Met Office shock forecast: warming to continue

No warming for up to 25 years, but now…

The indomitable, indefatigable, never-say-die UK Met Office (under the spell of the IPCC) predicts that warming is set to “continue”, even though there’s been no global warming to speak of for about 25 years. Wonderful. In fact, the entire UAH satellite dataset from December 1978 to November 2015 (37 years) shows global warming at a yawn-inducing rate of just 1.14°C per century, well within natural variability. Stupendous.

In strong sycophantic voice, the Guardian trumpets the latest Met Office pronouncement of future warming (repeated uncritically by the Herald this morning) to fortify our delightful delusions of disaster.

Global temperatures will continue to soar over the next 12 months as rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions and El Niño combine to bring more record-breaking warmth to the planet.

The only thing soaring has been an over-active imagination. Surprisingly, the Met Office identifies just two factors causing the earth’s temperature: human emissions of CO2 and El Nino (ENSO): one of so little effect it could be imaginary and the other powerful, wholly unpredictable but natural. Our best efforts against them would be ruinous but leave both of them untouched.

Repeated lie

According to the Met Office’s forecast for the next five years, 2016 is likely to be the warmest since records began.

Ideologically-driven repetition of the lie that current temperatures are unprecedented does not improve the credibility of the lie. Numerous studies show global temperatures throughout the Holocene to have been higher than the present day.

Some global warming deniers have claimed that the current El Niño alone was responsible for making last year a record one, with the effects of carbon emissions being irrelevant. But Smith [Dr Doug Smith, a Met Office expert on long-term forecasting] rejects these claims.

That’s pretty rude. Dr Smith claims people with questions about the Met Office’s explanations are denying global warming. Curiously, I have questions about the next bit, so let’s see how it works. I’m fairly certain my questions neither depend on nor lead to a denial of global warming.

“We have had El Niños before,” he said. “The one in 1997-98 was particularly intense. Nevertheless, global temperatures were less then than they were in 2015 — and that is because background heating caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are [sic] higher today than they were [sic] in 1997-98.”

Fair enough. Now here are my questions. How much warming was caused since 1997 (18 years) by human emissions? What was the total increase in global temperatures during that time? I believe the correspondence between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature change is nowhere near as certain as Smith makes out.

Watch out for excuses

2017 is likely to see a dip in global temperatures. “We can be pretty sure there will be a drop that year,” added Smith.

After that, temperatures could start to rise again over the rest of the decade. “Whether one of these years — 2018, 2019, 2020 — overtakes 2016 in terms of temperature is very hard to predict at this stage,” said Smith. “We are looking quite far into the future, after all.”

Here come the excuses. He starts using vague fudges such as “likely”, “could” and “hard to predict”. Then an unexpected killer blow for the warmist arguments: “We are looking quite far into the future, after all.”

So he presumes to lecture us for creating dangerous temperatures over the next 85 years, but begs our forgiveness if he gets the temperatures wrong over just five years? I’d say his climate ignorance is exceeded only by his audacity. His long-term predictions must have greater margins of error than the short-term, but no forgiveness will be possible for getting it wrong—the enormous sacrifice he demands from us makes it impossible.

What could he say? “Sorry I ruined everything.”

UNFCOW

One reason for such uncertainties is a lack of precise knowledge about the heating of the oceans. “If you want to measure climate change you need to have precise information about the total energy of the planet and most of that is stored in the ocean,” said Smith.

The global mean surface temperature was the accepted metric of global warming when the UNFCCC was created. That’s how it was measured: atmospheric temperature at an altitude of two metres. Notice that it’s named the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, not the UN Framework Convention on Ocean Warming UNFCOW). Only after the surface temperature refused to rise for many years did the warmists shift the emphasis to ocean heat content. That was to save face, whatever they say now, not to more accurately describe the science.

A “lack of precise knowledge” means Dr Smith knows nothing about the ocean heat content. Which is because we don’t have many thermometers in the ocean, especially at great depth, below 2000 metres. He’s making this stuff up.

First, the Met Office (following IPCC) predict that temperatures by 2100 (pdf, 1.6 MB) could be 6°C higher than 1986–2005, and they don’t rule out 7°C or 8°C higher. Of course, that’s impossible, but he says our predictions for the next five years could be wrong (sorry!). Then he finally admits that to “measure” climate change you must know “precisely” the planet’s total energy, most of which is in the ocean, but he does not know how much it is. Which means his predictions for 2100 are fabricated. Concerning the ocean, he’s hopelessly out of his depth.

But what about the context

“Recently temperature rises on the land slowed and people said global warming had stopped. That was never true. The ocean heat content went up all the time.”

So it did, but he should quantify it. Last year, Christopher Monckton used Argo data to show ocean heat content was indeed rising, but only at about 0.23°C per century. This is being caused by the sun, not by our minor additions to a trace atmospheric gas. Lord Monckton adds the following poignant facts about the Argo project to put the numbers into a realistic context.

Actually, it is not known whether the ocean is warming: each of the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys takes just three measurements a month in 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean — roughly a 100,000-square-mile box more than 316 km square and 2 km deep. Plainly, the results on the basis of a resolution that sparse (which, as Willis Eschenbach puts it, is approximately the equivalent of trying to take a single temperature and salinity profile at a single point in Lake Superior less than once a year) are not going to be a lot better than guesswork.

This gives a good picture of the enormous scarcity of temperature readings in the ocean, but warmists place great faith in data they agree with. Finally, the Guardian tries for a knockout punch to have us all believing in the coming cataclysm.

Research catching up with ideology

The release of the Met Office study comes as another group of scientists revealed research that shows the last 30 years were probably the warmest Europe has experienced in more than two millennia. An international team used tree ring records and historical documents to reconstruct yearly temperatures going back 2,100 years and discovered there was no period as warm as the last 30 years.

It’s amazing how research is catching up with ideology. Several recent studies have removed the Medieval warm period, the Roman warm period and the Minoan warm period—although some evidence shows almost the entire Holocene (pdf, 1.3 MB) was warmer than today. Yet the IPCC, in its first report in 1990, showed them clearly (https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf, p.202). Hard to believe the data in papers from around the world supporting the temperatures in those periods were all incorrect.

It’s more likely the IPCC looked elsewhere for different data, since higher temperatures only 700 years ago makes one’s claim of unprecedented temperatures seem false, if temperatures are not unprecedented they’re highly unlikely to be dangerous, and no doubt the IPCC tries very hard not to mislead.

72
Leave a Reply

avatar
72 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
SimonRichard C (NZ)Andy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ah yes, the serially bogus “decadal” forecast issued by the Met Office each year. It’s now only for 5 years at a time. They have to issue a new one each year because the previous forecast is always ridiculously high and at a trajectory far greater than the GCMs. They’ve excelled themselves this year and should be good for chuckles in a years time. They’ve tacked their forecast onto the peak of the 2015 El Nino warming: Figure 3: Observed (black, from Met Office Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted (blue) global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1981-2010. Previous predictions starting from November 1960, 1965, …, 2005 are shown in red, and 22 model simulations, from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), that have not been initialised with observations are shown in green. In all cases, the shading represents the probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (blue) starts from November 2015. All data are rolling 12-month mean values. The gap between the black curves and blue shading arises because the last observed value… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”They have to issue a new one each year because the previous forecast is always ridiculously high and at a trajectory far greater than the GCMs.”

