Satellite Data: Post El Niño Global Surface Cooling Continues… Pause Extends To 20 Years

Critical German climate site wobleibtdieererwaermung.de (WBDE) reports that the earth’s surface is cooling, and presents the latest chart from NCEP:

 

As of April 11, the measured global values continue to decline (black curve) as do the computed values for April 18. Source: www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php.

The time-delayed post El Niño cooling is now showing up in the UAH and RSS satellite data.

 Source: UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2017: +0.19 deg. C

Foremost the atmosphere over the ocean – the largest storage of energy on the planet – cooled significantly over the month of March.

Especially remarkable is the 0.29°K drop in temperature above the global oceans measured by the UAH, and is now only 0.09°K above the WMO 1981-2010 climate mean.

The plot shows the anomaly from the 1981- 2010 mean, UAH satellite temperature in the atmosphere 1500 meters over the sea surface. (TLT). The rose colored curve shows the 37-month running mean of the ARGO buoys which measure the water temperature 2.5 meters below the sea surface. Source: www.climate4you.com/

The RSS satellite data also showed a significant drop in global surface temperature above the seas falling from +0.38°K above the mean to 0.18°K above the mean — a drop of 0.20°K.

Chart: Woodfortrees.org

Although there have been some ups and downs over the past months, the overall global surface temperature trend remains steeply downward, dropping more than 0.6°K since early 2016.

Moreover, the surface temperature above the oceans is significant as the oceans cover more than 70 percent of the earth’s surface.

The overall negative linear trend will likely continue over much of 2017 as the delayed effects of the disappeared El Niño work their way into the satellite data.

So is the pause over? WBDE writes:

Despite the warming effect of the powerful 2015/16 El Niño, the unfalsified satellite date show that the year 2016 did not produce any new significant global heat record compared to the 1998 El Niño year. […]

The claimed global warming by the IPCC climate models has been missing for almost 20 years! And that with continuously rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations!”

The question remains: what happens in the years and decade that follow? A new slightly higher plateau, or stuck at the current old plateau?

88 responses to “Satellite Data: Post El Niño Global Surface Cooling Continues… Pause Extends To 20 Years”

  1. Hivemind

    My question is: Is there any amount of evidence that will convince the warmists that they are wrong?

    1. Mindert Eiting

      As far as I know, no cult has disappeared because of evidence. In order to prevent dissonance, cults often go through a phase of immunization during their founding years. It is unlikely that the earth will become warmer and warmer till the far future. Weather will always have extremes and therefore the cult has made the connection between human behavior and weather extremes. Cults shrink by erosion, the loss of members (often the youth) for emotional reasons. Although the cult has established certain rituals like Earth Day and a procession of their prophets on the next one, its weakness is the absence of great ideas. It is not a religion and will not produce great works of literature, music, and architecture. However, a hard and sour core may stay with us for many centuries.

    2. SebastianH

      Wrong about what? Do you really think that the current cooling after an El Nino is evidence that global warming is not real or that it is not in a large part man made?

      I’ll rephrase your question: is there any amount of evidence that could convince you that you are wrong? How strong is your believe in you being right?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Wrong about what? Do you really think that the current cooling after an El Nino is evidence that global warming is not real or that it is not in a large part man made?

        SebastianH, do you really think that the warming during 2015 and early 2016 was caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and not by an ENSO event? Or do you believe that warming is caused by humans, but cooling is caused by nature? How would that work, exactly?

        http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/340780#.VzB0zw-3sCA.twitter
        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 an expert. 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.

        The IPCC, which comprises representatives from 190 countries, produces a report every six to seven years on the trend of global climate change, its causes and impacts and how to migitate these. Saying that the current El Nino was in its final stretch and that the condition in the Pacific Ocean was expected to return to neutral by June, Tangang stated that the IPCC, in its latest report released in 2013, did not come up with a conclusion on the inter-relation between El Nino and global warming. He said that unlike typhoons, which the IPCC concluded would increase in intensity as global warming intensified, El Nino occurrences did not switch in frequency or intensity due to climate change.

        “El Nino 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.”

        1. SebastianH

          You once accused me of making up stuff that you did not say. Do you really think, that this is what I said?

          Do you believe the OHC only increases because of the sun and that backradiation has nothing to do with the amount of energy that remains (or gets trapped) in the oceans?

