A primer for disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming using observed temperature data

Guest post By Girma Orssengo, MASc, PhD

Comparison of the claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of 1) “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely” man made, and 2) “For the next two decades a warming rate of 0.2 deg C per decade is projected” are shown in this article not to be supported by the observed data, thus disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming.

FIRST IPCC CLAIM

In its Fourth Assessment Report of 2007, IPCC’s claim regarding global warming was the following [1]:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Let us verify this claim using the observed data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia [2]. In this claim, “mid-20th century” means year 1950. As a result, according to the IPCC, global warming since 1950 is mostly man made.

To verify the claim that global warming since 1950 is mostly man made, we may compare the global warming rate in degree centigrade (deg C) per decade in one period before 1950 to that of a second period after 1950 to determine the effect of the increased human emission of CO2. To be able to do this, we need to identify these two periods, which may be established from the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) data of the CRU shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Annual surface Global Mean Temperature Anomaly in degree centigrade from year 1880 to 2009 from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia [2."

In Figure 1, the GMTA could be visualized as the sum of a Linear GMTA that has an overall warming rate of 0.6 deg C per century and an Oscillating GMTA that oscillates relative to this overall linear warming trend line. This Oscillating GMTA indicates the relative warming and cooling phases of the globe.

As our objective is to verify the claim that global warming since 1950 is man made, we need to identify two global warming phases before and after 1950. To clearly see the global warming and cooling phases, we plot just the Oscillating GMTA, which is the GMTA relative to the overall linear warming trend line shown in Figure 1. This can be done by using an online software at http://www.woodfortrees.org by rotating the overall linear warming trend line to become horizontal by using a detrend value of 0.775 so that the Oscillating GMTA has neither overall warming nor cooling trend. The noise from the Oscillating GMTA is then removed by taking five-years averages (compress = 60 months) of the GMTA. The result thus obtained is shown in Figure 2.

“]

Figure 2. Oscillating Global Mean Temperature Anomaly that show relative global cooling and warming phases [3."

Figure 2 shows the following periods for relative global cooling and warming phases:

  1. 30-years of global cooling from 1880 to 1910
  2. 30-years of global warming from 1910 to 1940
  3. 30-years of global cooling from 1940 to 1970
  4. 30-years of global warming from 1970 to 2000

If this pattern that was valid for 120 years is assumed to be valid for the next 20 years, it is reasonable to predict:

  1. 30-years of global cooling from 2000 to 2030

Figure 2 provides the two global warming phases before and after 1950 that we seek to compare. The period before 1950 is the 30-years global warming period from 1910 to 1940, and the period after 1950 is the 30-years global warming period from 1970 to 2000.

Figure 2 also provides the important result that the years 1880, 1910, 1940, 1970, 2000, 2030 etc are GMTA trend turning points, so meaningful GMTA trends can be calculated only between these successive GMTA turning point years, which justifies the calculation of a GMTA trend starting from year 2000 provided latter in this article.

Once the two global warming periods before and after mid-20th century are identified, their rate of global warming can be determined from the GMTA trends for the two periods shown in Figure 3.

“]

Figure 3. Comparison of global warming rates for the periods before and after mid-20th century [4."

According to the data of the CRU shown in Figure 3, for the 30-years period from 1910 to 1940, the GMTA increased by an average of 0.45 deg C (3 decade x 0.15 deg C per decade). After 60 years of human emission of CO2, for the same 30-years period, from 1970 to 2000, the GMTA increased by an average of nearly the same 0.48 deg C (3 decade x 0.16 deg C per decade). That is, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 on change in global mean temperature was nearly nil, which disproves IPCC’s theory of man made global warming.

SECOND IPCC CLAIM

In its Fourth Assessment Report of 2007, IPCC’s projection of global warming was the following [5]:

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 deg C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1 deg C per decade would be expected.

Let us verify this projection using the observed data from the CRU [2]. This may be done by comparing the global warming rate between the last two decades as shown in Figure 4. In this figure, the global warming rate decelerated from 0.25 deg C per decade for the period from 1990 to 2000 to only 0.03 deg C per decade for the period since 2000, which is a reduction by a factor of 8.3, which further disproves IPCC’s theory of man made global warming. If the current global warming trend continues, the GMTA will increase by 0.27 deg C (0.03 x 9) by 2100, not the scary 2.4 to 6.4 deg C of the IPCC.

Note that the projection for the current global warming rate by the IPCC was 0.2 deg C per decade, while the observed value is only 0.03 deg C per decade. As a result, IPCC’s Exaggeration Factor is 6.7.

“]

Figure 4. Deceleration of global warming rate from 0.25 deg C per decade for the period from 1990 to 2000 to only 0.03 deg C per decade for the period since 2000 [6."

