.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Hottest November on record for the troposphere - with a comment on Trumped Up Courage

Sou | 6:27 PM Go to the first of 17 comments. Add a comment
Despite what David Rose, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the fake press (Breitbart), WUWT, and the US House Science Committee will try to claim - global warming is real and happening now. There is no ice age about to arrive.

For the troposphere, November was the hottest November on record!

The troposphere temperatures for November 2016 have been released. The lower troposphere is recorded in UAH v6 beta 5 and RSS TLT v3.3. This report also covers RSS TTT for the troposphere (without the "lower") and follows pretty much the same format as previous monthly updates.

For RSS TTT (troposphere), last month was the hottest November on record. For 2016 to be colder than the previous hottest year (1998), the troposphere would have to average a negative anomaly:- less than -1.57 °C for the remaining month. It's an understatement to say that is unlikely.

The lower troposphere (UAH beta v6.05) was also the hottest November on record with 2015. For 1998 to remain the hottest year in the UAH lower troposphere record, the anomaly for December would need to be below minus 0.21 °C. That's not likely but not impossible.

Troposphere temperature (RSS TTT v4) chart


First here is RSS TTT with the latest dataset, version 4. TTT seems to be measure more of the troposphere than TLT (that is, it has a greater vertical profile) with less of the stratosphere than the mid-troposphere data (TMT). It shows a higher rate of warming than RSS v3.3 and higher than UAH. Hover the cursor (arrow) over the plots to see the data points, trend etc.

The chart below is the average of the 12 months to November, from December 1979 to November 1980, through to December 2015 to November 2016. The 12 month averaged anomaly was 0.79 °C, which is 0.17 °C higher than the previous hottest 12 month period in 1998. The rate of warming is 0.18 °C/decade or 1.8 °C/century.
Figure 1 | Troposphere temperature for 12 months to November (TTT). Anomaly is from the 1979-1998 mean. Data source: RSS

From the RSS website, TTT is derived from TMT and TLS with the formula:

TTT = 1.1*TMT - 0.1*TLS. 

This combination reduces the influence of the lower stratosphere, which is cooling at most locations. TLT gives most weight to the temperatures closer to the surface. TTT gives more weight to the troposhere and less to the stratosphere than TMT does, but not as much to the lowest levels of the troposphere as TLT does. However TTT has version 4, while TLT is still only provided as version 3.3. For a fuller explanation see the RSS website or the July 16 report here.

Below is the TTT chart just for the month of November. The anomaly for November was 0.735 °C, which is 0.194 °C warmer than November 2015. The rate of warming just for Novembers is 0.16 °C/decade.
Figure 2 | Troposphere temperature for the month of November only (TTT). Anomaly is from the 1979-1998 mean. Data source: RSS


Lower troposphere


The rest of the charts are from UAH beta v6.5. This is almost identical to the old version of RSS, which is v3.3, so is likely to be updated at some time. (Other RSS data sets, like TTT are now at version 4.)

The chart below is the average of the 12 months to November, from December 1979 to November 1980, through to December 2015 to November 2016. The past 12 months is the hottest on record by 0.04 C.
Figure 3 | Lower troposphere temperature for 12 months to November. Anomaly is from the 1981-2010 mean. Data source: UAH

Below is the UAH chart for the month of November only for each year going back to 1979. The anomaly was 0.45 °C above the 1981-2010 mean, which was 0.12 C hotter than the previous hottest November in 2015.

Figure 4 | Lower troposphere temperature for the month of November only. Anomaly is from the 1981-2010 mean. Data source: UAH


Comparing recent ENSO years


Below is a chart comparing the strongest El Niño years since 1979, which were followed by a La Niña, just for UAH v6 beta 5. I've included the 2015/16 period for comparison.

Figure 5 | Global mean lower troposphere temperature for strong or moderate/strong El Nino years that were followed by a La Nina. Data source: UAH

La Nina is not very likely to appear this year according to BoM, although NOAA says it's here already. One thing you'll notice is that September and October in the UAH data are similar to 1998. However the temperature has jumped up again this November, whereas in 1998 it dropped further. I think the UAH data record as a whole would be quite different if satellite drift were better accounted for by UAH - going by comparison with RSS data.





Trumped Up Courage



As the world gets weirder and hotter, climate science deniers look as if they are also getting weirder, and bolder. It's the "Trump Effect" leading to what I regard as "Trumped Up Courage". Disinformers are pretending that global warming will stop because a fake sceptic has been elected as President of the USA.

Thinking about it, it might seem as if disinformers are getting more brazen - but they aren't. It's not that there's any real change in what climate disinformers are claiming or doing, it's just that they are now getting some pushback (at last) from the mainstream media. So that means it's getting more publicity.