          Increased backradiation causes either an increase in surface temperatures to get back to an equillibrium state or – if the surface temperatures don’t increase fast enough or at all – internal energy build up (OHC). I know, you need an experiment to confirm that the laws of physics apply to that situation (body of water). I’ll continue to believe that those laws are universal until proven otherwise …

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “Do you believe the OHC only increases because of the sun and that backradiation has nothing to do with the amount of energy that remains (or gets trapped) in the oceans?”

            To what extent do you believe the “backradiation” from cloud cover changes are more or less influential in determining the surface flux than CO2 changes? RealClimate (the Gavin Schmidt blog) answers:

            “Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2).”

            You have a problem, SebastianH. To believe what you do about CO2, you have to also believe that variations in other factors that far more dominantly affect LW are immaterial or that they do not vary to any significant degree. You keep on assuming that backradiation = CO2. I understand why you do this, but it’s not as if pretending like the other factors have no influence will actually make them go away.

      2. greggg

        So what you’re really asking is “Do you really think that no evidence of warming is evidence that global warming is not real?”

  2. Kenneth Richard

    At this stage in the -0.6°C denouement from the peak of the latest ENSO event…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2016/to:2017.3/plot/rss/from:2016/to:2017.3/trend

    …the temperature change in the last 2 decades has been 0.09°C. Several more months from now, as the monthly anomalies closer to the 30-year mean accumulate, the flat trend line will return. And so will the excuses. Because the flat temperatures have accrued with 45 ppm of additional CO2 pumped into the atmosphere.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    The 1st paragraph bolded text near the end has gotten somewhat garbled,

    the word date should be data

    the year 2016 did produce — should be, I think — did not

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    2017 is cool and wet in Central Washington State USA
    Charts for Yakima

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Fixed. Thank you.

  4. tom0mason

    Nice post Pierre and Kenneth, the only conclusion that can be logically draw is that the transitory warming that happened in the late 1990s to early 2000 is over and a cooling trend is now very evident. It would be a fantastic idea to think otherwise.

    1. wert

      a cooling trend is now very evident

      You sound a little bit like warmists who call el nino a warming trend.

      You can start talking about a cooling trend after it has lasted some time, say 10 years, although if warming trend is less than 0.3C / 3 decades, that is already pretty much no CAGW.

      1. AndyG55

        Its always nice to use the alarmista mantra against them

        They claim “man made global warming” using just the totally natural El Nino steps and transients.

        Its nice to be able to throw it back in their face.

        I do agree though.

        At the moment, this is not much more than just the decay of the rather solid El Nino transient that started mid 2015… an ocean COOLING event 😉

  5. RAH

    Though both UAH and RSS show cooling the level has not reached or dipped under the baseline as it has during past La Ninas. If it does not will a new, higher baseline have been established? And if that occurs and, as many are predicting, we have another El Nino this year, will not the pause have been busted?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      “Though both UAH and RSS show cooling the level has not reached or dipped under the baseline as it has during past La Ninas.”

      It took a full two years after 1998 (early 2001) for the full “recovery” from the ’97-’98 ENSO cycle to take shape…

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1998/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2001/trend

      We’re only about 12 months in to the post-warming 2015-’16 event. There’s still controversy about whether these are La Nina conditions now or just a return to equilibrium. So we’ll need to be patient. Probably another 7-8 months before the trend since ’97-’98 completely flattens out.

      1. sod

        “It took a full two years after 1998 (early 2001) for the full “recovery” from the ’97-’98 ENSO cycle to take shape…”

        there was no recovery from the 1998 el nino at the start f 2001. What you are looking at is a minimum in the graph.

        The new normal is at least above +0.2°C on average. early 2001 was still much too cold to be the new normal.

        People here declare the minima in the graph to be the normal and want to exclude the maxima. This is anti-science.

        1. AndyG55

          Yep, that totally natural solar forced 1998 El Nino added about 0.26°C to the atmospheric temperature. A big step change, and…

          … the ONLY warming in the satellite record. Thanks for finally admitting that fact.

          It remains to be seen where the atmosphere will settle down to after the latest ocean energy shedding transient.

          Have you figured out what the word transient means yet ?

          How much energy imbalance is left from the grand solar maximum of last century will determine how long it takes for the system to get into balance with the now very sleepy sun.