SUMMARY

As shown in Figures 3 and 4, claims by the IPCC of 1) “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely” man made, and 2) “For the next two decades a warming rate of 0.2 deg C per decade is projected” are not supported by the observed data, thus disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming.

According to the CRU data shown in Figure 3, the 30-years global warming from 1970 to 2000, after human emission of CO2 for 60 years, was nearly identical to the 30-years global warming from 1910 to 1940. In the intervening 30-years, there was a slight global cooling from 1940 to 1970. Furthermore, since year 2000, as shown in Figure 4, the global warming rate decelerated by a factor of 8.3 compared to the decade before. This is the story of global mean temperature trends for the last 100 years!

Does not the observed data in Figures 1 and 2 show a cyclic global mean temperature pattern with an overall linear warming rate of 0.6 deg C per century?

Dear citizens of the world, where is the catastrophic man made global warming they are scaring us with?

Or is the scare a humongous version of the “Piltdown man”?

REFERENCES

[1] IPCC: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely” man made

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html

[2] Global Mean Temperature Anomaly from Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (GRAPH)

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend

[2] Global Mean Temperature Anomaly from Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (RAW DATA)

http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend

[3] Oscillating Global Mean Temperature Anomaly

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/compress:60/detrend:0.775/offset:0.518/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/detrend:0.775/offset:0.518

[4] Comparison of global warming rates before and after mid-20th century (GRAPH)

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend

[4] Comparison of global warming rates before and after mid-20th century (RAW DATA)

http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend

[5] IPCC: “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 deg C per decade is projected”

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

[6] Deceleration of global warming rate in the last two decades

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC. Bookmark the permalink.

209 Responses to A primer for disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming using observed temperature data

  1. tarpon says:

    And here I thought Phil Jones testified today’s warming wasn’t abnormal nor particularly greater, based on the last 4 warm cycles, since the little ice age. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. In fact earth is simply warming after the little ice age.

    I have two additional points:
    1. No one seems to be able to find where they put Al Gore’s warm CO2 blanket.

    2. No one seems to be able to find where the supposed excess heat is stored.

    In a sane world that would be the end of the argument.

  2. Truth Seeker says:

    I believe that the saying “Hoist by their own petard” is relevant here. The debate is now over, but not with the outcome that the AGW crowd wanted.

    Keep up the good work.

  3. People who don’t like themselves will find rationalizations to take the blame for almost everything.

  4. kenskingdom says:

    The temperature rises for ~30 years, then plateaus, then rises, then plateaus. But the overall rate has not changed! And we’re still not confident that the temperatures published are real or “homogenised”. Interesting post.
    Ken

  5. evanmjones says:

    [2] Global Mean Temperature Anomaly from Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (RAW DATA)

    IMPORTANT. Is this actually raw data? It does not look like raw data at all. It looks exactly like HadCRU fully adjusted data.

    Do you mean data, genuinely raw and unadjusted (no FILNET, SHAP, TOBS, Homogenization, etc.) or do you mean “numbers as opposed to a graph”?

    Is it gridded or just an average of all stations? Have outliers been removed?

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “RAW”? PLEASE EXPLAIN!

  6. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    If this pattern that was valid for 120 years is assumed to be valid for the next 20 years, it is reasonable to predict:

    1. 30-years of global cooling from 2000 to 2030

    Don Easterbrook has also forecast ~20 more years of cooling.

    3:18 video

  7. Jimbo says:

    Sub-prime primer. :o)
    ———-
    Q: “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”

    A: “the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. ”

    Q: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

    A: “Yes”

    Q: “Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?”

    A: “No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. ”

    BBC interview with Professor Phil Jones of CRU – 13 February 2010

    And finally he said in answer to the Medieval Warm Period:
    “Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”
    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/291/5508/1497
    http://uanews.org/node/30720
    http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

  8. Mike Smith says:

    This is a point I have made many times. The slope of the warming from 1910 to 1945 is at least as great as from 1978 to 2000. Why is one manmade and the other not?

  9. Smokey says:

    Three more graphs to put the Earth’s natural warming and cooling cycles into perspective:

    click1 [this is a Phil Jones chart]
    click2 [this is a chart of the U.S.]
    click3

    Note in chart #3 what CO2 has done during the same time. The coincidental rise in CO2 at the same time the planet was naturally warming appears to be a spurious correlation with temperature.

  10. Verity Jones says:

    Bravo. Can I just add a link to a posting and some maps in here that support exactly what you are saying about the parallel between the warming 1910-1940 and 1977-
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/mapping-global-warming/
    I know many readers will have seen this before but it is very persuasive.