Note how the trajectory of the blue prediction has far greater slope than the green GCM trajectory:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/q/o/fig3_dp2015_fcst_global_t.png

How so? And Why?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Smith] >2017 is likely to see a dip in global temperatures. “We can be pretty sure there will be a drop that year,” added Smith. After that, temperatures could start to rise again over the rest of the decade. “Whether one of these years — 2018, 2019, 2020 — overtakes 2016 in terms of temperature is very hard to predict at this stage,” said Smith.

This is contradictory to their prediction graph. The central estimate for 2017 is at the same level as 2016 would be if they had plotted it. Then maybe not 2018 but the LOWER bound of 2019 and 2020 are BOTH higher than the 2016 level.

Didn’t Smith look at his office graph before he opened his mouth?

And yes, this in respect to 5 years ahead is absurd: ““We are looking quite far into the future, after all”. Is Smith unaware that the green GCM “projections” do not stop at 2020?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Dr Doug Smith, a Met Office expert on long-term forecasting”

Short-term not so expert:

UKMO Lowers 5-Year Global Temperature Forecast and Omits the Second 5 Years of the Decadal Forecast
Posted on January 6, 2013
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/ukmo-lowers-5-year-global-temperature-forecast-and-omits-the-second-5-years-of-the-decadal-forecast/

Ooops – Met Office decadal model forecast for 2004-2014 falls flat [Smith et al (2007)]
Anthony Watts / November 21, 2013
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/ooops-met-office-decadal-model-forecast-for-2004-2014-falls-flat/

Laughing Stock Met Office…2007 “Peer-Reviewed” Global Temperature Forecast A Staggering Failure
By P Gosselin on 24. June 2014
http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/24/laughing-stock-met-office-2007-peer-reviewed-global-temperature-forecast-a-staggering-failure/#sthash.KW9tbjxB.dpbs

Then they got lucky with the El Nino:

Met Office New Decadal Forecast
January 30, 2014
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/met-office-new-decadal-forecast/

Except the blue band is actually the upper and lower limits of a bunch of arbitrary squiggles spat out by the model:

MET- Office: New four year ‘decadal’ forecast spaghetti
January 30, 2014 by tallbloke
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/met-office-new-four-year-decadal-forecast-spaghetti/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”UKMO Lowers 5-Year Global Temperature Forecast and Omits the Second 5 Years of the Decadal Forecast Posted on January 6, 2013″

That was when the Met Office surreptitiously published their radically lowered forecast on Christmas Eve 2012 when people were busy doing other stuff. A week into the new year and they were sprung.

Simon
Guest
Simon

1.14°C per century is hardly yawn-inducing. 2°C since pre-industrial times is considered by many to be the maximum ‘safe’ warming that can occur and we are already over 1°C.

In answer to your question, 2015 remains the warmest year once natural (ENSO + Volcanic + solar) variation are corrected for:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/

You seem to be accusing the Met Office of lying, without saying what was factually incorrect. Discerning a trend is different from making an exact prediction about a single instance of time. Monckton’s point is trite, 3600 data points are sufficient, what is lacking is the long time series for comparison.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

In other news, a fire started by lightning is “climate change”. From SMH:

‘Fire burns Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area’

Professor Bowman said the latest fire was different.

When bushfires hit the Blue Mountains in October 2013 he was wary of linking them to man-made climate change due to the large historic variability in Australian fire seasons, but understanding of fire ecology had developed rapidly, and scientists were now more confident global warming was increasing fire risk.

“This is completely consistent with predictions. It was lit by lightning and it is incredibly dry and warm in western Tasmania by historic standards,” he said.

“I think I would be being unethical and unprofessional if I didn’t form the diagnosis and say what it is – climate change. Under the current rate of warming I think this ecosystem will be gone in 50 years.”

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/like-losing-the-thylacine-fire-burns-tasmanian-wilderness-world-
heritage-area-20160131-gmi2re.html

# # #

Much has changed since 2013 apparently.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”2015 remains the warmest year…..” But where? Gavin Schmidt and Tom Karl had some trouble with this: ‘Annual Global Analysis for 2015’ – January 2016 Gavin A. Schmidt Director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Thomas R. Karl Director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information 2015 was by far the warmest year in the record http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/noaa_nasa_global_analysis_2015.pdf Except, scroll down to page 3: USA (CONUS) 2nd warmest year Africa, Europe 2nd warmest year N. America 5th warmest year Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands among five warmest years Oceania 6th warmest year Australia 5th warmest year Argentina 2nd warmest year Asia, S. America warmest year [Except Argentina above] Spain, Finland warmest year [Except Europe as a whole was only 2nd warmest above] Then scroll down to page 10: •Middle Troposphere (37 yr record) –UAH: 3rd warmest –UW-UAH: 3rd warmest –RSS: 4th warmest –UW-RSS: 3rd warmest –NESDIS STAR: 5th warmest •Lower Troposphere (37 yr record) –UAH: 3rd warmest –RSS: 3rd warmest •Radiosonde data (58 yr record) –~5,000 ft(850 mb): 2nd warmest –~10,000 ft(700 mb): 3rd warmest –~18,000 ft(500 mb): warmest –~30,000 ft(300 mb): 2nd warmest –~40,000 ft(200 mb): 14th warmest # # # NZ was 27th… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Grant Foster’s HadCRUT4 El Nino “correction” is bogus:

comment image

The El Nino spike only occurred in CRUTEM4 in November and December of 2015:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1997

And yet Foster retains the 2 month spike representing the entire year – what a phony.

And according to GISS the spike was a Northern Hemisphere-only phenomenon anyway:

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands [GISTEMP]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif

In the Southern Latitudes the anomaly was actually DOWN on recent years i.e. there was no “record-shattering global warm temperatures in 2015” (NASA GISS) in the SH Extratropics (Southern Latitudes).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”Discerning a trend is different from making an exact prediction about a single instance of time”

The Met Office do neither ever since their disastrous 2007 effort (Smith et al upthread). Their “forecast” is just spaghetti i.e. a bunch of random squiggles. This was their 2014 graph:

comment image

Obviously that’s not a god look so now they just blob the lot – no trend or points. A kid with a crayon could do that.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Wrong link to the Met Office ‘Decadal Forecast’ in the first comment. Should be:

From ‘Decadal forecast’
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

Includes caveats:

Barring a large volcanic eruption or a very sudden return to La Niña or negative AMO conditions which could temporarily cool climate, ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years. Nevertheless, the recent slowdown in surface warming is still an active research topic and trends over a longer (15 year) period will take longer to respond

Just a normal La Niña would return the climate to a flat trajectory within the next two years. A ” very sudden return to La Niña” would kill the negligible 15 yr warming trend stone dead i.e. cooling instead.

