About that tropical "hot spot"

A couple of days ago I wrote about the new paper by Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, which was reporting the release of an updated radiosonde dataset, and findings from an analysis of those data.

Data sources: Scripps and GISS/NASA

One of the things the authors reported was the "tropospheric hot spot" - though they didn't use that term in the paper itself (only the press release). I've never previously thoroughly looked into this myself. I knew about it in general terms, because some deniers point to what they regard as lack of evidence as evidence that global warming isn't happening. Which is really, really weird when you think about it. Or when you look at surface temperature data as in the chart on the right.

Anyway, I decided to go and learn more about this so-called "tropospheric hot spot".

Nine Denier 101 Techniques: Anthony Watts gets into a hot spot in the tropical troposphere

There's a new paper in ERL by Steven C Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, which reports an updated version of their radiosonde dataset. It is probably going to cause quite a ruckus in the deniosphere. From the paper (my formatting):

Temperature trends in the updated data show three noteworthy features.

• First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface.
• Second, as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models.
• Third, cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods.

Wind trends over the period 1979–2012 confirm a strengthening, lifting and poleward shift of both subtropical westerly jets; the Northern one shows more displacement and the southern more intensification, but these details appear sensitive to the time period analysed. There is also a trend toward more easterly winds in the middle and upper troposphere of the deep tropics.

Radiosondes are instruments that are sent aloft in balloons, to take measurements in the atmosphere. (You might have seen Roy Spencer and John Christy combine measures from radiosondes with satellite tropospheric temperatures in their various unscientific attempts to befuddle the US government and readers of blogs.)

Seeps and SCAMS Part III: Richard Betts misunderstands (and misrepresents) a paper

Richard Betts, a UK climate scientist, has written an article about the recent paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and co, which I wrote about in Part I of this series, and referred to in Part II. Well it's not actually about the paper. It's Richard's interpretation of the paper based on his reading of a blog article Stephan wrote about the paper. It could be argued that it is evidence supporting the findings of the paper.

Correction: In the comments, Richard says that he did read the paper before he wrote his article. (I don't know how missed all the things he missed or why he got so much so wrong or why he appeared to write about the blog article and not the paper.) - Sou 6:48 pm Thursday 14 May 2015

I first saw Richard's article at WUWT and was very surprised to see it there. It turns out though, that Richard wrote his article for ATTP's blog. It was only when that rabid anti-Lewandowsky-ite, Barry Woods, asked him that he acquiesced and agreed to it being reposted on Anthony Watts' blog. That's despite the dreadful treatment dished out from WUWT when Richard's last article was published there. Here's the WUWT version - archived. Or better still, you can read it at ATTP's blog.

Watching the global thermometer - year to date GISTemp with April 2015

Last month I posted a chart of the progressive year-to-date global average surface temperature, from GISS. This is the update with April included. I'll repeat the explanation with each update and add what seem to be things to watch.

Worth noting

• April was an average of 0.75°C above the 1951-1980 mean.
• From and including December 2014, every month has been the second hottest in the record for that month, except for March 2015, which was the 3rd hottest March on record.
• Every month this year has been at least 0.75°C above the 1951-1980 mean. 
• The progressive year to date average up to and including April is 0.79°C above the 1951-1980 mean.

Explaining the chart

The chart is a progressive year to date average for all years from 1995 to the present. What that means is for January each year, it just shows the anomaly for January. For February it shows the average of January and February for each year. For March, its the average of the monthly anomaly from January to March.

If you look at December, each year shows the annual average temperature for the full year. For November, each year has the average for the year up to November, not including December. (As before, I've made it extra large because of all the fine detail.)

Data Source: NASA GISS

2015 is still ahead of the pack so far. The years to watch are 2014, 2010 and 2005. I've plotted them with slightly thicker lines so they stand out more easily.

The coldest year of the lot was 1996, which still ended up more than 0.3°C above the 1950 to 1981 average.  The next time someone tries to tell you that "it hasn't warmed since 1996" then show them this chart :)

Related updates

YTD including March
YTD including May

On Seeps and SCAMS Part II: Pat'n Chip'n David Fake a Debate.

In Part I of On Seeps and SCAMS, I wrote about the new paper on how denialist talking points can influence climate science. A day or so ago, there was an article at WUWT (archived here), by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger (Pat'n Chip), in which they commented on that paper. Their WUWT article had the title: Lewandowsky’s Competing Theories for Source of Bias in Scientific Research. [This is Part II of a three part series. Click for Part I and Part III.]

The title was misleading. Pat'n Chip's WUWT article was more a promo for another article by David E. Wojick and Patrick J. Michaels. Their's is not a scientific paper, it's a CATO article. It would take a huge stretch of imagination to consider the denier lobby group, CATO, to have any relation to science.

