Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
It has been almost 16 years.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
h/t to Sundance
Wood for Trees HADCRU data only goes to Feb. Anyone know why? The RSS data is through June.
Wood for Trees must get it’s data from the CRU site, which hasn’t been updated since March. God knows why!
The same monthly data (although not annual data) can be obtained from the MO Hadley Centre website here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/index.html
Because Hadley and CRU are discontinuing version 3 of their dataset, because it underestimates mean global temperature, because it assumes the temperature across the Arctic is the mean of the rest of the surface. CRUT4 and HadCRUT4 will replace it; they assume the temperature across the top of the Arctic is the average of nearby stations.
What bullshit
How would you calculate a global average with a regional gap?
Satellites have much better areal coverage than GISS or HadCRUT. Hansen fabricates all of his data north of 80N
David Appell,
I don’t think that is the reason the data files haven’t been updated on CRU.
Hadley Center are still updating HadCRUT3, so they haven’t been replaced by HadCRUT4, which only goes to December 2010.
Satellites don’t measure surface temperatures. (And UAH measures the North Pole lower troposphere warming at 3.5 times the global rate.)
GISS assumes Arctic temperatures are the average of sites that ring that region. How would you do it?
Satellites measure temperatures at less than five kilometres elevation. Hansen extrapolates more than 200X that distance, at 1200 km.
According to global warming theory, satellites should show show more rapid rise than the surface.
Ray: That’s what the data keepers at Hadley and CRU told me two weeks ago when I asked.
They said they are putting the infrastructure in place to update CRUTEMP4 and HadCRUT4 on a monthly basis, and data from 12/2010 onward should appear any week now. They told me HadCRUT3 will be discontinued.
Isn`t it absolutely incredible how all successive adjustments always show greater increases in temperature
Different channels of the satellites measure microwaves from columns of air over several kilometers.
How would you estimate a global average with a regional gap?
Hansen has a gap across the entire Arctic and most of Antarctica and Africa, and you think his data is golden.
> Isn`t it absolutely incredible how all successive adjustments always show
> greater increases in temperature
Is that true? I don’t keep track of the revisions….
How would you estimate a global average with a regional gap?
What a daft question. In the 1850s CRUTEM only had one thermometer in the southern hemisphere. Hansen and Jones simply pull numbers out from where the sun never shines.
> Hansen has a gap across the entire Arctic and most of Antarctica and Africa,
> and you think his data is golden.
There’s nothing golden about anyone’s data. All scientific data has limitations.
How would you calculate a global average with regional gaps?
Simple. Just make numbers up like Hansen and Jones.
David Appell,
Why is the MO Hadley Centre still publishing HadCRUT3 then?
Clearly the collaboration between Hadley & CRU isn’t going too well.
I find it hard to believe thatthey would stop producing HadCRUT3 before HadCRUT4
was being updated.
I have asked them myself, so we will see if I get the same reply.
Meanwhile the Hadley Centre is still updating HadCRUT3.
How would I know why they’re still publishing version 3? Until they make a full transition, I guess, or for historical purposes. Ask them yourself. Meanwhile, it hasn’t been updated since March.
> In the 1850s CRUTEM only had one thermometer in the southern hemisphere.
But you said all revisions lead to higher temperatures. Here you’ve listed one, that isn’t even a revision but a data point.
So, have all revisions lead to higher temperatures? I suspect there have been many of them over the years (as is appropriate).
You are descending rapidly into complete idiocy
> Just make numbers up like Hansen and Jones.
And you have proof of such a serious claim? Let’s see it.
Or are you lying just because you don’t like their results?
Meanwhile, how about doing a Benford test on their results? I did a while back, on GISS’s monthly global anomaly, converting it to base 3 to get a span over several orders of magnitude. I found the expected distribution of digits.
I have discussed this in dozens of articles
Actually I think DA has gone plaid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7VWcuVOf0
> You are descending rapidly into complete idiocy.
So, as usual, you have no proof whatsoever, and are just making up accusations. That is, you are lying.
> You are descending rapidly into complete idiocy
Just as I thought — you don’t have the slightest proof that all revisions lead to increased temperatures.
It’s time for another Steve Goddard Bullshit Alert[TM].
I`ve done dozens and dozens of posts on this topic. Grow up david.
David Appell,
“Meanwhile, it hasn’t been updated since March.”
