A new study indicates nearly all the Northern Hemisphere and Tropical warming in the last 40 years occurred by the late 1990s.
CO2 has risen by about 50 ppm since 1998 (367 to 418 ppm).
Interestingly, upper-air measurements of temperature from balloon-borne sensor radiosonde data, shown below in the image from a new study (Madonna et al., 2022), suggest there was more warming from the early 1980s to late 1990s – when CO2 only rose about 25 ppm (341 to 367 ppm) – than there has been this century.
Radiosonde measurements appear to depict mostly flat temperature trends since 1998 in both the Northern Hemisphere (25°N to 70°N) and tropics (25°S to 25°N).
Image Source: Madonna et al., 2022
About those CO2-Temperature mismatches…
From 1905-1945 annual human CO2 emissions hovered around one gigaton of carbon, or 1 GtC/yr.
But according to the graphical depiction of global sea surface temperatures (SSTs) shown in Kennedy et al., 2019, SSTs rose about 0.6°C to 0.7°C during these 40 years.
Emissions grew from 1 to 5 GtC/yr from 1945 to 1975 and then from 5 to 9 GtC/yr from 1975 to 2012. But during these 30- and 37-year periods SSTs cooled -0.1°C and warmed 0.3°C, respectively.
So in the 67 years from 1945 to 2012, net global SST warming was only about 0.2°C (0.03°C per decade) even though human CO2 emissions exploded from 1 to 9 GtC/yr during these decades, whereas the global SST warming was about ~0.65°C (0.16°C per decade) in the 40 years from 1905 to 1945 when CO2 emissions were a relatively flat 1 GtC/yr.
If human CO2 emissions were driving Earth’s surface temperature trends, why is there such a mismatch between the trajectory of the emissions versus the surface temperatures?
30 responses to “Radiosonde Temps Show Northern Hemisphere, Tropical Warming Has Mostly Paused Since 1998”
[…] Radiosonde Temps Show Northern Hemisphere, Tropical Warming Has Mostly Paused Since 1998 […]
[…] Related: Radiosonde Temps Show Northern Hemisphere, Tropical Warming Has Mostly Paused Since 1998 […]
This article is a pile of you know what
and not something readers expect at this website.
The Radiosondes do not have global coverage.
What data do exist show a gradual rising trend.
1998 was an unusually warm year due to a strong El Nino.
1998 was mentioned for DATA MINING purposes.
1998 to 2022 is 24 years.
24 years is weather.
Climate requires 30 years or more.
Those data ARE available, but were ignored.
Any temperature numbers before the use of weather satellite data in 1979 are suspect, and not accurate enough for scientific analysis.
Ocean temperature data were not very accurate until the use of ARGO floats about 20 years ago.
The fact is that Earth’s average temperature has been warming since the cold, late 1600s. There have been some flat trends, and even a global cooling trend (1940 to 1975, that was later “erased”) during that long warming trend.
There is no science is cherry picking a recent hot year — 1998 — in an attempt to suggest the global warming since the late 1600s has ended. No human on this planet knows that. And this article is far from any proof of that wishful thinking.
Where are you getting this “attempt” from anything written here?
The article specifically states that the rise in Northern Hemisphere and tropical temperatures has “mostly flattened” since the late 1990s per the radiosonde data. Nothing was written about the 1600s.
You have yourself pointed out there was a “global cooling trend” from 1940 to 1975. Why did you find it acceptable to “cherry pick” those particular years?
Pointing out that any warming in recent decades has not been either alarming or unusual is what this article intended to suggest. Also, the second part of the article shows global SSTs rose faster and with greater magnitude when CO2 emissions were low and flat vs. when emissions were rising dramatically to 5-8x the levels in the 1920s and 1930s. This, like the relatively flatter trends since the late 1990s, is not consistent with the claims that CO2 emissions are driving global temps.
Are comments like yours intended to be constructive?
My comment was much more instructive than your article title cherry picking 1998 — a hot El Nino year — as the start point to imply global warming has “paused” which many people will interpret as “ended”. I address you article the same way I address climate doom articles by leftists. I am a climate realist but i don’t give other climate realists a pass to say, or imply, anything they want to.
The 24 years from 1998 to 2022 is NOT LONG ENOUGH to be considered a climate trend. ALL CAPS this time because you ignored my first comment on 30 years or more.
You may have noticed that the 1940 to 1975 period I mentioned is OVER 39 years, so can be used as a climate trend.
Sea surface temperatures are haphazard before the use of weather satellites in 1979, and the use of ARGO floats about 20 years ago.
