Every month, I update the global temperature trend using satellite data reported by University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer. The two have been reporting an overall upward trend in global average temperature of +0.140 degrees Celsius per decade since 1979. They have spent three years making various adjustments to the satellite data. A a consequence, they have now have lowered the upward trend in global average temperature to +0.114 degrees per decade. From the abstract:
Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset is by far the most extensive revision of the procedures and computer code we have ever produced in over 25 years of global temperature monitoring. The two most significant changes from an end-user perspective are (1) a decrease in the global-average lower tropospheric (LT) temperature trend from +0.140 C/decade to +0.114 C/decade (Dec. '78 through Mar. '15); and (2) the geographic distribution of the LT trends, including higher spatial resolution.
Over at his blog, Roy Spencer further explains the results:
Spencer
The gridpoint trend map above shows how the land areas, in general, have warmed faster than the ocean areas. We obtain land and ocean trends of +0.19 and +0.08 C/decade, respectively. These are weaker than thermometer-based warming trends, e.g. +0.26 for land (from CRUTem4, 1979-2014) and +0.12 C/decade for ocean (from HadSST3, 1979-2014).
Spencer
Notice the trends decreased the most over the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, especially the Arctic, while tropical warming trends increased somewhat, especially over land. Near-zero trends exist in the region around Antarctica.
The new article concludes:
This should be considered a "beta" release of Version 6.0, and we await users' comments to see whether there are any obvious remaining problems in the dataset. In any event, we are confident that the new Version 6.0 dataset as it currently stands is more accurate anduseful than the Version 5.6 dataset.
The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade (1979-2014) is 0.026 C/decade lower than the previous trend of +0.140 C/decade, but about 0.010 C/decade of that difference is due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT weighting function to direct surface emission by the land surface, which surface thermometer data suggests is warming more rapidly than the deep troposphere. The remaining 0.016 C/decade difference between the old and new LT product trends is mostly due to the new diurnal drift adjustment procedure and is well within our previously stated range of uncertainty for this product's trend calculation (+/-0.040C/decade).
We have performed some calculations of the sensitivity of the final product to various assumptions in the processing, and find it to be fairly robust. Most importantly, through sensitivity experiments we find it is difficult to obtain a global LT trend substantially greater than +0.114C/decade without making assumptions that cannot be easily justified.
It would be very good news if the pace of global warming was at this lower rate. If the new UAH figures hold up to scrutiny, they would further call the accuracy of higher projections of future temperatures made by computer climate models into question.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!...... http://www.work-cash.com
Isn't 0.040 a really large range of uncertainty when we are talking about only a 0.114 increase per decade? Is that range of uncertainty a statistical confidence interval?
Going back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution...
Or was it the last Ice Age? I forget.
Regardless, the science is settled, we have a global catastrophe on our hands and the only way to assure the survival of the planet is to sacrifice. Well, sacrifice AND provide moar funding to the smart people who know how to do science.
Midwestern coal miners and frackers need to sacrifice. Middle-class consumers need to sacrifice. Brown people in third-world poverty holes need to sacrifice.
My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
Give a chance to your good luck.
Read this article, please!
Move to a better life!
We make profit on the Internet since 1998!
????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com
They got the Speaker of the NY Assembly, now the NY Senate Majority Leader. So long as Preet focuses on arresting Politicians, I can't bring myself to hate his past record.
We have a bunch of the earlier arrestees that did go to prison. (Bruno got off somehow). The process takes time to run its course. Due process and all that.
Not like it's going to matter. Unless there's a major change in the structure of the state government, this batch of crooks will just be replaced by another that's just as brazen.
It would be very good news if the pace of global warming was at this lower rate.
Is this based on any actual data or just the assumption that by lowering the rate we are intrinsically staving off the point at which the atmosphere spontaneously combusts?
In 10 years they'll claim we need to jump start the sun to stave off the next ice age. Of course they'll need tons of cash and control of the manufacturing sector to build the ship to get there.
