Biased Media Reporting on the New Santer et al. Study Regarding Satellite Tropospheric Temperature Trends

June 9th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Executive Summary
A new paper by Santer et al. in Journal of Climate shows that observed trends during 1988-2019 in sea surface temperature [SST], tropospheric temperature [TLT and TMT], and total tropospheric water vapor [TWV] are generally inconsistent, by varying amounts, with climate model trends over the same period. The study uses ratios between observed trends in these variables to explore how well the ratios match model expectations, with the presumption that the models provide “truth” in such comparisons. Special emphasis is placed on the inconsistency between TWV moistening rates and the satellite tropospheric temperature warming rates: the total water vapor has risen faster than one would expect for the weak rate of satellite-observed tropospheric warming (but both are still less than the average climate model trends in either CMIP5 or CMIP6).

While the paper itself does not single out the tropospheric temperatures as being in error, widespread reporting of the paper used the same biased headline, for instance this from DailyMail.com: “Satellites may have been underestimating the planet’s warming for decades”. The reporting largely ignored the bulk of what was in the paper, which was much less critical of the satellite temperature trends, and which should have been more newsworthy. For example: (1) SST warming is shown in the paper to be well below climate model expectations from both CMIP5 and CMIP6, which one might expect could have been a major conclusion; (2) the possibility that the satellite-based TWV is rising too rapidly (admitted in the paper, and addressed below), and especially (3) the possibility that TWV is not a good proxy anyway for mid- and upper-tropospheric warming (discussed below).

As others have shown, free-tropospheric vapor (not well captured by TWV) would be the proper proxy for free-tropospheric warming, and the fact that climate models maintain constant relative humidity with altitude during warming is not based upon basic physical processes (as the authors imply), but instead upon arbitrary moistening assumptions implicit in model convective parameterizations. Observational evidence is shown that free-tropospheric humidity does not increase with tropospheric temperature as much as in the GFDL climate model. Thus, weak tropospheric warming measured by satellites could be evidence of weak water vapor feedback in the free troposphere, which in turn could explain the weaker than (model) expected surface warming. A potential reason for a high bias in TWV trends is also addressed, which is consistent with the other variables’ trend behavior.

Evidence Presented in Santer et al. (2021)
I’ve been asked by several people to comment on a new paper in Journal of Climate by Santer et al. (Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations) that has as one of its conclusions the possibility that satellite-based warming estimates of tropospheric temperature might be too low. Based upon my initial examination of the paper, I conclude that there is nothing new in the paper that would cast doubt on the modest nature of tropospheric warming trends from satellites — unless one believes climate models as proof, in which case we don’t need observations anyway.

The new study focuses on the period 1988-2019 so that total integrated water vapor retrievals over the ocean from the SSM/I and SSMIS satellite-based instruments can be used. Recent surface and tropospheric warming has indeed been accompanied by increasing water vapor in the troposphere, and the quantitative relationship between temperature and vapor is used by the authors as a guide to help determine whether the tropospheric warming rates from satellites have been unrealistically low.

Most of the pertinent conclusions in the new paper come from their Fig. 9, which I have annotated for clarity in Fig. 1, below.

Fig. 1. Adapted from Santer et al. (2021), comparison plots of tropical trends (1988-2019) in total integrated water vapor, sea surface temperature, and tropospheric temperature, in climate models versus observations. Note in (A) and (D) the sea surface temperature trends are well below the average model trends, which curiously was not part of the media-reported results. These plots show that in all four of the properties chosen for analysis (SST, TLT, TMT, and TWV) the observed trends are below the average climate model trends (the latter of which determine global policy responses to anthropogenic GHG emissions). The fact the observations fall off of the model-based regression lines is (as discussed below) due to some combination of errors in the observations and errors in the climate model assumptions.

The Problem with Using Integrated Water Vapor Increases as a Proxy for Tropospheric Warming
A central conclusion of the paper is that total integrated water vapor has been rising more rapidly than SST trends suggest, while tropospheric temperature has been rising less rapidly (assuming the models are correct that SST warming should be significantly amplified in the troposphere). This pushes the observations away from the climate model-based regression lines in Fig. 1a, 1b, and 1b.

The trouble with using TWV moistening as a proxy for tropospheric warming is that while TWV is indeed strongly coupled to SST warming, how well it is coupled to free-tropospheric (above the boundary layer) warming in nature is very uncertain. TWV is dominated by boundary layer water vapor, while it is mid- to upper-tropospheric warming (and thus in the TMT satellite measurements) which is strongly related to how much the humidity increases at these high altitudes (Po-Chedley et al., 2018).

This high-altitude region is not well represented in TWV retrievals. Satellite based retrievals of TWV use the relatively weak water vapor line near 22 GHz, and so are mainly sensitive to the water vapor in the lowest layer of the atmosphere.

Furthermore, these retrievals are dependent upon an assumptions regarding the profile shape of water vapor in the atmosphere. If global warming is accompanied by a preferential moistening of the lower troposphere (due to increased surface evaporation) and a thickening of the moist boundary layer, the exceedingly important free-tropospheric humidity increase might not be as strong as is assumed in these retrievals, which are based upon regional profile differences over different sea surface temperature regimes.

As shown by Spencer & Braswell (1997) and others, the ability of the climate system to cool to outer space is strongly dependent upon humidity changes in the upper troposphere during warming (see Fig. 2). The upper troposphere has very low levels of water vapor in both relative and absolute terms, yet these low amounts of vapor in the upper 75% of the troposphere have a dominating control on cooling to outer space.

Fig. 2. Adapted from Spencer & Braswell, 1997: The rate of humidity increases in the free troposphere (above the boundary layer) with long-term surface warming can dominate water vapor feedback, and thus free-tropospheric warming (e.g. from satellite-based TMT), as well as surface warming. The precipitation processes which govern the humidity in this region (and especially how they change with warming) are very uncertain and only crudely handled in climate models.

As indicated in Fig. 2, water vapor in the lowest levels of the troposphere is largely controlled by surface evaporation. If the surface warms, increasing evaporation moistens the boundary layer, and constant relative humidity is a pretty good rule of thumb there. But in the mid- and upper- troposphere, detrained air from precipitation systems largely determines humidity. The fraction of condensed water vapor that is removed by precipitation determines how much is left over to moisten the environment. The free-tropospheric air sinking in clear air even thousands of km away from any precipitation systems had its humidity determined when that air ascended in those precipitation systems, days to weeks before. As demonstrated by Renno, Emanuel, and Stone (1994) with a model containing an explicit atmospheric hydrologic cycle, precipitation efficiency determines whether the climate is cool or warm, through its control on the main greenhouse gas, water vapor.

Importantly, we do not know how precipitation efficiency changes with warming, therefore we don’t know how strong water vapor feedback is in the real climate system. We know that tropical rain systems are more efficient than higher latitude systems (as many of us know anecdotally from visiting the tropics, where even shallow clouds can produce torrential rainfall). It is entirely reasonable to expect that global warming will be accompanied by an increase in precipitation efficiency, and recent research is starting to support this view (e.g. Lutsko and Cronin, 2018). This would mean that free-tropospheric absolute (specific) humidity might not increase as much as climate models assume, leading to less surface warming (as is observed) and less tropospheric amplification of surface warming (as is observed).

Because climate models do not yet include the precipitation microphysics governing precipitation efficiency changes with warming, the models’ behavior regarding temperature versus humidity in the free troposphere should not be used as “truth” when evaluating observations.

While climate models tend to maintain constant relative humidity throughout the troposphere during warming, thus causing strong positive water vapor feedback (e.g. Soden and Held, 2006) and so resulting in strong surface warming and even stronger tropospheric warming, there are difference between models in this respect. In the CMIP5 models analyzed by Po-Chedley et al. (2018, their Fig. 1a) there is a factor of 3 variation in the lapse rate feedback across models, which is a direct measure of how much tropospheric amplification there is of surface warming (the so-called “hotspot”). That amplification is, in turn, directly related (they get r = -0.85) to how much extra water vapor is detrained into the free troposphere (also in their Fig. 1a).

What Happens To Free Tropospheric Humidity in the Real World?
In the real world, it is not clear that free-tropospheric water vapor maintains constant relative humidity with warming (which would result in strong surface warming, and even stronger tropospheric warming). We do not have good long-term measurements of free-tropospheric water vapor changes on a global basis.

Some researchers have argued that seasonal and regional relationships can be used to deduce water vapor feedback, but this seems unlikely. How the whole system changes with warming over time is not so certain.

For example, if we use satellite measurements near 183 GHz (e.g. available from the NOAA AMSU-B instruments since late 1998), which are very sensitive to upper tropospheric vapor, we find in the tropics that tropospheric temperature and humidity changes over time appear to be quite different in satellite observations versus the GFDL climate model (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Zonal averages of gridpoint regression coefficients between monthly anomalies in 183.3 GHz TB and TMT during 2005-2015 in observations (blue) and in two GFDL climate models (red and orange), indicating precipitation systems in the real world dry out the free troposphere with warming more than occurs in climate models, potentially reducing positive water vapor feedback and thus global warming.

More details regarding the results in Fig. 3. can be found here.

Possible Biases in Satellite-Retrieved Water Vapor Trends
While satellite retrievals of TWV are known to be quite accurate when compared to radiosondes, subtle changes in the vertical profile of water vapor during global warming can potentially cause biases in the TWV trends. The Santer et al. (2021) study mentions the possibility that the total vertically-integrated atmospheric water vapor trends provided by satellites since mid-1987 might be too high, but does not address any reasons why.

This is an issue I have been concerned about for many years because the TWV trend since 1988 (only retrievable over the ocean) has been rising faster than we would expect based upon sea surface temperature (SST) warming trends combined with the assumption of constant relative humidity throughout the depth of the troposphere (see Fig. 1a, 1b, 1c above).

How might such a retrieval bias occur? Retrieved TWV is proportional to warming of a passive microwave Tb near the weak 22.235 GHz water vapor absorption line over the radiometrically-cold (reflective) ocean surface. As such, it depends upon the temperature at which the water vapor is emitting microwave radiation.

TWV retrieval depends upon assumed shapes of the vertical profile of water vapor in the troposphere, that is, what altitudes and thus what temperatures the water vapor is emitting at. These assumed vertical profile shapes are based upon radiosonde (weather balloon) data from different regions and different seasons having different underlying sea surface temperatures. But these regionally- and seasonally-based shape variations might not reflect shape changes during warming. If the vast majority of the moistening with long-term warming occurs in the boundary layer (see Fig. 2 above, below 800 hPa pressure altitude), with maybe slight thickening of the boundary layer, but the upper troposphere experiences little moistening, then the retrieved TWV could be biased high because the extra water vapor is emitting microwave radiation from a lower (and thus warmer) altitude than is assumed by the retrieval. This will lead to a high bias in retrieved water vapor over time as the climate system warms and moistens. As the NASA AMSR-E Science Team leader, I asked the developer of the TWV retrieval algorithm about this possibility several years ago, but never received a response.