  11. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely” man made

    It’s ‘manmade’ global warming……but the men are in East Anglia, Asheville, and New York City.

    Joseph D’Aleo, 7:37 video

  12. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    stevengoddard says:
    August 1, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    People who don’t like themselves will find rationalizations to take the blame for almost everything.

    I wish they’d keep it to themselves.

  13. jorgekafkazar says:

    “Dear citizens of the world, where is the catastrophic man made global warming they are scaring us with?”

    It will be “robustly” found in smaller and smaller areas of the globe where there are fewer and fewer thermometers and too few people to expose the “unprecedented” lies. It will be a travesty.

  14. jorgekafkazar says:

    Truth Seeker says: “I believe that the saying ‘Hoist by their own petard’ is relevant here”

    Sounds painful.

  15. kim says:

    Smokey @ 5:46

    Yep, the grandest ‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc’ logical fallacy of all time.

    So far.
    ====

  16. Mike says:

    “If this pattern that was valid for 120 years is assumed to be valid for the next 20 years…”

    This statement is not valid for a system that is at least partially stochastic. The lack of warming in the 60′s and 70′s was most likely caused by sulfur emissions. “The plateau in warming from the 1940s to 1960s can be attributed largely to sulphate aerosol cooling.”
    [From Wikepedia based on IPCC 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change%5D

    Readers may also want to review the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php

    As for the “warming pause” of the last few years, see the discussion here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

    One point made there is this: “It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.”

    My guess is this post was not peer reviewed.

  17. Gary says:

    There’s a logical fallacy in the author’s argument against IPCC claim #1. The correlation of the two upward trends in the 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods in no way proves causation. Without supporting evidence, a valid claim cannot be made that the same climate forcing were operating identically in both periods. The conclusion that “the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 on change in global mean temperature was nearly nil, which disproves IPCC’s theory of man made global warming” extrapolates way beyond the data presented here. It may very well be true that CO2 emissions have a small effect on the global average temperature; however, this essay fails to make the case.

  18. Robert says:

    So looking at the numbers that were calculated for warming from 1910-1940 and from 1970-2000, they were 0.45 and 0.48 respectively. Assuming that the rate of warming should stay the exact same, then that means there is 0.03 deg C that could be attributed to mankind after 60 years of CO2 increase. And nothing says that this 0.03 deg C is entirely from CO2, if any of it is. The world has been constantly industrializing and building more infrastructure that absorbs more heat. So for all we know, CO2 could actually have no impact, and the “man-made” impact is us building infrastructure

  19. Dr. Dave says:

    I suspect the general consensus in the public is that temperature is relatively easy to measure. Actually it is not. As the esteemed Mr. Watts has abundantly demonstrated, there are a myriad of factors that can confound efforts to obtain an accurate temperature reading. The instrument itself is problematic. Mercury thermometers were the gold standard for a long time, but mercury is a poor choice in cold climates (it freezes solid at temps below -38F). Alcohol thermometers work better with cold temperature but not as well at higher temperatures. Thermo-electric devices are better but their response curves are not linear or even smoothly curvilinear beyond a certain temperature range. Where I live the outdoor ambient air temperature can vary from a low of -26 degrees C in the winter to a high of over 38 degrees C in the summer. Very few instruments can accurately measure temperature to +/- 1/10 of a degree across this range.

    Now, consider the development of technology. Do we use the same techniques to measure temperature today as we did 100+ years ago? This is but one reason I believe our surface temperature records are worth less than a bucket of warm spit. I’m reasonably certain that the Earth has warmed since the end of the LIA but I’m not convinced we have an accurate measure of how much we have warmed in the last century…certainly not to within 0.1 degree C.

    My basic argument with the IPCC is that we have no idea what “natural” variation is. They attribute all observed increases since about 1940 to anthropogenic cause. Where is the proof?

  20. Robert says:

    Mike says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    One point made there is this: “It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.”

    Mike,
    looking at some artic ice date from the DMI and from GISS, there is a huge discrepancy. GISS is extrapolating their data and saying that the whole artic is well ABOVE normal, while the DMI has the artic being nearly 2 degress BELOW normal,
    Here is a graph showing artic sea ice melt this year compared to previous years. http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/jaxa_july_ice_melt.png
    based on this graph, (which is in the previous post on this site) which seems more accurate. The DMI seems more accurate, and GISS seems wrong. So i find it hard to trust the GISS data, when it is pretty clear that they are making up false data and claiming something is warm when it isn’t. IF they don’t include the made up data, those trends that you spoke of would be very different

  21. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely” man made

    Part 1, 8:34 video

  22. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Roy Spencer

    Part 2, 8:52 video

  23. Fred says:

    “The correlation of the two upward trends in the 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods in no way proves causation.”