>”ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years”

This is just wishful thinking. Thing is, if the current flat ENSO-neutral trajectory continues to 2020 the entire man-made climate change conjecture would be killed stone dead.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”the recent slowdown in surface warming is still an active research topic and trends over a longer (15 year) period will take longer to respond” [Met Office]
>”Just a normal La Niña would return the climate to a flat trajectory within the next two years”
>”Thing is, if the current flat ENSO-neutral trajectory continues to 2020 the entire man-made climate change conjecture would be killed stone dead.”

The trend in the HadCRUT4 5 yr mean of 15 years of data (i.e. smoothing ENSO spikes either way) is already flat from 2001 even BEFORE accounting for the return to ENSO-neutral conditions and a possible La Nina:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2016.00/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2016.00/mean:60/trend

-0.000773352 per year

This is highly problematic for the warmies, they’re in for a rude shock over the next 2 years.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”A ” very sudden return to La Niña” would kill the negligible 15 yr warming trend stone dead i.e. cooling instead”

Wood For Trees does not have up to date HadCRUT4 (including 2015 El Nino spike). Using the Met Office’s 10 yr criteria (see below), the unsmoothed CRUTEM4 trend is +0.0153066 per year (+0.153 per decade) with 2015 El Nino data included (15 yr is +0.127 per decade):

hhttp://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2006/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2006/trend

The Met Office says ”ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years”

1970 to 2000 is +0.26 per decade in CRUTEM4. By 2017, with ENZO-neutral or a La Nina, how is a +0.15 ten year rate (or a +0.127 per decade 15 yr rate) going to increase to +0.26 per decade in just 2 yrs?

They seem to be anticipating another strong El Nino back-to-back with 2015/6. News to me.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[RT] >”Now here are my questions.
[1] How much warming was caused since 1997 (18 years) by human emissions?
[2] What was the total increase in global temperatures during that time?”

[Simon} >”In answer to your question, 2015 remains the warmest year …………”

Simon. You haven’t answered either of RT’s questions. You’ve answered your strawman’s question.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The Met Office speaks with forked tongue:

a) ”ten year global average warming rates are likely to return to late 20th century levels within the next two years”

b) ”trends over a longer (15 year) period will take longer to respond”

If they predict that the ten year trend will change radically in only 2 years (a), the 15 year trend would change considerably in the same 2 years too (b). One does not change independently of the other in different timeframes unless the radical change occurs in the additional 5 years of (b) PRIOR to the ten year period (a). The latter (b) just adds 5 years to the former (a) and any radical change is (a) is of necessity simultaneous in (b).

And again, wishful thinking in (a).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”If they predict that the ten year trend will change radically in only 2 years (a), the 15 year trend would change considerably in the same 2 years too (b).”

There’s very little difference between 10 yr and 15 yr in CRUTEM4 as upthread:

+0.153 per decade – last 10 yr.
+0.127 per decade – last 15 yr.

+0.26 per decade – 1970 to 2000

They are seriously deluded if they think +0.153 will increase to +0.26 in only 2 years, contrary to ENSO, without having to think about how +0.127 will “respond” if it did.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Simon says

“1.14°C per century is hardly yawn-inducing. 2°C since pre-industrial times is considered by many to be the maximum ‘safe’ warming that can occur and we are already over 1°C.”

Are we over 1C? I thought the warming since pre industrial was around 0.8C
A rate of change higher than this over a shorter time frame is still consistent with this.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

IRI/CPC Mid-Month Plume-Based ENSO Forecast Probabilities Season La Niña Neutral El Niño JFM 2016 ~0% ~0% 100% FMA 2016 ~0% ~0% 100% MAM 2016 ~0% 1% 99% AMJ 2016 ~0% 32% 68% MJJ 2016 10% 62% 28% JJA 2016 32% 54% 14% JAS 2016 47% 44% 9% ASO 2016 53% 37% 10% SON 2016 58% 32% 10% http://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/ 58% chance of a La Niña by around October this year but in the face of this contra indication, the Met Office is implying, inexplicably, that the ten year trend in the global temperature metric, say CRUTEM4 upthread, will increase by a factor of 1.7 in the next 2 years and the 15 year trend will double following. I’m seeing a gaping credibility gap in the Met Office prediction. The last La Nina was Weak-to Moderate in 2011-12 following a Moderate El Nino. There was a Moderate La Nina 2007-08 following a Weak El Nino and a Moderate La Nina in 1999-00 following a Very Strong El Nino. The last Strong La Nina was 1988-89 following a Moderate El Nino. There has never been a Very Strong La Nina that I know of – yet.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Notice too that the observations are NOT just UKMO but a UKMO+GISS+NCDC composite, and only to October 2015 i.e. why don’t they [UKMO] use their own data?”

The following graph of 5 yr means illustrates why HadCRUT4 should NOT be combined with GISTEMP and NCDC as the Met Office has done:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:2001/mean:60/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/mean:60/trend

GISTEMP Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00560873 per year 2003.5 to 2013.5
HadCRUT4 Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000773352 per year 2003.5 to 2012.92

WoodForTrees HadCRUT4 data is not up to date but it is obvious that these are radically different profiles (different baselines are irrelevant to this), and GISTEMP+NCDC will have the overwhelming influence in a composite profile.

This is basically the data without ENSO noise.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Re decadal forecasts in particular: ‘Initialization practices disqualify UN IPCC global circulation models from use for most climate change forecast purposes’ [read “re” initialization] Guest essay by Michael G. Wallace Hydroclimatologist, Albuquerque, NM […] A recent paper by Suckling and Smith (2013) , covers some aspects of this new purposing and initializing of the GCMs. Notably the article points to the practice of re-initialization of the GCMs’ boundary conditions with recent observations. The authors state in simple language that “At present it is not clear whether initialising the model with observations at each forecast launch improves the skill of decadal forecasts… At a more basic level, the ability to provide useful decadal predictions using simulation models is yet to be firmly established.” […] The modeled Pacific Ocean surface signature patterns of temperature in both hemispheres including the equatorial zones decay rapidly, and are poorly represented by the GCMs after only a year. Re-initialization appears to apply to those temperatures, if I’m not mistaken. Only then can the models lurch forward again for a few months of potentially plausible forecasting. […] Now that the process of CMIP validation via initializations has been institutionalized, climate… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Chortles at JoNova:

‘CSIRO wipes out climate division — 350 scientists to go — since it’s “beyond debate” who needs em?’

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro-wipes-out-climate-division-350-scientists-to-go-since-its-beyond-debate-who-needs-em/#more-47613

#4 Graeme No.3 February 4, 2016 at 4:06 pm

“It seems this is something they didn’t forecast either.” [55 “Likes”]

# # #

Apparently it’s OK for engineers (some of which is modeling) and construction workers whose jobs end when a project is finished but climate modelers? No, that’s a continual work-in-progress – there’s CMIP6 to be cranked out, then CMIP7, after that CMIP8……..

Andy
Guest
Andy

The Department of Settled Science was never a sustainable academic model

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From JoNova post:

Prof Will Steffen suddenly admits “we” don’t know the basic operation of the climate system:

“We absolutely need to know more about the basic operation of the climate system”

Professor Will Steffen is an Emeritus Professor at ANU and a Climate Councillor at the Climate Council of Australia.