The prior numbers are not fit for scientific analyses.
i do not care how many studies there are for you to quote — the data are not accurate enough for conclusions.
Sea surface “measurements” are especially inaccurate based on buckets of water from the oceans primarily in Northern Hemisphere shipping lanes, The switch to engine cooling water intake temperatures, and later buoys, is irrelevant, because no study was ever doe to confirm the effects of repeated measurement methodology changes. The claimed trends may be entirely from measurement methodology changes.
That you quoted SST data before 1979, and especially before 1950, shows you don’t care about data accuracy — you just wanted to make a point.
There has been intermittent global warming since the 1690s during the Maunder Minimum. The only real time measurements are in Central England, But there are proxies too.
My point was that during the 325 year warming trend since the 1690s, there were shorter periods with flat temperature trends, and even a period with global cooling. Those short term trends were just random variations within a longer term warming trend. They had no predictive ability over the past 325 years.
And that means a “slow down” of the warming since 1998 (a very biased starting year) do not have any predictive ability for the future climate.
Your article implies the weather from 1998 to 2022 was important — meaning something more than just a random variation within a long term warming trend. No one knows that, so I criticized the article.
Within the warming trend since the 1690s, there was a global cooling climate trend from 1940 to 1975, that government bureaucrats erased because global cooling while CO2 levels rose did not fit their preferred CO2 is evil narrative. That would make a good article.
That 1940 to 1975 cooling trend did NOT predict the warming trend that followed from 1975 through 2020.
None of the warming since the 1690s has been alarming or unusual — the warming has been beneficial, and great news. In my opinion, based on not particularly accurate climate proxies, our current climate is the beast climate for humans, animals, and especially for plants, since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended about 5,000 years ago. That would also make a good article.
This article was not good.
I read at least 50 climate and energy articles every week and can judge their quality. This article failed to refute the claim that CO2 is driving Earths temperature. the truth is CO2 is one of many climate variables. The use of a cherry picked weather trend of less than 30 years, and inaccurate sea surface temperature data, is not good science.
You do realize that defining climate as 30 years or more is an entirely fabricated/arbitrary concept, right? There is nothing scientific about it. They just decided it’s 30 years, not 25 years. And 1940 to 1975 is not “OVER 39 years”.
On what scientific basis are you making this claim considering you’ve simultaneously declared the pre-1979 temperature data unreliable?
That’s a rather unreasonable expectation for such a short article. At no point was it ambitiously claimed the evidence presented would “refute” the claim that CO2 drives temperature changes.
On the other hand, on what grounds do you think it has already been established that CO2, by radiatively affecting only the top 0.01 mm of the ocean surface, is the driver of the water temperature changes for the 4,000,000 mm of water depth below the top 0.01 mm? I ask because scientists are still admitting it’s “not clear” how GHGs heat the ocean, and thus they are still offering up hypothetical explanations for how it might possibly perhaps work.
But perhaps you’ve arrived at your conclusion that CO2 drives the heat changes in the ocean via observational evidence. If so, please cite the scientific data supporting this conclusion. To be clear, a correlation between rising CO2 and rising ocean temperature is not evidence of cause.
You selected 1998 as a start point for a trend because it was a hot year, The heat peak was not caused by greenhouse gases. 1998 (also 2015 and 2016) are the worst years for a trend start or end year because of those unusually large El Nino heat releases. Your starting point of 1998 in the article title revealed bias. DON’T DD THAT.
Next, you claim Northern Hemisphere radiosonde data show the warming trend “mostly paused” since 1998.
Why ignore the Southern Hemisphere?
Data mining again?
Official GLOBAL radiosonde data from NASA-GISS
do NOT show what you claimed.
NASA-GISS data could be wrong: After they revised the 1940 to 1975 cooling trend away, I don’t trust them.
But you contradicted NASA-GISS official global average temperature radiosonde data since 1958, and made no attempt to justify why you did that.
The accuracy of NASA-GISS radiosonde data
might make a good article.
The oceans and land are warming.
measurements are decent after 1879. variables are responsible for the warming.
However I live the warming here in Michigan USA
and want a lot more.
My personal list of climate change variables
(that follows) says CO2 is one of many.
CP2 measures as a mild greenhouse gas with laboratory infrared spectroscopy (weak above the 400 ppm level — strong for the first 100ppm), so I assume CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Exact effects of CO2 are unknown.
