For 225 months there was no warming to speak of, then in February the latest giant El Nino kicked in and the world went mad.
Jo Nova describes it wickedly well: “one Hot Month is the signal and years of The Pause is just noise.” She points out that in 18 years climate models got one month right. Hah!
Many alarms being sounded, guilt piling up on western nations for their wicked productivity and climate science distorted beyond belief.
Views: 138
Josef Loschmidt (Maxwell’s teacher) was the first to realistically determine the size of air molecules – quite a feat in the 19th century. There is no correct peer-reviewed published refutation of his gravito-thermal effect, which is based on and derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that law also never proven incorrect. There’s a US $7,500 reward offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com if you or any reader can prove me wrong and produce a study confirming water vapor warms to the extent implied by the IPCC. Furthermore, the Loschmidt effect is now proven empirically in hundreds of 21st century experiments. The existence of this gravitationally induced temperature gradient means the IPCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on regarding CO2.
Hence there is no need for James Hansen’s guesswork that radiation from a cold atmosphere must be heating an already-warmer surface, because it is the force of gravity acting on molecules between collisions that produces both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that in Nature there is an autonomous propensity for a system to move towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which state has maximum entropy. However, this state in a force field is NOT isothermal. That is, there exists a non-zero temperature gradient which we can understand and quantify using the Kinetic Theory of Gases.
This fact, known about by physicists since the 19th century, completely demolishes the greenhouse. Hansen assumed isothermal conditions without GH gases, but that is NOT what the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates will tend to occur. See http://climate-change-theory.com for more detail.
In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.
Now for the temperatures to be equal when crossing this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below. Hence there is a stable equilibrium temperature gradient resulting from the entropy maximization process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Do we have any physicists who can support or refute these points?
Assuming that “Lukes” is Doug Cotton, then this discussion is likely to be one way.
Unfortunately, Roy Spencer has disabled comments on his blog because of this gentleman
It does seem a bit harsh, but comment threads were being filled up
One exceptional month (a spike) in the Northern Hemisphere means “global” and “warming”.
They (Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster et al) will look silly when the heat dissipates to space, as it normally does i.e. neutral conditions resume once the El Nino has passed. ENSO-neutral GMST is critical to the man-made climate change conjecture from 2015 – 2020. The conjecture is already falsified by the IPCC’s primary TOA criteria, next comes secondary surface temperature which TOA energy imbalnce “controls” (IPCC). If there’s no radical ENSO-neutral warming by 2020 then all the CO2-forced forecasts will be way out of the model range and demonstrably wrong, along with the conjecture.
What were the factors in the NH?
This insurance report says NAO in addition to El Nino:
‘2015 Global Insured Losses Lowest Since 2009 Despite El Niño Effects: Carpenter’
“One of the strongest El Niño periods on record and a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation were the climate drivers in 2015 ……”
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2016/03/25/403052.htm
But is the AO another factor for example, or AMO?
Should be:
>”If there’s no radical ENSO-neutral warming by 2020 then [observations] will be way out of [all the CO2-forced forecast] model range and demonstrably wrong, along with the conjecture.
I’ve started night-shift.
As I predicted in 2011, the “pause” will continue until at least 2027 and 500 years of cooling lies ahead starting later this century. Dr Spencer’s March 2016 temperature data is now available. Note that the red line (the annual moving average that eliminates seasonal effects) is still not as high as the maximum in 1998 and the El Nino spike is past its maximum. Click the link below to see details.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2016_v6-1.jpg
Don’t be misled by the data from ground based weather stations. Those that have not warmed get eliminated, whilst those that have not been affected by urban crawl warming have their rate of warming adjusted upwards. It is all FRAUDULENT science. Trust only Dr Spencer’s satellite data.
Reducing carbon dioxide will not help the environment because it cools rather than warms and it enhances agricultural production and growth of everything from flowers to forests. There is no valid science supporting the radiative forcing greenhouse garbage for the gullible.
The Second law of thermodynamics says: “In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.”
Hence, for the natural thermodynamic process that is a one-way pencil of radiation from a cooler system (a region of the atmosphere) to a warmer system (a region of the surface) there can be no decrease in entropy, and hence no heat transfer.
