July Data Rolls In…Consensus Of Datasets Agree: Warming Has Stopped… Global Temperature Firmly Stuck!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

German website wobleibtdieglobaleerderwärmung (where’s the global warming – WBDGE) does an excellent job at analyzing and observing climate data and trends. German readers are recommended to bookmark this site.

In its latest post the site looks at the July results and the overall global temperature and sea ice trend. It finds that multiple datasets clearly show that our blue planet remains firmly stuck on its years-long temperature plateau.

The WBDGE summarizes:

UAH/TLT saw an anomaly of +0.18°C (previous month 0.33, previous year 0.24) ranking this July as only the 9th warmest of 37. See UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for July 2015: +0.18°C

RSS/TLT (preliminary): saw an anomaly of 0.20°C, (previous month 0.39) and is thus in very close agreement with UAH results. This would rank it as the 10th warmest of the 37 years of data so far.

Trend der globalen Satellitenmessungen (TLT) von RSS: Erwärmungs”pause” (grüne Linie) von Ende 1996 bis Juni 2015, negativer Trend (blaue Linie) von Januar 1998 bis Juni 2015. Quelle: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
RSS TLT trend for global satellite measurements: Warming plateau (green line) since to June 2015, negative trend (blue line) from January 1998 to June 2015. Source: www.woodfortrees.orgd

The NOAA/NCEP/CFSv2 surface temperature at 2 meters, comes in at only 0.16°C (global 2m – http://models.weatherbell.com/temperature.php). This ranks it at a relatively uneventful 10 of 37 years. Image MouseOver Tool.

In summary here we see three heavyweight datasets showing and all agreeing on a protracted stalled warming.

Growing sea ice volume

Moreover the WBDGE site writes that Arctic sea ice has grown “strongly” over last year and that there has been no melting trend there in almost 10 years.

The WBDGE adds that there is about 2000 cubic KILOMETERS more sea ice than 3 years ago: https://sites.google.com/piomas.

How can anyone say global warming is happening and is real when temperatures have long stalled and sea ice is growing?

The WBGE site comments:

Also July of 2015, and thus the 19th year without any signfiant linear global warming,  – the question remains: where’s the global warming?

Despite these real facts there are still people who publicly deny the global warming pause that has been happening since 1996 […] or who want to calculate it away with obvious data falsifications.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

20 responses to “July Data Rolls In…Consensus Of Datasets Agree: Warming Has Stopped… Global Temperature Firmly Stuck!”

  1. John F. Hultquist

    I live in central Washington State. We have had recent episodes of high temperatures. An acquaintance is convinced this is a sign of global warming because he doesn’t remember it ever being this warm before.
    So two points: Most folks have a poor grasp of their own experiences regarding weather, and none of historical aspects. Point two, the term ‘global’ seems to have no meaning when it is hot near home.

    Thanks for posting this. I’ll have to let you keep us up on the posts at WBDGE.

  2. Philip Shehan

    The drop in temperature anomaly from June to July is a weather report.

    The real consensus is that all the data sets, including the RSS data, show that there is no statistically significant reduction in warming for the last 18 years compared to the trend from the beginning of the satellite data:

    from 1997: Trend: -0.003 ±0.171 °C/decade (2σ)

    from 1979: Trend: 0.121 ±0.064 °C/decade (2σ)

    For UAH data

    from 1997: Trend: 0.102 ±0.175 °C/decade (2σ)

    From 1979: Trend: 0.139 ±0.065 °C/decade (2σ)

    Of course those pushing the no warming argument always want to begin with the extreme el nino event of 1997/98 which is a natural fluctuation which has nothing to do with global warming due to rising CO2 concentration.

    Beginning the trend one year after the el nino year gives:

    UAH data from 1999 Trend: 0.148 ±0.177 °C/decade (2σ)

    Or graphically:

    http://tinyurl.com/nf8aphs

    Now if you think that “no warming for 18 years” but “warming as usual for 16 years” is something of a logical nonsense, you would be right.

    1. David Johnson

      You of course would prefer to start from La Nina of 1999

      1. AndyG55

        Philip has basically ZERO comprehension of climate systems.

        He thinks his childish little linear trend junk actually means something. roflmao !!

        The absolute stupidity of starting a trend at 1999 shows his total lack of understanding and his total aim to deceive those with even less mathematical nouse than himself.

      2. AndyG55

        The really hilarious thing is that you are only going to fool those people even less mathematically inclined than you are.

        ie mostly the brain-washed climate cultists.

        You sure as, are NOT going to fool anyone here with your deceitfully pathetic attempts.

    2. AndyG55

      “Of course those pushing the no warming argument always want to begin with the extreme el nino event of 1997/98 which is a natural fluctuation which has nothing to do with global warming due to rising CO2 concentration.”

      Again you show your base line mathematical ignorance of where the 18 year 5 or 6 month zero-trend calculation comes from.

      No-one is cherry-picking the start point like you always want to by your stupid stunt of starting in 1999.

      Maybe one day you will figure it out, but I’m not holding my breath !!

    3. AndyG55

      ” the extreme el nino event of 1997/98 which is a natural fluctuation which has nothing to do with global warming due to rising CO2 concentration”

      First thing you have managed to get correct.

      What you FAIL to recognise or admit, is that the El Nino/ La Nina combinations lasted from 1997 to the about February 2001, and as you right say, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2.