          1. SebastianH

            totally natural solar forced 1998 El Nino

            Interesting opinion.

            It remains to be seen where the atmosphere will settle down to after the latest ocean energy shedding transient.

            There has been no significant shedding:
            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

            These “oh the world is cooling” posts in the last couple of days/weeks here are as worse as warmist saying “oh the world is going to end with a runaway GHE” after a couple of warm months …

          2. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH, if you’re going to link to graphs of ocean heat content as evidence that humans cause 2000-meters deep ocean temperatures to change, don’t you think you probably need to scientifically establish that 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause heat changes in water bodies with physical measurements from a controlled experiment? When are you finally going to support your beliefs with actual evidence?

          3. SebastianH

            *as bad

          4. SebastianH

            Dear Kenneth, and once again you read something that isn’t there.

            Read again … it’s about shedding of ocean energy. Has the build up been shed in the last view El Nino events?

            P.S.: When will you support your believe that the laws of physics don’t apply to bodies of water with actual evidence? That would certainly change science as we know it. Instant Nobel prize …

          5. Kenneth Richard

            “When will you support your believe that the laws of physics don’t apply to bodies of water with actual evidence?”

            SebastianH, the belief that you have that raising or lowering CO2 concentrations in volumes of 0.000001 over a body of water causes the heat content of that body of water to change by ___ amount and thus dominate over the effects of radiative forcing from the solar influence is not “the laws of physics.” It is a belief. It has never been observed to occur in a scientific experiment. Stop calling your beliefs about CO2 concentrations cooling and heating water “the laws of physics”.

            As for your challenge to support the position that solar radiation absorption cause heat changes in water, here are some examples. Perhaps you can reciprocate with measurements from an experiment with CO2.

            ftp://ftp1.esrl.noaa.gov/users/cfairall/wcrp_wgsf/computer_programs/cor3_0/95JC03190.pdf
            “On a clear day the Sun deposits an average of about 500 W/m-2 of heat into the ocean over the 12 daylight hours. Roughly half of this heat is absorbed in the upper 2 m. In the absence of mixing this is sufficient heat input to warm this 2-m-deep layer uniformly by 2.0 K. … Measurable warming occurs as deep as 20 m and may persist well past sundown.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50786/full
            “…[D]aytime skin effect was strongly influenced by direct solar illumination and typically had a mean of 0.5 K in the morning that decreased to 0.1 K by midday….. [D]aytime solar heating stratifies the temperature profile of the surface. With this in mind the negative skin effect results from two separate processes: (1) intense daytime solar heating overcomes the net upward longwave energy flux and warms the skin, or (2) the right combination of low wind and solar heating creates a warm layer of water above the floating thermistor.”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96JC03549/pdf
            [S]olar signals in global-average temperature penetrate to 80-160 m, confined to the upper layer above the main pycnocline.

            ftp://mana.soest.hawaii.edu/pub/rlukas/OCN-MET665/fluxes/radiative/Ohlmann%20etal%20Part%20II%202000%20JPO.pdf
            [I]n-water solar fluxes can vary by 40 W/m-2 within the upper few meters of the ocean (based on a climatological surface irradiance of 200 W/m-2) and that a significant portion of the variation can be explained by upper ocean chlorophyll concentration, solar zenith angle, and cloud amount.

          6. AndyG55

            “These “oh the world is cooling” posts”

            1, the cooling will probably only drop us back to the cooler 1970’s level.

            2. No-one is asking anyone to WASTE billions of dollars on a non-solution (renewables) to a non-existent problem (warming from atmospheric CO2)

            3.If there is some cooling, it will most definitely effect crop production

            4. energy systems have been decimated by the AGW agenda. I sincerely hope that your area is hit hard by the coming cold, and you suffer from numerous “load-shedding” events.

          7. SebastianH

            Kenneth, I didn’t ask you “to support the position that solar radiation absorption cause heat changes in water”. It’s pretty clear where the energy is coming from (=the Sun).

            You still don’t understand how radiative heat transfer might work, do you?

          8. Kenneth Richard

            “It’s pretty clear where the energy is coming from (=the Sun).”

