-1817000954tk20170314.gif
On a completely unrelated topic, the following article would be truly great news . . . if true.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/12/merkels-lead-minister-announces-germany-ready-to-give-up-leadership-role-against-climate-change/#sthash.677SWte8.QBxWZq2E.dpbs
Years ago, I told my financial advisor to get out of European stocks because of Europe’s obsessive paranoia with climate change. since that time, their European stocks are down 11% while their US stocks are up 36%
The FTSE is up 25% in the last five years. The German DAX 6%. The French CAC 39%.
The decision was in May of 2014. The stocks that were in question were NOT indices. They were actual stocks of large companies chosen by my financial advisor’s firm.
If I had a lot of time, I could cherry pick start and end points to prove a lot of things. But reality is more important to me.
Please more of CO2?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00880/g79ejfj5rpb8.png
“Winters revenge shows no signs of releasing its grip on the eastern United States as widespread, bitter cold will follow the early week major noreaster.
Winter will hold a tight grip on the Northeast in wake of the significant snowstorm early this week, AccuWeather Meteorologist Max Vido said.
A fresh blast of arctic air will plunge southward in the wake of the noreaster, encompassing nearly the entire eastern half of the nation by midweek.”
Very low speed solar wind. The jet stream will wave strongly over North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00880/386lokxno1d6.gif
California’s superbloom: wildflowers in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Elizabeth Keatinge (@elizkeatinge) has more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdAO-EUrXOY
Is California’s raining?
http://www.weatherplaza.com/en-US/radar?region=NAM-SOW
Dr. Spencer, tell your editors that the verb in line 57 should be “relates,” not “relate.” The subject of that sentence is “temperature” (singular), not “layers.”
You revise the method to decrease the warming rate, RSS revises their method to increase the warming rate. How convenient; everyone gets results they want, all peer reviewed. This is a big red flag: until now my rule of the thumb was – believe nothing to NASA, NOA, Cru because they revise their data every three weeks, always in desired direction and believe RSS and UAH because they do not, and their data sometimes go against the theoretical assumptions of scientists involved about what the date should look like. Not anymore.
“Not anymore.”
Never was
Normal link would not go through. Will try a tiny URL to the sight.
https://tinyurl.com/lqs6wcz