The series *has* been updated, i.e. on the MO Hadley Centre web site, but the files haven’t been updated on the CRU site. I certainly will ask the MO why they are still publishing the figures, and CRU aren’t.
I contacted the CRU, to ask why their HadCRUT3 figures hadn’t been updated since March.
They sent me a reply saying they have checked and they *have* been updated, implying that they had been updated before I sent my e-mail.
I have confirmed that figures are now up to date until July, but they weren’t when I last checked, but I can’t prove that.
No doubt the WoodForTrees files will now be updated as well.
I have just checked and indeed the WoodForTrees data files for HadCRUT3 do seem to be up to date now, which confirms the fact that CRU files have only just been updated.
Actually, the CRU site has only been updated to June, whereas the MO site has been updated to July.
> I have discussed this in dozens of articles
You aren’t writing “articles,” you are writing blog posts. Huge difference.
And what do you call yours?
ou are getting lamer and lamer
This is Goddard’s favorite diversion — when he is asked for proof to his outrageous assertions, he always fires back that he has written “thousands” of blogs as if that will actually answer the questions in front of him. Marvel Comics wrote thousands of comic books, but I wouldn’t be using them as proof of anything other than proof of an over excited imagination.
Are you too stupid or lazy to use the search bar?
“You aren’t writing “articles,” you are writing blog posts. Huge difference.”
The hockey stick (MBH) was a heavily peer-reviewed “article” wasn’t it? Then the blogosphere exposed it for the possibly fraudulent junk science that it is. I rest my case. 😉
That was the State of the Climate in 2008…since then Climate Science has evolved a lot, so now it’s 20 years we’d have to wait.
Then in 2015 it’ll be 25 years and so on and so forth 🙂
Vast amounts of money are on the line for keeping this disgusting scam going.
You have yet to produce a credible line of reasoning for this lunacy. Who benefits from this scam? How is this scam paid for? How is it possible to organise a 40 year scam that involves every government in the world?
This idea that there is a world-wide conspiracy of climate scientist is barking-at-the-moon type lunacy.
Oh really!? Apparently you’ve never heard of the Socialist International?
RTF
This report cannot be trusted.
I did not see anyone from NASA GISS or LLNL in the list of contributors.
I think Ben ‘crap beater’ Santer has already decreed 17 years. Watch for the next expansion of the error bars late next year. They did warn us that the next IPCC report would be worse than ever.
There will always be wiggle room as pointed out by Omnologos.
They were writing about global mean surface temperature — so why are you using the lower troposphere temperature for comparison?
And if you’re using the lower troposphere, why are you excluding UAH? Is it because they show warming over the last 15 years (0.08 C, sigma=0.05 C)?
And why use HadCRUT3 — which is known to underestimate the place on Earth that is warming the fastest?
Sneaky….
David,
You can madly wave your hands but the divergence of model projections from empirical data is a looming problem for the modelers. The 15 year trend is essentially flat under some temperature reconstructions and Santer’s 17 years is nigh. Perhaps the gravity of the situation begs that modelers be granted a third chance, say 20 years. I could go along with that providing that modelers provide a written affidavit that 20 years is the final goal post move, no sudden death overtime, just game over and admit their fallibility.
First, I’m asking why Steve Goddard is distorting the science by comparing model results to data which isn’t comparable. I’m still waiting for an answer.
Second, all climate scientists admit their models aren’t perfect and didn’t explain much of last decade. There have been papers written about it and many things said. Modelers admit their models aren’t good at including ENSOs, and there are many other factors out there that could matter: increased aerosols, lack of knowledge of the deep ocean, lack of proper modeling of the deep ocean, an Arctic melting faster than projected, the ozone hole, and so on. Especially over relatively short time periods like 10-15 years.
Over long time periods of climatological significance the results are much better: a surface warming averaging about 0.2 C/decade. Those are the important timeframes anyhow, not 10 or 15 years when natural fluctuations of ~ 0.2-0.3 C can appear to cancel (or augment) GHG warming. I believe that’s what “skeptics” were saying 10 years ago after the ’98 El Nino, right?
Back to church david
D Appell,
“Over long time periods of climatological significance the results are much better: a surface warming averaging about 0.2 C/decade. Those are the important timeframes anyhow, not 10 or 15 years when natural fluctuations of ~ 0.2-0.3 C can appear to cancel (or augment) GHG warming. I believe that’s what “skeptics” were saying 10 years ago after the ’98 El Nino, right?”
