Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies: 1851-1980

Posted: June 19, 2016 by oldbrew in Analysis, Dataset, Ocean dynamics
Tags:

.
.
Are we anywhere close to really understanding the strength of natural climate variation and how it works?

We can easily overlook that most temperature measurements are taken on land, but over 70% of the Earth’s surface is deep water.

Frederick Colbourne investigates.

Geoscience - Environment

Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was established in the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich in 1972.

The CRU has collected, collated and archived global climate data for over 40 years.

CRU temperature data

In 1987, the American Meteorological Society published a paper by Stanley Grotch of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, that assessed the robustness of the CRU dataset for land and other datasets.

Monthly Weather Review, Volume 115 No. 7, July 1987, ISSN: 0027-0644; eISSN: 1520-0493

Abstract

Three data bases of gridded surface temperature anomalies were used to assess the sensitivity of the average estimated Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature anomaly to: 1) extreme gridpoint values and 2) zonal band contributions. Over the last 100 year, removal of either the top or bottom 10% of the gridpoint anomalies in any year changes…

View original post 601 more words

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    Key point:
    ‘Since no warming was observed between 1940 and 1980 and since little or no warming has been observed since about 1995 (apart from El Ninos), the 15-year period from about 1980 to 1995 is our strongest, and perhaps only, evidence for an irreversible change in climate.

    But if the warming from 1980 to 1995 was related to the warm phase of the AMO, then we can expect, first a peaking in the cycle lasting until about 2010, and then a gradual downturn in the AMO, which may have already occurred but has been masked by El Nino events.’

    Warmist dogma ignores these natural phenomena to a great extent.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    OLdbrew, did you miss this bit
    “However, his Figure 1 shows that the 26,000 datapoints range between plus and minus 2 degrees Celsius , while the signal (the mean temperature) ranges from approximately -0.2 C to +0.2 C over a period of 130 years, a rate of about 0.3 C per century.”
    and this bit
    “The temperature increase from 1875-80 to 1935-40 was about 1.1 C, more than double the increase over the period 1851-1980. This means that the biggest change in temperature during the period was before 1950 when CO2 began to be emitted at modern levels.”
    CO2 nothing to do with it ans an overall rising trend of 0.3 C per Century doesn’t quite match the modern “Quality Controlled” datasets does it.
    It just goes to show how much they have changed the Data with their adjustments.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Whichever way you cut it, modern theory comes up empty. No significant correlation between CO2 and actual data, and correlation is not necessarily proof of causation anyway.

    And they still have to sweep previous warm periods under the carpet and ignore the Little Ice Age.

  4. Ron Clutz says:

    As Murry Salby explains in his textbook, alarms about global warming from CO2 are based on a myopic and lop-sided view of the climate system.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/fearless-physics-from-dr-salby/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s