By Steve Goddard
Earlier in the month I wrote an article showing the trend in Arctic ice since 2002.
I took a lot of criticism from people for not measuring “crest to crest or trough to trough.”
Any one schooled in analysis of cyclical data would know that one must go from crest-to-crest or trough-to-trough, to maintain some semblance of symmetry about the x-axis.
It is time now to see how serious people are about their belief systems. We have passed the 2010 El Niño peak, and can see what the “real” trend is since the cyclical El Niño peak of 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/last:2010/plot/rss/from:1998/last:2010/trend
“Global warming on decadal timescales is continuing without let-up … we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.2C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”
Talk about cherry-picking! Look at his start point. He chose the worst case trough to crest to measure his trend.
Question for readers. Is Hansen correct, or does he need some serious graphing lessons? Below are the trend graphs from 1998-present for all four sources. GISS is way out of line.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good one, Anthony.
The nattering nabobs of negavity were just getting wound up nice & tight about global cooling back in the 1970’s then the climate shifted to the warm side of a multi-decadal cycle and after 20 years of that got wound up even tighter about global warming.
Thirty years is not enough time to mark permanent or even long term climate change. It’s essentially still just weather.
Thirty years is however enough to make a substantial fraction of the population have no memory of what it was like when the climate was in a cooling mode.
It enough to make me long for a return to the days when man-made global castrophe was all about nuclear winter and everyone was interested in bomb shelters in their basements and air raid sirens got tested regularly. In retrospect – good times.
Steve!
Thanks again for a good article.I`ve been in touch with DMI and checked the facts that was published here on WUWT from the the e-mail correspondence with them.
Its really a BIG SCANDAL that has to be monitored. The discrepancy between DMI and GISS has to be explained it can not be allowed to fade. Its just NOT acceptable.
This is without a very good explaination a PROOF of misconduct on behalf of GISS or DMI. And I can’t or will not rest until this matter is settled, neither should you.
This has to be brought to the public and authorities’ attention because this really bites!! We don’t have any FOX tv in Sweden; MSM and public service is completely WWF/Greenpeace loyal.
Has any media in the US covered this four degree gap DMI/NASA?
Swedish goverment public service is an embarrasment and just Wednesday on prime newstime they argued that floods in China were due to “climate change” and that it was hotter and worse than ever. If you are sceptic to the BBC …..well you should try the Swedish SVT!!! That’s a REAL climate propaganda center.
I thought that Jones had explained the a period of less than fifteen years was too short to determine a statistically significant trend, if he’s right the debate is moot.
Perhaps we could argue over how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin instead.
Maybe I got up too early this morning & am suffering from a case of the stupids, but why is the RSS trend line in the second graph different from the RSS trend line in the fourth graph?
If you take the RSS temperatures from 1990 till now and take in acount the anomalies of Pinatubo and the Niño 1998 you’ll see there’s has been hardly any warming in twenty years. But they’re working on it: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/thompson-et-al-2009-high-tech-wiggle.html
Leon,
You are correct. The last graph is to the start of 2010, not the present. I asked the moderator to replace it with the equivalent graph
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/trend.png
Wood for trees has a different meaning in their to: and last: fields
[Fixed. ~dbs]
I’ve been struck by this 30 year meme for awhile, and what I notice is that it is the length of one of the phases of the PDO. I noticed this when arguing about trends, and the lovely irony is that if you decide at the end of one of those phases that the last 30 years have marked a trend, then you are going to be wrong about the next 30 years.
There’s truth in the 30 year meme, as well as built in deception.
=============
If the temperature has relatively low frequency, periodic fluctuations plotting a trend line is a highly dubious exercise.
RC Saumarez
Is your criticism directed at Hansen or me? He is the one who said:
You should write him and tell him that his conclusion is highly dubious.
There is a deal of nonsense talked about these graphs, isn’t there ?
I mean Look at the Y-axis, what is the shift on the scale ?
It is less than a degree centigrade, sometimes much less.
Prof Lindzen has much to say about that in his CEI lecture.
Find it on my website video wall (Dr. Lindzen of MIT, disputes …… )
http://fraudulentclimate.atspace.com/
stevengoddard says:
July 31, 2010 at 4:01 am
“Leon,
You are correct. The last graph is to the start of 2010, not the present. I asked the moderator to replace it with the equivalent graph
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/trend.png
Wood for trees has a different meaning in their to: and last: fields
[Fixed. ~dbs]”
Ok, now my turn, I haven’t had my morning coffee yet, but the trends are still different. Que tal?
Years ago, I was warned about using peaks or troughs. For my quick ‘napkin’ climate model, I used the mid point of the warming periods to find that once the natural background warming and solar influence of 0.15C are removed, there is only 0.08 C of warming to be attributed to other causes like decreased volcanic activity and CO2 warming for the 1930 to 1990 period. — John M Reynolds
And you guys do know if you leave the “To” or “last” blank, woodfortrees will go to the last available data.