The warming of the top layer of the oceans forms a partial barrier that keeps water at lower levels from cooling as fast as it otherwise would. CO2 has the same partial barrier effect in the troposphere, where it impedes Earths cooling by some unknown amount, by forming a partial barrier between Earth’s surface and the infinite heat sink of space.
If 30 years or more of temperature data are available,
then why use less than 30 years, unless you are data mining? If you disagree with the WMO definition that climate is 30 years or more, then you failed to tell us why in the article.
The following variables are known
to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation,
ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Volcanic and air pollution aerosol emissions
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
6) Land use changes
(cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)
7) Changes in clouds and water vapor
8) Random variations of a complex system
9) Unknown causes of climate change
The variables above are not all independent.
No. I “selected” 1998 because the 1998-2001 is the same year/span of years that 67 scientific papers published in the last decade used as a starting point for the recent “pause” or “hiatus” in warming. The IPCC specifically uses 1998 as the starting year for the hiatus too. It’s common practice.
If you had taken the time to read it you would have known the referenced/featured 2022 paper did not graphically show the Southern Hemisphere radiosonde data. It only showed the Northern Hemisphere and tropics (25°S to 25°N). So that’s what I showed. I cannot produce an image of radiosonde data from the Southern Hemisphere (or from 1958 instead of starting in 1979) if this isn’t shown in the paper. So, contrary to your false accusation, I did not “ignore” the Southern Hemisphere.
So I “contradicted” NASA-GISS since 1958 by citing a paper that only shows NH and tropics radiosonde data from 1979? How am I responsible for what the authors of a paper choose to show in their paper? Do you think it might be wise to actually read the paper in question before you begin hurling false accusations?
What information led you to cherry pick that particular year, Richard? Can you define “decent”? The error/uncertainty in a single SST measurement from a canvas or wooden bucket (which were used until the 1950s) is 1 to 1.5°C. Compound that error/uncertainty by 10s of thousands of measurements and we can reasonably assume SSTs are wholly unreliable. But do enlighten us on why you believe the NASA-GISS temperature record, starting in the year 1879, is “decent”.
By how much more would it otherwise cool if not for the CO2 concentrations? Cite the quantified cause-effect evidence from an actual observation/experiment so that we can be assured your beliefs that CO2 is responsible for ocean heat changes is grounded in science. I noticed you failed to provide a evidence-based citation after the first invitation to produce one. Will you do so this time?
Why would I need to agree or disagree with a made-up, arbitrary parameter or definition (climate = 30 years, so a 28-year trend is weather, not climate) before I can point out that a region or hemisphere has been cooling since the late 1990s?
The Northern Hemisphere warmed by 4-5°C within a few decades 14.7 ka. Sea levels rose at rates of 60-75 mm/yr during this period. Would we say this did not constitute climate change because these changes took only 20 years? It’s not climate until it reaches the magical 30-year threshold?
This article uses 24 years of weather as a climate trend.
This article uses 1998 as a start point for a short term trend (title) even though 1998 was an exceptionally hot year due to s strong El Nino, unrelated to greenhouse gases.
This article claims radiosondes shows global warming has “mostly paused” since 1998, using a cherry picked year for a start point (1998) and less than a 30 year period, even though more data (since 1958) are available. 30 years or more is the WMO definition of climate, a definition this article ignores.
This article uses inaccurate pre-1979 SST measurements, not fit for scientific analysis, due to poor surface coverage and repeated changes in measurement methodologies very likely to bias linear temperature trends.
This article presents radiosonde data. NASA-GISS radiosonde data claims a rising temperature trend since 1958. This article contradicts NASA-GISS, with no attempt to explain why NASA-GISS numbers are wrong.
This article is an example of the bad science that results when a biased non-scientist author starts with a conclusion — that global warming has paused — rather than starting with an open mind. As a result, data are truncated and start points for trends are cherry-picked, while official data sources, such as NASA-GISS are contradicted with no explanation.
Those are the reasons I declared this article to be a pile of you know what, and have probably been banned from this website as a result.
NASA-GISS data source:
And yet you didn’t explain why you chose to make up an entirely false claim about the intention of the article: “an attempt to suggest the global warming since the late 1600s has ended” There was never a time in which the article mentioned 1600. You made that up.
Also, it’s interesting that you wish to emphasize that the warming since 1600 has not ended, but at the same time you use entirely unreliable (pre-1979) “global” SST data to claim that the warming since 1600 did end from 1940-1975, when global cooling (your characterization) occurred. (Did you realize you contradicted yourself here?)