This Second Law applies to every independent process, so a reduction in entropy cannot be excused by a subsequent larger increase in entropy. For example, water cannot flow up a mountain to a lake at the top (reducing entropy) just because it will subsequently flow down further (increase entropy more) on the other side. Net effects of two or more non-dependent processes do not excuse a violation of the law.
Hence the Greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture is FALSE.
For those with a background in thermodynamics such as I have with extensive post graduate research, the following completes a summary of the hypothesis. For details see my peer-reviewed paper that has been subjected to peer-review in open media for three years now without any valid refutation. Attempts to do so may be posted at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
So carbon dioxide cannot warm the surface. But that leaves us then with no explanation for the surface temperature of Earth, let alone Venus, because the solar radiation reaching these surfaces is far too little to explain observed temperatures.
Hence it is NOT radiation that is supplying the necessary thermal energy. Instead, the solution to the dilemma is found in a correct understanding of the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, namely maximum entropy production by the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials.
When, perhaps on a calm night just before dawn, we have a state that is close to maximum entropy, there is observed a non-zero temperature gradient. That is because, for there to be no unbalanced energy potentials, the mean sum of molecular (gravitational potential energy + kinetic energy) must be homogeneous. Hence there is a temperature gradient derived by equating d(KE)=-d(PE) so that m.cp.dT=m.g.dH (where cp is specific heat) and thus the gradient dT/dH=-g/cp. This is then reduced in magnitude by the temperature leveling effect of intermolecular radiation between GH gases, which thus cause the plot of temperature against altitude to rotate downwards at the surface end, cooling the surface.
Finally, the way the required thermal energy gets into the surface from where it is absorbed from solar radiation in the troposphere and ozone layers is by the process of maximum entropy production that is repairing the temperature gradient and raising the whole plot of temperature against altitude to a higher but parallel position. It thus intersects the surface at a higher temperature and you just need to come to grips with the fact that the old Clausius (hot to cold) corollary of the Second Law only always applies in a horizontal plane. In a force field, as also seen in a vortex tube, there CAN be heat from cold to hot.
For more detail see http://climate-change-theory.com .
Few people have PhD’s in climatology, so when Dr Hans Jelbring (one who has) strongly supports what I have said I would suggest you ought to heed this new 21st century breakthrough in our understanding of planetary temperatures and heat transfer mechanisms.
So please note this strong support from Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD climatology) in an email I received last month reading …
“Dear all, Including politicians, laymen and scientists.
I am strongly supporting what Doug is writing below based on the fact being one of few scientists who actually have a doctorate in climatology. All of you who believe in authority should believe what Doug is saying below which is according to my own research and what some qualified scientists have told since many years. ….
I would also like to give credit to Doug Cotton who never seems to give up in his fight against ignorance among both politicians and scientists.”
Note also the following review of my book ..
Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.
John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics
Regarding Roy Spencer’s blog, I consider it a victory for correct physics that he, due to his complete failure to even look into the errors in his pseudo science that I pointed out many times (on his blog and in countless emails to him) and his hand-waving comments brushing aside my many thousands of hours of research, my qualifications and teaching experience in physics over several decades (even getting a scholarship from the Physics Dept of Sydney University) and the overwhelming evidence supporting this 21st century breakthrough in our understanding of planetary core and surface temperatures – despite all this, he imagined a simple IR thermometer disproved Loschmidt, Hansen, Nikolov and Zeller and several others apart from myself when Roy himself doesn’t even know how such instruments actually determine temperatures. Their sensors do NOT get warmed by radiation from a cooler object: instead the instrument measures the rate of cooling of the sensor, because heat is from the sensor to the cooler object, not the other way as climatologists think is possible. For more on radiation see my peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” published on several websites in 2012 and linked from the ‘Evidence’ page at http://climate-change-theory.com .
Must read on El Nino:
‘How Much Of Global Temperature Increase Is Due To El Niño?’
Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball, April 3, 2016
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/03/how-much-of-global-temperature-increase-is-due-to-el-nino/
Re Tim Ball article, the important part is this:
Given the spacial location of the latest GMST spike (high NH latitudes) and Tim Ball’s dissertation, I’m now convinced this El Nino was minor in terms of contribution to GMST.
Too many people have been suckered by the GMST illusion. Climate scientist’s aiding the suckering include Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, and Foster. Mann was suckered by Schmidt and Rahmstorf.
They’ve all set themselves up for acute embarrassment. As Tim Ball says:
What we are witnessing is a heat dissipation process – ocean => atmosphere => space, i.e. climate system cooling, NOT an atmospheric warming process. As usual, climate scientists have made a gross miss-attribution. The anomalous atmospheric heat will dissipate to space eventually leaving climate scientists (excepting Tim Ball at least) in a rather cooler world than what they thought they would be in.
RC,
Do you mean here at CCG?
OK, let me know if it’s worth our while to let LukesAreWrongToo carry on to his heart’s content or we should cut off his water now. I’m not that happy to let him fill a few megabytes at my expense if we’re not learning from him.
I saw a missing comment for a while. It is usually a caching problem and goes away after a while
Gareth Renowden was rattled by this from my comment upthread (this “One Magical Month” thread) :
Should be:
>”The acid test is on AGW now, Busted at TOA, if no radical warming by [2020], busted at surface too.”
>”I wasn’t referring to Mann because Mann was just relaying what he had read others saying (see upthread).”
That “upthread” comment with Mann quote has gone AWOL. The quote is in this SkS post:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-is-2016-smashing-heat-records.html
Mann wasn’t speaking his own mind, he was channeling Schmidt et al.
Re Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster et al. and their attribution of AGW to the 2015/16 GMST spike.
Their collective position is encapsulated by the UKMO’s 5 yr “decadal” forecast to 2020:
UKMO 5 yr forecast
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/q/o/fig3_dp2015_fcst_global_t.png
Their collective credibility along with the UKMO’s, irrespective of what Gareth Renowden thinks, is wholly reliant on GMST tracking the UKMO forecast (blue zone).
Given the UKMO’s annual 5 yr forecasts have been serially wrong year after year in respect to ENSO-neutral observations, the chances of them being right this time are remote (to say the least).
The ENSO-neutral trajectory of GMST is along the bottom of the green zone. There’s no reason for this to change radically for about a decade. The difference this El Nino year is the Arctic factor (El Nino contribution minor IMO). But excess Arctic heat dissipates just as excess El Nino heat dissipates.
If “heat trapping greenhouse gasses” didn’t trap past El Nino heat (they didn’t), there’s no reason to believe they will trap any heat this time around either, Arctic factor or not.
It’s been like 30 degrees and snowing for the past week in the Midwest in the US, so I think that should cancel out the unusually warm February. I mean, if a warm February proves global warming, does snow in April disprove it? I’m not terribly familiar with the rules for this game.
Warmies have the luxury of being able to pick and choose their most alarming GMST series depending on the headline required. For March it’s JMA in the Guardian:
Except then the article pulls in GISTEMP for February but the respective series have different anomaly baselines and differing margins, so the narrative becomes rather garbled:
They’re quoting station data, not LOTI, GISTEMP LOTI monthly is now on the way back down after the peak (as is the station series above) but the anomaly is not as alarming so it is dissed (natch):
GISTEMP: Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change [Station vs LOTI]
Year+Month Station Land+Ocean
2015.71 0.82 0.82
2015.79 1.19 1.06
2015.88 1.23 1.02
2015.96 1.43 1.10
2016.04 1.39 1.13
2016.13 1.71 1.34
2016.21 1.65 1.28
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.txt
The spike is ONLY in the NH data i.e. it is NOT “global”. And now NH temperatures are on the way back to ENSO-neutral although still in El Nino conditions
The NH-only “global” warming spike claimed for AGW/MMCC by Schmidt, Rahmstorf, et al (“shocker” and “a kind of climate emergency”) is dissipating to space in accordance with the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I issued a challenge at Hot Topic on this, no-one has dared respond:
Hot Topic runs and hides from this.