The New Santer at al. Study Ignores Radiosonde Evidence Supporting Our UAH Satellite Temperatures

As an aside, it is also worth noting that the new study does not even reference our 2018 results (Christy et al., 2018) showing that the most stable radiosonde datasets support the UAH satellite temperature trends.


Conclusion
The new study by Santer et al. does not provide convincing evidence that the satellite measurements of tropospheric temperature trends are unrealistically low, and the media reporting of their study in this regard was biased. Their conclusion (which they admit is equivocal) depends upon the belief in climate models for how upper tropospheric warming relates to increasing total tropospheric water vapor (TWV) amounts. Since TWV does not provide much sensitivity to upper tropospheric water vapor changes, and those changes largely determine how much tropospheric amplification of surface temperature trends will occur (e.g. the “tropical hotspot”), TWV cannot determine whether tropospheric temperature trends are realistic or not.

Furthermore, there is some evidence that the TWV trends are themselves biased high, which the study authors admit is one possible explanation for the trend relationships they have calculated.

The existing observations as presented in the Santer et al. study are largely consistent with the view that global warming is proceeding at a significantly lower rate that is predicted by the latest climate models, and that much of the disagreement between models and observations can be traced to improper assumptions in those models.

Specifically:

1) SST warming has been considerably less that the models predict, especially in the tropics

2) Tropospheric amplification of the surface warming has been weak or non-existent, suggesting weaker positive water vapor feedback in nature than in models

3) Weak water vapor feedback, in turn, helps explain weak SST warming (see [1]).

4) Recent published research (and preliminary evidence shown in Fig. 3, above) support the view that climate model water vapor feedback is too strong, and so current models should not be used to validate observations in this regard.

5) Satellite-based total water vapor trends cannot be used to infer water vapor feedback because they are probably biased high due to vertical profile assumptions and because they probably do not reflect how free-tropospheric water vapor has changed with warming, which has a large impact on water vapor feedback.

REFERENCES


Christy, J. R., R. W. Spencer, W. D. Braswell, and R. Junod, 2018: Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research.
Intl. J. Rem. Sens., DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293

Lutsko, N. J. and T. W. Cronin, 2018: Increase in precipitation efficiency with surface warming in radiative-convective equilibrium. J. of Adv. Model. Earth Sys., DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001482.

Po-Chedley, S., K. C. Armour, C. M. Bitz, M. D. Zelinka, B. D. Santer, and Q. Fu, 2018: Sources of intermodel spread in the lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks. J. Climate, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0674.1.

Renno, N. O., K. A. Emanuel, and P. H. Stone, 1994: Radiative-convective model with an explicit hydrologic cycle: 1. Formulation and sensitivity to model parameters, J. Geophys. Res. – Atmos., DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00020.

Santer, B. D., S. Po-Chedley, C. Mears, J. C. Fyfe, N. Gillett, Q. Fu, J. F. Painter, S. Solomon, A. K. Steiner, F. J. Wentz, M. D. Zelinka, and C.-Z. Zou, 2021: Using climate model simulations to constrain observations. J. Climate, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0768.1

Soden, B. J., and I. M. Held, 2006: An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models. J. Climate, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3799.1.

Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 1997: How dry is the tropical free troposphere? Implications for global warming theory. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 1097-1106.


298 Responses to “Biased Media Reporting on the New Santer et al. Study Regarding Satellite Tropospheric Temperature Trends”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. RW says:

    I would need an advanced degree in all of this to make any assessment, but thanks for the detailed analysis. You obviously put a lot of time into it.

  2. AZ1971 says:

    So once again, we see that bad science based on faulty assumptions continue to be promoted as evidence the data is somehow wrong because it disagrees with a programmer’s input for a desired outcome. Colour me shocked!

    • barry says:

      That wasn’t what the paper said, and Dr Spencer is crticising media reports of it.

      The paper doesn’t take the models as gospel, it says if the model results are sound, then x or y.

      “If model expectations of these four covariance relationships are realistic, our findings reflect either a systematic low bias in satellite tropospheric temperature trends or an overestimate of the observed atmospheric moistening signal. It is currently difficult to determine which interpretation is more credible.”

      Though the full paper is not available, it’s easy enough to read the available abstract linked in Dr Spencer’s post and see this.

      • Nate says:

        Also, there are different data sets out there that don’t agree with each other. Thus at least some of the data sets have biases (are inaccurate). The paper is trying to determine which ones have consistent relationships. Be nice to read the whole paper.

  3. Devils tower says:

    Questions related to subject.

    Where can i find real emmisivity numbers for H2O; gas, liquid, and ice. For estimating IR emmision above cloud tops.

    Same for CO2…

    Relating to evaporation rates, does the climate community have a clue to the long term historical absolute pressure values.

    For example what was the absolute pressure thru the ice age cycles?

    I have never seen a a believable proxy…..

    Regards

  4. Roger Pielke Sr says:

    Roy – I encourage you to submit your analysis for publication in a well recognized peer reviewed journal. We need such critiques.

    On the subject of tropospheric water vapor trends, we done some work on this, although now dated.

    Gill, E.C., T.N Chase, R.A. Pielke Sr, and K. Wolter, 2013: Northern Hemisphere summer temperature and specific humidity anomalies from two reanalyses. J. Geophys. Res., 118, 1–9, DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50635. Copyright (2010) American Geophysical Union. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/r-341.pdf

    Wang, J.-W., K. Wang, R.A. Pielke, J.C. Lin, and T. Matsui, 2008: Towards a robust test on North America warming trend and precipitable water content increase. Geophys. Res. Letts., 35, L18804, doi:10.1029/2008GL034564. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-337.pdf

    See also

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/new-paper-that-further-documents-a-muted-atmospheric-water-vapor-trend-surface-water-vapor-pressure-and-temperature-trends-in-north-america-during-1948-2010-by-isaac-and-van-wijngaarden-2012/

    We are also working on a paper assessing long term trends in reanalysis of surface air moist enthalpy (which, of course, includes both dry bulb T trends and absolute water vapor trends at that level.).

    Best Regards

    Roger

    • RLH says:

      You might also consider (if you have not already) the thermal effects of dew, frost, ice, snow, mist, etc. on the surface and how it effects air temperatures between the surface and 1.5m. (i.e. the lower 3d, 3m layer of air)

      Also the thermal effects of moisture in the air column as that requires energy to change the H2O part of that mixture and thus directly effects the air temperature.

  5. Antti Jarvenpaa says:

    In general, I guess it can be said that the models should be based on empirical measurements. This is at least generally the case for simulations. After all, simulation itself is not a science, but it makes it possible to mirror where reality could lead.

    If the simulation model does not implement empirical measurements, the fault is usually in the model and not in reality.

    • Entropic man says:

      A CMIP5 model run in 2005 includes empirical measurements up to 2005.

      Unfortunately, without a time machine it is hard for a model running in 2005 to incorporate empirical measurements from the period between 2005 and 2021 which hadn’t happened yet.

      Indeed, estimating the value of future measurements was a major reason for running the model.

  6. Thanks for this detailed explanation Roy. As an engineer (with a background in physics) I really appreciate your posting the key findings and expositions that never make it into the media. Please keep up the good work.

  7. captain droll says:

    At last!
    The answer to our prayers!
    Deniers rejoice!
    “The Texas Republican congressman Louie Gohmert has asked a senior US government official if changing the moon’s orbit around the Earth, or the Earth’s orbit around the sun, might be a solution for climate change.”

    • Michael Jackson says:

      If only we could stop the moon rotating that would solve everything.

    • gbaikie says:

      Moving Earth or Moon would be hard to do, but making space sunshade could be fairly easy for congress critters to do.
      But no wants the Earth to be cooler. Because we are in a 34 million year old, Ice Age.
      One could do something in regards to using space environment in order to warm colder regions of Earth. But there is the cargo cult religion who are quite against any warming of Earth.
      The Russians wanted to do it, and congress critter seem to like giving money to Russia- so, could pay {a relatively small amount] to the Russians to encourage them to do it.

      • professor P says:

        huh? Are you ok?

      • Entropic man says:

        An what orbit would you put a palette intended to warm the Arctic but not the tropics? What reflector area would you need? How much would it weigh? How much would it cost?

      • gbaikie says:

        third time the charm:
        A soletta. Hmm. What is a soletta:
        “A magnifying device constructed in space for the purpose of amplifying the solar radiation received by the surface of Mars, in order to aid in the process of Terraforming. Put into place by the transnationals in the start of the 22nd century.”
        https://tinyurl.com/y3vaxnkj
        Kim Stanley Robinson, I don’t read any of his books. But I know some have to do with terraforming Mars. And costing vast amount of money- a I am against these silly ideas.
        Mars is easy to terraform- but it’s so easy, one might not call it terraforming.

        But I guess Kim soletta, magnifying device would at Mars L-1.
        And you could put it a Earth/Sun L-1. But if want to do Russia, you might want to put it a L-1 orbit which favored north Hemisphere of Earth. The orbits in L-1 points, are called Halo orbits:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_orbit
        “Although a Lagrange point is just a point in empty space, its peculiar characteristic is that it can be orbited by a Lissajous orbit or a halo orbit.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_orbit
        What that would look like requires math, I don’t do such math.
        So have to do the math to see how well it would it work, but it would work {it’s possible to do}.
        But if using a reflector, the Russians probably use the orbit they normally use:

        It’s a highly elliptical polar orbit
        Or roughly it spends about 80% of time which can view Russia.
        One can compare it to Geostationary orbits which are constantly over location on Earth, but since at equator, they are at low angle to polar regions. Also GEO needs zero inclination, which takes significant amount delta-v to “get to” from a high latitude launch site [Russian spaceport is 51 degree- which means lowest inclination of a rocket launch is 51 degree orbital inclination. But if go to GTO, or higher {you even go around Moon] one uses less delta-v to change the orbital inclination at the apogee.