So you are guilty of a) making false statements about what the article actually said, and b) you accuse this author of doing exactly what you did: claim global warming “ended” from 1940-1975 even though you have no scientific grounds (unreliable SST data) to have arrived at this stated conclusion. It’s rather weak to say it’s correct for you to write that global warming ended in an earlier period (1940-1975) just because the cooling/non-warming lasted for 11 years longer in your cherry-picked time period vs. 1998-2022.
Have you demonstrated you have an open mind, Richard Greene? If so, identify the evidence that you have arrived at your conclusions about, say, the reliability of the radiosonde data after having falsified all evidence suggesting it is reliable. As someone with an open mind, you’ve done that, right?
Prior to changing the RSS data in 2017 to match GISS (likely because he was tired of Monckton using his data to make 18-year “pause” charts on WUWT), Carl Mears had RSS and UAH matching to the hundredths of a degree from 1998-2015. In January, 2016, NOAA and NASA even showed how closely radiosonde and RSS/UAH data aligned from 1979-2015.
So can we assume you believe NASA-GISS numbers are right? On what grounds did you arrive at that conclusion, Richard?
It’s not feasible to spend the exhaustive time explaining why there are concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the NASA-GISS record – especially since they have added 0.24°C to the 1910-2000 trend from 2008-2018 by changing the data – in these intentionally short, blurb-like articles. We’re only introducing the texts and charts from scientific papers for the NTZ readers’ perusing convenience. Most readers spend 10-30 seconds on these. If interested, we hope to have others read the papers for themselves. Comments are welcome – and of course you won’t be banned. We welcome feedback – especially the kind that is constructive.
Your comments were not constructive. They appeared to be mean-spirited and snarky. You can continue replying to articles with snark and dismissive rhetoric. I’m just not sure you’re making any headway if your comments were designed to accomplish something.
My comment was intended to show that some climate realists, such as you, and especially Monckton, cherry pick the year 1998 (or 2016) to create a meaningless “pause”. And then try to get media attention with that data mining derived pause.
Starting in 1998 data mining does not claim the very long term warming trend has ended, but it imply that to many readers.
You make the false point that a short term data mined pause is important, and imply predictive ability for the future climate. I pointed out that even a 35 year cooling trend, from 1940 to 1975, had no predictive ability for the global warming trend that followed in 1975.
And then the leftist style character attacks begin.
I did not realize that I needed Mr. Richard’s permission to criticize an article here for scientific reasons. Thank you for permission to make future comments. But don’t believe NASA-GISS or the World Meteorological Organization, so why would you believe me?
THE LEFTIST STYLE CHARACTER ATTACK:
“Your comments were not constructive. They appeared to be mean-spirited and snarky. You can continue replying to articles with snark and dismissive rhetoric. I’m just not sure you’re making any headway if your comments were designed to accomplish something.”
My comments caused YOU to demonstrate that you are weak on science, but strong on emotions. I will wait patiently for you to refute BASA-GISS radiosonde data, and the WMO definition of “climate”, both contradicting your article.
Have a Nice Day
And yet you claimed global temperatures stopped warming from 1940 to 1975, when you claim we had global cooling. On what scientific basis did you arrive at your conclusion? Were the global SST records reliable enough during that period? And why did you happen to cherry-pick those particular years?
No, I neither used the word “important” in reference to the “mostly paused” NH and tropical SST radiosonde data, nor did I even suggest these temperatures are predictive or portend future climate. Once again, Richard, you have been caught making stuff up. Perhaps you should stop doing that.
And what would the “character attacks” be in this case? I pointed out that you have made false accusations. Because you did. Leftist?
Please identify the “scientific” aspect of your criticisms. Obviously you don’t like it when temperature trends of less than 30 years are highlighted in articles because this doesn’t satisfy the WMO-derived definition of the duration sufficient for climate. It’s still unclear what you accomplished here.
Oh my. Emotions? You think you can read my feelings now? I am and have been perfectly calm. I’ve been smiling. I am known for being jovial, optimistic by default. I enjoy spirited debate. Nothing “emotional” has occurred here.
This is NASA radiosonde data from 1979-2015. Notice how it aligns rather well with the RSS/UAH data. What is it that needs to be “refuted” about this?
Yes, it’s well known that the agreed-upon “consensus” definition of “climate” constitutes change over a 30-year period. This does not mean we cannot point out when temperatures do not rise for 15 or 20 or 25 years in our articles. So, though you may find it irksome, I will continue to highlight papers that document trends – even trends that don’t yet extend to the magical 30-year threshold. I did so again today.