At least UKMO’s Scaife gets it mostly right at the bottom of the Guardian article:
Some sanity, except the UKMO’s 5 yr “decadal” forecast is wrong every year but Scaife is still clinging to the notion that “Global temperatures are expected to continue to rise in future decades due to climate change” nevertheless.
But what if ENSO-neutral GMST is back on the 21st century flat trajectory (i.e. back to hiatus) by end of 2016 – early 2017 …….??????
How long will it take for the likes of Scaife to abandon their expectation in the face of reality?
‘Earth’s temperature just shattered the thermometer’
[Schmidt] – “I estimate [a greater than] 99 percent chance of an annual record in 2016,”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11625515
In the Southern Extratropics too? GISTEMP has not been at record levels in SH Extratropics over recent years.
Just another Wash Post beat up regurgitated by the NZ Herald, and a chance for Schmidt to make asinine statements.
A challenge warmies WILL NOT RESPOND TOO (ae.g. Hot Topic):
Joe Bastardi, Weatherbell, Tweets (see NCEP graph):
Not looking good for the climate scientists – all that AGW/MMCC attributed “warming” is now “cooling”.
>”Not looking good for the climate scientists – all that AGW/MMCC attributed “warming” is now “cooling”.”
NZ Herald is still wallowing in the “warming”, alarming too apparently:
>”El Nino is a LOCAL rise in temperature, it does not normally affect the average global temperature much.”
Baloney. The local event skews the entire global average. This El Nino was NH-only.
>”It could be some random short-term fluctuation … [but] it feels a lot more like part of a trend.”
Feels?
Numpties.
Simon’s sarcasm (referring to kiwifruit season):
SimonP says: March 24, 2016 at 8:38 pm
“…..has picking been delayed by the lack of warmth in the southern hemisphere?”
http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#comment-47408
# # #
Upthread, Joe Bastardi Tweeted this NCEP graph to 29 April by Dr Ryan Maue (WeatherBELL) showing the southern hemisphere anomaly:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChLTTYLW0AA4JEo.jpg
The SH anomaly at end of April is now only fractionally above the 1981 – 2010 Climatology baseline and about 0.3°C COOLER than October 2015 at the start of the series.
In the same Tweet thread Climate News posted another NCEP graph, stating:
“2-meter global T. anomaly down 0.5°C since Feb”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChOeuPrUcAEYZZa.jpg
Another 0.25°C and the 21st Century “Hiatus” will be back. Another 0.5°C and the anomaly would be at the 1981 – 2010 Climatology baseline (i.e. no warming at all in this climate regime spanning 35+ years).
NZ’s warm temperatures at present are not typical of the SH. There is a distinct “lack of warmth in the southern hemisphere” as per NCEP contrary to Simon’s Sarc.
The NH anomaly hasn’t moved much yet which skews the global metric. Even so, global T is back where it was in March 2015.
The window of (NH-only – see top graph) El Nino opportunity warmies like Simon had open for a few months is not only slamming shut on them but it’s contradicting their narrative in a very embarrassing fashion.
This is fun.
Tangang: Powerful El Niño Not Due To Climate Change
May 9, 2016
There is no concrete evidence linking the powerful El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event to climate change, says leading climate scientist Fredolin Tangang.
“El Niño is a naturally occurring phenomenon, which is part of the inter-annual variability associated with oscillation of the atmosphere-ocean interaction in the Pacific Ocean that occurs in a two- to seven-year cycle,” he explained.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/09/el-nino-not-due-to-climate-change/
# # #
Poke in the eye for Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster, Mann, and the UK Met Office.
Leftover Warm Water Fuelled El Niño
Posted By: Site Admin May 9, 2016
Leftover warm water in Pacific Ocean fuelled the recent massive El Niño. A similar event occurred in 1990. That year, easterly winds counteracted a budding El Niño, and leftover warm water fuelled El Niño conditions in 1991 to 1992.
From the American Geophysical Union
A new study provides insight into how the current El Niño, one of the strongest on record, formed in the Pacific Ocean. The new research finds easterly winds in the tropical Pacific Ocean stalled a potential El Niño in 2014 and left a swath of warm water in the central Pacific. The presence of that warm water stacked the deck for a monster El Niño to occur in 2015, according to the study’s authors.
