Roy Spencer, John Christy, and William Braswell of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) Earth System Science Center recently released Version 6 (V.6) of their global satellite temperature dataset. The scientists describe the upgrade, which took three years to complete, as “by far the most extensive revision of the procedures and computer code we have ever produced in over 25 years of global temperature monitoring.”
Compared to the previous UAH dataset (V5.6), the most important change is a reduction in the global average lower-troposphere temperature trend from +0.140°C/decade to +0.114°C/decade over the past 36 years (Dec. ’78 through Mar. ’15).
Figure explanation: Monthly global-average temperature anomalies for the lower troposphere from Jan. 1979 through March, 2015 for both the old and new versions of LT (top), and their difference (bottom).
The revision is noteworthy in several respects. First, as the scientists point out, the UAH dataset more closely matches the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) dataset, a separate satellite monitoring program, which shows no net warming since Dec. 1996. In the RSS record, the length of the warming pause is now 18 years five months.
Second, a warming trend of +0.114°C/decade is roughly what scientists would expect in a low-sensitivity climate where feedbacks do not strongly amplify the direct warming effect of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. For perspective, in a hypothetical zero feedback climate, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase the temperature of the surface-troposphere system by 1.2°C, according to the IPCC.
Third, the UAH V.6 record would appear to cast doubt on the IPCC’s claim of greater than 95% certainty that more than half of all warming since 1951 is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the IPCC’s main lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate change is a warming of the troposphere (lowest region of the atmosphere) combined with a cooling of the stratosphere (the layer above the troposphere). As explained by Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, if the Sun were responsible for global warming, then the stratosphere should also get warmer. Instead, the stratosphere has cooled since 1979, which is consistent with the hypothesis that rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the troposphere trap heat that would otherwise radiate out to space through the stratosphere. Climate models predict this pattern, “thermal structure,” or “greenhouse fingerprint,” and observations confirm it.
The UAH V.6 record, however, not only shows little if any warming in the troposphere since 1996, it also shows little if any cooling in the stratosphere.
Figure explanation: Monthly global-average temperature variations for the lower troposphere, mid-troposphere, tropopause level, and lower stratosphere, 1979 through March 2015.
The absence of both tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling since 1996 is remarkable considering that more than 31% of all industrial CO2 emissions since 1750 occurred during the past 18 years.
Fourth, although past is not always prologue, if the trend in the UAH V.6 dataset continues, 21st century warming should be limited to about one degree Celsius. At a minimum, the anemic warming of the past 36 years casts doubt on the big, scary warming projections popularized by the IPCC.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org
Temperature anomalies at all 4 primary temperature databases and the UAH satellite observations are currently setting new record highs. (Updated thru March 2015) 2014 was the warmest year on record as measured by GISS, NOAA/NCDC, HadCRUT4, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and Berkeley Earth analysis.
Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/NOAAanomalies.png
Data: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/GISSanomalies.png
Data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/HadCrut4anomalies.png
Data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat
Graph: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
(Graph shows annual data)
Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/UAHanomalies.png
Data: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (“Globe” column)
The Berkeley Earth Temperature Results also show a new record for 2014.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf
Bill,
The records you cite do not contradict my blog post. What matters in assessing global climate change is not inter-annual temperature fluctuations but TREND. If 2014 was the warmest year on record, it was so by mere hundredths of a degree, i.e. by less than the margin of error in estimates of global average surface temperature. For further discussion, see http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/01/27/warmest-year-blather-distraction-from-big-picture/.
The big picture in UAH V.6, as I see it, is: (1) The UAH record now closely matches the RSS record since 1996, during which period there has been little to no warming in the bulk atmosphere; (2) over the entire 36-year satellite record, the lower troposphere warming trend is 0.114C/decade, which means the divergence between model predictions and observations is even worse than we thought (see this chart based on the UAH record before the V.6 upgrade: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Models-v-Observations-Christy-McKnider-WSJ-Feb-20-2014.jpg); and (3) the ‘pause’ in stratospheric cooling, like the hiatus in tropospheric warming, doesn’t leave much of a greenhouse “fingerprint” since 1996, considering that more than 31% of all industrial CO2 emissions in history occurred during that period.
Bill,
The records you cite do not contradict my blog post. What matters in assessing global climate change is not inter-annual temperature fluctuations but TREND. If 2014 was the warmest year on record, it was so by mere hundredths of a degree, i.e. by less than the margin of error in estimates of global average surface temperature. For further discussion, see http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/01/27/warmest-year-blather-distraction-from-big-picture/.
Here’s the big picture in UAH V.6, as I see it: (1) The UAH record now closely matches the RSS record since 1996, during which period there has been little to no warming in the bulk atmosphere; (2) over the entire 36-year satellite record, the lower troposphere warming trend is 0.114C/decade, which means the divergence between model predictions and observations is even worse than we thought (see this chart based on the UAH record before the V.6 upgrade: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Models-v-Observations-Christy-McKnider-WSJ-Feb-20-2014.jpg); and (3) the ‘pause’ in stratospheric cooling, like the hiatus in tropospheric warming, doesn’t leave much of a greenhouse “fingerprint” since 1996, considering that more than 31% of all industrial CO2 emissions in history occurred during that period.
Wonderful that the Globe consists ONLY of the atmosphere, melting glaciers and permanent land ice, or the Arctic Circle permafrost melt and ocean temperatures or the pole shifting due to loss of permanent land ice are irrelevant
Good luck with that , Kharma is nasty
“Third, the UAH V.6 record would appear to cast doubt on the IPCC’s claim of greater than 95% certainty that more than half of all warming since 1951 is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”
There you have it, the IPCC doing its usual job of distorting the facts.