Reply to May 20 6pm KR comment
that had no reply button:
“Are you pleased with how this turned out for you, Richard?”
I did my best to convince you, a climate change skeptic, that data mining, especially starting with the unusually hot year of 1998, to artificially create a “pause”, is biased reporting. Not good climate science.
I pointed out that a long period without global warming — even the 35 years from 1940 to 1975 — had no predictive ability for the global average temperature trend in the decades that followed.
If you want to publish future “1998 Pause Truther” articles, I hope you’ll reconsider, because doing that is a disservice to our tough effort to refute the Climate Howlers.
1998 data mining is far from the worst possible climate skeptic error — a few climate skeptics claim the greenhouse effect does not exist, and a few claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
So, to summarize the crux of your notorious irritation, Richard Greene, it is important for someone of your blogospheric eminence to call attention to 35-year periods of non-warming … to the 30-Years-Is-Climate Truth as defined by the WMO. Therefore, any offending person deserves every word of Richard Greene’s supercilious derision and fanciful and creative adaptations of his opponents’ positions.”
When you resort to character attacks, you automatically lose the argument. You just lost. I was very impressed, however, that you spelled “supercilious” correctly. I had to look it up to check your spelling.
And if you totally ignore me, and continue reporting on the “1998 El Nino data mined pause”, please remember that in the past, a pause has never been useful to predict the temperature trend that followed it. It is not ven worsth mentioning.
And now I’ll finish this “debate”
with another brilliant climate rap,
perhaps to be nominated for a Grammy award?
Of NASA and WMO science,
you are in defiance,
rather than compliance,
with no explanations
for your deviations,
so you failed to show,
why that post-1998 plateau,
was more than a sideshow,
and your comments had
a low signal to noise ratio,
with arguments that fell,
like a row of dominos
so I’m gonna get up,
Have a Nice Day, Bro
Which is why I’ve never written anything to suggest that. This is just another in a series of made-up interpretations of what I was “implying” by referring to a scientific paper’s temperature trend lasting decades (but one decade too short to evade your “pile of you know what” critique) that doesn’t fit an alarmist narrative.
And to disappoint you, I will completely ignore your protestations and continue writing about temperature pauses or declines, of whatever length I find interesting. In fact, your comments have made it more and not less likely that I will call attention to pauses and declining temperatures in future articles. Your personal smear attempts (i.e., “you don’t care about data accuracy” “This article is an example of the bad science that results when a biased non-scientist author starts with a conclusion“), insult attempts (“you are weak on science, but strong on emotions” “you are annoying” “you are a biased author” “your personality is annoying” “I have attempted to type my final comment here in simple English so even a 12 year old child could understand it. Please go out and find a 12 year old child to explain it to you.“), and made-up (false) renderings of my intentions and positions (“You make the false point that a short term data mined pause is important, and imply predictive ability for the future climate” “I did not realize that I needed Mr. Richard’s permission to criticize an article here for scientific reasons“) all abjectly failed to achieve your stated goal. I will not comply.
Why would I need to “comply” with NASA’s version of “science”? They change their temperature data from cooling into warming. NASA claims CO2 molecules “turn into tiny heaters” in the sky. That’s the “science” you espouse, or “comply” with, right?
You have written so much in response to my original comment that I lost track of which comments I had already read. The best I can do now to provide a summary. You could have written two more articles with all the typing you have done in the comment section.
There were 43 years of decent global average temperature compilations from satellites — UAH, since 1979 — (I mis-typed 1879 in a prior post)
Picking 1998 as a start point for a short term trend is data mining.
I don’t care how many studies used 1998.
1998 was a hot year from a temporary, unusually large, El Nino heat peak that has nothing to do with greenhouse gas global warming. Picking 1998 is equivalent to calculating a stock market trend starting with the peak day of the last bull market.
Anyone who chooses 1998 as a start point for a trend is biased, with the obvious goal of declaring a “pause”. When climate change skeptics read about a “pause” they often think that “pause” could, or does, mean the prior global warming trend has ended.
Why would there be an article about a cherry-picked “pause” unless the writer wanted to imply a change in the temperature trend?
There is no other reason to talk about a “pause”, making it important enough for the subject of an article. Any author who uses 1998 as a starting year for a trend, has made a deliberate effort to create a “pause” and imply it is important. That would be a biased author.
You did that, so you are a biased author.
In addition you truncated temperature data at 1998
even though reliable data are available since 1979.