[…]
Abstract
Following strong westerly wind bursts in boreal winter and spring of 2014, both the scientific community and the popular press were abuzz with the possibility of a major El Niño developing. However, during the boreal summer of 2014, the Bjerknes feedback failed to kick in, aided and abetted by a strong easterly wind burst. The widely anticipated major 2014-5 El Niño event failed to materialize and even failed to qualify as an El Niño by conventional definitions. However, the boreal summer easterly wind burst had the effect of not only inhibiting the growth of the El Niño event, but also preventing and then reversing the discharge of the equatorial heat content that typically occurs during the course of an El Niño event. This head start of equatorial heat content helped push the 2015-6 El Niño event to extreme magnitude.
Citation
Aaron F. Z. Levine and Michael J. McPhaden; How the July 2014 Easterly Wind Burst Gave the 2015-6 El Niño a Head Start; Geophysical Research Letters; DOI: 10.1002/2016GL069204
Source
American Geophysical Union news release. [hotlink]
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/09/el-nino/
# # #
Totally demolishes Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster, Mann, and the UK Met Office.
UAH: April 2016 Was Fourth Warmest Month
Posted By: Site Admin May 3, 2016
Global atmospheric temperatures as measured by satellite instruments and analysed by UAH made April 2016 the fourth warmest month in the satellite temperature record, but only the second warmest April behind April 1998.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/03/april-2016/
RSS: April 2016 Second Warmest April
Posted By: Site Admin May 4, 2016
Global atmospheric temperatures in April 2016 as measured by satellite instruments and analysed by RSS shows that it was the second warmest April and fourth warmest month since satellite monitoring began.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/04/690/
# # #
Not much for the warmies to crow about from now on. Even ending at the peak El Nino data the RSS TLT trend is only 0.130 K/decade. It’ll be back to “Hiatus” by the end of the year i.e. an even lessor linear trend over the entire RSS series and flat this century.
Global warming not behind El Ninos, says former-IPCC chair
Written by Thomas Richard, Examiner.com on 09 May 2016.
The IPCC’s former vice chair told Malaysian news outlets today that while the naturally occurring El Niño of 2015-2016 was very powerful, global warming did not play a role. Dr. Fredolin Tangang of the University of Malaysia/Kebangsaan also said that even though this El Niño was one of the strongest recorded since recordkeeping began, there was no evidence that global warming was causing El Niños to become more frequent or more intense. An oceanographer and climatologist, Prof. Tangang served on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as its vice-chairman from 2008 to 2015.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/global-warming-not-behind-el-ninos-says-former-ipcc-chair.html
2016 El Nino Not Linked To Global Warming, Says Former IPCC Vice-Chairman
Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on 09 May 2016.
The current El Nino phenomenon that has brought prolonged drought and sweltering heat to Malaysia is the strongest of the 20 over the last 60 years, but there is no concrete evidence to link its heat intensity to global warming, says former IPCC vice-chairman. Climatologist and oceanographer Prof Dr Fredolin Tangang of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia said this year’s El Nino was even more extreme than the severe phenomena experienced in 1982/82 and 1997/98. “There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,” said Tangang, who had served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency. –Voon Miaw Ping, Malaysian National News Agency, 9 May 2016
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/2016-el-nino-not-linked-to-global-warming-says-former-ipcc-vice-chairman.html
# # #
Completely contrary to Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood and Foster who claimed almost all of the El Nino spike for AGW/MMCC.
As usual, there is no logical inconsistency between these statements except within your own mind.
El Nino frequency and intensity is not directly affected by AGW but AGW does increase the temperature
anomaly. Here is a nice little animation to mull over.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif
I get 404 Not Found when I click on Simon’s link.
A bit like the “missing heat”
I think the animation that Simon refers to can be found here:
https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/729753441459945474
Of course, the fact that temperature anomalies have increased over the last 150 years is not in dispute, but it’s nice to see another irrelevant graphic displayed to impress your chums
The same website (Ed Hawkins) has some stuff about energy imbalance
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/earths-energy-imbalance/
and how this is the thing to communicate, not surface temps.