            Great. So in what year did the Modern Grand Maximum of solar activity factor… and at what point did the factor of lower cloud cover and volcanic aerosols (allowing more surface solar radiation to be absorbed by the oceans) get superseded by 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations in determining the heat content of the global oceans? In other words, why do you believe the much higher solar activity (relative to the Little Ice Age minima) and the reduction in cloud cover/aerosols have had little to no effect on the temperature changes of the last 30 to 100 years? When and how does CO2 dominate over those factors in determining the heat content of the oceans, if, as you admit, the energy comes from the Sun, and the Sun’s radiation absorption has itself changed?

          9. SebastianH

            It doesn’t look like the shortwave flux changed much since the year 2000: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/ceres-asr-sfc.png

            Why do you believe this is the reason for increased OHC?

        2. Sunsettommy

          Sod,

          It is cooler now,than it was in 1998.

          Try reading the chart next time……

          1. SebastianH
          2. AndyG55

            March 1998 UAH anomaly 0.49ºC
            March 2017 UAH anomaly 0.19ºC

            March 1998 RSS anomaly 0.59ºC
            March 2017 RSS anomaly 0.35ºC

            Ignorant seb proven WRONG…. yet again !!

          3. Sunsettommy

            Sebastian,

            I said 1998, you like Sod, can’t bother reading carefully. You started at 1996.

            “Sod,

            It is cooler now,than it was in 1998.

            Try reading the chart next time……”

            Try being honest next time……..

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “Try being honest next time…….”

            He knows you wrote 1998. He purposely used 1996.

          5. SebastianH

            Just like Sunsettommy purposely used a point in time where temperatures spiked due to an ongoing El Nino event and compared it to today’s temperatures (well after an El Nino event).

            Was just returning the favor of arbitrarily chosing dates.

            You could compare March 1999 to March 2017 or March 1998 to March 2016. Or you just look at the graph I linked to and decide for yourself if it is warmer/colder now than it was after past El Ninos …

          6. SebastianH

            Just like Sunsettommy purposely used a point in time where temperatures spiked due to an ongoing El Nino event and compared it to today’s temperatures (well after an El Nino event).

            Was just returning the favor of arbitrarily chosing dates.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            “Was just returning the favor of arbitrarily chosing dates.”

            So you knew he wrote 1998, but purposely used 1996 instead. Is that honest? Why don’t you ever answer when I ask you if you consider yourself an honest person?

            Why do you think the IPCC and Karl et al., 2015 (the “pause-busting” paper) chose 1998 as the starting year for the pause, SebastianH? Were the IPCC and NOAA being “arbitrary” when they chose that year…and not 1996? Or does the “arbitrariness” claim only apply when someone skeptical of alarmist claims about modern warming uses 1998 as a starting point?

          8. SebastianH

            You read things that just aren’t there, Kenneth. It’s not about specific dates, it’s just about claiming that it is cooler now than at the height of a past extreme El Nino event. If that isn’t a dishonest comparison, then what is?

            I just extended the time period backwards to show how strange that comparison was and that it’s not cooler than at the same stage almost two decades ago …

          9. Kenneth Richard

            Sunsettommy: “It is cooler now,than it was in 1998.”

            SebastianH: “No, it’s not … http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/to:2017/plot/rss/from”

            AndyG55:
            March 1998 UAH anomaly 0.49ºC
            March 2017 UAH anomaly 0.19ºC

            March 1998 RSS anomaly 0.59ºC
            March 2017 RSS anomaly 0.35ºC

          10. AndyG55

            I don’t think seb has even the slightest clue what a back calculate trend is.

            He speaks of cherry-picking the starting point. WRONG !

            Maths determined the starting point.

            So he extends the period back to before the step change of the 1998 El Nino.

            Thus proving YET AGAIN that the NATURAL, Non-Human-CO2 El Nino is the ONLY warming event in that period.

          11. AndyG55

            In UAH, March 2017 is below the following years

            2016, 2010, 1998, 2004, 2007, 1991, 2002

          12. AndyG55

            And UAH oceans for March, 2017 is lower than…

            2016
            1998
            2010
            1991
            2004
            1983
            1988
            2007
            2003
            2005
            1996
            2002
            2006
            2014
            2015

        3. Kenneth Richard

          “early 2001 was still much too cold to be the new normal.”

          sod, do you ever actually check if what you’re going to write is accurate, or do you just write what you think might be true and then hope no one will notice when you get it wrong again?