It would be good news because they said so and would also because it would slow the rate at which more permafrost could become arable and thus support a larger population of human beings, which is bad.
It would be very good news if the pace of global warming was at this lower rate.
Oh, now we're all cautious and conditional about the satellite data, are we?
Was there ever any reference to the data before this latest adjustment that went "Its not good news if the pace of global warming was at this rate?" I don't remember seeing it. What I recall is the satellite data being presented as fact, not as a questionable conditional temporary read on data of dubious accuracy, subject to adjustment and refinement.
Assuming this adjustment is legit, why not just refer to it as the best data we have?
"It is very good news that the pace of global warming appears to be at this lower rate" if you want to be technically correct, or
"It is very good news that the pace of global warming has been at this lower rate" would be fine as well.
So its just like the hole in the ozone layer. We measured something, freaked out that humans might have caused it and are working our way back within natural variation. The Watermelon Precautionary Principle: If you find something you didn't expect, panic and blame humans.
Ronald, last week you were touting the review undertaken by the Global Warming Policy Foundation of ADJUSTMENTS made to data from surface temperatures. Are they also reviewing the adjustments made by Spencer et. al.? Or are they just selectively skeptical about adjustments that get made to data? Are they ignoring adjustments made that support their beliefs?
Rut Ro!
I lol'd
I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
http://www.work-cash.com
they would further call the accuracy of higher projections of future temperatures made by computer climate models into question.
Not for the faithful.
Hey, who doesn't want hotter models?
I expect 'Tony' will be showing up, squealing with outrage at how we all just don't understand "science".
JackAss won't be far behind.
Tony is the spokesperson for NESS now?
And then start ranting about GMOs?
KLIMUT DEENIERZ!
Isn't 0.040 a really large range of uncertainty when we are talking about only a 0.114 increase per decade? Is that range of uncertainty a statistical confidence interval?
35%? Not bad considering that the natural diurnal variation is probably 1000x to 5000x that.
I still want to know what the correct Average Global Temperature should be, and why.
A smidge above absolute zero, and you know why.
OBVIOUSLY 0.114 deg C/decade
Going back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution...
Or was it the last Ice Age? I forget.
Regardless, the science is settled, we have a global catastrophe on our hands and the only way to assure the survival of the planet is to sacrifice. Well, sacrifice AND provide moar funding to the smart people who know how to do science.
We're going to need to put some TOP MEN in charge of your economy/lives just to be on the safe side.
And ruthless determination...
Wait, our three chief weapons are...
Midwestern coal miners and frackers need to sacrifice. Middle-class consumers need to sacrifice. Brown people in third-world poverty holes need to sacrifice.
Best of a possible worlds, Dr. Pangloss.
Whatever Tony's Top Men say it is at any given time?
69 degrees Fahrenheit For obvious reasons..
Makin' up data the old hard way,
Fudging the numbers day by day,
Ignoring the snowand the cold in a downward line,
Hide the decline, hide the decline.
My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
Give a chance to your good luck.
Read this article, please!
Move to a better life!
We make profit on the Internet since 1998!
????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com
You know who else was named Adolph and moved people to a "better life?"
Rupp?
Menjou?
OT: WOOT! Two out of three bagged so far!
They got the Speaker of the NY Assembly, now the NY Senate Majority Leader. So long as Preet focuses on arresting Politicians, I can't bring myself to hate his past record.
We'll talk once he starts arresting Clintons.
I'll settle for a Cuomo.
Andy Cuomo. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
I'll trade you a Cuomo for a Bloomberg.
Bloomberg on trial would be hilarious. Even better if he did the Tyrion Lannister speech.
From the comments:
464
Rank 11
Cuomo's sphincter just went to DEFCON 2.
Arresting politicians is a good start but I'd like to see more convicted and serving prison terms.
What is this? Illinois?