The latest is the fiasco caused by disinformer David Rose, who was quite upset that scientists called him out for his recent misleading article. David was trying to make people believe that global warming had nothing to do with the record high temperatures. He was claiming that it was all El Nino. As Scott K Johnstone reports at Ars Technica, David's article was picked up by the "hate site" Breitbart and then tweeted by the US House anti-science Committee.

To bolster his claim, David Rose had to bypass every single temperature record except one - the land coverage only record from the almost defunct RSS troposphere, v3.3.

He and his echoes got in just in time. If they'd waited a couple of days, they'd have found that the above land only RSS v3.3 anomaly went up again in November. (It dropped to 0.12 C in October and jumped up to 0.35 C in November.)

However land only troposphere temperature not the same as global temperature, and it's not the same as surface temperature. The temperature on the land surface fluctuates a lot more than the surface as a whole, so the temperature of the air above the surface would also probably fluctuate more than that of the air above the oceans. The land doesn't retain heat like the oceans do.

In other words, disinformers had to disregard all the global observations and focus in on temperatures of the air above the land, in order to con the public. Indeed, what they relied on:
  • wasn't temperature at the surface or near surface - it was upper air temperature - up to several kilometres above the surface;
  • wasn't global atmospheric temperature, it was only over land
  • wasn't over all the land - it missed out on Antarctica
  • wasn't repeated in November, with the latest data.


Disinformation at WUWT


Anthony Watts, in partnership with Eric Worrall (who has taken over at WUWT), are busy dishing out disinformation and conspiracy theories same as ever. This article is too long to go into a lot of detail, so I'll just pick out one outright lie that Eric Worrall wrote. He was writing a lot of nonsense about the Breitbart nonsense, and falsely claimed:
Why are climate advocates so upset? The reason is they were expecting global temperatures to keep shooting up. 
He's wrong - though I doubt he cares much. Having got the top spot at WUWT Eric won't want to let it go by being factual. Top  scientists have been pointing out for months now that 2017 is not expected to be as hot as 2016. That's partly because El Nino added an extra shove to the greenhouse warming, and partly because there (still) could be a La Nina next year. (NOAA has issued a La Nina advisory, however Australia's Bureau of Meteorology doesn't agree, and is still on La Nina watch.)


From the WUWT comments


Anthony Watts still hasn't posted Roy Spencer's UAH update article yet, which came out yesterday. Not that it would matter much that it contradicts many of WUWT's recent articles. (The wilfully ignorant climate deniers at WUWT are more than capable of holding several contradictory positions at the same time.)

As an aside, Roy Spencer is trying to downplay the hottest year on record, writing:
It should be pointed out that 2016 will end up being 0.03-0.04 deg. C warmer than 1998, which is probably not a statistically significant difference given the uncertainties in the satellite dataset adjustments.
Well that may be so although I think he's slightly underestimating the difference. Satellite temperatures are tricky and the uncertainties would be greater than for surface temperatures. UAH in particular has big problems.

The comments below are from Eric Worrall's unjustified defense of the factually wrong article on the white male supremacist, misogynistic, racist website, Breitbart. (I've read that some people prefer this longer description over "alt-right" - which means the same thing.)

Bryan A wants to bring back the "pause" - and can't wait to say how "it hasn't warmed since 2016":
December 2, 2016 at 10:00 am
So how long will it take, given the current weak La Nina conditions, for them to state that it is the La Nina that is causing the cooling and not a hiatus?
How long?
We’ll see.
If the La Nina is used as a causal explanation for global cooling than El Nino must be allowed as a cause of Global Warming

Sanata Baby's comment is indicative of the brainpower typically seen at WUWT:
December 2, 2016 at 6:01 am
The leftist belive they have politicized climate science in order to promote their agendaes?

And if you think the previous comment was an aberration, you'd be wrong. This is from Jimmy Haigh:
December 2, 2016 at 1:00 am
Global warmongering climate bollicks fondlers like Sanders haven”t a scooby. 

There was also quite a bit of discussion about "fake news" in the WUWT comments, with lots of people letting everyone know that they prefer fake news to real (by parroting it).


Back to normal soon


Some of you might have noticed that I've not been publishing as often these last few weeks. I want to assure you that HotWhopper is alive and well, despite articles being a bit sparse. It's just that I've been super/extra/wildly busy with other things lately - traveling lots and trying to keep up. Things should settle down after the next couple of weeks.

It's probably not a bad thing. Emotions are running hot in cyberspace after Donald Trump was announced as President Elect. On the other hand, I keep seeing articles that are right up the HotWhopper alley - and so I apologise for not having the time to respond.

With the way things are heading all around the world (in politics and climate), there'll be no shortage of material to write about in 2017.





17 comments:

Millicent said...

So 2016 is the new 1998 for the inmates at WUWT.