Daves verified this using the NOAA time machine. How far into the future have you seen David?
> Back to church david
You are avoiding reasonable questions, and you know it. Why are you using an LT dataset, and just one of them, to compare to models of surface temperature?
And how would you calculate a global average with regional gaps?
(This is where you change the subject to your Hansen obsession.)
You are incapable of seeing past your blinders.
David, you are no doubt learning that it is not in Goddard’s nature to answer a question that is direct and unambiguous. Expect more evasions and insults if you continue to press.
“They were writing about global mean surface temperature — so why are you using the lower troposphere temperature for comparison?”
Because land surface appears to have been corrupted by UHI effects. There have been just too many papers published on this issue for it to be ignored now, except for advocates and those invested in erroneous data adjustments. The other point is that lower tropospheric temperature trends should be higher than land surface if the GCM’s are correct, so this comparison is actually fairer and for the reasons explained above, more accurate.
Declaring that the comparison is ‘sneaky’ actually reveals a great deal of misdirection and dishonesty on your part.
But Steve, guys with a bunch of letters after their names say that we are all going to burn to death if we don’t do exactly as they say. Would a universilty man ever mislead you?
Besides, many people love to watch birds get killed with these “green” windmills that don’t work when you need them. It is entertainment! Grants and government money — how could anything go wrong?
Taking the average of tropic and arctic temperature anomalies is silly anyway, it’s about as meaningless as computing the average world income per person without first converting to a common currency.
Temperature defined via mean molecular velocity isn’t a “common currency?”
An anomaly of +1 degree C over – say – 10000 square kilometers in the Arctic represents far less added energy than an anomaly of +1 C over an equally large piece of the tropics. So if only the Arctic is hotter than normal, mean global temperature overestimates “global warming”, while if only the tropics are hotter than normal, the global mean will underestimate the warming.
Excellent point
Sshh Espen. Don’t you dare talk about energy! Anyway we know the oceans have been hiding the heat so as if by magic it’s the surface temp at the average human’s eye level height that matters.
Atmospheric scientists would progress a lot their self respect were they to work on changes of and at TOA but no luck so far.
Isn’t it horrible that a frozen wasteland is getting slightly warmer? These warmist buffoons are incapable of seeing a glass as half full. Neurotics to the core.
Except the global average is an average of temperatures, not of anomalies.
> Atmospheric scientists would progress a lot their self respect were
> they to work on changes of and at TOA but no luck so far.
“Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” Norman G. Loeb et al, Nature Geoscience (22 Jan 2012).
Attention all propaganda trolls/clones:
The earth is cooling since 1998. “Manmade” global warming is not happening.
> Isn’t it horrible that a frozen wasteland is getting slightly warmer?
It is when that means a significant change in its albedo, yes.
And the models tell us the earth will turn into a cinder when this happens? correct?
Why don’t you try thinking once in a while.
Toshinmack think?
Let me thank Mr Appell for this question :
“How would you estimate a global average with a regional gap?”
I estimate more than a century of “global warming” would disappear were such a question honestly answered by all. Thank you thank you David and welcome among the ‘skeptics’!
Please show your work.
Show yours.
David’s method of showing his work is getting links from google and making illiterate sciency sounding statements all the while not being able to critically question any of the links he provides. He’s a 4 star sheeple if there ever was one.
Probably getting his links or info from someone else that post here.
David Appell says:
September 1, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Please show your work.
———————————————————————————————————————
It’s obvious you won’t understand it. You won’t know if it’s right or wrong. You’ll just be a propaganda clone in response to any and everything that doesn’t agree with your “manmade” global warming denomination.
Why does David Appell want to discussing anything and everything except the topic of this post? Seems very sneaky and evasive to me.
😆
Being evasive is all they have. It’s an old political tactic.
It’s the whinny way in which they complain about something trivial or not particularly relevant that gives their mind set away.
I think you’re right.
Satellite data is supposed to be showing more warming than surface temperatures if “manmade” global warming “science” is right. But that is not happening. The opposite is happening. The “manmade” global warming hypothesis is wrong.
2 minute video
Joseph D’Aleo, temperature sets compared, global warming not adding up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHOuzwQFmk
This is what happens when confirmation bias lets you inadvertently cheat… By inflating the surface temperature record it actually looks like the basic greenhouse gas theory (or the IPCC version of it at least) is wrong. That seems unlikely to me. It’s far more plausible that adjustments to the surface temperature record have corrupted the accuracy of the data set.