    It is not necessary to prove causation in order to invalidate the hypothesis.

  24. trbixler says:

    Obama is still president and Lisa Jackson still heads the EPA. Meanwhile Hansen is still employed by NASA at GISS. Any questions? (We could go beyond this circle but it is good enough to make the point).

  25. J.Hansford says:

    Gary says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:22 pm “……. however, this essay fails to make the case.”

    No Gary. The hypothesis of AGW fails to make the case.

  26. Boris says:

    “That is, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 on change in global mean temperature was nearly nil, which disproves IPCC’s theory of man made global warming.”

    This is really, really bad logic.: Hint Co2 contributed to early 20th century warming. Further hint: solar forcing increased in the early 20th century.

    “Note that the projection for the current global warming rate by the IPCC was 0.2 deg C per decade, while the observed value is only 0.03 deg C per decade. As a result, IPCC’s Exaggeration Factor is 6.7.”

    It has been three years since the IPCC statement, not two decades. Girma Orssengo Exaggeration Factor is, ironically enough, 6.7.

  27. DirkH says:

    Gary says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    “There’s a logical fallacy in the author’s argument against IPCC claim #1. The correlation of the two upward trends in the 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods in no way proves causation.”

    So what you’re saying is: We have two periods with about the same length and about the same temperature increase, but it is well possible that the first warming interval has been caused by natural causes, while the second warming interval was caused by CO2 emissions.

    As the first warming is not understood – only that it is due to natural causes, and we keep saying that it’s just caused by coming out of the LIA – we cannot rule out the possibility that the second warming has the exact same cause. As long as we cannot rule out this possibility, it makes little sense to concentrate our efforts on reducing CO2 emissions. Because if the recent warming has not been caused by CO2 increases, these efforts would be futile.

    So, Girma Orssengo’s argument undermines the 90% certainty of the IPCC rather well, i would say. More research is needed. And it better be research without a predetermined result this time.

  28. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Mike says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade

    Are you taking in to account UHI and land use?

    0:59 video

  29. James Sexton says:

    Mike says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    “My guess is this post was not peer reviewed.”

    It is being reviewed right now. We thank you for your feedback. I wouldn’t put much stock in the GISS’ reported trends. As was discussed here, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/31/graphing-lesson-part-2-crest-to-crest/#more-22799 they seem out of step with reality. As far as RC goes as a source, when they start allowing dissenting views, as we are observing here, then I’d put more validity in their assertions. If you’re speaking the truth, one doesn’t have to run from dissent as they do at RC.

    Your point about an naturally occurring oscillating event to refute the assertion the temps are an naturally occurring oscillating event is interesting. I believe the AMO and the PDO are an integral part of our climate, specifically relating to the GMTA. Again, I , as least, thank you for your input. It can’t help but increase our knowledge about the mysterious climate of our world and hone our abilities to refute the doomsayers!

    That being said, Mike, check your sources. While I don’t really know about sulfur emissions causing cooling or not, arguing sulfur emissions caused a played a major role in an observed global cycle seems a bit off to me. It seems to imply that without the sulfur we wouldn’t have had a cooling, but rather a lengthened warming cycle. And given the rate of increase during the warming cycles, this seems to imply we saved the earth by sulfur emissions because it would simply be way too hot right now without the cooling “oscillations”. I’m just not sure about that bit of logic. Perhaps you can go into more detail about it later.

  30. Vorlath says:

    From Mike:

    “This statement is not valid for a system that is at least partially stochastic.”

    And from Gary:

    “The correlation of the two upward trends in the 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods in no way proves causation. Without supporting evidence, a valid claim cannot be made that the same climate forcing were operating identically in both periods.”

    Could one not say the same things about tree proxy temperature reconstructions? In fact, the situation would be much worse, no?

  31. Ed Caryl says:

    Dr. Orssengo,
    Bravo, futile, but bravo anyway. What will save us will be the sheer weight of articles like this.

    “Not peer reviewed”? What the H— are these comments if not a peer review? Oh, of course, we are not THOSE peers. But, the best peer review will be the next 10 years.

    Gary,
    “Without supporting evidence, a valid claim cannot be made that the same climate forcing were operating identically in both periods.”
    Are you saying that the forcing factors can change over time? If that is true, then no climate model will EVER be able to predict anything!

  32. James Sexton says:

    Damn! I said, “I believe the AMO and the PDO are an integral part of our climate, specifically relating to the GMTA.”

    I’M TURNING INTO ONE OF THEM!!!!! ARRGGGGHHH!!!!