As we know (Stevens et at) TOA energy imbalance is 0.6 +- 0.4 W/m2
Why don’t we communicate that, and did you notice that there are no numbers in Hawkin’s page?
Simon
>”AGW does increase the temperature anomaly.”
1) Your own personnal assessment Simon?
2) Contrary to ex-IPCC vice-chairman. Climatologist and oceanographer Prof Dr Fredolin Tangan (“no concrete evidence”).
3) How EXACTLY does AGW increase an anomalous very short-term spike Simon, if as Tangan puts it there is “no concrete evidence” of this?
4) Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster, Mann et al, are claiming MOST of the El Nino spike for AGW – NOT just an “increase”. Problematic because “heat trapping GHGs” are NOT “trapping” the heat (i.e. the AGW conjecture is falsified). The anomaly will return to ENSO-neutral (as 1998 did) in accordace with the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and contrary to the above climate scientists (excspt Tangan).
The spike will be GONE by the end of the year Simon, dissipated to space, only to remain in textual or graphical i.e. non-real, form
5) >”As usual, there is no logical inconsistency between these statements except within your own mind”
Given 1 – 4, the logical inconsistency appears to be in your mind Simon.
Andy
>”The same website (Ed Hawkins) has some stuff about energy imbalance [link] and how this is the thing to communicate, not surface temps.”
Good find. Guest post by Matt Palmer and Doug McNeall (UK Met Office), no less.
>”Why don’t we communicate that, and did you notice that there are no numbers in Hawkin’s page?”
There seems to be considerable reticence by the IPCC and likes of UKMO to address the actual TOA data vs theoretical figures – why one wonders?
I repeat my monotonous repetion; is that because:
A) Sloppy incompetance, or
B) Wilful negligence?
Palmer and McNeall say:
>”2) Contrary to ex-IPCC vice-chairman. Climatologist and oceanographer Prof Dr Fredolin Tangan (“no concrete evidence”).”
And contrary to Levine and McPhaden (2016).
Meteorologist Predicts Atlantic Cooling
Posted By: Site Admin May 10, 2016
Something significant is occurring in the Atlantic Ocean, according to meteorologist Paul Dorian of US weather forecast service Vencore Weather – Atlantic cooling. Evidence is growing to support predictions that the Atlantic Ocean is in a cooling phase and is set to cool further over coming decades with weather impacts for northern Europe and the north western US. Dorian is not the first scientist to reach this conclusion and he has put his thoughts into this article which was posted on the Vencore Weather website.
by Paul Dorian, Meteorologist, Vencore, Inc.
Overview
In addition to solar cycles, temperature cycles in the planet’s oceans play critical roles in our ever changing climate and also on the extent of global sea ice. Oceanic temperature cycles are often quite long-lasting and a warm or cold phase can persist for two or three decades at a time. In general, the Atlantic Ocean experienced a cold phase from the early 1960’s to the mid 1990’s at which time it flipped to a warm phase and that has continued for the most part ever since. The current warm phase; however, is now showing signs of a possible long-term shift back to colder-than-normal sea surface temperatures (SST) and this could have serious implications on US climate and sea ice areal extent in the Northern Hemisphere.
Continues >>>>>>> [see graphs]
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/10/atlantic-cooling/
# # #
>”…..a possible long-term shift back to colder-than-normal sea surface temperatures (SST) and this could have serious implications on US climate and sea ice areal extent in the Northern Hemisphere.”
Even more serious implications for the man-made “warming” conjecture.
Simon
>”Here is a nice little animation to mull over.”
Ah yes, the global “average” illusion using HadCRUT4.
You are effectively just looking at the Northern Hemisphere only in the last circuit Simon. SH not so much (not even close):
HadCRUT4 NH vs SH
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1950/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1950
Something to mull over.
The spiral infographic is interesting as a data presentation exercise. If you were into marketing, this would be a good way to convey the message “spiraling out of control”
As an an objective scientific tool, not so much use
Check out the April GISTEMP anomaly by latitude:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/
Perfect illustration of the “global average illusion”.