          The trend for early 2001 to early 2015 (the years between the Super El Nino events) is one of cooling, sod. What does that say about your contention that “early 2001 was much too cold to be the new normal”?

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015/trend

          1. SebastianH
          2. Kenneth Richard

            Oooh, SebastianH has found a youtube video. That settles it. The GIS temperatures are now accurate, and the satellite data are unreliable.

            https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Screen-Shot-2017-01-21-at-11.22.26-PM.gif

          3. David Johnson

            Sebastian, I used to think you had more sense than Sod who has none. As I say, I used to think that. Your floundering around in this post has convinced me you are cut from the same cloth as Sod. A very poor quality cloth.

          4. sod

            “The trend for early 2001 to early 2015 (the years between the Super El Nino events) is one of cooling, sod. What does that say about your contention that “early 2001 was much too cold to be the new normal”? ”

            the start of 2001 was cooler as the rest of the “pause”, as you can see from the 36 month moving average.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/mean:36

            the trend top 2015 does not contradict what i said. What i said was simple: the start of 2001 (like the first 3 months) were NOT the new normal. they were still too cold (about +0.1°C, when the rest is more around +0.2°C).

            You are just teaching yourself another lesson (again). When you cherrypick start and end dates to produce a downward trend you can do so.

            What your doing here is another abuse of the absurd technique used by “sceptics”: el ninos at the end of the data do not count, la ninas at the start of the data do not count. Combined with a cherrypoick of the dataset, you can keep producing downward trends against the data.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            Once again, sod, I’m looking at the 15-year trend line, which points downwards from 2001. You’re looking at the annual anomaly, or even monthly anomalies (the early months of 2001) and eyeballing it to say that it looks colder than 2015. That’s not how trends work.

            The point I was making was that the Super ENSO cycle lasted about 4 years in total. The 1997-’98 were the warming years, 1999-’00 were the cooling years. 2001 was the first full year of back-to-equilibrium temperatures. Notice what happens if we start in 2000:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2015/trend The trend reverses.

            Same with 1999:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015/trend

          6. sod

            “The trend for early 2001 to early 2015 (the years between the Super El Nino events) is one of cooling, sod. What does that say about your contention that “early 2001 was much too cold to be the new normal”? ”

            I made a simple change to your claim. let us end at the start of 2016, shall we?

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2016/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2016/mean:36

            And the linear trend is up.

            Why?

            simple: you decided to start at a low point (start of 2001) and to avoid the comparable increase before the el nino (end of 2015). I would call this a trick.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            “I made a simple change to your claim. let us end at the start of 2016, shall we?”

            If we end at the start of 2016, then the effects of the natural 2015-’16 ENSO are added in. That would not be consistent with excluding “the years between the Super El Nino events”, including 1999 and 2000, which were the La Nina years.

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html
            Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2138.html
            Surface global warming has stalled since around 2000 despite increasing atmospheric CO2.

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/860.summary
            Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere?

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062775/abstract
            The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2605.html
            Despite a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), global-mean surface temperature (T) has shown no discernible warming since about 2000, in sharp contrast to model simulations, which on average project strong warming.

            http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4655
            “Greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, but for about 10 years starting in the early 2000s, global average surface temperature stopped climbing and even cooled a bit,” said Willis.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061456/abstract
            The first decade of the 21st century was characterized by a hiatus in global surface warming.

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n6/full/ngeo2438.html
            Global mean surface warming has stalled since the end of the twentieth century

          8. AndyG55

            As one would expect, seb does not know the difference between agenda driven pseudo-science adjustments, and infilling of nearly half the land area with fabricated data..

            .. and adjustments due to KNOWN PHYSICAL changes in satellite orbits and data collection.

            IGNORANCE is becoming his ONLY fall-back position.

          9. AndyG55

            poor sob still has zero intention of ever actually trying to comprehend the climate systems

            Start of 2001 was when the 1998 EL NINO effects settled down.

            early-mid 2015 was when the recent El Nino started.

            Between those two points there was slight cooling.

            DATA and FACTS…. sob’s enema. !!

          10. AndyG55

            “let us end at the start of 2016, shall we?”

            YET AGAIN… you prove me totally correct.

            You absolutely HAVE to use part of the NATURAL El Nino to show ANY warming whatsoever.