  33. latitude says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm
    ==============================================
    Mike says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade
    ===================================================
    AAM said:
    Are you taking in to account UHI and land use?
    ====================================================

    AAM remember that post that Anthony made a while back, the study from Calif that was about painting roofs, sidewalks, and streets white?

    If you crunch their numbers on how much UHI heat is produced in just those three things, you can account for all of global warming. Crunching their own numbers showed that all of the recorded temperature rise was from UHI.

  34. latitude says:

    Mike says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    “My guess is this post was not peer reviewed.”
    =============================================

    My guess is that you think peer reviewed papers are always right.
    Yes, Mike it was peer reviewed.
    They pasted it in word.

  35. Dennis R. Cooper says:

    It is a shame that science can be manipulated to fit an agenda. Example, you can collect temperature data of many city’s that show warming over the last 70 years, but small towns near show cooling. A much worse case.

    Check this out: http://www.wolframalpha.com

    Type in search box: Average Temp Marion Ohio
    click current week and click all. A chart from 1940 to 2010 shows a falling temp of -0.03 deg. F per year. The same is true for Kenton and Lima and a lot of other towns that did not put there thermometer on the cement in a parking lot, like Columbus.(I guess that makes it man made.)
    If we were in global warming all temperatures would be going up. This sample is every where.

  36. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Sorry, but I don’t buy argument 1. There could be susbstantial GHG warming in the last 20 years, offset by a natural cyclic decline so that the sum is neutral. You have to ne more specific with quantitative causes and effects, not merely with the appearance of graphs. (So, BTW, do others).

    Argument 2. as put is little more than divining the waters and suffers from the impossibility of predicting future climate. The IPCC went close to astrology type standards when making its projections and its reputation duly suffered. Best to leave it at that, don’t you think?

  37. JamesS says:

    From Gary:

    “The correlation of the two upward trends in the 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods in no way proves causation. Without supporting evidence, a valid claim cannot be made that the same climate forcing were operating identically in both periods.”

    By that same logic, a valid claim cannot be made that different climate forcings were operating identically in both periods.

    All that can usefully be said is that the rate of warming was the same. Since the IPCC claim is that human activity has caused most of the warming since the middle of the 20th century, and the rates are the same, and we can’t say whether or not the same or different climate forcings were at work — then at most all that can be said is that the IPCC hypothesis still has no evidence in its favor.

    Which is a long way from the science being settled.

  38. Tom in Texas says:

    “Further hint: solar forcing increased in the early 20th century.”

    The new evolving Greenhouse hypothesis?

  39. geo says:

    This is a pretty good example of why I say that the next ten years will tell the story –one way or the other.

  40. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    latitude
    &
    Dennis R. Cooper

    There’s the anomaly trick. Pay no attention to the temperatures behind the curtain. ;-)

    Part 1, 9:33 video

  41. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Anomaly trick

    Part 2, 7:45 video

  42. kim says:

    Over at the Air Vent, in a fascinating discussion, Eduardo Zorita has made the point that the most recent warming episode has the spatio-temporal footprint of GHG warming. He’s discussing a paper by Christiansen et al that demonstrates that the Hockey Team’s statistics artificially decrease past variability in paleoclimatological reconstructions. He doesn’t make the point without challenge, though.
    ===========

  43. Griz says:

    Thanks for your great analysis. The problem, however, is not facts. It is politics. AGW is a wonderful excuse for bigger government and higher taxes. Governments are loathe to let go of such a “great problem” to face. How do we change their minds?

  44. James Sexton says:

    Geoff Sherrington says:
    August 1, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    “Sorry, but I don’t buy argument 1. There could be susbstantial GHG warming in the last 20 years, offset by a natural cyclic decline so that the sum is neutral.”

    Well, yes, it could be. Or maybe GHGs don’t warm us very much. The fact is, no one knows very much about our climate and the engines at work.

    Remember, this was a “primer”. You raise a valid point which has been mentioned before. Of course, it is entirely unverifiable in either direction at this point in time. Given we don’t know all the factors involved in our climate, how would one prove or disprove the assertions? We should probably study it a bit more and rely on that rarely used but time tested form of critical thinking called logic. Or maybe, as was posited earlier here, we could just emit more sulfur and we could cool the earth to the point the CAGW crowd would be satisfied. Of course, then we’d run into that rotten luck and cool the earth while it was in a cooling cycle thus doubling the cooling and then we’d really be cold. Maybe we should put a little more effort in determining if warmer is indeed worse than cooler. Maybe we could used unwashed cool during cooling periods and washed cool during periods of warmth to seek an equilibrium. I don’t see why not. If man can change the climate by accident, surely we can nudge it here and there on purpose! It could be roses and sunshine forevuh!!!