    • coturnix says:

      They should get rid of the oceans. I think it is pretty clear to anyone who looked into this topic deep enough, that it is the devilish DHM (dihydrogen monooxide) that creates all the trouble. Without it, the warming due to the rising co2 would be a predictable 0.9*C per doubling, which would also be easily seen and measurable due to the muted natural variability. The dreaded runaway greenhouse, which btw is invevitable with the brightening of the sun, is also entirely due to the unlimited DHM pool. Without the oceans of the DHM gas, it would take such a large increase of co2 that it would kill everything with it’s chemistry way before it kills with the GHE. In fact, it is probably impossible for humans to raise co2 that much even if we tried out best.

      • barry says:

        “The dreaded runaway greenhouse, which btw is invevitable with the brightening of the sun…”

        I think we have a few hundred million years before we need to worry about that.

        Well, that was an educated guess. So I looked it up.

        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/01/earth-wont-die-soon-thought

        • coturnix says:

          Yeah, assuming that the earth-sund distance doesn’t change and the sun brightens very steady and gradually… k, those are quite safe assumptions. But that’s beyond the point, my point was that the earth is in a very necessarily narrow insolation range, breaking those boundaries would lead to a runaway climate change, either freeze-over or or runaway greenhouse (or moist greenhouse at first). The upper limit, beyond which the mghe will become possible is a mere percents away from what we have now, and mind you that simply due to eccentricity the insolation varies by+-3.5% over the course of the year. All that thanks to the dihydrogen monooxide. Not co2, not the sun on its own. perhaps, the safest option is to begin to get rid of the DHMO right now, while we still have a window pf opportunity. Jettison it into space or something.

  8. AaronS says:

    It is absurd to think models would impact data (tail wags dog), but I struggle to understand how thermometer data (eg boat engine corrections) are anything but an example of data bias from model expectations (eg media records of coeval glacial expansion/ recession during raw data that was modified). Fingers crossed UAH and other satellite data maintains credibility to the general public that vote. Worst thing to do is stop sharing truth, this is what European oil companies are doing and the results may be catastrophic. Thanks for providing explanation others can lean on in conversations.

    • barry says:

      Neither the data nor the models are perfect, but there is information to be considered and that’s what the paper does apparently, without concluding anything.

  9. Tim S says:

    If the concern is related to knowing the exact amount of water vapor at different altitudes, is there a way to directly measure water vapor? Could balloons be used in some way with reliable instrumentation? The cost should not be a big issue since this question has become so important.

    • Entropic man says:

      An electronic psychrometer measures water vapour by measuring IR abs-opt-tion.

      Unfortunately they cost 30 each, a bit too dear to add one to each radiosonde.

  10. Stephen P. Anderson says:

    Santer et. al. again. He and Michael Mann are pillars of science.

  11. DMacKenzie says:

    Dr. Roy
    your figure 2 widens and is marked precipitation processes dominate. To me this means clouds dominate. How does this upwelling dOLR/dRH compare to dSWRefl, say in useful units like watts, since cloud albedo can be as high as 0.9. Im pretty sure your answer will be read the 1997 paper, so am thanking you in advance..

  12. RLH says:

    I would be interested to know how much any increased water vapor is present, if any, any what thermal energy was needed to release it.

    That would directly impact air temperatures at the point of release and also effect the thermal capacity of the air containing it.

      • RLH says:

        I know what it is. What I want to know is how much of the Sun’s energy budget goes towards it and how is the subsequent release of it (on condensation or freezing) dealt with in the temperature measurements.

        • Entropic man says:

          Take a look at Earth’s energy budget here.

          https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704

          Earth’s surface receives about 162W/m^2 from sunlight and 340W/m^2 from downwelling radiation, 502W/m^2.

          The surface emits 502 W/m^ of which 80W/m^2 is latent heat of vapourisation from evaporation and transpiration.

          • RLH says:

            And how does that (evaporation/condensation and freezing/melting) effect air temperatures TOA to surface?

          • RLH says:

            Oh, and sensible heat of water vapor between those points.

          • Entropic man says:

            You should has everything you need to calculate the temperature changes.

            Latent heat of vaporization is 2.3*10^6 joules/kg.

            Evaporation from surface is 80W/m^2.

            Specific heat of water is 4200J/kg/C

            That should allow you to calculate the amount of heat leaving the surface per square metre/year and it’s effect on surface temperature.

            90% of that heat is deposited in the condensation layer between 200m and 300m. The specific heat of air is 1005 J/kg/K which should allow you to calculate the warming due to normal cloud formation.

            About 10% of the evaporated heat reaches the tropopause in thunderstorms. Again you should be able to calculate the warming effect.

            Forgive me not doing the calculation myself, but I’ve been playing with my grandson all day and I’m knackered.

          • Entropic man says:

            A very quick mental calculation suggests that a year’s evaporation instantly transferred to th atmosphere would require 2 million joules. It would cool the surface by 0.02C and warm 3,000 cubic metres of atmosphere by 0.3C

            Over a more realistic daily rate 1/356 of the annual rate. That would be surface cooling of 0.0006C and atmospheric warming of 0.0009C.

            You’ll need to check that. I never do my best work when I’m half asleep

          • RLH says:

            Well as clouds, rain, hail, snow, etc. also form part of this mix I rather suspect you are underestimating the effects but….

          • Entropic man says:

            I’m using the 80W figure for evapotranspiration averaged for the whole planetary surface.

            There will be considerable vatiation. Over a desert or ice sheet it will be considerably lower. Over a rain forest it will be considerably lower.

            Over a year an average square metre evaporates about 1kg of water and condenses most of it in the first 3000m of the atmosphere.

            That’s 3g/day or 6000joules/day transferred from the surface to the atmosphere, much less than I’d expected.

          • Entropic man says:

            Curses. Over a rain forest it will be considerably higher.

          • RLH says:

            “As there can be two boundaries for change, solid/liquid and liquid/gas, each material has two specific latent heats:

            latent heat of fusion – the amount of energy needed to freeze or melt the material at its melting point
            latent heat of vaporisation – the amount of energy needed to evaporate or condense the material at its boiling point
            Some typical values for specific latent heat include:

            Substance Specific latent heat of fusion (kJ/kg) Specific latent heat of vaporisation (kJ/kg)
            Water 334 2,260”

            Fusion and vaporisation point latent heat requirements are the same if conversion happens at lower temperatures too. As in most cases in the Earth’s atmosphere they do.

          • RLH says:

            “Specific heat water vapor: 1.996 kJ/kgK =0.4767 Btu(IT)/(lbm F) or kcal/(kg K)”

          • RLH says:

            “Air (Sea level, dry,0 C (273.15 K)): 1.0035 J⋅g−1⋅K−1”

          • coturnix says:

            >>Over a year an average square metre evaporates about 1kg of water and condenses most of it in the first 3000m of the atmosphere.

            actually it is 1000kg of water

          • RLH says:

            What’s a factor of a 1000 between friends

        • gbaikie says:

          Most of Earth evaporation occurs in the Tropics.
          One has about 40,000 ppm of water vapor in tropics and 60% of rest of world has about 3000 ppm of water vapor.
          The tropics get most of the amount of sunlight- 40% of world get more than 50% sunlight and 60% of world gets less than 50% of sunlight.
          Tropics is 80% ocean. Tropics can “control it’s temperature”. Tropical ocean is heat engine of world. Tropical ocean can “give heat to rest of world or dump it into space.
          The tropical ocean can transport more heat via ocean surface waters movement than the atmosphere.
          The tropics stays about the same temperature whether Earth in an Ice Age or Hothouse climate.
          The controlling element of average temperature of 60% of the rest of world is the average temperature of the ocean.
          Our ocean during 34 million years ice age, has been about 1 to 5 C, and currently it’s about 3.5 C.
          In regards to tropics with thick layer of warm surface waters- it not effect much if ocean is 1 C or 15 C [or 20 C}. But if ocean warms by 1 C {or more} it has strong effect upon the 60% of the world.
          If any related to reality is connected to CAGW, it’s ocean which warmed from 3.5 to 5 C.
          And guess CAGW is getting rid of deserts and making rain forests.

          • Entropic man says:

            “And guess CAGW is getting rid of deserts and making rain forests. ”

            Probably less rain forest.

            This is a press release, but you can probably backtrack to the original paper.

            https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fires-could-turn-amazon-rainforest-desert-human-activity-and-climate-change-threaten-lungs-world-says-study-9259741.html

            The Amazon rainforest relies on rainfall on its Western edge from the Gulf of Mexico and from the Andes.

            This is sucked into the trees and evaporates from their leaves in the mornings and the heat of the day. The water vapour is carried Eastwards by the wind and rains out in the afternoon as the air cools.

            This repeats each day, carrying the water from the Andes to the Atlantic in steps of about 100km/day.

            If the water falls on an area without trees, the water runs off into a river and is effectively lost. The trees downwind also get less water and start drying out.

            This is already happening. Climate change is reducing rainfall in Western Amazonia, with some areas reverting from rain forest to savannah. In other areas rain forest is being lost to logging and agriculture, interrupting the water transport cycle.

            At some point the whole area will tip over to savannah, leaving only a few relics of the original forest where the rainfall remains high.

          • gbaikie says:

            –“And guess CAGW is getting rid of deserts and making rain forests. ”

            Probably less rain forest.–

            Our ocean has remained around 3.5 C for thousands of years.
            It’s one thing consider CAGW in future and another to imagine it happening now.
            But rain forest would/should effect local climate- sawing it all down will have effect local climate and effect global climate.
            It not CAGW, it’s socialism.

  13. CO2isLife says:

    The media reporting on Steve Koonin is another example of biased reporting.

    History won’t be good to these people.

    One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.
    https://imgur.com/xikIZ96

  14. D P Steenkamp says:

    The media reporting of this paper reminds me of another media report on the NASA mission to Venus to explore greenhouse gases. The reporter states that because of the runaway greenhouse effect, the atmosphere is so hot that the atmospheric pressure is very high. I would think that the high temperature is rather due to the high atmospheric pressure. However, that does not sit well with the global warming narrative

    • Entropic man says:

      “I would think that the high temperature is rather due to the high atmospheric pressure. ”

      Unfortunately high pressure does not necessarily mean high temperature.

      When you compress the gas it heats up, but once you reach constant pressure the gas cools to match its environment.

      Remember how hot a bicycle tyre gets when you pump it up, and how it then keeps most of the pressure while cooling back to room temperature.

      Becausec of its high albedo Venus actually takes up less heat than Earth, so despite the high pressure it would end up cooler than Earth.

      Except for that humongous greenhouse effect!

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, you are favoring your beliefs over reality, again.

        Venus is hot due to proximity to Sun and vulcanism. The surface has a humongous energy intake.

        • Entropic man says:

          Look at the figures.

          https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704

          Earth receives 340w/m^2 from the Sun and reflects 100W. It absorbs 240W/m^2.