You dismissed the WMO definition
of climate with a flick of the wrist.
You use Northern Hemisphere data
when global data are available.
You use data that are contradicted by NASA-GISS radiosonde global average temperature compilations (which are similar to UAH). probably not even knowing you did that. If you contradict official data, you must explain why.
The fact that you read a “study” does not change anything. Just because something is written in a peer reviewed “study”, published in a science journal, does not mean it is true. Climate science “studies” often make wild guess predictions that are not going to happen.
And now here’s a climate rap:
The science you’re deploying,
is something I’m not enjoying,
and your personality is annoying.
Have a Nice Day !
So when Monckton uses 1996 as a starting point for an 18-year pause, that year is acceptable. Because it’s not 1998, which is biased.
Is the 1940 year you chose as a cherry-picked starting point for the global cooling you described as real acceptable? Why is your cherry-picked starting point acceptable?
I used the image of radiosonde data provided in the paper. They didn’t graph the Southern Hemisphere. That’s why I didn’t show it.
Can you explain why the NH radiosonde data shown in the paper are wrong? What data are you using to validate the claim that the authors of the graph have published a contradiction? Is it possible NASA GISS is wrong?
Indeed. Do you believe that the NASA GISS temperature data are “true”, then? If so, why do you believe that?
Excellent rebuttal, Richard.
No one else is interested in this “debate”.
But why should I let you get the last word in?
You claimed to be jovial but you are annoying.
Unless jovial means fat in the UK. ha ha
Anyone who starts a short term weather trend with the unusually hot year of 1998 to data mine a “pause” is biased. That would be you.
Just using a short term trend as “climate” is biased.
Monckton does that all the time. As a result, he is a poor spokesman for climate realists.
I mention the over 30 year 1940 to 1975 period because in 1975 NCAR was reporting a large amount of global cooling.
From the peak month to the trough months within that 35 year period (which was NOT January 1940 to December 1975) there was a temperature decline of almost -0.6 degrees C.
That is a large enough decline so it is unlikely to be a measurement error. It was a large enough decline to convince some scientists in 1974 that a global cooling crisis was coming.
Today NASA-GISS shows a flat trend from 1940 to 1975 which I do not believe since the change was arbitrary.
With the assumption that the 1940 to 1975 global cooling was real, I have repeatedly pointed out that a 35 year global cooling trend DID NOT predict the actual global average temperature trend that followed.
The global warming in progress since the 1690s resumed in 1975, even faster than in the prior 275 years. 1940 to 1975 was a real 25 years climate trend, but it had no predictive ability.
Similarly, the 24 year ‘mostly paused” since 1998 has no predictive ability. It is most likely just a normal variation withing a long term warming trend. And that would mean “mostly paused” is meaningless, except for climate change skeptics ;ole you to use as skeptic propagands and a click bait headline. Which is exactly what you did.
I have attempted to type my final comment here in simple English so even a 12 year old child could understand it. Please go out and find a 12 year old child to explain it to you. Still jovial?
Bingham Farms. Michigan USA
My one and only climate prediction, from 1997:
“The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder”
I am still waiting for my Nobel Prize !
I wrote: “your personality is annoying”
You responded with “Excellent rebuttal, Richard.”
Thank you for the complement — that was unexpected. I had been wearing a helmet while replying to your comments, for my personal protection. It looks like we have two things in common: The name Richard, and we equally annoy each other.
I hereby nominate you as a member of the “1998 Pause Club”
Then why are you subjecting yourself to annoyance?
According to what data set? Does it use non-global canvas bucket measurements? Of course. And yet you think it’s reliable?
On what grounds do think it unlikely? You have already claimed data prior to 1979 is unreliable. Now you’re saying it’s reliable? And, again, why did you cherry-pick 1940 as your starting year for the cooling?
Response to the May 20 %:32 am cimment which had no reply button
“you are annoying”
Then why are you subjecting yourself to annoyance?
ANSWER: I have been annoyed by Climate Howlers for 25 years, so I’m used to being annoyed. I’m only annoyed by you because you should know better than being a “1998 Pause Truther”. Your other articles are good.
“From the peak month to the trough months within that 35 year period (which was NOT January 1940 to December 1975) there was a temperature decline of almost -0.6 degrees C.”
According to what data set? Does it use non-global canvas bucket measurements? Of course. And yet you think it’s reliable?