            Thanks for the assist, sob !! 🙂

          11. AndyG55

            The big question is..

            …. how many of your foots can you fit in your gob at one time !!!

          12. AndyG55

            “el ninos at the end of the data do not count”

            YET AGAIN sob shows he has zero comprehension.

            Read, little NON-science bot, and try to comprehend.. just once…

            If you want to see if there is a human CO2 signal in the satellite data, you CANNOT use any part of the TOTALLY NATURAL El Nino warming steps or spikes.

            The very fact that the ONLY way you can show any warming at all is to use those NON-CO2 steps and spike, PROVES that there is absolutely ZERO human CO2 signal in the satellite data.

            EVERY TIME you attempt to use them.. you PROVE me correct…

            … and I thank you for doing so. 🙂

  6. AndyG55

    According to UAH Oceans, March 2017 was in 16th place for March ocean temperatures.

    This is truly remarkable considering March 2016 was the warmest.

    A very transient response to the El Nino, as March 2015 was in 15th place on 0.12

  7. AndyG55
  8. tom0mason

    Recalibrate your perspective and look at the long term https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/younger_dryas_to_present_time_line1.png . Current variations are very, very minor.

    1. SebastianH

      Yes, recalibrate: https://xkcd.com/1732/

      1. David Johnson

        You link to that tripe Sebastian and you expect to be taken seriously?

        1. SebastianH

          Do you think wattsupwiththat is a serious source?

          1. AndyG55

            There are many REAL scientists there.

            … and they are a FAR more serious source than ANYTHING you have EVER cited.

            Why don’t you actually try to LEARN from REAL scientists, seb, instead of the paid AGW operatives.

      2. tom0mason

        If that is your perspective of the real world seb, then I feel sorry for you. I find it difficult argue with people who have closed their minds, and embrace such a banal view of this world.

  9. SebastianH

    I tried to plot RSS data without the big El Nino spikes and to compare it with regular RSS data. There is not too much difference …

    http://imgur.com/a/8Atz4

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Did you consider all the El Ninos in your “tried” experiment? You may want to look into this a little more, SebastianH. For example…

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Natural-El-Nino-Warming-88-97-copy.jpg
      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Natural-El-Nino-Warming-98-09-copy.jpg
      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Natural-El-Nino-Warming-10-15-copy.jpg
      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Natural-El-Nino-Warming-83-87-copy.jpg

      Huo and Xiao, 2016
      The impact of solar activity on the 2015/16 El Niño event
      “Based on statistical and composite analysis, a significant positive correlation was found between sunspot number index and El Niño Modoki index, with a lag of two years. A clear evolution of El Niño Modoki events was found within 1–3 years following each solar peak year during the past 126 years, suggesting that anomalously strong solar activity during solar peak periods favors the triggering of an El Niño Modoki event. The patterns of seasonal mean SST and wind anomalies since 2014 are more like a mixture of two types of El Niño (i.e., eastern Pacific El Niño and El Niño Modoki), which is similar to the pattern modulated by solar activity during the years following a solar peak. Therefore, the El Niño Modoki component in the 2015/16 El Niño event may be a consequence of solar activity

    2. AndyG55

      roflmao..

      You STILL used the El Nino step to create a trend

      Is your knowledge of mathematics SO, SO DEFICIENT that you can’t see that ? .. REALLY ?????

      If you are really looking for a CO2 signal , rather than a natural signal, you need to avoid the NATURAL major El Nino steps and spikes and do the trends in two parts.

      https://s19.postimg.org/v9zxq3zzn/RSS_El_Nino_step.png

      1. sod

        “If you are really looking for a CO2 signal , rather than a natural signal, you need to avoid the NATURAL major El Nino steps and spikes and do the trends in two parts.”

        No. That is plain out anti-science.

        nd you absolutely, have been found severely wanting.

        Sebastian is the only one here posting his own graphs. It is obvious that he is investing some effort and knows some basics while you are and do not.

        1. Sunsettommy

          You and Sebastian, incredibly miss the obvious point being made here.

          Excluding the El-Nino effects from the temperature data,eliminated warming trend. That is why they start at year 2001 to year 2015,as the range was BETWEEN the El-Nino’s of 1998 and 2016. No trend to a cooling shows up in such time frames,indicating that CO2 warming effect doesn’t show up.