          Venus receives 656W/m^2 and reflects 496W/m^2. Venus absorbs 160W/m^2 which is only 2/3 of what Earth takes up.

          On that basis Venus should have a considerably cooler surface than Earth.

          • Clint R says:

            Your figures are from your cult, Ent. Reality is that Venus receives about 2600 W/m^2, which is about twice the solar to Earth. That means at least twice as much high energy photons, well into UV.

            If Earth only really received 240 W/m^2, the oceans would freeze over. Ice emits about 300 W/m^2.

            You don’t understand any of this. Your cult is more important to you than science.

          • Entropic man says:

            Silly Clint.

          • Willard says:

            > If Earth only really received 240 W/m^2, the oceans would freeze over.

            Unless…

          • bobdroege says:

            0.3 times 2600 = 780

            0.7 times 1360 = 952

            some people give a bag of hammers a run for there money

            Venus should be cooler

          • Clint R says:

            Ent and Willard go quickly to adolescent responses.

            But poor bob actually tries some numbers!

            Of course he doesn’t realize that his numbers are meaningless.

            Venus absorbs high energy UV photons. That UV warms the molecules in the atmosphere. But CO2 does not emit UV. The UV thus raises the temperature of the atmosphere, while the surface is oozing lava.

            That’s why it’s warmer than Earth.

          • Willard says:

            Pup,

            You remind me of someone, but I cant remember who.

            He was also inconsequential.

          • bobdroege says:

            Except dear Clint R,

            There is a spacecraft orbiting Venus looking for oozing lava and not finding any.

            Also, “Scientists suspect that there are three volcanoes that may be active: Maat Mons, Ozza Mons and Sapas Mons.[9][10]”

            Only 3, how many active volcanos are on earth?

            Thing is you also forgot, most of the high energy photons are reflected from Venus, while most high energy photons enter the Earth’s atmosphere.

            Again you fail to convince why Venus is so hot.

            Smart as a bowl of cold corn flakes, you are.

          • Clint R says:

            What makes this fun is that I don’t even have to set up any traps. The idiots set their own traps, and then get mad at me when they trap themselves!

            I explained to bob that UV is heating the Venus atmosphere. But bob was unable to understand my clear explanation. Instead, he claims that UV is “reflected”. Of course, that is nonsense and just “reflects” bob’s deficiency in science. UV has enough energy to penetrate things that are a opaque to visible light.

            Now if bob really had any interest in learning, instead of trolling, he could research the energy budget for Venus. That would be a good learning exercise.

          • RLH says:

            “90 % of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in the deep ocean. The deep ocean is not well mixed. The deep ocean is made up of horizontal layers of equal density. Much of this deep ocean water is between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit)! It’s really, really cold down there!”

            Close to freezing then

          • Clint R says:

            RLH, you’re rapidly becoming one of my favorite trolls.

            You have no clue about science, but you know how to use your keyboard. You search for something that you believe in, not understanding any of it.

            The freezing point of seawater changes with pressure.

            And, I predict you won’t understand that.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Willard says:

            Quit looking in your mirror, Pup.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “Instead, he claims that UV is reflected.”

            Now where did I say UV was reflected?

            Hmmmm

          • Clint R says:

            bob. if you want to retract, or correct, what you stated, I have no problem with that.

            Correcting your mistakes is a healthy part of learning.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            Indeed you feckless ****, you know I didn’t say UV was reflected, so it’s you who made the mistake as usual.

            So you should take it back, if you are a man, that is.

            Looks like you are not.

            Anyway, can you provide any evidence UV is not reflected from Venus?

            Even though I never said it was.

            Ball is now in your court, support your arguments with evidence, that’s how science is done.

          • RLH says:

            Clint R: You don’t say! This science stuff is so much fun

          • Clint R says:

            bob, I first mentioned “high energy UV photons”:

            “Venus absorbs high energy UV photons. That UV warms the molecules in the atmosphere. But CO2 does not emit UV. The UV thus raises the temperature of the atmosphere, while the surface is oozing lava.”

            So the discussion involved “high energy UV photons”. It was reasonable to think you were referring to the same photons as me, since those were the only photons mentioned, when you stated:

            “Thing is you also forgot, most of the high energy photons are reflected from Venus, while most high energy photons enter the Earth’s atmosphere.”

            I gave you a chance to correct your statement, but you chose to be offended by your own incompetence.

            So either correct/amend/change/clarify your statement, or you look incompetent and confused, as usual.

          • bobdroege says:

            Dear Clint R,

            You are totally out of your depth here and you have no evidence to support your case and your are lying about what I said.

            No you poor sod, UV or high energy photons are not heating the atmosphere of Venus. So do you care to provide evidence that Venus is hot due to UV or high energy photons rather than the conventional Hansen story that it is the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere that is preventing the infrared from the surface escaping to space?

            The albedo of Venus is 0.7, so most of the light is reflected from Venus.

            The albedo of Earth is 0.3, so most of the light is retained by Earth.

            What part of that do you fail to understand.

            Just keep making shit up, that’s all you are good for.

            Have you cracked your Quantum Physics textbook lately, oh, wait you sold it for drugs.

            Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

            And what about the Deuterium?

          • Clint R says:

            I guess you’re not going to either correct/amend/change/clarify your statement, bob. Instead, you’re trying to weasel out by now changing to “light” that is reflected.

            I can’t teach physics to idiots, trolls, or weasels. You’re a 3-time loser.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            You just can’t admit that you were wrong in claiming I said UV photons were reflected.

            What a cunt of the highest order.

            Not Lance Armstrong territory, but close.

            And by the way, you can’t teach physics to anyone, not even kindergarteners, because you never passed any physics courses, you just eat Cheetos in your mom’s basement.

            Hey, who pays for your computer and internet access?

          • Clint R says:

            Yes bob, I can see how frustrated you are.

            Reality is so tough on 3-time losers, huh?

          • Willard says:

            Bob is able to easily handle both Pup and Kiddo.

            Why?

            Is Bob smarter, or just aware of the relative physics?

            Likely both…

          • bobdroege says:

            Let’s see Clint R,

            If all the light going to Venus was UV, and it heated the atmosphere, how hot would it get?

            2600 * 0.3 = 780 watts/meter^2

            Divide by 4 for the usual reasons and use the Stephan Boltzmann equation, it’s not bogus you know.

            So that amount can heat the atmosphere of Venus to about 30 below C.

            And how hot is Venus?

            Clint R, your math, science and logic is all fucked up.

          • Clint R says:

            Let’s see bob,

            If all the UV going to Venus was UV, it would be much more energy than insolence. #1

            All of the UV would be absorbed by the atmosphere, NOT just 30%. #2

            And, you don’t divide flux by 4. #3

            3-time loser, again.

            Well done.

          • Willard says:

            > If all the UV going to Venus was UV

            Is this what the cool kids call mathematical ontology, Pup?

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “Lets see bob,

            If all the UV going to Venus was UV, it would be much more energy than insolence. #1

            All of the UV would be absorbed by the atmosphere, NOT just 30%. #2

            And, you dont divide flux by 4. #3″

            3-time loser, again.

            Well done.”

            Now you are just drooling, better call Omar the tent maker for a bigger bib.

            All the UV going to Venus is UV!

            Albedo Albedo Albedo says Jan Brady.

            I can divide flux anytime I want to.

        • Willard says:

          > Venus is hot due to proximity to Sun and vulcanism. The surface has a humongous energy intake.

          Incorrect, Pup.

          Venus is hot because she embodies (with or without arms) beauty and sexuality.

          You are humorous with your energyless takes.

          • bobdroege says:

            Venus is hot because of the froth in the seashell.

            All ya’ll are wrong.

            Venus rising first and shining best.

            Always good to quote Jerry Garcia.

            Some should look to albedo. Venus reflects way more light than Earth, so they should be at near the same temperature.

            What’s the diff?

    • bobdroege says:

      I got some gas tanks, nitrogen, hydrogen, and helium at higher pressure than is on the surface of Venus, they are cool to the touch.

    • gbaikie says:

      Well if Venus get same amount of sunlight as Earth did, it’s CO2 gas would convert into CO2 liquid, and so it’s atmosphere would have less pressure, as it would lost to lakes of liquid CO2.
      And after it’s atmosphere collapses, one might get frozen CO2 in the polar region or simply during the long night- on nightside of Venus.

      • gbaikie says:

        On Earth and at sea level, there is about 10 ton of atmosphere per square meter area {or 14.7 lbs per square inch}.

        On Venus at zero elevation, there is about 920 tons of atmosphere per square meter [or 1352.4 lbs per square inch].

        On Earth when Sun is near zenith the Sunlight shine thru 10 ton of atmosphere per square meter. When Sun is 30 degree above horizon, at equator- about two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset. [And roughly similar for any other latitude you are at].
        The sunlight goes thru 20 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And when closer to sunrise or sunset it can go thru more the 100 tons of atmosphere per square meter.
        And on Venus when sun is 30 degrees above horizon {or 60 degree away from zenith] the sunlight is thru 1840 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And Venus always has lots of haze and thick clouds {Or it’s like very polluted air [or forest fire haze] plus it’s cloudy weather. Or quite dark. But if at higher elevations such 5 km above sea level, and sun at zenith it’s only going thru 666 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And sunlight twice as intense at Venus distance as compared to Earth distance from Sun.

        The Russian probe, Venera 9, wiki:
        On October 20, 1975, the lander spacecraft separated from the orbiter, and landing was made with the Sun near zenith…The lander measured a light level of 14,000 lux, similar to that of Earth in full daylight but no direct sunshine”
        So if see our sun as very bright patch on cloud- it’s like that.
        Or much brighter than typical indoor lighting. Or since a solar panel is able to get power from indirect sunlight one could get some electrical power from that sunlight. But clear skies on Earth would get more power for solar panel and such earth sunlight would have more warmth. And appears to me Venera 9 landed on Venus surface where the elevation of around 5000 meter-
        had about 666 tons per square meter of Venus air.

        Now, question where on Venus rocky surface is it the hottest.
        Well on Earth the hottest surface are not above 60 degree latitude, but on Venus there appear some larger regions of lower elevation -2000 meter or more, above 60 degree latitude. But sunlight would get more 30 degrees above horizon at noon, the sunlight would be always going thru 1840 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And be “colder” at higher elevations even if near equator and getting brighter sunlight.