      That combination added about 0.3C of warming to the atmosphere as an ocean cooling event.

      In fact if you look at the slight warming before the event, you will see that it is almost completely cancelled by the slight cooling after the event.

      There has , in fact, been ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING in the whole of the satellite record. NONE WHAT-SO-EVER!!!!!

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend

    4. Paul Homewood

      You make a common mistake.

      Let me remind you of what the Met office had to say about

      The start of the current pause is difficult to determine precisely. Although 1998 is often quoted as the start of the current pause, this was an exceptionally warm year because of the largest El Niño in the instrumental record. This was followed by a strong La Niña event and a fall in global surface temperature of around 0.2oC (Figure 1), equivalent in magnitude to the average decadal warming trend in recent decades. It is only really since 2000 that the rise in global surface temperatures has paused.

      Effectively the 1998 El Nino was cancelled out by the double La Nina that followed it.

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/the-pause-is-real-get-over-it/

    5. igsy

      It is a statistical nonsense to compare two series with overlapping intervals in the way you do. You violate key independence assumptions, hence your confidence intervals are meaningless. What you could have done is obtained the trend from 1979 until 1997, which, yes is statistically significant, then obtained the trend from 1997 onwards, which is not. There is more targeted statistical modelling that can be done here, allowing for autocorrelation and analysing structural breaks etc, but all reasonable analyses support a statistically significant reduction in the rate of warming from roughly the first half of the satellite record to the second.

    6. Bucky Cochrane

      There is NO “starting point”! The question is how far BACK one can go with a zero slope least squares linear fit. It ends where it ends.

      1. AndyG55

        In fact, in the RSS data, using 2sd significance, the zero trend is statistically supportable back some 26 years !!

  3. Whyn

    The most significant trick of all is the one where headlines trumpet the activities of an undefined parameter, “Global Temperature”, while the following text dicusses the activities of another undefined global parameter, “an anomaly”. Could someone out there define for me how a point specific parameter, temperature, is taken instantaneously and globally then averaged meaningfully so this global temperature can lead to a calculated difference or anomaly.

    An even more amazing trick is the one where someone trying for a doctorate can take proxy temperature parameters at non-specific times in the past and somehow convert these into specific estimates of a global temperature over a period of 100s or 1000s of years.

    Can anyone please explain?

  4. Peter Whale

    When you depend on the money coming in you say what the payer wants.

  5. edmh

    If the ice core records from Greenland are correct.

    1 The last millennium was the coldest of our current benign Holocene interglacial

    2 the early Holocene had a pretty flat temperatures for the first 8000 years a drop of only 0.05degC /millennium

    3 the recent holocene for the last 300 years since 1000BC has seen a temperature diminution at 10 times that rate 0.5 degC / millennium

    4 Our holocene interglacial at about 11000 years long and it is probably drawing to its close in this century the next century or this millennium.

    Concern about Anthropogenic Global warming is a total fallacy and there is absolutely nothing that Man-kind can do about it.

    All concern should concentrate on the end of out happy Holocene.

    That will be a real climate change, and it will be inevitable and devastating .

    see;
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

  6. edmh

    this version replaces the earlier pot that had errors

    If the ice core records from Greenland are correct.

    1 The last millennium was the coldest of our current benign Holocene interglacial

    2 the early Holocene had a pretty flat temperatures for the first 8000 years a drop of only 0.05 degC /millennium

    3 the recent Holocene for the last 30o0 years since 1000BC has seen a temperature diminution at 10 times that rate 0.5 degC / millennium

    4 Our Holocene interglacial at about 11000 years old and it is probably drawing to its close in this century the next century or this millennium.

    Concern about Anthropogenic Global Warming is a total fallacy and there is absolutely nothing that Man-kind can do about it. Whatever is done will never impede the impending cold.

    All Man-kind’s concern should concentrate on the end of our happy Holocene.

    That will be a real climate change. It will be inevitable and devastating .

    see;
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

  7. Wieder nix mit “Super El Niño”? MEI schwächelt im Juli 2015! | wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] PS: Thanks to Pierre L. Gosselin from notrickszone.com for that very kind recommending post: https://notrickszone.com/2015/08/04/july-data-rolls-in-consensus-of-datasets-agree-warming-has-stoppe… […]

  8. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #191 | Watts Up With That?
  9. richard clenney

    Help me out! What I am concerned about is the sea-ice growing. It takes
    about 200 BTU/pound to convert water to ice. This acts like a buffer to
    temperature, but if the Artic freezes over , won’t that freezing air
    just head south? It can’t freeze the Artic ocean solid, due to the ice
    cover. Are we headed for the coldest winter on record??

    1. Richard Barraclough

      I don’t think you need worry unduly about a cold winter – if indeed Arctic ice cover has any bearing on it.

      The volume may have grown, but the area covered is a lot less than the last couple of years. Only two years in the satellite record had less. Currently it is more than 30 per cent below average at 3.8 million sq km

  10. Trent B

    Sea ice is not growing. That’s complete misinformation. 2012 was an unprecedented record low. Just because subsequent years did not reach beyond that minima does not warrant the assertion that it is growing. 2015 is looking to be another low year. Additionally, thickness and volume are better indications of sea ice stability than ice. Those are also declining.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close