    With all of the grand knowledge we’ve gained about sulfurs and aerosols and CO2, if they are indeed true, then controlling our climate shouldn’t be such a big trick, but then, the assertions regarding the previously mentioned substances would have to be true. Maybe our world leaders know something we don’t. I recall a G8 summit where the guys and gals promised not to raise the global temp by 2 degrees or such.

    Sorry for the sarcasm, I had a whole paragraph full of zingers, decided not to post it, deleted it, but wound back to sarcasm anyway.

  45. Doubting Thomas says:

    From Gary:

    “The correlation of the two upward trends in the 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods in no way proves causation. Without supporting evidence, a valid claim cannot be made that the same climate forcing were operating identically in both periods.”

    I don’t think the author was trying to prove causation. I think the point is that the trends are similar and,”to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.” (Isaac Newton) In other words, the simple answer to the observed warming is that it is a continuation of the natural warming that was already on going.

    dT

  46. Andew says:

    The fact that the 1910-1940 warming had the same rate as the 1970-2000 warming does not disprove the conclusion that most of the warming 1950-present has been man made. This post is simply playing with numbers and trendlines and tossing around terms like ‘exaggeration factor’ to make it seem more meaningful than it actually is.

    And the fact that there has been little warming in the last 10 years also does not disprove the possibility of an underlying trend of .2C/decade.

  47. Robert says:

    “Geoff Sherrington says:
    August 1, 2010 at 7:45 pm
    Sorry, but I don’t buy argument 1. There could be susbstantial GHG warming in the last 20 years, offset by a natural cyclic decline so that the sum is neutral. You have to be more specific with quantitative causes and effects, not merely with the appearance of graphs. (So, BTW, do others).”

    Geoff,
    While i see what you’re saying, it is an argument based on nothing. Looking at the cycles of the Earth’s temps you can see that it warmed 1910-1940, cooled 1940-1970, and then warmed 1970-2000, yet you are arguing that we could be in a natural cyclic decline now? So if we were in a cyclic decline while the Earth’s temperature was increasing, how do you explain the cooling that occured in between the 2 warming periods? Or do you realize that we were in a natural cycle of warming from 1910-1940 and from 1970-2000, and we have started switiching into a natural cylce of Decline since 2000, similiar to that of 1940-1970?

  48. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    JamesS says:
    August 1, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    ….then at most all that can be said is that the IPCC hypothesis still has no evidence in its favor.

    After 22 years of focus and still no verifying evidence how about we just scrap any possibility manmade global warming could be real.

  49. Robert says:

    Andew says:
    August 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm
    The fact that the 1910-1940 warming had the same rate as the 1970-2000 warming does not disprove the conclusion that most of the warming 1950-present has been man made

    Andrew,
    so basically you are also associating that the warming from 1910-1940 is also mainly man-made. I disagree with this. The same natural factors that caused the warming from 1910-1940 occured from 1970-2000. However, with a big increase in CO2, one would expect that the rate from 1970-2000 would’ve been much higher, IF CO2 had an actual impact. Since they are the same, with the increase CO2, it disproves that the warming in 1970-2000 is man-made, in favor of natural cycles causing it

  50. Andrew30 says:

    Andew says: August 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm
    “And the fact that there has been little warming in the last 10 years also does not disprove the possibility of an underlying trend of .2C/decade.”

    Or put another way…
    “And the fact that there has been little warming in the last 10 years also does not prove the possibility of an underlying trend of .2C/decade.”

    The burden of proof is on the theory.
    So prove it.

  51. stumpy says:

    Ahh, but theres a flaw here….

    Firstly, the sun (that is claimed to have little effect on global temperature) was responsible for the signifcant warming up to 1950, but since it has stopped causing warming (if you cherry pick your data source re: the ACRIM gap) and you of course havent accounted for the IPCC aerosol data they guestimate to enable them to force fit their models… if you had factored all of this into a an un-validated model that cant replicate PDO / ENSO etc with assumed feedbacks and parameters for various forcings… you would know that ONLY co2 can explain the warming since 1950!

    You can not win against the IPCC Black Box!

  52. Spector says:

    I wonder how many people take a quick look at figure 1 and, without thinking, automatically assume the scale runs from -8.6 to 8.6 degrees because there would be no point in making a fuss about a 130-year global warming effect that can be plotted on a -0.6 to 0.6 degree scale?

  53. Clear, concise, and devastating article.

    Alas, explaining factual science to corrupt ideologues is no better than preaching morals to hardened criminals: the only things they understand and respect are money and power, and the only convincing argument for them would be a conviction at a trial.

    And even then, all the way to the prison of public contempt, they will loudly protest their innocence.

  54. Dave F says:

    Andew @ August 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm said:

    The fact that the 1910-1940 warming had the same rate as the 1970-2000 warming does not disprove the conclusion that most of the warming 1950-present has been man made.