# # #

Don’t know the basics yet? So what exactly are we “deniers” of then?

Andy
Guest
Andy

We don’t know the basics but we are 100% certain that we need to “take action”, is the executive summary

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Warmest January in satellite record leads off 2016’ [UAH]

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in January was over north central Russia, near the small town of Volochanka. January temperatures there averaged 7.20 C (almost 13 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in January was over the northern Pacific Ocean, where the average January 2016 temperature was 2.78 C (just over 5 degrees F) cooler than normal.

Warmest Januaries
2016 0.54 C
1998 0.49 C

Warmest NH Januaries
2016 0.70 C
2010 0.55 C

Warmest SH Januaries
1998 0.58 C
2013 0.51 C
2010 0.41 C
2016 0.39 C

Warmest Januaries in the tropics
1998 1.13 C
2016 0.85 C

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/04/warmest-january-in-satellite-record-leads-off-2016/

# # #

Still a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon, warmest in north central Russia. But coolest over the northern Pacific Ocean?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

UK Met Office Research News Earth’s Energy Imbalance: a fundamental measure of global climate change January 2016 – International climate research scientists are calling for better monitoring of Earth’s energy imbalance, with improved ocean observations to play a key role How do we measure the rate of global warming? Traditionally, we tend to think of Earth’s global surface temperature as the iconic indicator of climate change. However, in a new perspective piece in Nature Climate Change, scientists argue that there is a more fundamental measure of climate variability and the rate of global change: Earth’s energy imbalance. As the article explains, all the energy that enters or leaves the climate system does so radiatively at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (Figure 1). Under an equilibrium climate, the solar radiation absorbed by the Earth is balanced by emitted longwave radiation. Increased greenhouse gases reduce the emitted longwave radiation and give rise to Earth’s energy imbalance, leading to excess solar energy accumulating in the climate system. This is the most fundamental driver of observed climate change, and the various climate impacts that we are familiar with – such as warmer surface temperatures, sea level rise… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

“Dr Church said it was true climate change was proven, but more detail was needed if the world was going to adapt”

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/misleading-inaccurate-and-in-breach-of-paris-john-church-criticises-csiro-cuts-20160205-gmmopl.html

on responding to the CSIRO cuts.

How does one “prove” climate change?
Given that “climate change” isn’t even defined as a consistent concept, it would appear to be a little hard to “prove” it.

Anyway, proof is something that is generally used in mathematics. Science does not generally deal in proofs, more in falsifiable conjectures.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

GISTEMP monthly mean has gone over the peak in January 2016:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

NH phenomenon anyway but downhill from here on for a couple of years in a normal rational world.

In Warmer World, Gavin Schmidt claimed all but 0.07C of the 2015 El Nino spike for AGW. The monthly mean is down about that much already in January 2016. If Schmidt is right (doubtful) the monthly mean should not fall any further. We”l know in a month’s time.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”In Warmer World, Gavin Schmidt claimed all but 0.07C of the 2015 El Nino spike for AGW.”

Stefan Rahmstorf in the SMH:

“The record is helped along a bit by El Nino, but most of it – more than 80 per cent – is due to human-caused global warming”

Also an interesting take on what an El Nino is from the SMH (speculation unsupported by any evidence in the IPCC assessments)

“During El Nino years, the usual westward-blowing trade winds stall or reverse, lowering the rate the ocean absorbs the excess heat being trapped in the atmosphere by rising levels of greenhouse gases.”

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-temperatures-leap-higher-in-january-smashing-records-20160215-gmuv8f.html

# # #

I await the next Climate Clown installment with eager anticipation.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Rahmstorf claims “more than 80 per cent” of the El Nino spike for AGW. Then 5 paragraphs later he says:

“As the El Nino event winds down over the coming months we can expect somewhat lower global temperatures again for a while, but the global warming trend will continue until we phase out fossil fuels,”

Is he saying expect even lower than the 80% level? If so he implies AGW cannot sustain the level he claimed previously. Why not?

El Nino temperature spikes return to neutral after ENSO-neutral conditions return. That means the entire spike is wiped out. Then if a La Nina follows, which is a strong possibility, temperatures go below neutral.

What then for AGW?

Too much fun.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

STATISTICAL FORECASTING How fast will future warming be? Terence C. Mills © Copyright 2016 The GlobalWarming Policy Foundation Summary The analysis and interpretation of temperature data is clearly of central importance to debates about anthropogenic globalwarming (AGW). Climatologists currently rely on large-scale general circulation models to project temperature trends over the coming years and decades. Economists used to rely on large-scale macroeconomic models for forecasting, but in the 1970s an increasing divergence between models and reality led practitioners to move away from such macro modelling in favour of relatively simple statistical time-series forecasting tools, which were proving to be more accurate. In a possible parallel, recent years have seen growing interest in the application of statistical and econometric methods to climatology. This report provides an explanation of the fundamental building blocks of so-called ‘ARIMA’ models, which are widely used for forecasting economic and financial time series. It then shows how they, and various extensions, can be applied to climatological data. An emphasis throughout is that many different forms of a model might be fitted to the same data set, with each one implying different forecasts or uncertainty levels, so readers should understand the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Planet overheating? Not according to historical records’ Written by Ben Webster, The Australian on 23 February 2016. The global average temperature is likely to remain unchanged by the end of the century, contrary to predictions by climate scientists that it could rise by more than 4C, according to a leading statistician. British winters will be slightly warmer but there will be no change in summer, Terence Mills, Professor of Applied Statistics at Loughborough University, said in a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He found that the average temperature had fluctuated over the past 160 years, with long periods of cooling after decades of warming. Dr Mills said scientists who argued that global warming was an acute risk to the planet tended to focus on the period from 1975-98, when the temperature rose by about 0.5C. He used simple statistical methods, normally used to predict economic trends, to forecast future temperatures. He took into account all the fluctuations in the temperature since 1850 and found no evidence to support the increase predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN scientific body. He found the average winter temperature in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Problem for the warmists. The rebuttal to Karl et al has the following author list: John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka and Neil C. Swart How is this even possible? See: Nature: Making sense of the early 2000’s warming slowdown Posted on February 24, 2016 | by Judith Curry https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/24/nature-making-sense-of-the-early-2000s-warming-slowdown/#more-21204 It gets worse. JC quotes Ed Hawkins’ blog post: The new Fyfe et al. paper is mainly in response to Karl et al. and Lewandowsky et al., who made the following statements in their abstracts: “These results do not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature” – Karl et al., 2015, Science “there is no evidence that identifies the recent period as unique or particularly unusual” – Lewandowsky et al., 2016, BAMS Firstly, climate scientists agree that global warming has not ‘stopped’ – global surface temperatures and ocean heat content have continued to increase, sea levels are still rising, and the planet is retaining ~0.5 days of the sun’s incoming energy per year. I think there… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