What they wrote about could have been an interesting topic I suppose, though it demonstrates a naive view of the world on the part of the authors. They were ostensibly exploring whether or not government funding can bias research. Their paper had the title:

Is the Government Buying Science or Support?

A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases

They claim:

The research question is clear: does biased funding skew research in a preferred direction, one that supports an agency mission, policy or paradigm?

The reason I say it could have been an interesting topic is that research that is primarily funded by government is subject to the vagaries of government priorities. Not in the results, but in what areas research is undertaken.

On Seeps and SCAMS Part I: Lessons for Climate Scientists

There is a new paper in the literature, or soon to be in the literature, about the impact on climate scientists of denialist propaganda campaigns. The paper is easy to read, being virtually free of specialist jargon. It's written from the perspective of psychology and the lead author is Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, currently at Bristol University in the UK. There is a team of co-authors, some of whom who you'll recognise - Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell and Michael Smithson. The paper is to be published in the journal Global Environmental Change, rather than a psychology journal. The reason becomes clear when you read the paper. It's explaining how climate scientists can be adversely affected by denier memes, such as "uncertainty" in climate science. [This is Part I of a three part series. Click for Part II and Part III.]

If you thought that dispassionate scientists, when doing scientific research, are immune from denialist propaganda you'd be wrong. It's not just when scientists talk about climate that they can demonstrate they've been influenced by denialists' campaigns. Even their scientific publications can be so influenced.

The Institute of World Politics on unethical conduct, foreign propaganda, deception and covert political influence

Anthony Watts has posted an article on his blog announcing the existence of yet another secret UN organisation (archived here) called the "UN Climate Change Commission". David "funny sunny" Archibald claims this previously unheard of UN entity is "on a path to rule the world ".  (David is a science denier who, like many deniers, is prone to paranoid conspiracy theories of this type.) I'm guessing this UN entity is known only to a select few at the Institute of World Politics. Maybe only to one person - David "funny sunny" Archibald.  The "UN Climate Change Commission" is not listed on the United Nations list of UN Climate Change Organizations and Programs.

The Institute of World Politics

David Archibald promotes himself at WUWT as a Visiting Fellow, Strategic Energy Policy at the Institute of World Politics. He is described on the Institute's website as:

a Perth, Australia-based scientist working in the fields of oil exploration, climate science, energy and geostrategy

Now I don't know much about the Institute of World Politics or its agenda. Here is what I do know. The Institute states on its website that it encourages "a free and open atmosphere to support the search for truth, the heart of the academic enterprise".

OMG! Embarrassing even for WUWT - "Why does the IPCC community use Stefan Boltzmann for gases" - and more gems!

You won't believe the article that Anthony Watts has on his blog. It's worse than hilarious. Here are some gems from some ardent denier called Jean-Pierre Bardinet, who can't keep his story straight (archived here)

The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. 

About El Niño

With the Australian Bureau of Meteorology declaring an El Niño, and for anyone who is not familiar with the phenomenon, here is a short version of what happens. I wrote a longer article last year. There are more references down below as well.

About ENSO and El Niño

El Niño is one of the phases of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. There are three distinct phases, plus an in-betweener. These are known as:

• El Niño - the phase where the ocean releases warm air to the surface, usually resulting in an increase in global surface temperature
• La Niña - the phase where the ocean cools the surface, usually resulting in a decrease in global surface temperature - though with climate change it usually means a lesser increase, not a decrease
• Neutral - when there is neither an El Niño or a La Niña
• Modoki - which is a part way El Niño. It doesn't affect as much of the Pacific Ocean, and has different teleconnections (ocean-atmosphere links over a distance). You could think of it as an in-betweener that can't make up its mind whether to turn into a full blown event or not. (Don't tell a climate scientist that I said that - they'd correct me.) 

El Niño in the tropical Pacific

El Niño has arrived in the tropical Pacific...

From the Australian Bureau of Meteorology:

El Niño in the tropical Pacific

Issued on 12 May 2015

The tropical Pacific is in the early stages of El Niño. Based upon model outlooks and current observations, the Bureau's ENSO Tracker has been raised to El Niño status.

El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) indicators have shown a steady trend towards El Niño levels since the start of the year. Sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean have exceeded El Niño thresholds for the past month, supported by warmer-than-average waters below the surface. Trade winds have remained consistently weaker than average since the start of the year, cloudiness at the Date Line has increased and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has remained negative for several months. These indicators suggest the tropical Pacific Ocean and atmosphere have started to couple and reinforce each other, indicating El Niño is likely to persist in the coming months.

International climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate that tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures are likely to remain above El Niño thresholds through the coming southern winter and at least into spring.