As for Spencer: has he published the new (well, not so new now) UAH methodology in a peer reviewed journal? If he's not going to do that shouldn't we consider the UAH dataset as no more scientifically valid than articles at WUWT?

Sou said...

Roy Spencer has said an article has been accepted. I don't think it's been published yet, and nor do I know what journal accepted it.

Harry Twinotter said...

I explained in some details on the Jo Nova blog about why the article used cherry-picking to deceive it's readers, and my comments have disappeared! So much for free-speech on a Conspiracy Theory blog. They might reappear later, sometimes WUWT used something similar as a delaying tactic so most of his readers would not see comments he did not like.

Sou said...

The way denier blogs support their precious "free speech" is to delete any comments that would offend the non-sensibilities of the core readership. That way deniers are free to write anything they want, free of the possibility of correction :)

It's called fact-free speech.

Millicent said...

It points to the probability that many of these organs are motivated more by their relationships to the fossil fuel industry rather than by genuine beliefs.

Harry Twinotter said...

The way BreitBart is reacting to Kellogg's pulling it's advertising is telling. BreitBart is acting like a spoilt child, calling for boycotts etc. Kellogg appears to have said very little in it's statement (I could not find it), but already BreitBart has spun a false narrative around it.

Eric Worrall said...

Sou on free speech;

New comment policy: No more nonsense denial comments

Jammy Dodger said...

@Eric Worrall

You know the procedure. Go and look at the xkcd cartoon explaining free speech.

Sou said...

@Eric - I'm not the one crying "free speech" every time I get corrected. That's more typical of sooky fact-free speech advocates - like the people who quote Brietbart as if it were a reliable source of scientific information instead of the intolerant, anti-society, anti-science, racist, sexist, white male supremacist platform it is.

While you're here - and now that you've seen how wrong you are about Delinpole's blog article (you take James Delingpole seriously? Seriously?) - are you going to write a correction, an update, a new article about how this November is the hottest November on record for the troposphere? Are you perhaps going to quote a more reliable secondary source - like HotWhopper? (That would generate some comments at WUWT, if it's lots of comments you're after :D) Or are you going to continue to try to deceive WUWT readers with your fact-free speech?

PS Free speech comes with responsibilities - like telling the truth not distorting it. Those responsibilities aren't waived here at HotWhopper as you point out. If you want to avoid your responsibilities stick to disinformation outlets like WUWT and Breitbart (and the Mail).

Sou said...

@Harry - Kellog's isn't the only company that has decided to stop rewarding Breitbart for it's anti-social propaganda. There are other large (and not so large) companies that agree with those who want advertisers to "stop funding hate".

Bernard J. said...

Eric Worrall on free speech:

"I want the freedom to speak lies, distortions, misrepresentations, cherry-pickings, logical fallacies, and misunderstandings of science in order to support and promote my sociopathic ideologies."

Well, Eric, you have that right, much as it is a danger to society. Just don't expect your ethical and intellectual betters to stand by and not challenge you or try to mitigate the harm that you do when you do speak.

Harry Twinotter said...

Oh good ol' Eric Worrall, dropping in a trollish comment with no elaboration. Who knows what is going on in his head? He know he cannot win a fair fight, that is why he avoids them.

Anonymous said...

More like a policy of content/fact free speech, I think.

R

Millicent said...

The greatest threat to any right is its abuse. And as a frequent abuser of the right to free speech Eric Worrall is one of it enemies.

Jammy Dodger said...

Perhaps Anonymous does not know the procedure:

xkcd free speech explanation

DavidR said...

Looks like WUWT is adopting a "hide the incline" approach to the UAH November update. Four days after the data were posted by Roy Spencer on his blog there's not been a single official mention at WUWT that November 2016 was the warmest November in the lower troposphere record; much less the usual link to Roy's blog.

It seems that, at least for the moment, following on from all the nonsensical 'global cooling' coverage there of late, a new warmest monthly value in the satellite record is considered to be too much even for Wutters to take in.

This follows a familiar pattern with the fakes. A similar thing happened earlier this year re the rapid sea ice 'recovery' of September 2016 - this was silently dropped by WUWT (and Paul Homewood) once it became clear that Arctic sea ice extent in October and November was going to set new record lows.

And before that there was coverage of the 'climate bet' between SkS and 'NoTrickZone', which was also dropped from the WUWT radar this year once even the accumulating data showed the current decade to be clearly warmer than the previous one. Watts and Homewood had previously promised to give regular updates re its progress.

Phil Clarke said...

OT - There is an Open Letter to the new president-elect here

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/an-open-letter-from-scientists-to-president-elect-trump-on-climate-change/

Saying, well pretty much what you'd expect.

There's a link to a Change.org petition. Please sign!