For the record, much chortling in the Guardian from Nuccitelli and Schmidt, Betts and Hawkins (the latter co-authors of Fyfe et al just upthread and see below) re the Mills/GWPF statistical forecast model (see just upthread. Gavin’s mirth (see Figure’s 5 & 6): “amusingly, current temps (to 12/2015) already outside predicted range” This in respect to the 2015 El Nino spike. Schmidt’s own GISTEMP monthly shows the peak has passed and current temps well on the way back into the predicted range. Mirth will be short-lived in other words. Schmidt claimed all but 0.07C of the El Nino spike for AGW (see upthread and ‘2015 warmest’ post) so he’ll have problems of his own very soon. Expect some back-peddling. Nuccitelli says in respect to the Figure at bottom of page: “As Mann et al. (2016) most recently showed, physics-based climate models are doing a very good job at predicting global warming and climate change. As expected based on our understanding of the greenhouse effect, if we keep pumping vast amounts of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, the planet will continue to warm dangerously rapidly.” Except the “physics-based climate models” he refers to from… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”For the record, much chortling in the Guardian from Nuccitelli and Schmidt, Betts and Hawkins ……….. re the Mills/GWPF statistical forecast model”

Forgot the link to the Nuccitelli/Guardian article:

‘Lord Lawson thinktank’s report ignores everything we know about climate science’
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/29/think-tank-throws-out-centuries-of-physics-climate-scientists-laugh-conservative-media-fawns

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Now Even Michael Mann Admits The ‘Pause’ In Global Warming Is Real; Throws Allies To Wolves’ By James Delingpole, 28 Feb 2016 The “Pause” in global warming is real – not an urban myth concocted by evil ‘deniers’ – a study [Fyfe et al – see link below] has found, signalling the development of a major schism within the climate alarmist camp. “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims,” the paper in Nature Climate Change says. Though the paper’s findings are not controversial – few serious scientists dispute the evidence of the temperature datasets showing that there has been little if any global warming for nearly 19 years – they represent a tremendous blow to the climate alarmist “consensus”, which has long sought to deny the “Pause’s” existence. First, the study was published in Nature Climate Change a fervently alarmist journal which rarely if ever runs papers that cast doubt on the man-made-global-warming scare narrative. Secondly, it directly contradicts a… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”On one side are people like Thomas Karl and Thomas Petersen,”

And Gavin Schmidt.

>”On the other are what might be called the “rats deserting the sinking ship” faction”

John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart

Except the rats have only jumped on some floating debris, they haven’t mustered the courage to make for dry land just yet.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”On one side are people like Thomas Karl and Thomas Petersen,” [And Gavin Schmidt]

And Adam Scaife and Peter Stott UK Met Office (see link), and Grant Foster (in same CCG thread at link).

Quotes from an article called “Analysis: How 2015 became the hottest year on record” from CarbonBrief.org
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/01/hottest-year-ever-was-2015/#comment-1422089

And Stefan Rahmstorf:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/01/hottest-year-ever-was-2015/#comment-1430823

So the “sinking ship” faction is at least:

Thomas Karl, Thomas Petersen, Gavin Schmidt, Adam Scaife, Peter Stott, Stefan Rahmstorf and Grant Foster.

And the “rats” faction is at least:

John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart

This is fun.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”So the “sinking ship” faction is at least: Thomas Karl, Thomas Petersen, Gavin Schmidt, Adam Scaife, Peter Stott, Stefan Rahmstorf and Grant Foster.”

The Karl et al (2015) author list is as follows:

‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’
Thomas R. Karl1,*, Anthony Arguez1, Boyin Huang1, Jay H. Lawrimore1, James R. McMahon2, Matthew J. Menne1, Thomas C. Peterson1, Russell S. Vose1, Huai-Min Zhang1

– Author Affiliations
1National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Asheville, NC 28801, USA.
2LMI, McLean, VA, USA.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I wonder how Schmidt and Rahmstorf will spin this. GISTEMP February Land anomaly has shot up again after dropping in January but the Ocean anomaly is down. From this GISS page: Global Temperature — More Figures http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/ Land 2015.125 1.54 2015.208 1.52 2015.292 0.88 2015.375 1.03 2015.458 1.08 2015.542 0.87 2015.625 1.01 2015.708 1.07 2015.792 1.45 2015.875 1.36 2015.958 1.79 2016.042 1.54 2016.125 2.37 [Feb] http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/Fig.A4L.txt Ocean 2015.125 0.52 2015.208 0.57 2015.292 0.63 2015.375 0.68 2015.458 0.68 2015.542 0.71 2015.625 0.72 2015.708 0.76 2015.792 0.81 2015.875 0.80 2015.958 0.77 2016.042 0.80 2016.125 0.74 [Feb] http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/Fig.A4OERv4.txt Schmidt claimed all but “0.07C” of the 2015 Land+Ocean spike for AGW and Rahmstorf “more than 80%”. Problem is, now the Feb 2016 Land anomaly is 0.58 C higher than the Dec 2015 Land anomaly that made news headlines (2.37 – 1.79 = 0.58). This is 1.36C higher than only 6 months previously (2015.625 1.01). 2.37 (Land) is far and away the most spectacular anomaly in the GISTEMP dataset and more than 0.5 on what Schmidt claimed for AGW. So what to do? Double down and claim Feb 2016 too? I’ve yet to see a news headline on… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Alarmism Cranked Up to Absurd Level’ Bob Tisdale / March 16, 2016 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/16/alarmism-cranked-up-to-absurd-level/ Some good graphs showing how the climate clowns are hyperventilating about a natural, and Northern Hemisphere, phenomenon. For example” GISTEMP LOTI Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere Model-Data Comparison of 360-Month Trends (Trailing) [GISS LOTI] And for chuckles, Tamino’s “adjusted” series starting 1950 (why not 1880?) Grant Foster’s “adjusted” GISTEMP LOTI Oddly, the 2015/16 El Nino spike remains in entirety. As Tisdale puts it: “Apparently his [Grant Foster’s] model needs some work, because after supposedly removing the effects of El Niños it still shows an uptick caused by the 2015/16 El Niño.” What is amusing is that, irrespective of the imposed trend curve (basically just 2 linear trends – look closely), The 21st century ‘hiatus’ is clearly evident from the mid-2000s onwards. All Taminos “adjustment” does is move the pause along in time. This would be even more clear if Foster had actually removed the 2015/16 uptick. In other words, his trend line is missing a 3rd linear trend from about 2005 onward. Clearly, from 2010 onwards, the bulk of the data is BELOW Foster’s linear trendline. 2010 is significant here… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Much more on the 2015/16 El Nino spike in “Hottest year ever was 2015”:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/01/hottest-year-ever-was-2015/comment-page-1/#comment-1445980

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Tamino’s post:

‘Surprise, but not Shock’ – Tamino (Grant Foster)
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/surprise-but-not-shock/

Advanced signal analysis is rather more revealing than Foster’s inept (and therefore non-contiguous) efforts.

For example:

‘Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record’. Diego Macias , Adolf Stips , Elisa Garcia-Gorriz. Published: September 10, 2014
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

Provides this:

Analysis of Global Temperature Anomalies
comment image

Compare the residual (red line) to Foster’s (latest) residual:

Foster’s March 2016 ‘adjusted’ GISTEMP
comment image

Foster, in his ignorance, will be out of options around 2020. His blind belief that the data trajectory is his linear residual will be undone in the intervening time. Firstly by a return to neutral conditions after the El Nino. Secondly by a very probable La Nina. Thirdly by a return to neutral after a La Nina. All of which will be BELOW his residual trendline, as was the post-2010 data BELOW his F&R2011 residual trajectory.