Data reported by NCAR in the US in 1975, which was similar to other sources of the global average temperature. 1940 was primarily SST measured with buckets, but by 1975 half the measurements were engine intake cooling water temperatures. The important point is there was no warming measured even as CO2 levels rose. The cooling “measured” was large enough so that it’s unlikely that a warming trend was missed by inaccurate measurements. The most important point is how much the official numbers were later revised with no scientific explanation. I use 1940 to 1975 because that is the approximate period of global cooling reported at the time. The cooling was so large that some scientists got a massive amount of media attention by predicting a coming global cooling crisis in 1974 … so of course a new global warming trend began in 1975, proving once again that climate predictions are no better than flipping a coin.
“unlikely to be a measurement error”
On what grounds do think it unlikely? You have already claimed data prior to 1979 is unreliable. Now you’re saying it’s reliable? And, again, why did you cherry-pick 1940 as your starting year for the cooling?
The peak to trough cooling within that 1940 to 1975 period — almost -0.6 degrees C. — was so large that it very likely overwhelmed any measurement errors.
While I don’t trust global average measurements before UAH data in 1979 as accurate, I do accept that measured trends
are at least in the right direction, even if the actual numbers have a large margin of error:
There was warming since the 1690s,
warming from 1910 to 1940,
cooling from 1040 to 1975
and warming from 1975 to 2020.
Our planet is always warming or cooling,
so alternating trends are expected.
It’s too easy to cherry pick a less than 30 years period withing the warming trend since the 1690s to claim a “pause” and imply such a pause is important.
Monckton does that frequently.
As a result the “1998 Pause Truthers” make me go berserk. Like you did. There is so much bad climate science to refute that we climate realists don’t have to spin the “1998 pause” as more than it really is: Data mining.
When I’m not busy debating you, I publish my favorite articles on three online blogs. My climate and energy blog is the most popular, with almost 313,000 visits so far. The articles are almost entirely written by other people. This article did not qualify. Your next article might. We probably agree on many climate science subjects, but I don’t know which ones.
My main point about climate change is that people don’t realize what “climate change” means to leftists.
It means always wrong, scary prediction of climate doom. Not reality, Not based on data — there are no data for the future. Based on unproven theories and speculation. Climate astrology.
Predictions that I traced back to US oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957. With wild guessed ECS numbers added in the 1970s.
65 years later, the “climate crisis” is still “coming” ?
Yet the ACTUAL current climate, in my opinion, is better for humans and animals, and especially plants, since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended about 5,000 years ago.
The ACTUAL climate has improved as fears of the future climate increased.
The belief in a coming climate crisis was not created with facts, data and logic. So it can not be refuted with facts, data and logic.
Refuting the Climate Howlers is a tough job.
This website does a good job.
So go back to work doing your writing, and stop arguing with me. I didn’t like one of your articles – so what”
I bet Climate Howlers don’t like 100% of your articles! I’ve had a few Climate, Howlers go to my climate science and energy blog home page, and immediately go berserk at the honest global warming chart I have posted there — they never even read one article!
So, to summarize the crux of your notorious irritation, Richard Greene, it is important for someone of your blogospheric eminence to call attention to 35-year periods of non-warming (even when these temperature records are heavily dependent on error-prone bucket measurements that are notoriously unreliable), but 24-year periods of no obvious warming in the satellite era are not only not acceptable to highlight or call attention to, any offending person who uses a less-than-30-year period in the body of an article on global or hemispheric temperature trends is guilty of engaging in statistical bias. Yes, bias. After all, she or he failed to adhere to the 30-Years-Is-Climate Truth as defined by the WMO. Therefore, any offending person deserves every word of Richard Greene’s supercilious derision and fanciful and creative adaptations of his opponents’ positions.
Are you pleased with how this turned out for you, Richard?
nor does global land temp data. eg the whole of Africa temps are estimated.
WMO- “Because the data with respect to in-situ surface air temperature across Africa is sparse, a one year regional assessment for Africa could not be based on any of the three standard global surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC, NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4. Instead, the combination of the Global Historical Climatology Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory was used to estimate surface air temperature patterns’
“This article is a pile of you know what
and not something readers expect at this website.” Nice claim. How do you KNOW what all readers “expect”? It is a published research paper.
“The Radiosondes do not have global coverage.” The article does not claim that it does. It only cites northern hemisphere and South America. Your comment is a straw man.
“1998 to 2022 is 24 years.
24 years is weather.
Climate requires 30 years or more.” According to who? Your delineation is nothing but an arbitrary and unfounded labeling of the data.
I made the assumption that website readers expect good science
Do you disagree?