    The fact that the 1910-1940 warming has the same rate as the 1970-2000 warming proves or disproves nothing. It does give us an interesting problem to think over. What caused warming at that rate? See: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-4.jpg

    Remember, you will have to stay within the confines of accepted science here, so I’ve provided the link that, according to poster ‘Icarus’ explains that the current natural forcing is about 0.

    Of course, to be helpful, I have also of the only natural forcing in the IPCC graph I was handed as evidence that current natural forcing is 0.

    This is an interesting problem for climate scientists, I would say.

    I hope I got that html right, or that post is going to be a mess!

  55. Dave F says:

    Nope, looks like I missed a bracket or apostrophe. Moderator, if you would be so kind as to let me know which for future reference, I would appreciate it. :-)

    REPLY: Fixed. Just stop trying to embed links and just put the URL’s in …WP will auto link it, less hassle and work for everyone – Anthony

  56. ML says:

    Spector says:
    August 1, 2010 at 9:22 pm
    I wonder how many people take a quick look at figure 1 and, without thinking, automatically assume the scale runs from -8.6 to 8.6 degrees because there would be no point in making a fuss about a 130-year global warming effect that can be plotted on a -0.6 to 0.6 degree scale?
    ========================
    But then “0″ on the graph will be “8″ ;-)

  57. Girma says:

    Evanmjones (5:28pm)

    Do you mean data, genuinely raw and unadjusted (no FILNET, SHAP, TOBS, Homogenization, etc.) or do you mean “numbers as opposed to a graph”?

    I mean “numbers as opposed to a graph”

    Sorry about that

  58. pwl says:

    Thank you Girma for another well thought out analysis of the claims of the IPCC and alarmist AGH hypothesis. You’ve succeeded again to prove their alarmist claims to be “exaggerated” (to be polite). The IPCC et. al. really are tilting at windmills and soothsaying doomsday without a leg to stand on as the DATA shows and your analysis clearly demonstrates with concise precision slicing those legs out from under their alarmist claims. Ouch that has gotta hurt the IPCC et. al. that the planet stopped warming as they, ahem, predicted.

    Again, thank you.

  59. Dave Springer says:

    @girma ossengo

    Sorry to rain on your parade but nothing was disproven.

    CO2 level from 1880 to 1950 increased from about 285ppm to 310ppm.

    CO2 level from 1950 to 2000 increased from about 310 to 360.

    A 25ppm increase in the earlier record and 50ppm increase in the later.

    One must keep in mind the physics here. All CO2 increases are not equal. It’s an insulator and the more you have the less effect adding more will have. It works like adding blankets to your bed. The first blanket makes a big difference. A second blanket will help but not as much as the first. A third blanket will help but not as much as the second and so forth.

    Where the IPCC bungled is not attributing the warming from 1880 to 1950 to CO2 increase.

    So we’re left with 0.8c of warming from 1880 to 2000 which on the face of it could very well be anthropogenic CO2 warming so we get a rate of 0.06C/decade possibly due to CO2.

    Thanks largely to Anthony’s surface station project it seems safe to assume some opportunistic pencil whipping and systematic errors in the temperature record have inflated the temperature change somewhat so we’re probably looking at 0.05c/decade or 0.5C per century.

    Presuming for the sake of argument that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the temp increase over the past century whether the trend continues, accelerates, or decelerates depends on exactly how much more CO2 gets added. If the last 75ppm increase resulted in 0.5C per century it will take 150ppm to get a 0.5C increase in the next century and to get an additional o.5C above that will require 300ppm more.

    So it’s credible that a doubling of CO2 from present level will raise global avg. temperature about one degree C.

    This is actually about what the IPPC predicts for CO2 alone. They get the rest of their 3-6C increase by wholesale invention of an implausible positive feedback mechanism that has absolutely no observational data that supports its existence.

    So that 25ppm increase 1880 to 1950 is just about as effective as the next 50ppm increase and that will have the same effect as the next 100ppm and so forth.

  60. pwl says:

    Oops… [:)]

    Ouch that has gotta hurt the IPCC et. al. that the planet stopped warming, ahem, counter to what they predicted.

    That’s better.

  61. Dave N says:

    Mike:

    “The lack of warming in the 60′s and 70′s was most likely caused by sulfur emissions.”

    Sulfur levels were close to the same level as the 1910-1940 period until the mid 70′s when they accelerated. From figure 2 above, cooling began in the 1940′s, and ended late 70′s.

    Interestingly, sulfur levels have really only dropped off to near 1900′s levels just before 2000, when warming levelled off.