        • gbaikie says:

          If lived on Venus, you live around cloud level where there is bright sunlight and plenty of solar power.
          It seems most of housing wouldn’t be permanently anchored relative to rocky surface. With the winds one could move with the sun. The wind would like ocean current in which one get choice of speed and direction depending the sky depth. Or big boats which can go high and low in atmosphere. Though you don’t need sails, one could have sails.
          If human are living in skies of Venus, then they would be mining the acid clouds, and the acid clouds would become a limited resource- you would deplete the skies of acid.
          And acid clouds cause “global warming”. Humans would cause massive global cooling to Venus.
          Also CO2 would valuable. Mars only has 25 trillion tonnes of CO2, Mars surface would be good place to grow “crops”- and Venus sky isn’t a good place to grow crops, nor is the rocky surface of Venus.
          Venus orbit is much better than Earth orbit, in regards to lowest energy needed to travel within our solar system- the hohmann transfer. Which basically one travels in space to opposite side our orbit. Go from when summer to far side of orbit where it would be Earth winter. Or spring to Fall- obviously depending which hemisphere. And if closer to Sun, it shorter distance and therefore if going a shorter distance it take less time.
          So go from earth winter to summer, it’s shorter distance to go from earth winter to Venus summer. Going from Earth winter to Mars summer it’s longer distance compared to Venus Summer {or earth summer}. But because Venus is closer to sun. Venus winter to Mars summer, is shorter distance than Earth winter to Mars summer. If starting [or ending] from even closer to Sun, like Marcury distance, it’s faster than compared to Venus distance.
          Or from Earth, hohmann transfer take 105 days to get to Mercury distance. Earth to Venus it’s 146 days and Earth to Mars is 259 days.
          And Mercury to Mars is 170 days. And Venus to Mars is 217 days [or also Mars to Venus is 217 days- it’s same duration going or coming. Or if going from Venus and reach Mars in 217 days, if don’t stop at Mars, you return to that Venus distance from Sun in another 217 days- one leg out is same time as leg back. Or 217 days is 1/2 of the circle.
          But a more important aspect is the launch window to Mars. A earth launch window to Mars occurs every 2.125 years. Or launch 2000 AD July, one only launch again later than July in 2002 AD.
          But with Venus to Mars, the launch window with Mars is .9142 years. Or get more than twice the launch windows from Venus to Mars as Earth to Mars. Or if going from Earth [or going from Mars] and you use Venus orbit, you add twice as many launch windows from Earth to Mars [or from Mars to Earth. Get 3 vs 1 over a 2 year time period. Mercury distance adds even more- but it’s harder to get to the Planet Mercury. Venus is easiest planet to reach from anywhere in solar system.
          Also going to Mars from Earth one get there quicker by modifying the hohmann transfer, get and do get there in 7 months [210 days vs 259 days- 49 days quicker. With Venus similar modifying the orbit could shorter than 49 days less. So, say 50 days less from the 217 days being 167 days or 5 1/2 months rather the 7.2 months of 217 day trip time. So just a bit delta-v to least amount energy needed by what called simple hohmann transfer. This faster way is call hohmann + patched conic [which involve small vector change of hohmann transfer]. Also allows more flexiblity in terms the more exact time needed to launch from Earth. Or cloudy bad weather, could delay days or weeks until get better conditions.

        • coturnix says:

          >>On Venus at zero elevation, there is about 920 tons of atmosphere per square meter

          actually nope, you forgt about the lower gravity on venus, which is only 91% of earths. To estimate the mass of the atmpshere, you should divide pressure which is 92 times the earth by the gravity strength ratio, e.g. 920/.91=1011 tonnes per m2.

    • barry says:

      A scuba tank has twice the pressure of Venus internally. It heats up a bit when filled, but cools to ambient temperature very quickly*. If pressure = temperature, divers would blister their backs.

      * I’ve done this myself, filling scuba tanks on a boat.

    • coturnix says:

      No, the GHE is high due to the high pressure. High pressure broadens spectral ab-ion lines, making all present GHGs including the water vapor much more efficient.Afaik the lapse rate n venus is close to adiabatic, meaning that the GHE there is nearly maxed out.

  15. Craig T says:

    I’m shocked, shocked that the Daily Mail would do anything besides calmly explore the intricacies of the paper.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7287943/The-global-warming-climate-change-make-Australia-greener.html

    • Bindidon says:

      Craig T

      Yeah.

      One of Roy Spencer’s threads I have been most wondering about was that in which he wrote, with zero % irony, that the Third Viscount would be a ‘brilliant mathematician’.

      Fortunately for all of us, Roy Spencer obviously knows a lot more about atmospheric layers than what is supposed to make Monckton stand out.

      J.-P. D.

  16. Entropic man says:

    IIRC the observed temperatures have been in the lower quartile of the CMIP5 ensemble range. This has generally been attributed to higher than forecast industrial aerosol albedo.

    Is the TWV effect an alternative effect to increased albedo or in addition to increased albedo?

  17. Bindidon says:

    I highly appreciate all these ‘Specialist’s writing

    ” On the other hand a simple gaussian filter of 12 months does the same thing with a lot less fuss. ”

    Aha.

    The basic principle of ‘anomalies’ (a truly bad synonym for ‘departures’) is of course not to filter anything.

    They aim at removing seasonal dependencies out of time series of any kind (in our context: temperature, rainfall, wind, snow cover, sea ice, sea levels, …): i.e., what Roy Spencer names ‘the annual cycle’.

    Apart from the (somewhat secondary) fact that this removal decreases the deviations from the mean in time series, there is a major aspect making such anomalies really worth to be used.

    Since e.g. monthly anomalies (as opposed to classical departures) aren’t simply a subtraction of a global mean from monthly values, but rather are built such that a corresponding monthly mean is subtracted instead, they are disconnected from the yearly highest or lowest values.

    And that is what explains a fact which otherwise would have been kept hidden, namely that winter months can experience increase stronger than summer months, and of course vice-versa.

    *
    This is easy to see when comparing, for UAH6.0 LT, the head of a descending sort of reconstructed absolute data with that for the anomalies themselves:

    Top 10 highest absolute values

    1998 7 265.80
    2020 7 265.72
    2016 7 265.67
    2019 7 265.67
    1998 8 265.62
    2010 7 265.62
    2018 7 265.59
    2017 7 265.58
    2016 8 265.55
    1998 6 265.54

    Top 10 highest anomalies

    2016 2 0.70
    2016 3 0.64
    1998 4 0.62
    2016 4 0.61
    2020 2 0.59
    1998 5 0.52
    1998 2 0.49
    2017 10 0.47
    2019 9 0.45
    2019 12 0.44

    *
    Conversely, when looking at lowest values, we see:

    Top 10 lowest absolute values

    1985 2 262.64
    1989 1 262.64
    1984 1 262.68
    1993 1 262.69
    1979 1 262.71
    1978 12 262.72
    1986 2 262.74
    1985 1 262.74
    1992 12 262.75
    1983 12 262.77

    Top 10 lowest anomalies

    1984 9 -0.67
    1985 2 -0.64
    1985 7 -0.64
    1985 10 -0.59
    1985 3 -0.59
    1992 9 -0.59
    1992 8 -0.58
    1993 3 -0.56
    1982 10 -0.55
    1982 7 -0.54

    *
    The difference is evident: anomalies don’t show what is coldest / warmest, they show what is cooler / warmer wrt a mean.

    The same happens when comparing absolute temperatures and anomalies for CONUS. In anomaly sorts, most of the sacrosanct data for the 1930’s suddenly disappear from the top of the list – but not by bad magic, as do claim too many inexperienced persons.

    *
    Here is a sequence of graphs I constructed a long while ago, showing, for a comparison between UAH’s lower troposphere and lower stratosphere observations, the transition from absolute data via simple departures from a global mean, to anomalies without annual cycle.

    1. Absolute data

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/16GaarHUs7npnzyN5-wtJ7z0qODSKplVq/view

    2. Absolute data, relative to their respective mean

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ntQPUMotlrIUXTYn8721WpD3S0sihjc/view

    3. Anomalies with annual cycle removal

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view

    Who does not understand the usefulness of (3) compared with (2) should avoid commenting about time series.

    *
    My opinion: the most fuss is not so much contained in anomaly construction, but much more in the comment above surrounding that word.

    J.-P. D.

    • RLH says:

      What are you rambling about?

      Do you dispute that a 12 month gaussian removes the seasonal cycle completely?

      • Nick Stokes says:

        I certainly do. A 12 month moving average can do that, because its Fourier transform has a zero at the annual frequency. But the transform of a Gaussian is a Gaussian, and has no zeroes.

        • RLH says:

          I suppose I should be more welcoming.

          Hi Nick. Nice to talk again. A lot has happened since we last met. I have translated the r and excel stuff I used to have back when I published on WUWT so long ago into c#. A language I am happier in. Still the same 12 month CTRM/Gaussian as I had back then.

          The data shown above is where someone challenged me to run my code (actually it was the spreadsheet) over some absolute temperature figures created by adding back in the reference data to the anomalies on Roys data.

          This then creates an absolute dataset for UAH and I then ran what I have over it.

          As you may have noticed from the output the curve is identical (well nearly identical as it removes some of the out of ban errors caused by using 13 month running means) with that as created by Roy.

          Thus proving that Gaussian/CTRM can remove the seasonal cycle and leave just the summary.

        • Mark B says:

          I certainly do. A 12 month moving average can do that, because its Fourier transform has a zero at the annual frequency. But the transform of a Gaussian is a Gaussian, and has no zeroes.

          RLH is using “Gaussian” and “CTRM” (cascaded triple running mean) filter interchangeably. His CTRM has a 12 month running mean filter as one stage of the cascade, so it does have a zero at the annual frequency.

          Of course this CTRM filter is only an approximation to a Gaussian filter which is important in the context of removing the annual cycle. The lack of precision in language and vague assertions is the source of much confusion and endless exchange. It’s unclear whether or not this is by design, but I lean to the former.

          • RLH says:

            “Of course this CTRM filter is only an approximation to a Gaussian filter which is important in the context of removing the annual cycle.”

            A very, very close approximation to a Gaussian filter which errs on the side of completely removing the annual cycle which is why I prefer it.

            “The lack of precision in language”

            I try to be precise in my language. It would appear that it does not always confer the meaning I have attached to it by the recipients.

        • RLH says:

          “A 12 month moving average can do that”

          A 12 month moving average produces a terrible amount of ringing outside its band. Have you ever looked at its frequency response?

          https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/eecs20/week12/freqResponseRA.html

    • RLH says:

      Do you further dispute that a 15 year gaussian removes all weather and other short term effects from the climate?

    • Bindidon says:

      RLH

      There is only one guy rambling all the time here, and that’s you.

      I don’t dispute the tiny bits you tell about your gaussian stuff, RLH.