NASA-GISS claims radiosondes show a rising temperature trend since 1958. They do NOT show a flat trend since 1998, although 1998 did have a very sharp, brief temperature peak, from a rare very strong El Nino, unrelated to greenhouse gases. Making 1998 the worst year since 1958 for the starting year, or ending year, of a linear trend. The author deliberately chose 1998 for his article title because he is biased.
The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as average weather over 30 years or more. The author ignores the WMO definition.
The WMO is about as credible as the WHO. The crux of the matter is whether or not the slight rise in temperature since 1958 is caused primarily if at all by CO2 emissions. I do agree with you that picking 1998 as a starting point is no different than the NFS picking 1958 for their measuring of the # of days into the year that the Washington DC cherry blossoms hit peak bloom and arguing that climate change is pushing the peak bloom date 7 days earlier when if you start when data was first collected (early 1920’s) there is no statistically significant trend. Same with arctic sea ice extent. All alarmists start with 1979 when there is enough, albeit less data, showing much lower arctic ice in the early 70’s than in 1979.
And without removing that pesky “40’s blip”, I wonder what the SST chart would show?
The SST chart shows whatever the government bureaucrats compiling the numbers want to show. There is no way to verify if they are correct until tne use of satellite day ta in 1979, and two versions of those satellite data, UAH and RSS, do not agree.
There have been repeated changes in SST measuremet methdologies in the past 150 years. The methdology changes themselves, from buckets, to engine cooling water itakes to bouys to ARGO floats, most likely affected the linear temperature trend. I have never seen any comparison of the different measurement methodologies used in the same location to examine how similat the numbers are.
ARGO floats for the past 20 years, and weather satellites since 1979, should be capable of accurate SST measurements. But can the people who compile the data be trusted? With UAH, I would say yes.
But I always keep in mind that a large amount of global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period — 35 years — long enough to be a climate trend — as reported by NCAR — was later “erased” by NASA-GISS.
A global cooling trend while CO2 increased did not fit the CO2 controls the climate narrative, so the global cooling was arbitrarily deleted. That passes for science when you are “greenwashed” government bureaucrats.
“In fact, your comments have made it more and not less likely that I will call attention to pauses and declining temperatures in future articles.”
Great job KR, cherry pick an unusually hot year, 1998, to create an artificial pause. You have learned from Monckton.
But you have even topped him:
You use Northern Hemisphere radiosonde data that contradict NASA-GISS, GLOBAL radiosonde data, with not a word to explain why.
You ignore the WMO definition of climate as 30 years or more average of weather, with not a word to explain why.
You respond to these charges of science bias, by being stubborn, not willing to admit any bias. Anyone can data mine the historical temperature records to create a any trend — up, down or flat.
The official climate science organizations are claiming The past decade has been the hottest decade since record-keeping began. They are obviously not claiming a pause. If you think any “1998 Pause Truther” articles are helping to refute that official climate consensus, you need better thinking.
PS: Thanks for condensing all my best criticisms in one paragraph.
I was thinking of printing them put, and having them framed.
And lighten up, I might complement your next article. Have you never before been criticized by a leftist Climate Howler about your articles?
I’m not a leftists or a Climate Howler. I’ve had leftists go berserk after I tell them I ;love global warming — most of us do here in Michigan USA. Probably true in the UK too — I’ve been there twice.
If that doesn’t work, I tell leftists Trump was the best president in American history. Then they blow their tops.
Keep Calm and Carry On.
You keep claiming this, but I have yet to see you validate your claim and identify the contradiction. Show us the NASA-GISS Northern Hemisphere radiosonde contradicting the plot shown in this paper.
Here’s what that looks like. Identify the contradiction you keep whining about.
No, I just don’t agree with your fervent demands that only 30-year trends can ever be discussed in articles. The IPCC reports on 15-year trends and famously called attention to the 1998-2012 “hiatus” in the 2013 report. Did they “ignore” the WMO definition of climate in doing so? Yes. No one cares about this but you, Richard.
Because your charges of science bias are bogus. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that a region or hemisphere hasn’t warmed in the last 20 years, 25 years, or 29 years. 30 isn’t some magical number. I do not agree that you have a valid point, or that I must follow your demands and refuse to report on a trend unless it reaches the 30-year threshold. You have not been the least bit persuasive. Actually, you’ve had the opposite effect.
Condescension has ever been effective when?
[…] effort to let you see what it shows because it doesn’t match what models predict. And now, h/t No Tricks Zone, we have learned of yet another data base developed using an even larger library of weather balloon […]