The difference is 0.6 degrees. I don’t think they could have added that much. Since satellites are supposed to be warming more than surface and with surface showing that much of a difference they would have to have added more than 0.6 to end up with the 0.6 difference showing now—if manmade global warming is right. So it can’t be right. I think satellite doesn’t show more warming. Christy/Douglass found “…..and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.”
ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright ? 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/DCPS_IJC_final.pdf
Amino you can quote hundreds and hundreds of published sceptical papers but David Appell will unlikely even acknowledge their existence. And if he does, it will hand wave it all away as “denier science”. It’s a bizarre mind set.
But David Appell isn’t the only person reading this blog. I know there are people like me that want to know what’s really going on.
I notice Mr. Appel doesn’t want to address this little inconvenient fact. Wonder why? 😉
Once again there’s nothing to talk about with Mr Appell. If blogs are inferior contempt writing as he claims, then his comments surely are beneath contempt.
David Appell says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Except the global average is an average of temperatures, not of anomalies.
That’s not the case for the surface temperature sets. And if you think it invalidates my argument, you need to redo your high school math.
Not High, but Middle School math.
Just trying hard not to appear as rude 😉
David Appell says: September 1, 2012 at 8:27 pm
“Because Hadley and CRU are discontinuing version 3 of their dataset, because it underestimates mean global temperature…”
Thank you David, I needed a good belly laugh today! Hey! What did your Chevy salesman tell you about the Volt? No, really, I’ve almost stopped laughing and could use another hoot!
This discussion of one temperature data set over another is moot. We have all seen Steven’s representations of the adjustments made to GISS making old temperatures lower and new temps higher. It is clear there is an unresolved issue there. Perhaps David could explain. Or perhaps he could explain the disappearance of the LIA or MWP? The basic elephant in the room is that the attribution that man is responsible has not been shown to our satisfaction. Period! That is why we are skeptics. They say that it can’t be the Sun based solely on Judith Lean’s say so. On the other hand you have several forecasters who do a credible job of predicting weather well in advance based on the Sun and Moon. Checkmate! I follow Piers Corbyn closely, and despite some failures, he has predicted weather events that could not have been predicted , to the day, by sheer chance. The first one I noted was the 2008 mid-west all time record snowstorm on March 15th. He announced that at the Heartland conference when no one else was even thinking it could happen. There have many others since. The CAGW folks have no answer except to call people names. Not something that will advance science.
As you guys will have it, 95% is exacty 1.00, about 0.2 C/decade is exaclty 0.2 C/decade and at least 15 or 17 years is falsified at exactly 15 or 17 years.
It seems to me that you do not understand what is being said, you convert it to mean something that is not being said and then argue that your perception of the scientists arguments is wrong.
That is called a Strawman.
And temperature can be a bad indicator for heat if you have phase changes going on, which are occurring in the Arctic, due to all the melting ice.
The only phase change going on is the transition to stupidity in climate science. Antarctica is gaining ice.
Global warming was all about the globe warming whole it was warming but now curiously it’s all about “energy imbalance” …
Because you can make up any energy numbers you want using the missing heat fudge factor.
David Appell says at September 1, 2012 at 9:01 pm
“GISS assumes Arctic temperatures are the average of sites that ring that region. How would you do it?”
Whoa!
I could take readings in a ring around a block of ice, or a campfire – obviously both wrong for the centre of the ring.
What is the data for “Arctic” supposed to represent? The Arctic is a very large area, with varying temperatures.
Isn’t the need for both an integration of local temperature measurements that is valid for the earth’s climate, and local data to show what regional climate is doing? (Different uses, such as understanding the current drought in TX, and watching ENSO (the probable cause).)
I don’t understand why Appell wants to justify what clearly is not valid data. I suggest that the global surface-station temperature database is nowhere near what it needs to be to have any meaning for global climate. And it won’t be anytime soon, due to the high cost of getting an adequate distribution of stations.
(Example from near the Arctic of local variabiity: an area of the Yukon Territory of Canada, generally Dawson City and Watson Lake, is often the coldest place in Canada. That’s right, far south of the Arctic islands. Reason may be mountains and winds. Not representative of elsewhere at that latitude let alone to the north.)