“Remember the nineties, when we we’re put in a panic;
Global warming was coming, it would all get quite manic.
The temperatures would rise like never before,
Doom and disaster for us all, of that they were sure….”
Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-6X
The Earth is clearly warming. This blog is a textbook example of cherry picking. If you examine the longer term trend, especially in the geological record, the warming hasn’t stopped at all. In any case, 93% of warming goes into the oceans, which are losing their ability to store all this heat and will soon (2020-2025) have to release it. Then you deniers will be exposed for the morally insane fiends that you are.
Will, there’s no cherry pick here. The satellite record goes back 36 years. Spencer, Christy, and Braswell computed the warming trend over the full length of the record.
Perhaps what you mean is that the world has been in a warming trend since the 1880s. Fine, but CO2 concentrations were not rising fast enough to have much effect on global temperatures until the mid-20th century. That’s why the IPCC “consensus” position is about the post-1950 climate. According to the IPCC, it is “extremely likely” (>95% certainty) that “most” (>50%) of the warming since 1951 is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
But that assessment is largely based on the alleged consistency between model predictions and observations. And what the UAH, RSS, and balloon datasets show is that models and observations increasingly diverge (http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Models-v-Observations-Christy-McKnider-WSJ-Feb-20-2014.jpg).
If, instead of showing no net warming since 1996, the satellite and balloon datasets showed accelerated warming or simply a continuation of the 1984-1998 warming rate, the IPCC and others would be crowing that the science is settled. So who now is cherry picking — those who report the latest satellite data, or those who dismiss the satellite data out of hand as “cherrypicking”?
You mention the geological record. The world was likely warmer than it is today during the Medieval Warm Period (http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php), the Northern Hemisphere was substantially warmer 5,000-9,000 years ago during the Holocene Optimum (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/02/arctic-ice-and-polar-bears/#more-240), and warmer still during the last interglacial period (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02/05/arctic-lessons-from-the-last-interglacial-polar-bears-survived/).
Note, I am not denying the reality of anthropogenic warming, just noting that the current warm period is modest from a geological perspective.
As for the heat going into the oceans, it has long been known that the oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere, and the climate models on which warming projections are based are “coupled” ocean-atmosphere models. Still, the models increasingly depart from reality (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/04/el-nio-has-not-yet-paused-the-pause/). Pointing that out is not cherry picking. Ignoring it is.
Finally, if you want to talk about morally insane, try to figure out how the world cuts CO2 emissions 60% below 2010 levels by 2050 — the goal of the European Union and most environmental groups in the COP 21 climate treaty negotiations — without denying developing countries of the affordable energy they need to grow out of poverty (http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/03/04/sobering-slides-on-the-eus-60-by-50-climate-treaty-proposal/).
Will, there’s no cherry pick here. The satellite record goes back 36 years. Spencer, Christy, and Braswell computed the warming trend over the full length of the record.
Perhaps what you mean is the world has been in a warming trend since the 1880s. Fine, but CO2 concentrations were not rising fast enough to have much effect on global temperatures until the mid-20th century. That’s why the IPCC “consensus” position is about the post-1950 climate. According to the IPCC, it is “extremely likely” (>95% certainty) that “most” (>50%) of the warming since 1951 is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
But that assessment is largely based on the alleged consistency between model predictions and observations. And what the UAH, RSS, and balloon datasets show is that models and observations increasingly diverge (http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Models-v-Observations-Christy-McKnider-WSJ-Feb-20-2014.jpg).
If, instead of showing no net warming since 1996, the satellite and balloon datasets showed accelerated warming or simply a continuation of the 1984-1998 warming rate, the IPCC and others would be crowing that the science is settled. So who now is cherry picking — those who report the latest satellite data, or those who dismiss the satellite data out of hand as cherry picking?
You mention the geological record. The world was likely warmer than it is today during the Medieval Warm Period (http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php), the Northern Hemisphere was substantially warmer 5,000-9,000 years ago during the Holocene Optimum (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/02/arctic-ice-and-polar-bears/#more-240), and warmer still during the last interglacial period (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/02/05/arctic-lessons-from-the-last-interglacial-polar-bears-survived/).
Note, I am not denying the reality of anthropogenic warming, just noting that the current warm period is modest from a geological perspective.
As for the heat going into the oceans, it has long been known that ocean’s heat capacity is about 1,000 times greater than that of the atmosphere (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-1.html), and the climate models on which warming projections are based are “coupled” ocean-atmosphere models. Still, the models increasingly depart from reality (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/04/el-nio-has-not-yet-paused-the-pause/). Pointing that out is not cherry picking; ignoring it is.
Finally, if you want to talk about morally insane, try to figure out how the world cuts CO2 emissions 60% below 2010 levels by 2050 — the goal of the European Union and most environmental groups in the COP 21 climate treaty negotiations — without denying developing countries the affordable energy they need to grow out of poverty (http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/03/04/sobering-slides-on-the-eus-60-by-50-climate-treaty-proposal/).
I remember the 60s when they had the same argument only it was human caused global cooling. Positive that did not happen, pretty sure global warming will not either.
If you follow the money……it all becomes clear why certain folks are “all hot” about the different aspects. namely the politicians can tax the living snot out of us for “CO2 pollution”
Comments on this entry are closed.