John M Reynolds
In the ice graph, I did midpoint-to-midpoint and everyone said that was wrong. They said that it needs to be peak-to-peak. Now the criticism is that I am doing peak-to-peak when I should be doing midpoint-to-midpoint. LOL
Hansen does trough to peak (which is obviously bogus) and gets it through peer-review no problem.
Just goes to show what a joke “climate science” is. It doesn’t even vaguely resemble a serious science.
“lies, damned lies, and statistics”
At any rate, using either trend line, we can see GISS is so out of touch with reality, I like to apologize to the world on behalf of the climate research I’ve helped fund with the GISS and NASA altogether. Hopefully, at some point, they’ll decide to quit being an embarrassment to this nation and go back to what once made them a great unit, space exploration.
jmrSudbury @ur momisugly 5:04 AM
Nice point, Maven of SNOLAB.
=================
Slabadang
The US press is as bad as it gets when it comes to “global warming” propaganda.
Uhm,…..do overs!!!!!
If I may help, just don’t fill in the “To” blank. I believe this is what you were going for on your last graph. Is it?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.25/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/offset:-.045/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.18/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.4
Sorry _ I’ve just noticed a typo (0.02 should have been 0.20 for 1979). Please post this corrected version if possible.
Here are the rolling ten year average global temperature anomalies, (in degrees CelsiusX100), for the preceding ten years from the NASA GISS Series. Anomalies are relative to the average for 1951-1980 and should be divided by 100 to get the anomaly in degrees Celsius.
Year ten year anomaly
1979 0.20
1980 1.70
1981 5.30
1982 5.80
1983 7.00
1984 8.70
1985 9.60
1986 12.50
1987 13.80
1988 16.80
1989 17.80
1990 19.80
1991 20.70
1992 21.50
1993 20.30
1994 21.70
1995 25.00
1996 26.60
1997 28.00
1998 30.50
1999 31.80
2000 31.30
2001 32.60
2002 36.90
2003 41.00
2004 43.50
2005 46.00
2006 48.50
2007 50.20
2008 48.90
2009 50.78
[figures derived from:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB…
with the annual mean J-D (January-December) figures averaged over the previous ten year periods, eg the 1979 0.20 figure is the average of +3 -10 0 +14 -8 -4 -16 +13 +1 +9 derived from the J-D years 1970-1979 inclusive. ie That is the average anomaly for the 1970s]
Thus the decadal increase in average global land/ocean surface temperature reported is:
1970s to 1980s (17.80 – 0.20)/100 = 0.1760C
1980s to 1990s (31.80 – 17.80)/100 = 0.1400C
1990s to 2000s (50.78 – 31.80)/100 = 0.1898C
(I have reported the figure to 4 sig. figs. just to aid checking of arithmetic – 2 sig. figs. would be more appropriate).
Thus, Hansen’s claim that, “that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.2C/decade” is entirely supported by the NASA GISS global land/sea surface temperature series.
It’s 5 am here (covering myself!) but using the highly sophisticated squint test, the RSS trend line is light green in the second chart, and light purple in the last chart. The scales are a little different, and the start point/value for RSS in the last chart is slightly lower, but the trend looks roughly the same.
But make no mistake, it’s still worse than we thought/Polar bears doomed/end is still nigh, so fear not.
Both the Canadian Annual temperature departures and US Contiguous annual temperature charts actually both show a decline since 1998
Being an Historian rather than a Scientist, and having little Math, I cannot criticize but I can critique! We can choose, in history, which starting point, which event, which person, to use and go from there – and get similar results. And we also have our revisionists, the Michael Manns, of history, and sometimes they become the new CW if they have the data to back them up.
Enough of that. What I do NOT understand is why the charts ALWAYS are so dramatic unless it is for PR purposes (or simply to emphasize a point). Why not show temperature differences in 1, 2, 5, or 10 degree differences? To most of us laymen, 6% of a degree is meaningless. In everyday life we deal with actual degrees, not percents of them.
Thorncraft
So, while you guys are sorting this out, I went to woodfortrees and did the trends myself, without the offsets. I’m struck by something I don’t understand, and maybe it is just a coincidence. You’ll note, HadCrut’s variance adjusted trend from 1998 and RSS’s is nearly identical. As we’ve noted, GISS’ slope is, well, dramatic. But, UAH’s trend is the one most closely resembling GISS.(though UAH’s is still closer to HadCrut’s than GISS) But this is counter-intuitive to me. One satellite and the other a “hard” read. (RSS and HadCrut.) And then again one satellite and another “hard” read. (UAH and GISS)…..WUWT?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
Last graph: GIStemp appears to be the trend leader, eh? Unfortunately, this isn’t a fashion show.
(Gosh! Look at all those tiny numbers on the vertical axis of the LHS of the last graph. Combine the four trends and put the max/min error bars from the set of trends on the results and poof! the alarm goes away.)