Foster dug himself into hole. Now he’s tying himself in knots. Schadenfreude is fun.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

HadSST3 Northern Hemisphere vs Southern Hemisphere

From 1990, 5 yr mean, trends from 1995
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/mean:60/from:1990/plot/hadsst3nh/mean:60/from:1990/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1995/mean:60/trend/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1995/mean:60/trend

Huge divergence in NH SST from 2000 onwards but SH essentially flat.

Hence the illusion that 21st century warming is “global” and “shocking”.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

“Add HadCRUT4 and HadSST3 global means to the above graph and it becomes perfectly obvious that GMST is skewed by NH Land [this century]”

I don’t know why this is the case. I suppose that because NH SST warmed, NH land warmed also. And there’s more land in the NH than SH.

Conversely, SH SST didn’t warm so SH land didn’t warm either. And there’s less land in the SH than NH.

Goes to show that a globally averaged Land+Ocean metric is a complete misrepresentation of the earth’s surface temperature. The “global record” 2015 anomaly does not show up at all in the SH metric.

The globally averaged Land+Ocean GISS LOTI, HadCRUT4, and NCDC/NCEI metrics are just a useless illusion – except for ideological purposes.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Richard,
You seem to have troubling grasping the concept of mean or average. The existence of data points below the mean does not invalidate the central estimate.
Global climate models predict faster warming in northern boreal regions, which is exactly what is happening.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”Richard, You seem to have troubling grasping the concept of mean or average. The existence of data points below the mean does not invalidate the central estimate.” It does at the end of a series if the series isn’t linear in nature i.e. where a linear trend is statistically inappropriate. For example, Wellington tide guage data (PSMSL) is linear in nature over the entire series in the long-term so it is reasonable to extrapolate the data even though there is some intermediate fluctuation. So yes, you are correct in that case Simon. But if the data is NOT linear in nature, you’re dead wrong. Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf were caught out in this way by data subsequent to 2010 in their 2011 paper, Hence Foster’s NEW model of residuals which differs from OLD. I’m assuming you are alluding to my critique of Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) and Tamino’s post because you don’t actually refer to anything in particular. Correct me if I misconstrue, it’s hard to know what you’re on about exactly if you don’t explain yourself. Clearly temperature data is not linear in nature. The secular trend certainly is not… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Steve Sherwood and Stefan Rahmstorf at Hot Topic: “In the longer run the global warming trend agrees very well [hotlink] with longstanding predictions” http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#more-14425 This is dead wrong. The hotlink is to this Rahmstorf Tweet: https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/698380997222510592 Which contains this graph: Graph looks dodgy. Reason becomes clear by following the link in the Tweet to this paper: ‘The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth’ Michael E. Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Byron A. Steinman, Martin Tingley & Sonya K. Miller (2015) http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831 Yes you are looking at GISTEMP. No you are not looking at CMIP5 model output. You are looking at “adjusted” model output i.e. a residual. The giveaway is this: “It is critical to take into account these contributions in estimating the likelihood of record temperature values. One body of past work5,6,7 has employed model-based fingerprint detection methods to study temperature extremes in a generic sense, though without any focus on the types of questions posed here (i.e. the likelihoods of specific observed runs of record warmth). In this approach, natural variability is estimated from the climate models themselves, which means that assessments of the likelihood of extremes is dependent on the models producing realistic natural… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Climate Models Are NOT Simulating Earth’s Climate – Part 2’
Bob Tisdale / February 12, 2016
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/12/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-2/

Extratropical Southern Hemisphere SST Model-Data Comparison
comment image

South Pacific SST Model-Data Comparison
comment image

Southern Ocean SST Model-Data Comparison
comment image

Southern Ocean Trends:
+0.043 C/decade Model Warming
=0.061 C/decade Data Cooling

ALL absolute model temperatures are too warm by 0.8, 0.6, and 1.0 C respectively.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

T’he Sun in February 2016 and the latest heat records’ By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholtr / March 20, 2016 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/20/the-sun-in-february-2016-and-the-latest-heat-records/ Broken temperature records The global temperature in February announced by GISS was 1.35 °C above the average from 1951 to 1980 [but ONLY in the NH]. This is an impressive record, 0.8 ° C (!) warmer than in February 2014. What is behind such a large jump in a relatively short time? One of the reasons is of course the current El Nino. Another element is the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP). It extends from 90° East to 180° East and 20° South to 20° North: Fig. 5: The IPWP (turquoise highlighted). Source: “Google Earth” This sea area receives heated water of the tropical Pacific from South / Central America, driven by the trade winds under neutral conditions of ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and during La Nina situations. We explained it here in more detail. Largescale, the globally highest ocean temperatures occur in this IPWP area, about 28.5°C. The heat that comes from the entire tropical Pacific is stored down to 500m water depth. The following figure shows how temperatures in this… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Concern as hot February shatters global records’ The story is the same around the world: the scourge of global warming is back again with a vengeance Robin McKie, Published 20/03/2016 http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/concern-as-hot-february-shatters-global-records-34555901.html Wrong for starters. No Southern Hemisphere warming spike: GISTEMP: Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif There was a spike in SH SST but that’s on the way back down: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1990 The SH SST trend from 1997 is negligible even with only the warm side of the EL Nino data in i.e. the “hiatus” is still there in SH SST data: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1990/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1990/trend It gets worse: Nor is this dramatic jump in global temperature a freak triggered by an unusually severe El Nino, say researchers. “It is the opposite,” said Professor David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey. “This is a catch-up of a recent hiatus that has occurred in rising global temperatures. We are returning to normality: rising temperatures. This is an absolute warning of the dangers that lie ahead.” Where did the “catch-up” heat in the air come from? The sea, which cooled. Where will the “catch-up” heat in the air go to? To space, the air will cool.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The Hunt For Global Warming: Southern Hemisphere Summary’ Posted on April 13, 2015 by Euan Mearns In recent months I’ve had a series of posts looking at the temperature histories of a number of land areas in the Southern Hemisphere [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. This was in response to a post by Roger Andrews where he presented an analysis of about 300 climate stations from the Southern Hemisphere that, when combined, showed substantially less warming than the reconstructions presented by various groups (BEST, GISS, HadCRUT) [6]. I found this to be both intriguing and important and wanted to see if I could replicate Roger’s result. Figure 1: 174 Stations Southern Hemisphere, Average Temperature Anomalies, GHCN V2 1880 – 2011 +0.23 C, +0.18 C/century Figure 1 Note that this chart has an expanded Y-axis scale and the grid lines are at 0.1˚C intervals. A regression through all the data using station average as the base indicates warming of +0.18˚C per century, i.e. close to zero. The black trend lines are parallel to the regression and show there are rising tops and bottoms in an overall slowly rising trend. The alternative view is a… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From the Mearns study:

CRUTEM4 vs GHCN V2 (Mearns)
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/crutem4-EM.png

BEST vs GHCN V2 (Mearns)
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/crutem4-EM.png

GISS vs GHCN V2 (Mearns)
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/GISS-EM.png

UAH vs GHCN V2 (Mearns)
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/uah-em.png

UAH vs GHCN V2 (Andrews)
http://oi61.tinypic.com/287g483.jpg

Average temperature anomalies, 15 stations from 1880, New Zealand, GHCN V2
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/NZdTtime.png

# # #

UAH vs GHCN V2 (Andrews) is spot-on. +0.2 C divided by 2.9 decades = +0.069 C/decade,

CRU is distorted

GISS is grossly distorted

BEST is worst (junk).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The GMST Illusion [TVNZ] The protest also comes in the aftermath of the hottest ever month recorded worldwide. “If we needed any sort of wakeup call on how rapidly climate change is happening that was it, February was it,” Greenpeace climate and energy spokesman Steve Abel said. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/we-dont-doubt-science-climate-change-petroleum-exploration-boss And, ‘Climate Changing at ‘Unprecedented’ Rate’ “The startlingly high temperatures so far in 2016 have sent shockwaves around the climate science community.” January and February 2016 smashed temperature records, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Monday as it warned climate change was advancing at an “unprecedented” rate. Temperatures in the first two months of 2016 followed a year that broke “all previous records by a wide margin,” the UN’s weather agency said. The WMO pointed to record 2015 sea surface temperatures, unabated sea-level rise, shrinking sea ice and extreme weather events around the world. “The alarming rate of change we are now witnessing in our climate as a result of greenhouse gas emissions is unprecedented in modern records,” the WMO’s new chief, Petteri Taalas, said in a statement. Dave Carlson, head of the WMO-co-sponsored World Climate Research Programme, said the rising temperatures this year… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The GMST Illusion

‘February’s global temperature spike is a wake-up call’

by Steve Sherwood, of UNSW Australia and Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, currently working in Australia,

“What is going on? Are we facing a climate emergency?”

“Fortunately, this is temporary: the El Niño is beginning to subside.”

http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#more-14425

# # #

There is no reason for alarm anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, no temperature spike was registered except briefly in SST.

And an El Nino is a natural COOLING process i.e. the Northern Hemisphere spike is transitory.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

COLUMN: How much clarity do we have on transition to La Niña? – Braun CHICAGO | By Karen Braun Markets | Fri Mar 18, 2016 The potential for the massive El Niño to transition into La Niña later in the year is one of the hottest topics in commodities markets right now. These fluctuations of sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean can have drastically different impacts on global weather depending on which phase is present – El Niño, the warm phase, or La Niña, the cool phase. They are one of the few clues to seasonal weather patterns several months or even years in advance. The short question-and-answer session would look like this: Are we headed for La Niña toward the end of 2016? Looks that way. Will it be a big one? Not sure. The answers may help dictate whether drought is likely in South America, winter will be cold in the United States or abundant rains will return to Southeast Asia, among other things. Although strength is yet to be determined, the progression of certain atmospheric and oceanic variables will provide clues on the possible entry to La Niña.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The GMST Illusion

‘Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists’

Posted on 21 March 2016 by Dana Nuccitelli

“Stunning,” “wow,” “shocker,” “bombshell,” “astronomical,” “insane,”“unprecedented”– these are some of the words climate scientists have used to describe the record-shattering global surface temperatures in February 2016.

[Graph] NASA GISS global monthly (red) and 12-month average (blue) surface temperatures as compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

It’s difficult to see any ‘pause’ or slowdown in the global warming over the past 50 years.

To put the current temperatures into context, prior to last October, monthly global surface temperatures had not been more than 0.96°C hotter than the 1951–1980 average, according to Nasa. The past 5 months have been 1.06°C, 1.03°C, 1.10°C, 1.14°C, and 1.35°C hotter than that average, absolutely destroying previous records. Estimates from Noaa are in broad agreement with those from Nasa.

Right now, the Earth’s average surface temperature is hotter than it’s been in thousands of years; potentially even longer.

Continues>>>>>>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/current-record-shattering-temps-shocking-to-climate-scientists.html

# # #

“Stupid,” “whoppers,” “suckers,” “baloney,” “astounding,” “insane,”“uneducated”– these are some of the words BS-alert readers have used to describe the record-shattering global media temperature headline silliness since February 2016.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Pause in global temperatures ended but carbon dioxide not the cause ‘ Written by Jennifer Marohasy, Online Opinion on 21 March 2016 […] So, while the global satellite temperature data indicates that February 2016 is the hottest month on record, this pertains to a record that only goes back to 1979. If we consider the much longer surface temperature record for many individual locations across Australia and other parts of the world, February 2016 is not that hot. But this is an exceedingly contentious claim, rejected by a “consensus” of climate scientists that rely exclusively on homogenized temperature series. That is the early temperature records are almost all adjusted down through the homogenization process, so the present appears warmer relative to the past. It is not contested that the official surface temperature records are adjusted, or that the early records are generally cooled. This is justified mostly on the basis of “world’s best practice” and that temperature series should show global warming from at least 1910. I’ve explained the inconsistencies in the adjustment made in the homogenization of the original observed maximum temperatures at Darwin in a technical paper originally accepted for publication… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The GMST Illusion The “Greenhouse Effect” Hypothesis’ Sleight of Hand Written by Carl Brehmer. Published on March 19, 2016 ABSTRACT: In any meaningful thermodynamic discussion it is necessary at the outset to clearly define the parameters of the “system” under study. One of those parameters is whether or not the system is “closed”. The typical explanation of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis pulls a slight of hand in this regard in that it starts out describing the thermodynamics of one “system” with an emphasis on the first law of TD, but then switches twice midstream to different “systems” altogether and asserts that the thermodynamics of the second and third systems mirror the thermodynamics of the first system. If you are already confused you are not alone. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is itself very confused. Let’s explore. First system The first system is the Earth/atmosphere ensemble, whose “boundary” is space and whose two thermal energy sources are 1) incoming sunlight and 2) internal nuclear decay. This is, indeed, a “closed” system in that for all practical purposes there is no movement of matter into or out of the system that would carry thermal energy with… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Brehmer from ‘Second system’ in respect to Desert Rock Nevada: As you can see, from these simple calculations drawn from standard radiation thermodynamic using surface radiation readings being gathered by NOAA, this second system (whose temperatures are being averaged to create the “global mean temperature”) loses over 7 times as much “heat” via IR radiation upwards as it gains via IR radiation from the ground! 10 W/m2 of “heat” is transferred via IR radiation into this “second system” through the lower boundary of the system, while 77.4 W/m2 of “heat” is simultaneously being lost via IR radiation through the upper boundary of the system. Contrary to this physical reality, the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis asserts that IR radiation is somehow causing “heat to be trapped” within the system under study, thus forcing its temperature to increase. And in respect to the K&T budget and diagram: This is a 1:7.5 ratio of atmospheric “heat” gain via IR radiation from the ground to atmospheric “heat” loss via IR radiation out into space. In other words, for every 1 W/m2 of heat gained via IR radiation from the ground the atmosphere disgorges 7.5 W/m2 via IR radiation… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dang, missed an end quote tag just prior to “Ok, let’s think of this in view…….”