      I was just writing a bit about the bigger bits you deliberately ignore.

      You are such an arrogant person.

      *
      Btw, I still await you delivering three time series for a comparison of daily
      – averages of hourly data;
      – medians of hourly data;
      – averages of (tmin+tmax) / 2,

      for any longer temperature data period with hourly recording, VISIBLY proving your claim that median-based series is far more accurate than the other two.

      And as you know, I understand with VISIBLY something quite more relevant than your laughable CTRM/box car comparison for UAH…

      J.-P. D.

    • RLH says:

      Do you believe that anomalies are the only relevant way to display climate data? That the seasonal cycle cannot be removed in other ways?

    • RLH says:

      “Who does not understand the usefulness of (3) compared with (2) should avoid commenting about time series.”

      Those who do not understand the relevance of DSP to time series data from any source should get some retraining

      • Nate says:

        Anomalies are useful for showing the regionality and the seasonality of Global Warming.

        We may not want to filter-out that seasonal effect.

        • RLH says:

          Well as anomalies are designed to filter out seasonal effects I’m not sure how you get them back

          A 12 month accurate blocking filter can achieve individual station effects if you so wish.

        • Nate says:

          “Well as anomalies are designed to filter out seasonal effects Im not sure how you get them back”

          No. They remove the average seasonality over base period.

          • RLH says:

            They remove average seasonality over what is a statistically short base period because the data we have is only quite short.

            1/30 is a very poor statistical choice. 1/100 would normally be considered low. 1/1000 or more would be more a normal choice. But we do not have that in climate data.

            An alternative that did not require any base period to show the same outcomes would be a better statistical choice therefore would it not?

          • Nate says:

            30 y is a standard for defining ‘climate’ in meteorology.

            I think the point is to see how temperatures are changing each month relative to the same month in a previous defined climate period.

            So we know eg. that certain regions are warming more, and certain months and seasons are warming more.

            Anomalies make sense to resolve these changes.

          • RLH says:

            Nate: “30 y is a standard for defining climate in meteorology.”

            I know.

            “I think the point is to see how temperatures are changing each month relative to the same month in a previous defined climate period.”

            That is just using the data as a longer version of weather. Nothing we see will be likely to repeat except over a lifetime or more.

            “So we know eg. that certain regions are warming more, and certain months and seasons are warming more.”

            See above

            “Anomalies make sense to resolve these changes.”

            Anomalies are one way of seeing these things. Because of their relatively short base periods, they are always going to let some of the ‘noise’ in any reference period leak through. The best choice of all would be the entire available record as a reference period rather than some shorter period, however long that is.

            Anomalies are not the only method of removing the annual/seasonal cycle to allow for graphs to be centered around 0 with a small vertical range (assuming time to be horizontal). A precise, no oddities, 12 month filter will do the same thing.

          • Nate says:

            “A precise, no oddities, 12 month filter will do the same thing.”

            But will smear out any seasonality of global warming.

          • Nate says:

            “Because of their relatively short base periods, they are always going to let some of the noise in any reference period leak through.”

            Lets consider the noise in a time-series of 30 consecutive Januarys.

            ENSO is the largest source of short-term noise. Because ENSO is correlated over months, (8 mo. correlation decay time), the noise it produces is relatively uncorrelated in the above January series.

            While it is quite correlated for consecutive months is a given year.

            Thus if we average the 30 y of January together, we are going to reduce the noise caused by ENSO by ~ 1/sqrt(30).

            But a 12 mo running mean will retain most of the ENSO noise.

            So I think subtracting a 30 y base period will not add a significant amount of noise in the Anomaly.

            Noise correlated over a few decades, that is not removed from a 30 year base, will still be plainly apparent in the Anomaly time series.

          • RLH says:

            Nate: So what you are saying is that some years will be colder or warmer than others due to ENSO.

            I am saying I want to retain that difference, which is what a 12 month gaussian filter does. Only removes the seasonal cycle, does not make assumptions about if the year is colder/warmer or not.

            You assume that the 30 year period will be perfectly balanced as regards ENSO input. I think that is unlikely to be true unless the reference time period is very carefully chosen with that just in mind. But then there are other influences on climate that are non-ENSO related. How to you allow for those also?

  18. Bindidon says:

    Today I found something which might be of interest wrt what is discussed here:

    A multi-year comparison of lower stratospheric temperatures from CHAMP radio occultation with MSU/AMSU records

    3rd International Workshop on Occultations for Probing Atmosphere and Climate

    OPAC-3, 17−21 September 2007, Graz, Austria

    A.K. Steiner, G. Kirchengast, M. Borsche, and U. Foelsche
    WegCenter & IGAM, University of Graz, Austria

    https://wegccon.uni-graz.at/opac3/pdf_presentation/opac3_andreak._steiner_23_presentation.pdf

    Maybe somebody has idle time to invest on it, I don’t.

    J.-P. D.

    • RLH says:

      ” September 2007″

      The most modern information you have?

    • RLH says:

      Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade
      April 28th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

      • Entropic man says:

        And as of May 2021.

        “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land). ”

        That’s quite an acceleration.

        It’s gone up from 0.11C/decade up to 0.14C/decade. It’s an acceleration of 27% in six years.

        • RLH says:

          Any idea about a relevant linear trend for the next 5 years?

          • Entropic man says:

            I see no reason for it to slow unless someone throws a Pinatubo into the mix.

            Lower bound, the present 0.14C/decade.

            Most likely, 0.14C + 22% = 0.17C/decade.

          • RLH says:

            Ah, but the tricky question that no-one is prepared to answer. How much natural variation/long term cyclic behavior is there in the data we see?

          • professor P says:

            “How much natural variation/long term cyclic behaviour is there in the data we see?”
            A red herring.
            It implies that no matter what temperatures do, you can weasel your way out of providing the obvious explanation by resorting to ‘natural variation’ – as if things can happen by magic, or divine intervention beyond our ability to understand. However, significant long term variation of anything always has a physical explanation.

          • RLH says:

            professor P: Not really. It would be unrealistic to say 0%. It would be unreasonable to say 100%. Where you place it in between is the real question.

          • Entropic man says:

            Lots of short term pseudo-cycles , but nobody has demonstrated any of them to statistically significant levels.

            Offhand the only two established with any confidence are the 11 year solar cycle and the 100,000 Milankivich cycle.

            Your problem is that you have pattern seeking software that can pull patterns out of noise, but you then need two further steps.

            1) Statistical significance.

            2) A physically demonstrable mechanism.

            We have become used to the “but cycles” Climateball card being played, but none have the high hurdle of scientific credibility.

            If you want to do a real service to climate scepticism find a cycle which explains AGW; then demonstrate its reality and mechanism beyond reasonable doubt.

            That doesn’t mean posting it on a blog, it means getting it published in Nature.

            You have to show thousands of climate scientists that what you have is better than their current paradigm.

          • RLH says:

            “Your problem is that you have pattern seeking software that can pull patterns out of noise”

            Nothing I do is pattern seeking in any way. A low pass filter of greater than 15 years (running means if you cannot find something better) does not do pattern seeking. It does however show any cyclic or non-cyclic behavior longer than 15 years.

          • RLH says:

            Try

            Shen, C., W.-C. Wang, W. Gong, and Z. Hao. 2006.
            A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed
            from proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China.
            Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L03702, February 2006.

            Pull the data (its on an ftp), run a greater than 15 year low pass on it, and prove that their wavelet analysis demonstrates the expected cyclic behavior.

          • Willard says:

            > That doesnt mean posting it on a blog,

            It’d be a good first start. That or ArXiV.

            Harder to simply publish graphs on ArXiV without analyzing them, tho.

          • RLH says:

            And, yes, that wriggle is statistically significant!

          • RLH says:

            Willard: Which topic under ArXiV would you suggest is appropriate? There appears to be nothing under Climate.

          • Willard says:

            How about DSP?

          • RLH says:

            No such topic as DSP or Digital Signal Processing

          • RLH says:

            Did you mean ‘Signal Processing’?

          • Willard says:

            I did not check. If there’s a Signal Processing category, that could be it.

            It really depends on what you’re trying to accomplish, as they have some kind of sanity check. If they feel it’s not at the right place, you’ll get redirected:

            https://arxiv.org/help/moderation

          • RLH says:

            That’s mostly to do with radio topics so does not feel to be a natural fit

            Anyway, I don’t have a paper yet

          • Willard says:

            “If you build it, they will come.”

            People usually post where they’re from, e.g.:

            https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05433

          • RLH says:

            Thanks for that

          • barry says:

            “Ah, but the tricky question that no-one is prepared to answer. How much natural variation/long term cyclic behavior is there in the data we see?”

            IPCC certainly considers natural drivers, and has done since its inception, both natural radiative forcing (eg, solar, volcanic) and potential influences from other natural factors.

            See Assessment Report 5 IPCC, two chapters:

            Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
            Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional

            Next report is due out next year.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/

          • RLH says:

            Barry: Do you have a percentage that they ascribe to natural or other, as yet unexplained, factors?

          • Entropic man says:

            Yes.

            The latest IPCC position is that AGW has turned a 0.01C/decade natural cooling trend into an artificial 0.2C/decade warming trend.

            Thus we are responsible for 105% of the observed warming.

          • RLH says:

            If their assumptions are correct

          • Entropic man says:

            Not an assumption. The climate began cooling 5000 years ago.

            http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg

          • Entropic man says:

            The main known forcing are greenhouse gases, land use, albedo, solar insolation, volcanoes, ENSO, weathering, orbital cycles and plate tectonics.

            Of these, increasing greenhouse gases and land use are causing significant warming. The others are neutral or having a slight cooling effect.

            Add them all together and the known forcings account for the observed warming. No easily identified gaps to tell us we’ve missed something.

            There may be unknowns, but either their effect is small or they are cancelling each other out.

          • RLH says:

            The Earth has been cooling since it had a molten surface!

            How fast recently is still up for grabs.

          • RLH says:

            See https: slash slash tinyurl dot com slash pazwzcdf for cyclic and non-cyclic behaviors

          • Willard says:

            > How fast recently is still up for grabs.

            I think it’s safe to say that decades are not centuries are not millennia are not epochs.

            Appealing to one’s ignorance of the speed with which AGW occurs would stretch the limits of justified disingenuousness.