Also 2 NH hotspots on the map:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-16-at-11.49.29-777×437.png
Both from article (which raises difficult questions):
NASA Global Temperature Data: Warmest April
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/16/nasa-april-global-temperature-anomaly-1-1c/
The “global” anomaly (+1.11 C) is totally meaningless in this context (see 75S anomaly). Also, the spike is “sharply down” i.e. Schmidt’s starting to look like the dunce he will be by the end of the year.
USA NOAA April 2016 – 24th Warmest (Max)
Posted May 16, 2016 by sunshinehours
According to the NOAA, April 2016 was ranked 24th warmest out of 122 in terms of Maximum.
Did you know 1946 was the 2nd warmest April?
[see graphs]
https://sunshinehours.net/2016/05/16/usa-noaa-april-2016-24th-warmest-max/
# # #
Gee, “24th warmest” evah!
Bob Tisdale on Ed Hawkikins “spiral” graph (now in NZ Herald, of course):
HadCRUT4. But GISTEMP only commences 1880……..
Note the difference between a HadCRU anomaly map and GISS anomaly map:
HadCRUT4 March 2016
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/anomalies.png
GISTEMP April 2016
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-16-at-11.49.29-777×437.png
HadCRUT4 from article:
Met Office Global Temperature Data: March Warmest Month [by 0.002oC]
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/17/met-office-global-temperature-data/
Tamino
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/models/
Would this be the so-called “pause” that Mann et al recently wrote a paper in Nature about?
>”Now that global temperature has skyrocketed…..”
Heh. But only in the Northern Hemisphere, in pockets, due to a naturally occurring fluctuation.
Grant Foster will be running for cover by the end of the year. Frantically cobbling up another linear “long-term” trend. Model Version 3.0.
Still, the guy is good for a laugh.
Tamino:
‘NOAA Data Shows 2016 Set To Be Hottest Year’
Posted By: Site Admin May 19, 2016
Global average surface temperatures for the first four months of this year show that 2016 is shaping up to be the hottest year in the temperature records maintained by NOAA which date back to 1880.
[…]
Land and ocean temperature departure from average (with respect to the 1981-2010 base period. Data source: GHCN-M version 3.3.0 & ERSST version 4.0.0. Courtesy: NOAA.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-19-at-09.41.01-1024×576.png
[…]
Satellite data says it was warm but not that warm
However, while the data from both NOAA and NASA unequivocally suggest that April 2016 was the warmest April on record and, certainly, warmer than April 1998, other data suggests that this is not necessarily the case.
More>>>>>
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/19/hottest-year/
# # #
>”Global average surface temperatures…..”
One look at the spacial distribution (see map linked above) reveals the “global average” to be totally meaningless.
Divergence of GISS from RSS from 2001
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics9/divergence.jpg
Houston, we have a divergence problem……
‘Stuck on hot: Earth breaks 12th straight monthly heat record’ [April]
By SETH BORENSTEIN May. 18, 2016
“The Southern Hemisphere led the way, with Africa, South America and Asia all having their warmest Aprils on record”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/665487d98b0e43eca76847c45b64ec71/stuck-hot-earth-breaks-12th-straight-monthly-heat-record
# # #
I don’t think so. Southern South America was considerably cooler than normal and Southern Hemisphere Asia? Huh? What is in the SH was little more than ordinary:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-19-at-09.41.01-1024×576.png
The skew is still concentrated in Russia. All this will chnge with a La Nina.
Oregon schools ban books that question climate change:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/20/oregon-school-board-bans-books-that-question-clima/
Catastrophic climate change is 100% certain.
No room for any dissent in Portland.
‘Record Warm 2016? What a Difference One Month Makes’
July 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
With the rapid cooling now occurring in the global average tropospheric temperature, my previous prediction of a record warm year in the satellite data for 2016 looks…well…premature.
Here’s an update of what the average temperature trend would have to be in the next 6 months for 2016 to tie 1998 as record warmest year in the 38 year satellite record:
Graph http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-1.jpg
Basically, as long as the anomalies stay below the June value of 0.34 deg. C, 2016 won’t be a record warm year.
If only I had kept my mouth shut nine days ago….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/