That’s my comment from then on, not Brehmer’s.

Inattention and browser without edit for some reason (Opera). I was watching ‘Last Call at the Oasis’ on Maori Television and compiling a comment simultaneously. ‘Last call’ is the 2011 water crises alarm doco featuring Erin Brockvich and …………Peter Gleick.

Some good stuff on water pollution and bottled water but the “climate change” alarm looks silly since rain in Australia and California.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The GMST Illusion at WUWT

“It’s on land. It’s in the oceans. It’s in the upper atmosphere. It’s in the lower atmosphere.”

But it’s not in GISTEMP Southern Latitudes to end of 2015.

[see graph]

1980 SH Extratropics anomaly was fractionally warmer than 2015:

1980 46
2015 41

Needless to say, I find the anomaly neither “astronomical,” ”staggering” or “strange.” from a SH perspective. The heat-in-transit from sea to space has been concentrated in the NH [rather than evenly distributed north – south].

And “heat trapping greenhouse gasses” will “trap” NONE of this passing heat. That’s because El Nino heat is special heat that “heat trapping greenhouse gasses” can’t “trap” /Sarc.

This is an abrupt localized oceanic surface COOLING process, not surface warming like some “shocked” climate scientists (think Rahmstorf et al) see when they look at GMST. They’ve been suckered by the GMST illusion.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/22/more-alarmist-nonsense-with-the-release-of-the-redundant-noaa-global-temperature-data-for-february-2016/comment-page-1/#comment-2172327

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The GMST Illusion, WMO version (also upthread). ‘UN Claims There’s An ‘Alarming Rate’ Of Global Warming By Ignoring The 15-Year ‘Hiatus’ And El Nino’ Written by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller on 22 March 2016. http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/un-claims-there-s-an-alarming-rate-of-global-warming-by-ignoring-the-15-year-hiatus-and-el-nino.html “The alarming rate of change we are now witnessing in our climate as a result of greenhouse gas emissions is unprecedented in modern records,” Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said March 21 in a statement on the release of the group’s’ new climate report. WMO’s new “State of the Climate” report says the global average surface temperature was 0.76 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average because of man-made global warming and the current El Niño — something Taalas glossed over in his remarks. And, Taalas, however, wasn’t alone. David Carlson, the head of the WMO-sponsored World Climate Research Programme, claimed climate scientists have been shocked by how much temperatures spiked so far in 2016 — again, while a naturally-occurring El Niño warmed up the tropical Pacific. “The startlingly high temperatures so far in 2016 have sent shockwaves around the climate science community,” Carlson said in a statement, echoing Taalas’ alarm. # # # Amazing how… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

For the record:

“Climatologists such as Stefan Rahmstorf​, from Germany’s Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, say the big El Nino event in the Pacific is topping up the background warming from climate change by about 0.2 degrees.”

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/spike-in-global-temperature-fuels-climate-change-fears-20160317-gnl7do.html

# # #

Impressive Rahmstorf can narrow it down that much, given GISTEMP NH & SH monthly to February 2016:

comment image

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

For the record (from the same SMH article):

Stephen Sherwood, an atmospheric scientist at UNSW-based ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, said the recent surge in warming indicates the slowdown in surface temperature increases of the past 10-15 years is over.

“We knew that was never going to last,” Professor Sherwood said, referring to what had been dubbed a “warming hiatus”. “We’re back on track to where the models were predicting.”

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/spike-in-global-temperature-fuels-climate-change-fears-20160317-gnl7do.html

# # #

Heh. What will Sherwood say when the spike drops right back out of the model range to neutral after the El Nino?

Not to mention the very real possibility of a La Nina (Gaia forbid it’s a strong one).

But then, Sherwood is at the “ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science” so who am I to doubt his excellence?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Joanne Nova on Rahmstorf, Sherwood, UNSW, and Hannam/SMH, aided by Bob Tisdale (abbrev.):

‘It’s “special” science where one Hot Month is the signal, and years of The Pause is just noise.’

[See graph] Mystical Sign Watch in Global Temperatures
comment image

“Spike in global temperature fuels climate change fears” – SMH

Prof Rahmstorf seems a bit confused about what’s “noise” and what’s “signal”

So sayth the man [Sherwood] who “predicted” one hot month in two decades and finally got lucky? Now, despite the models being wrong for 18 years, in a flicker they are “right”. Three years from now if the pause still exists will he give up his job and pay back the salary?

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/03/its-special-science-where-one-hot-month-is-the-signal-and-years-of-the-pause-is-just-noise/

# # #

I was waiting for this.

The “spike” is only actually seen in the NH temperature series:

GISTEMP LOTI NH &SH
comment image

How exactly, is this a “surge in warming” (Sherwood)?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

At Hot Topic, no-one has yet dared to respond to this comment: February’s global temperature spike is a wake-up call richardcfromnz says: March 23, 2016 at 10:26 pm Re El Nino OLR. In an El Nino OLR goes from normal to less than normal (tropical thunderstorm activity) to more than normal and back to normal again: Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) Anomalies In El Nino to La Nina years: analogs to 2015/16 http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/ce/1/592/592/olr_anom_analog_15-16_2.png GHGs didn’t “trap” past El Nino heat (temps returned to neutral) so why should this one be any different? Or is this El Nino heat somehow different in that GHGs will trap the heat i.e. air temperature will remain elevated and will not return to neutral this time? http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#comment-47373 “Its just nonsensical, denialist drivel” apparently. “Utter pseudo scientific drivel”, “[in]comprehensible”, and “[un]intelligible” too. How can these people possibly critique IPCC Assessment Reports or peer-reviewed scientific papers or the man-made climate change conjecture in respect to the IPCC’s primary criteria? Let alone address simple questions as above. They don’t even know the source of this El Nino heat in the troposphere (Renowden and Taylor) or agree on where it exhibits in the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Hannam/SMH graph:

Source NASA: Departure from the norm – 2016 so far
http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/gnraz9/web_temp_anomalies_729x410.jpg

Except, let’s look at the NASA NH-SH data compared to GL mean:

Northern Hemisphere
2015 87 Jul
2015 98 Aug
2015 112 Sept
2015 122 Oct
2015 135 Nov
2015 144 Dec
2016 153 Jan
2016 190 Feb
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts+dSST.txt

Southern Hemisphere
2015 59 Jul
2015 57 Aug
2015 52 Sept
2015 89 Oct
2015 70 Nov
2015 76 Dec
2016 76 Jan
2016 81 Feb
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts+dSST.txt

Global Mean
2016 135 February
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

NH February was +55 more than the mean, +37 more than NH January, and by far the highest anomaly.

SH February was -54 less than the mean, but didn’t eclipse SH October 2015.

It’s tale of two hemispheres. GMST is a totally meaningless illusion.

Then there’s the Zonal annual means data:

SH Extratropics Zonal Annual Mean 24S – 90S
1980 46
2015 41
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt

Think of that plotted as per SMH graph.

Post Navigation