We have a bunch of the earlier arrestees that did go to prison. (Bruno got off somehow). The process takes time to run its course. Due process and all that.
Nothing says I am patriotic like a license plate put together by a former politician in jail!
Not like it's going to matter. Unless there's a major change in the structure of the state government, this batch of crooks will just be replaced by another that's just as brazen.
If reality is not following the models then clearly reality is wrong. This is science 2.0.
Consensus trumps reality.
Exactly. 9/11 changed *everything*.
How are simulation and masturbation alike? Do them both long enoigh and often enough and you start to think they're real.
+1 Content
-1 Spelling
Boss: What's 2 + 2?
Underling: What would you *like* it to be?
If your original Hebrew is different than my King James Bible, the original Hebrew is wrong!
OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
/Mister Bill
I am altering the model projections, pray I don't alter them any further. //Star Wars Day
The more you tighten up your models, the more catastrophic predictions will slip through your fingers.
Ron, this brings UAH down to close to the same slope as RSS.
It would be very good news if the pace of global warming was at this lower rate.
Is this based on any actual data or just the assumption that by lowering the rate we are intrinsically staving off the point at which the atmosphere spontaneously combusts?
In 10 years they'll claim we need to jump start the sun to stave off the next ice age. Of course they'll need tons of cash and control of the manufacturing sector to build the ship to get there.
Its the Funding Cycle. We've had almost 25 years of Warming Funding, now we need Cooling Funding.
Will this Cooling Funding find a way to reduce the temperature of black seats in a black car that has been parked in the sun all day long?
Wow - racist much?!!
That sounds like a shitty movie.
It would be good news because they said so and would also because it would slow the rate at which more permafrost could become arable and thus support a larger population of human beings, which is bad.
Thawing permafrost releases CO2.
FEEEDBAK LOOPZ!
(And why do you hate the Reindeer?)
I don't, they's good eatin.
It would be very good news if the pace of global warming was at this lower rate.
Oh, now we're all cautious and conditional about the satellite data, are we?
Was there ever any reference to the data before this latest adjustment that went "Its not good news if the pace of global warming was at this rate?" I don't remember seeing it. What I recall is the satellite data being presented as fact, not as a questionable conditional temporary read on data of dubious accuracy, subject to adjustment and refinement.
Assuming this adjustment is legit, why not just refer to it as the best data we have?
"It is very good news that the pace of global warming appears to be at this lower rate" if you want to be technically correct, or
"It is very good news that the pace of global warming has been at this lower rate" would be fine as well.
At this point, the Clinton tax returns are more accurate than the official climate data.
Ouch.
*opera applause*
What difference, at *this* point, does it make?
+1
So its just like the hole in the ozone layer. We measured something, freaked out that humans might have caused it and are working our way back within natural variation. The Watermelon Precautionary Principle: If you find something you didn't expect, panic and blame humans.
Still no explanation for all those sunspots... Denier.
Those are from the Polish sun landings.
They did them at night.
[I denounce myself.]
It's okay. Polacks are the only group not to care about being microaggressed.
Too recently macroaggressed?
I'm a Polack...don't fucking care.
I have macro-wide skin.
Yeah, they've seen the real thing - micro doesn't rouse their interest, much.
"Polacks are the only group not to care about being microaggressed."
That's because it goes right over their heads.
See? That's what I'm talkin about. Good stuff.
Chemtrailzz!!1!
DENIERS! DENIERS! ALL LIES! DENIERS!
(Gets walked over to the nice padded room...)
Still negotiating, eh?
Ronald, last week you were touting the review undertaken by the Global Warming Policy Foundation of ADJUSTMENTS made to data from surface temperatures. Are they also reviewing the adjustments made by Spencer et. al.? Or are they just selectively skeptical about adjustments that get made to data? Are they ignoring adjustments made that support their beliefs?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04.....al-tempera
Are those anything like the 2007 computer models that made financial predictions assuming asset forfeiture had no effect?