          Sebastian makes his charts with intent to mislead people,apparently that includes you Sod.

          1. SebastianH

            I do not make my own charts … that’s just a copy of the woodfortrees data, because that site can’t compute linear trends for multiple time series with gaps.

            Anyway, you two can’t be helped if you think that by excluding El Nino events it doesn’t really get warmer.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “you two can’t be helped if you think that by excluding El Nino events it doesn’t really get warmer.”

            Is that because +/- 0.0000001 changes in CO2 concentrations heats or cools water to depths of 2000 meters, SebastianH?

          3. SebastianH

            Kenneth, imagine a body of water 2000 meters deep that is in (energy) equilibrium with its surroundings. All the energy that gets absorbed from the solar radiation is emitted at the surface and there is no increase in OHC.

            Now imagine some force would decrease the amount of energy that could be emitted at the surface at that equilibrium surface temperature. How does that influence OHC and temperatures in greater depths?

            Do you now “get” how radiative heat transfer works?

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “Kenneth, imagine a body of water 2000 meters deep that is in (energy) equilibrium with its surroundings. All the energy that gets absorbed from the solar radiation is emitted at the surface and there is no increase in OHC. Now imagine some force would decrease the amount of energy that could be emitted at the surface at that equilibrium surface temperature.”

            And what might that “some force” be, SebastianH? Are there any other “some force” factors besides CO2, or is that the only one you care to discuss? Do those other “some force” factors ever vary, or do they stay constant?
            —————————————————
            Here’s a brief statement from physicist Dr. Roy Clark on CO2’s capacity to heat the oceans relative to other factors. See if you can “debunk” him.


            “The increase in flux from CO2 is nominally 2 W.m^-2 or 0.18 MJ.m^-2 per day. The oceans are heated by the sun – up to 25 MJ m^-2 per day for full tropical or summer sun. About half of this solar heat is absorbed in the first 1 m layer of the ocean and 90% is absorbed in the first 10 m layer. The heat is removed by a combination of wind driven evaporation from the surface and LWIR emission from the first 100 micron layer. That’s about the width of a human hair. In round numbers, about 50 W.m^-2 is removed from the ocean surface by the LWIR flux and the balance comes from the wind driven evaporation. The heat capacity of the cooled layer at the surface is quite small – 4.2 kJ.m^-2 for a 1 mm layer. This reacts quite rapidly to any changes in the cooling flux and the heat transfer from the bulk ocean below and the evaporation rate change accordingly. The cooler water produced at the surface then sinks and cools the bulk ocean layer below. This is not just a diffusion process, but convection in which the cooler water sinks and warmer rises in a complex circulating flow pattern (Rayleigh-Benard convection). This couples the surface momentum (wind shear) to lower depths and drives the ocean currents. At higher latitudes the surface area of a sphere decreases and this drives the currents to lower depths.”

            In round numbers, the temperature increase produced by a 2 W.m^-2 increase in LWIR flux from CO2 is overwhelmed by a 50 ± 50 W.m^-2 flux of cold water and a 0 to 1000 W.m^-2 solar heating flux. Over the tropical warm pool the wind driven cooling rate is about 40 W.m^-2.m.s^-1 (40 Watts per square meter for each 1 m/sec change in wind speed). This means that a change in wind speed of 20 cm.s^-1 is equivalent to the global warming heat flux. (20 centimeters per second).”

    3. AndyG55

      You are STILL obviously having a really big problem grasping what is needed to determine if there is a man-made CO2 signal in the satellite data.

      I USED to think you might have been triple figure IQ..

      Now I have to admit my error.

      1. SebastianH

        This wasn’t about CO2 signals at all. That was just to demonstrate that even without the largest El Nino spikes (“totally natural” and only influenced by the sun according to you) the trend is pretty clear.

        Well, what’s your IQ rank then? Would I find you if I searched for you in Mensa’s list of members?

        1. AndyG55

          You only demonstrated your ignorance.

          Your stock in trade.

          And yes without the El Ninos.. THERE IS NO TREND.

          The El Ninos are the ONLY thing that allows anyone to say there is a trend..

          … as you keep on proving.

    4. AndyG55

      “I tried .. blah , blah… ”

      You have been weighed..