          • RLH says:

            Indeed but I referenced since 1850 in the url

          • Willard says:

            The last time the planet had a concentration of 300 to 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere was during the mid-Pliocene, 3 million years ago — recently enough for the planet to be not radically different than it is today. Back then, temperatures were 2 degrees C to 3 degrees C (3.6 to 5.4°F) above pre-industrial temperatures (though more than 10 degrees C hotter in the Arctic), and sea levels were at least 15-25 meters higher. Forest grew in the Canadian north and grasslands abounded worldwide; the Sahara was probably covered in vegetation. Homo habilis (aka “handy man”), the first species in the Homo line and probably the first stone-tool users, got a taste of this climate as they arrived on the scene 2.8 million years ago. (Homo sapiens didn’t show up until 400,000 years ago at the earliest.)

          • RLH says:

            1. That requires a belief that CO2 is completely responsible for the current warming

            2. There are no other long term cyclic and non-cyclic behaviors that can explain some, if not all, of what we see.

          • Entropic man says:

            RLH

            You have two choices. Either the temperature data is good enough for you to analyse, or it is not.

            Trying to play the “But cycles” and “But the data’s not good enough” Climateball cards at the same time just makes you sound like an arsehole.

          • Willard says:

            > That requires a belief that CO2 is completely responsible for the current warming

            No, Richard, it does not. It’s a conclusion:

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/i-also-dont-get-judiths-logic/

            As EM suggests in a comment that has been elided by Roy’s capricious filter, “But Data” and “But ABC” are not exactly compatible squares. Shifting from one to the other depending on where you are in a Climateball exchange makes you look like an asshat who has no idea what he’s talking about.

          • Willard says:

            > elided by Roys capricious filter

            And now it appears, after I refreshed the damn page five times.

            God Roy’s WP installation sucks.

          • RLH says:

            “Trying to play the “But cycles” and “But the data’s not good enough” Climateball cards at the same time just makes you sound like an arsehole.”

            I just call what I see.

            There are wriggles in the data from all temperature series and proxies which it are impossible to ignore.

            There appears to be an all round assumption that there is nothing new to discover. That approach has always led to disaster.

            There are some basic assumptions about how to remove the annual/seasonal cycle which can be looked at another way for instance.

            Another is this insistence that DSP and filters are of no use in climate. Whilst at the same time using time based data series which DSP was invented to explore.

          • RLH says:

            “No, Richard, it does not. Its a conclusion:”

            So you don’t like Judith Curry. No surprise there then

          • RLH says:

            Presumably you don’t like Roy Spencer either

          • Entropic man says:

            No, Richard, it does not. Its a conclusion:

            Back to first principles.

            1) Physics projects the changes expected due to increasing CO2. These include increasing troposphere temperature, decreasing stratosphere temperature, decreased OLR, increased DWLR, both OLR and DWLR spectra and an energy imbalance.

            2) All of the above are observed and their measured value match projections.

            3) No alternative hypotheses based on other potential of actual forcing come anywhere close to explaining the observations.

            Scientists do not “believe” that AGW is caused by increased CO2. They infer it from the evidence.

          • RLH says:

            But as Roy says, he is a lukewarmer. Someone who believes that only part of what we see is a direct response to CO2. Some may be, but not all.

            I concur

          • RLH says:

            “1. I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. Ive said this for many years.

            2. I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply dont know).”

          • Willard says:

            > I just call what I see.

            So you don’t like consistency, Richard.

            Got it.

          • RLH says:

            “So you don’t like consistency, Richard.
            Got it.”

            So you have to put words in my mouth.

            I can make observations on a range of things. They may be of completely different areas of the science. Doesn’t mean that those observations are not consistent.

          • RLH says:

            “You have two choices. Either the temperature data is good enough for you to analyse, or it is not.”

            2 value logic has led to more false conclusions than almost anything else.

            True, false, other

            is more accurate of the real world

          • Willard says:

            > So you have to put words in my mouth.

            Less then the number of words you need to put in my mind, Richard.

            All I need is you saying “But Data” and you saying “But ABC.”

            A luckwarmer, BTW, is someone who bets under 3C. Don’t trust Roy for a brand that is not his.

          • RLH says:

            Willard: Just accept that there are those who do not believe that it is solely down to CO2.

          • RLH says:

            Willard: Or that everything has already been discovered

          • Willard says:

            > Just accept that there are those who do not believe that it is solely down to CO2.

            I can even accept that the same fellows sometimes raise concerns about the quality of the data and how we process it, Richard.

            So they’re never sure it’s CO2, but they’re quite sure it’s Anything But CO2.

          • RLH says:

            “I can even accept that the same fellows sometimes raise concerns about the quality of the data and how we process it, Richard.”

            Well I do have a little experience in data and its processing. Both on computers and in signal work. Really DSP does care how the x axis is labelled, in milliseconds or millennia.

            “So they’re never sure it’s CO2, but they’re quite sure it’s Anything But CO2.”

            Don’t put words in my mouth again. I am not sure how much is CO2 is all. I would just venture not all.

          • RLH says:

            Really DSP does not care how the x axis is labelled, in milliseconds or millennia.

          • Willard says:

            > Don’t put words in my mouth again.

            C’mon, Richard. How many comments where you’re raising concerns about the quality of the data we have would you like me to read back to you?

          • RLH says:

            “C’mon, Richard. How many comments where you’re raising concerns about the quality of the data we have would you like me to read back to you?”

            I can still have those observations and either in the end come to the same conclusions as others have or have different ones. Unlike you, it seems, I do not prejudge what the data will tell me.

            I just observe the data collection and processing problems I see. Which is all I have done so far.

          • Willard says:

            > Unlike you, it seems, I do not prejudge what the data will tell me.

            Weasel wording or not, Richard, you’re putting thoughts in my mind once again.

            Here’s where you did, BTW:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-722829

          • RLH says:

            Do you have science to backup that what I said is wrong or just an assumption that it is wrong because I said it?

          • Willard says:

            I don’t play fetch with asshats, Richard.

            You forgot hypothesis formation before grandstanding. It’s just a flesh wound. No biggie.

          • RLH says:

            “You forgot hypothesis formation before grandstanding.”

            So never question that data you see, Just accept it as ‘correct’. Great scientists you make.

            Hypothesis require data, knowledge and observation.

          • Willard says:

            > Great scientists

            It’s “ninja,” Richard.

            Scientists write scientific papers. Write yours.

          • RLH says:

            I may well do. Until then, posting here is good enough

          • Willard says:

            Good enough for the sake of Climateball and Speedoscience, perhaps.

          • RLH says:

            The terms are yours and yours alone. And you appear to think it is your important task to decide how they are used.

          • Willard says:

            You seem to use the word “seem” when you’re about to jab. Richard.

            Neologisms are not always opaque. For instance:

            SpeedoScience. N. An activity where its proponents exhibit too much of themselves, oblivious of the potency of their epistemic appararus.

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/speedoscience/

            seems clear enough for most Climateball players to get a fairly intuitive idea of what you’re doing right now.

          • RLH says:

            Willard: Why do you think you are important?

          • barry says:

            “Barry: Do you have a percentage that they ascribe to natural or other, as yet unexplained, factors?”

            RLH,

            Rather than me going and copy/pasting relevant portions of the IPCC – and they would be numerous – it would be best if you checked these out for yourself, and including the uncertainties. Giving you the name and number of the chapters is good enough.

            From the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC asserts that the dominant cause of warming since 1950 is antrhopogenic. More detail on various factors you are interested in can be retrieved from those chapters.

          • RLH says:

            “Rather than me going and copy/pasting relevant portions of the IPCC”

            I know what the IPCC thinks. I regard their conclusions as being on the very low end of natural causes as being major contributors to the changing climate.

            There are significant cyclic and non-cyclic behaviors in all the climate temperature data sources that are overlooked or deliberately ignored.

            Just take a 15 year low pass filter, running mean if you can think of nothing better, and pass it over any climate temperature data source of your choice. 15 years is well short of climate at 30 years and well beyond any annual/seasonal and weather or weather relate stuff. A generic low pass filter is not tuned to any particular frequency so it will not enhance or reduce any signal that is there.

            Then explain the wriggles that you see with something that is consistent over the last 100 years or so and in line with the IPCCs current views.

          • Nate says:

            “Then explain the wriggles that you see”

            One of the main issues in Climate Science has always been to account for the wiggles we have with CAUSES, going back to Glacial Cycles.

            It seems clear that most of the slow variability can be explained with Forcings and Feedbacks:

            Solar insolation, GHG, Volcanic Aerosols, Anthro Aerosols, Albedo.

            http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iTotal_ERF.png

          • RLH says:

            Nate: So your explanation of obvious cyclic behavior shown here

            https: slash slash climatedatablog dot wordpress dot com slash combined slash

            is what? Chance?

          • Mark B says:

            RLH says: I know what the IPCC thinks. I regard their conclusions as being on the very low end of natural causes as being major contributors to the changing climate.

            There are significant cyclic and non-cyclic behaviors in all the climate temperature data sources that are overlooked or deliberately ignored.

            Every attribution study I’ve looked at includes natural and anthropogenic attributions and residuals after attribution. Can you point to a specific study cited by the IPCC that supports your assertion?

          • RLH says:

            Can you show where the IPCC has taken account of the cyclic behavior shown above?

  19. Eben says:

    Alarmists have a hard dilemma, leaving this last unmolested data set standing unopposed gives it more credibility, but challenging and attacking it will bring more exposure and visibility of the discrepancy between the fudged thermometers and the satellite measurements.
    Just use to your advantage and keep pointing out the obvious.

  20. RLH says:

    I suppose I should be more welcoming.

    Hi Nick. Nice to talk again. A lot has happened since we last met. I have translated the r and excel stuff I used to have back when I published on WUWT so long ago into c#. A language I am happier in. Still the same 12 month CTRM/Gaussian as I had back then.

    The data shown above is where someone challenged me to run my code (actually it was the spreadsheet) over some absolute temperature figures created by adding back in the reference data to the anomalies on Roy’s data.

    This then creates an absolute dataset for UAH and I then ran what I have over it.

    As you may have noticed from the output the curve is identical (well nearly identical as it removes some of the out of ban errors caused by using 13 month running means) with that as created by Roy.

    Thus proving that Gaussian/CTRM can remove the seasonal cycle and leave just the summary.

  21. Bindidon says:

    Here is how the discrepancy looks like between

    – the fudged thermometers (not to forget all these even much more fudged sea surface measurements)

    and

    – not the satellite measurements (all of course hyperfudged except one) but rather those of UAH, isnt’ it?

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VCFyZQZVc0ZjVqHqux-lNAPbAIrgpk5A/view

    Thus the ‘hard dilemma’ must be located somewhere, and might well concern much more the Antialarmists aka ‘Skeptic’s than the crazy other side.

