UPDATE: 30% of my before-tax personal income from the sales of my ebooks (my profits from .pdf edition sales and my royalties from Amazon Kindle edition sales) from November 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 will be donated to the Philippine Red Cross disaster relief for the victims of Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda.
# # #
Sales of my ebooks (and tips) allow me to continue my research into human-induced and natural climate change and to continue to blog here at Climate Observations and at WattsUpWithThat?
Trenberth and Fasullo published a paper “An Apparent Hiatus in Global Warming?” last week in the new online journal Earth’s Future. Judith Curry briefly introduced the paper in her December 7, 2013 post Week in review (Thanks, Judith.)
From the last sentence of the abstract, Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) argues that:
Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways.
Midway through the paper, Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) begin a paragraph with:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the hiatus in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).
But then Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) turn around and cherry pick the end year of the “hiatus” in their Figure 4 (shown below as my Figure 1). In it they attempt to show the similarities in global surface temperatures between two recent 12-year periods. The data that stretches from 1982 to 1993 has been shifted upwards by 0.32 deg C to align the two periods.
First, anyone looking at their Figure 4 can see that the period of 1982 to 1993 has a much higher warming rate than 1997 to 2008, even without considering the cooling impacts of the eruptions of El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo during that earlier time period. In fact, the warming rate of the period of 1982 to 1993 is more than twice the rate for the period of 1997-2008. See Figure 2.
This is the second in a series of videos that examines hypothetical human-induced global warming and claims made by global warming enthusiasts. As noted in the title, it presents an introduction to the halt—a.k.a. the hiatus, the pause—in global warming.
I attended a somewhat large Thanksgiving gathering. There were about 18 immediate family, in laws and friends—mostly adults—seated around 2 tables. One of the greener attendees said something about global warming, and my response was that global warming has slowed and there has been no warming of global surface temperatures for more than a decade. My statement was met with disbelief by most. Luckily, two of the teenagers had heard of the hiatus or pause. (We later confirmed the halt on-line.) This generated a number of quick discussions, but the most surprising thing for me was that so few adults had heard that there had been a slowdown and halt in global warming…and that climate scientists were unable to explain it. Has the halt in global warming somehow escaped mainstream media attention in the States? (I don’t know. I haven’t watched TV in more than a decade.)
Thus this video:
I’ve shortened the span of the weekly data. As noted in the recent mid-April 2013 update, I started using January 2001 so that the variations can be seen AND so that you can see how “flat” global sea surface temperature anomalies have been since then.
The base years for anomalies are 1971-2000, which are the standard base years from the NOAA NOMADS website for this dataset.
PRELIMINARY MONTHLY DATA
The preliminary global sea surface temperature anomalies are presently at about +0.272 deg C.
Monthly Global SST Anomalies
With much fanfare from the faithful (a grand total of 15 comments as of this writing), SkepticalScience recently released their 4-Hiroshima-Bombs-per-second widget. Their claimed intent is to “raise the awareness of global warming”.
Their intent is to scare people—children and adults—into believing that something must be done about global warming. It’s nothing but propaganda—plain and simple. It’s based on estimates of the radiative imbalance caused by human-induced global warming.
Without thought—nothing new there—SkepticalScience has now opened the door for people to illustrate (1) the diminutive size of the radiative imbalance in relation to the amount of sunlight and infrared radiation that warms the planet every day, and (2) the massive uncertainties behind the imbalance.
So that’s the foundation for the first of a series of YouTube videos titled “Comments on Human-Induced Global Warming”. Episode 1 is “The Hiroshima Bomb Metric”.
SkepticalScience has used spambots in the past. I wonder whether they’ll use them again for this offensive widget. So, if you see links to that widget around the blogosphere, please feel free to leave a link to this video:
Date: November 26, 2013
From: Bob Tisdale
To: Lewis Black and George Clooney
Subject: Human-Induced Global Warming
First, let me congratulate and thank you for your efforts in disaster relief and other charities.
With that said, I’ve written to you both because a recent statement about climate change by George reminded me of a couple by Lewis.
At the Britannia Awards, in a response to what must’ve been a question about the recent typhoon that stuck the Philippines, George, you said in part:
If you have 99 percent of doctors who tell you ‘you are sick’ and 1 percent that says ‘you’re fine,’ you probably want to hang out with, check it up with the 99. You know what I mean?
Let me ask: Would you see a podiatrist or a proctologist for a sore throat?
The climate science community, under the direction of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), has only been tasked with determining whether manmade factors, primarily carbon dioxide, could be responsible for the recent bout of global warming, and what the future might bring if the real world responds to projected increases in manmade greenhouse gases in ways that are similar to climate models. They were not asked to determine if naturally caused, sunlight-fueled processes could have caused the global warming over the past 30 years, or to determine the contribution of those natural factors in the future—thus all of the scrambling by climate scientists who are now trying to explain the hiatus in global warming. Refer to the IPCC’s History webpage (my boldface):
Global sea surface temperature anomalies are at about +0.28 deg C for the week centered on November 20th, compared to the base years of 1971-2000.
Over the years I’ve seen a statement similar to the one made by MarkR in the SkepticalScience post The 2012 State of the Climate is easily misunderstood (my boldface):
Global surface temperatures were the 8th or 9th highest recorded, partly because the first two months were cool-ish thanks to a La Nina in the Pacific, where cooler waters sit on the top of the ocean and suck up heat from the atmosphere.
The error in MarkR’s statement, which has been repeated many times before, may stem from the assumption that La Niñas are the opposite of El Niños. That is, it is well known that El Niño events release enormous amounts of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. I assume the flawed logic is that La Niña events must then remove heat from the atmosphere.
The vast majority of heat released from the ocean to the atmosphere, however, occurs through evaporation.
It’s likely those assuming that La Niñas “suck up heat from the atmosphere” are thinking only in terms of “sensible heat flux”.
SENSIBLE VERSUS LATENT HEAT
The following graph is of annual global surface temperature anomalies, including year-to-date 2013 values. The base years for anomalies are 1981-2010. The GISS and NCDC data run through October 2013, and HADCRUT4 runs through September.
Annual Through Year-To-Date 2013
It appears that NCDC may rank 2013 as the 6th warmest year, while 2013 might rank 9th with GISS and HADCRUT4. That, of course, will change with the November and December values. Global warming enthusiasts will attempt, as they always do, to turn those rankings into forecasts of doom and gloom. (See the closing discussion under the heading of “The Silly Season is Upon Us”.)
Back to your regularly scheduled update:
The recent paper by Cowtan and Way (2013) Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends made the rounds in the climate change blogosphere. Posts at RealClimate (here) and at SkepticalScience (here) looked on the paper as the second coming of…errr…Hansen’s GISTEMP maybe, saying Cowtan and Way (2013) proved the UKMO HADCRUT4 data underreports by half the warming of global surface temperatures since 1997. The posts at WattsUpWithThat (here) and at Judith Curry’s blog (here) weren’t so flattering, to put it mildly. Lucia at her blog TheBlackboard had three posts (here, here and here.) Lucia spoke favorably about Cowtan and Way (2013), but offered in a comment (here):
That said: We do need to put the changes in context of testing models, and they don’t make a big difference. Models still look pretty bad, though maybe a tiny bit less bad. If the models are bad we can be pretty confident the divergence will increase over time — though it might take longer. OTOH: if the models are ok, the divergence will correct itself. Observing this puts us exactly where we were before C&W was published!
And Steve McIntyre’s post (here) illustrated the apparent 2005 breakpoint in his Figure 2. I’ll discuss in this post why that’s odd, among other things.