      You have been measured..

      and you absolutely, have been found severely wanting.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdhQWkTl1PQ

  10. sod

    “The very fact that the ONLY way you can show any warming at all is to use those NON-CO2 steps and spike, PROVES that there is absolutely ZERO human CO2 signal in the satellite data.”

    This is wrong. By the very definition, the period before an el nino will be low (because if it is high already, your “el nino period” would be starting earlier).

    So with your method, you will be ALWAYS creating trends with a low end. The result is obvious, without even having to plot the trend line.

    there is zero evidence, that el ninos create a new plateau level of temperature. This aspect does only exist in your mind.

    1. Sunsettommy

      Now you are into delusion land since it those large El-Nino’s that causes real step warming events,then flat to a cooling trend in between them.

      CO2 magic molecules doesn’t warm the ocean waters at all…………,where El-Nino’s come from to rapidly warm up the low mass Atmosphere. It is the SUN that causes warming of the ocean waters.

      El-Nino thermal energy flow emerge from high mass waters,that barely cools it,into low mass atmosphere, that significantly warms it.

    2. AndyG55

      sob’s fantasy stories continue.

      There is a massive amount of evidence that many El Ninos cause a step change in atmospheric temperature.

      But please sob/seb, just keep on using those El Nino steps and transients in your “monkey-with-a ruler” trends, without any consideration of what is actually happening… thus proving me correct.

      Its funny to watch you both.

  11. Sunsettommy

    Sod,incredibly thinks he made a point worth mulling over since even HIS chart doesn’t support the AGW hypothesis at all,

    “I made a simple change to your claim. let us end at the start of 2016, shall we?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2016/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2016/mean:36

    And the linear trend is up.

    Why?”

    After nearly 1 1/2 decades of data, there is a dribble of warming shown, but the IPCC reports keep telling us that it was supposed to warm around .30C PER decade. Yours is clearly LESS than .05C in 15 years.

    Stop digging a hole……….,why you persist in being stupid?

    1. Sunsettommy

      Once again,warmists like Sod and Seb, ignore the PER DECADE warming flaw,since it is fatal to the AGW conjecture.

      They here quibble over extremely tiny warming claims in their own charts that are shown to be less than .05C per decade,while the IPCC say it should be around the .30C per decade.

      Warmists are indeed ignoring evidence that expose their cultist delusions over a magic molecule,that can do everything on the planet.

      1. sod

        “Once again,warmists like Sod and Seb, ignore the PER DECADE warming flaw,since it is fatal to the AGW conjecture.”

        i am not sure, please explain in more detail what i am ignoring.

        the small decadal warming in my graph was caused by the choice of dataset and timespan, both were choices made by sceptics.

        1. Sunsettommy

          Wow Sod,You really can’t figure it out?

          YOUR chart shows a dribble of warming that is less than .05C per decade warming,meanwhile the IPPC stated that based on the AGW conjecture,which are based on a cascade of climate models,that it should warm around .30C per decade.

          Since warming rate from 1979 are well below the IPCC per decade rate,it is clear that AGW conjecture is a failure. Why can’t you grasp the obvious?

  12. DirkH

    German weather forecast: Snow down to 600m over Eastern, after that down to 400m.
    http://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Kalte-Luft-meldet-sich-an-article19793946.html?google_editors_picks=true

    1. sod

      thanks for the weather warning. so should i keep my winter tyres?

  13. Satellite Data: Post El Niño Global Surface Cooling Continues… Pause Extends To 20 Years | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, April 12, […]

  14. BULLETIN D’INFORMATIONS N° 67 des climato-réalistes :: RESILIENCETV

    […] +0.19 deg. C : c’est l’anomalie de température moyenne de la basse atmosphère relevée par satellite (version UAH) pour mars 2017 en baisse par rapport à février 2017 (+0.35 deg. C ). Particulièrement remarquable est la baisse de température au-dessus des océans globaux comme l’observe le Notrickzone. […]

  15. scryde.ru

    This means it is possible that by some yardsticks, 2016 will be declared as hot as 2015 or even slightly hotter – because El Nino did not vanish until the middle of the year. But it is almost certain that next year, large falls will also be measured over the oceans, and by weather station thermometers on the surface of the planet – exactly as happened after the end of the last very strong El Nino in 1998. If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words. Is it unclear because you are asserting he is not referring to the global record of land-based temperatures, or is it unclear because he didn t word it in that manner?