    Simply because this rather unexpected correlation between UAH and the surface data provided by Japan’s Met Agency has a deep reason, namely the absence, within JMA’s processing, of any infilling of the unknown.

    Thus, the real dilemma is

    – either to discredit that infilling, which is used outside of climate affairs by an incredible amount of engineers worldwide, and thus to appear as ignorant and stubborn

    or

    – to accept that infilling, whose goal is after all to avoid that the unknown parts have the same cooling / warming tendency as the average of all known parts.

    It has been shown often enough that by accident, taking that average of the known for all unknown parts results in a perceptible cooling bias.

    Had the inverse been the case, so there is some little evidence that the ‘Skeptic’s would have immediately required this so much denigrated infilling to be used!

    Ha ha haaah.

    J.-P. D.

    • RLH says:

      You would be better served by running 15 year running means/low pass filters over the data. Then you can be sure to remove all short term signals in the data and leave only climate relevant ones.

      • Bindidon says:

        Slowly but surely, RLH’s stubborn, teachy arrogance becomes… disturbing.

        • RLH says:

          Just do it and see what clarity it brings. There is a sweet spot at 15-20 years where there is little power in the frequency spectrum of climate. I am just suggesting you use that to some advantage

  22. pochas94 says:

    If you’re a sociopath with an irrepressible lust for power, terror is your friend. Feed it. Keep it alive at all costs.

    • gbaikie says:

      hmm.
      “A person living with a narcissistic personality may also share certain similarities with a sociopath. Because of this, narcissism and sociopathy are often mistaken for one another.”
      “A narcissistic personality causes a person to have an excessively heightened sense of importance, a strong need to be admired, or an entitlement to special treatment. Other times, a person with this disorder may nurse dreams of wielding far-reaching power.
      Having a heightened sense of self may be understood, excused evenexcept with a narcissist, pursuing the life they believe is owed to them may come at the expense of others.”

      It seems having heightened sense of self is a good thing- it should encourage you to do better. Rather than shoot for average- one problem with average or equality, one tends to notice the worse of the average, so as practical thing, and because all creatures are lazy by “a good design” you effectively shoot for worse than average.
      So, heightened sense of self, should tend to get you nearer to a normal or a somewhat decent human.

      “The narcissist is self-centered and carries out actions using tunnel vision focused solely on their own importance. People harmed by a narcissists actions are merely casualties in their journey to reaching their own goals.

      On the other hand, a sociopath will manipulate, harm, rob, and otherwise violate another person merely for the fun of it.”
      https://www.verywellmind.com/the-difference-between-a-narcissist-and-a-sociopath-5181518
      It seems to me sociopaths have shortage of fun, there is a lot fun stuff to do.

      It seems to me narcissist and sociopaths have serious mental issues, and the above definitions is a shallow take on the serious things wrong with these people.
      Problem with both is they enjoy wallowing in their crap, their therapy is getting more crap for them to enjoy.
      So, prison, I guess.
      But we should make prison more fun for them. Make it shorter, but have a lot more of what they really desire for fun. Ample amounts of wallowing in their crap.
      But it’s not really punishment, we could charge them money for their play time or therapy. And an actual prison should be related to Justice- roughly have people sit around doing nothing for their crimes. Give a choice- job training, education, hobbies, ect. if they do little work or want it, or do nothing for free. And the sociopathic therapy type prison- with some higher price paid [money or work or “student loan debt”] for this kind of fun. It seems there probably have higher medical care costs related to this kind of fun as it’s destructive {related to sickness and death}.
      Though I think easier, politically, just to end this War on Drugs.

  23. RLH says:

    I think it is necessary to clear up what the near Gaussian 12, 10, 8 running mean set is actually doing to the data it traverses over.

    The initial data collection is that of a 12 month running mean. (I know that people say that even based running means are less preferable to odd based ones but you need to think about where the middle of the year is, in month 6 or month 7 – if you want the later then just move the output up by 1 month, don’t increase the input window to 13 instead)

    This is then acted on by a further 10 and 8 month running mean passes which serves to remove the distortions that the 12 month running mean has ‘added’ to the data.

    This then gives an overall 12 month wide Gaussian filter to the initial temperature data.

    The 12, 10, 8 choices comes from VPs observation back in the day of 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 inter-stage multipliers as being ideal, reduced to the nearest integer.

    • RLH says:

      For the differences between running means and Gaussian see
      https://tinyurl.com/rz54rdv7

    • RLH says:

      See

      https: slash slash tinyurl dot com slash rz54rdv7

      for the differences between running means and Gaussian filters

    • RLH says:

      For those who believe that linear trends are the be all and end all of climate analysis let me ask you this.

      If you were to detrend the available data with the line so produced you have a few options with what to do outside of the date range that generated the trend line.

      1. You can suppose that the line extends in both directions on the slope so discovered. Upwards into the future, downwards into the past.

      2. You can assume that the line flexes at both ends in opposition to the trend discovered. Downwards into the future, upwards into the past.

      3. You can assume that the line goes horizontal at both ends to extend the trend discovered. Neutral for both the future and the past.

      4. You can create a hockey stick with a horizontal line before the trend line and a continuation of the slope upwards in the future. Upwards into the future, horizontal into the past.

      You do need to be able to defend the choice you make.

  24. ren says:

    What’s going on under the equatorial Pacific? The first La Nina is over, let’s get ready for the second, in October at the latest. We could have very low tropospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere this winter. I expect another year of record snowfall.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202106.gif

  25. ren says:

    A decrease in temperature in the upper stratosphere above the equator due to a decrease in high-energy UV radiation during the current solar cycle.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2021.png
    https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png

  26. ren says:

    High negative temperature anomalies in Antarctica compared to the 1979-2000 average. Very low upper stratosphere temperatures over the southern polar circle.
    https://i.ibb.co/Fhp2TkD/gfs-nh-sat6-t2anom-1-day.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2021.png

  27. CO2isLife says:

    The Sea Level Hoax exposed in one picture:
    https://imgur.com/s2Vevqd

    You will never see that graphic in any media report

    • Nate says:

      You fell for another ‘with this one simple trick’ click-bait.

      The various land rises are taken into account in the GMSL rise graphs.

      • CO2isLife says:

        That is nonsense. Why then are there differences? The differences fit exactly what you would expect. If it is accurate, why then are there differences between areas that are so close to each other? Tell me then, what is the sea level in some of those areas falling so sharply? How can Al Gore be that wrong?

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        They’re still building beachfront property and banks are lending.

        • Entropic man says:

          And there are still foo!s willing to take out loans and buy such properties.

          • Denny says:

            Im sure there were people saying the same thing as you in 1983 when the EPA said sea level rise would be 10 feet in several decades. How did that work out.

            Dont be so gullible. SLR is going to be 3 mm/yr for decades to come. Just like it has been for 200 years.

          • RLH says:

            There are areas when the land is rising. There are areas where the ocean is rising, Try hard not to buy properties near the latter.

      • CO2isLife says:

        This is a guess at best:
        “Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2001, 2002, 2009; Peltier & Luthcke, 2009). The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the 0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent. However, since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA, this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is seen along the coasts.”

        that “adjustment” is smaller than the error of the measurements. What a joke.

        • barry says:

          Why is it a joke? Explain your thinking here.

        • Entropic man says:

          This gets boring after a while.

          Someone claims to have THE alternative explanation for global warming: “it’s the Sun”, “it’s geothermal heating”, it’s volcanoes”, “it’s GIA” etc as nauseam.

          Then you show them the data demonstrating that their favoured solution is far too small to explain the measured changes and they get all disgruntled.

  28. Entropic man says:

    Truly, beachfront properties are an excellent place to live.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-52868241

    I doubt that the people living in this house factored accelerating erosion into their planning.

    • RLH says:

      Various parts of the East English coast have been eroding for century’s. There are other parts where the sea has receded likewise. There are portions where nothing much has happened. The later rarely receive any press attention.

      • Willard says:

        See, Richard?

        That is playing Climateball.

      • Entropic man says:

        Denny, RLH

        That house looks no more than thirty years old and was probably worth more than 800,000 pounds.

        Are you telling me that it was built in the expectation that it would go over a cliff?

        • RLH says:

          “The island’s relatively soft cliffs, made mainly of London Clay, have for centuries been slipping into the Thames Estuary, exposing internationally renowned fossil deposits.”

          “On the north of the island, 124 homes and 1,000 caravans along a four-mile (6.6km) stretch are thought to be at risk in the next century. It would cost more than 25m to protect them all, engineers employed by Swale Borough Council found.”

        • Denny says:

          The essence of my comment was that the hysteria for acceleration in SLR is unwarranted. It’s been the same story for the last 30 to 40 years. Predicting runaway sea level rise submersing cities (a 2003 Pentagon report) etc, etc, and what is actually happening? Those communities that have severe subsidence problems are being affected. But without any GMSLR they were destined for flooding anyway.

          Keep this conversation in mind in 2050. There will be new doomsayers promising catastrophic SLR destroying cities but the goalposts will have been moved. They will have ignored the same failed predictions and ignored the 8” to 10” rise over the preceding 100 years but will promise it’s going to get worse in the next 10 to 20 years. It won’t. Just like it hasn’t in the last 50 years.

    • gbaikie says:

      One advantage of living on land is you live near a cliff and get a view.

  29. aaron says:

    thanks for this excellent write up.

  30. aaron says:

    Does the lower than predicted sea surface temperature suggests more evaporation, more energy being converted to latent heat than expected?

    Wouldn’t this further suggest strengthening of water cycle efficiency?

  31. RLH says:

    So your explanation of obvious cyclic behavior shown here

    https: slash slash climatedatablog dot wordpress dot com slash combined slash

    is what? Chance?

    • Entropic man says:

      “Chance?”

      Why not? It is often possible to find cyclic patterns in randomly generated data.

      The trick with stochastic data like temperature records is to identify which cycles are due to random variation and which are due to causation.

  32. Entropic man says:

    RLH

    There is one area where cycles are generally regarded as a cause of climate change.

    That is glacial cycles which are regarded as linked to variations in the timing and strength of surface heating due in turn to periodic variations in Earth’s orbit.

    This is temperature variation for the last 800,000 years.

    http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg

    And this is the orbital variations that are thought to produce the temperature variations.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    You might have fun matching the two.

    This is temperature data for the last 22,000 years.

    http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg

    If you want to explain the last 22,000 years using cycles you need to identify the cycles involved and show that their interactions produce the observed proxy and recorded temperatures.

    I can give you a head start on the orbital cycles. We have passed the Holocene Optimum orbital cycle sweet spot and should now be cooling gradually towards the next glacial period.

Leave a Reply