    I’m referring to NASA’s website:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php

    If I were making a correlation between the two simply based on those observations and totally ignored the physics, that would tell me sulfur causes warming, not the other way around.

    Hansen even says the cause has just been a “suggestion”. It seems it was a fleeting thought without even checking the actual observations. It also seems most alarmists have grabbed onto the idea because it (mistakenly) supports their propaganda.

  62. evanmjones says:

    Girma

    Thanks. Had to make sure!

  63. evanmjones says:

    Dave Springer August 1, 2010 at 10:41 pm:

    But, then, where’s the positive feedback? That’s supposed to almost triple the raw forcing. And if any of the warming at all is non-anthropogenic, then what of the forcing equation?

    It does not seem to add up, to me.

    And you are assuming that the continually adjusted is correct. that’s a pretty big assumption, seeing as how CRU won’t share data and methods.

  64. Dave Springer says:

    @evanjones

    re; where’s the positive feedback?

    Indeed. It seems reasonable to presume that any positive feedback in next century was operative in the past century so, if it exists, it’s already reflected in the past century trend. That’s why I said it had absolutely no observational data to support its existence.

  65. dennis ward says:

    James Sexton says

    If man can change the climate by accident, surely we can nudge it here and there on purpose! It could be roses and sunshine forevuh!!!

    Man can not change the climate by accident but 6 billion, going on for 7, surely could. Just as one cyanobacterium could not produce much oxygen but quadrillions certainly did.

  66. Dave Springer says:

    @evanjones

    One must also keep in mind that correlation is not causation. CO2 rise correlates with 0.5C/century temp rise. It is not proven to be the cause. It may be a partial cause or not the cause at all.

  67. Tenuc says:

    Gary says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    “There’s a logical fallacy in the author’s argument against IPCC claim #1. The correlation of the two upward trends in the 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods in no way proves causation. Without supporting evidence, a valid claim cannot be made that the same climate forcing were operating identically in both periods. The conclusion that “the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 on change in global mean temperature was nearly nil, which disproves IPCC’s theory of man made global warming” extrapolates way beyond the data presented here. It may very well be true that CO2 emissions have a small effect on the global average temperature; however, this essay fails to make the case.”

    Sorry Garry, but you’re completely missing the points the author made. This post shows that the IPCC statements were wrong, and that CAGW conjecture has been falsified. The 1910-1940 rise was due to ‘natural causes’ however, as CO2 levels were much less than they are now, clearly the IPCC climate scientists have failed to prove the link.

    History shows that climate is never stable, rather it oscillates up and down quasi-cyclically. Because the system is driven by deterministic chaos the cycles never repeat themselves identically, but broad patterns emerge like the 60y(ish) cycle shown above and the more significant 100y(ish) cycle shown below:-

    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

    It is a travesty that governments around the world are being badly misled by climate scientists and they and their supports will have to take responsibility for not preparing for the coming cold which could prevent the deaths of millions of people in the third world.

  68. evanmjones says:

    Dave S: I attributed a quote to you that you were merely quoting. Sorry about that!

    To continue banging on the feedbacks-of-the-past drum I have been banging on lately:

    If temperatures had been dead steady for hundreds of years, and warming only started in 1900, one might (possibly) expect the feedback to occur in future.

    But the surface of the planet has been warming since around 1650. Surely any positive feedback would have been operating since at least the 19th century?

    So it does not seem to add up. Either there is negative feedback or else the CO2 forcing equation is overblown.

    And this is even assuming HadCRUt3 or whatever they are up to these days has it right, which is something I do not currently concede. Pre-satellite warming is more likely to be half of what HadCRUt or NASA says it is

    Where’s the Beef?

    P.S., Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer give us absolute assurance they do not take the surface record into any account whatever when they make their conversions. I trust them. But I bet Hansen and Jones keep a fearful eye on UAH! I’d bet a third of the farm that UAH keeps ‘em (kinda-sorta) honest since 1979. Well, more honest than they’d otherwise be.

  69. Gareth Evans says:

    Dave Springer, you’re bang on the money.

    If more people realised these essential properties of CO2 and that every scary news story they read about big temperature, sea level rises and disaster was wholly reliant on the entirely unproven and logically unlikely positive feedbacks, they’d stop worrying straight away.

    ‘Stop worrying’. The most dreaded words in the english language for alarmists.

  70. Dave F says:

    Reply @ evanmjones:

    But, then, where’s the positive feedback? That’s supposed to almost triple the raw forcing.

    I wonder about that myself. I also wonder how much of the added water vapor in the atmosphere may have come from irrigation. If we think about the amount of water it takes to grow the food needed to feed 6 billion people, I think we have taken quite a bit of that water out of the ground and put it into circulation in the atmosphere. Hard to say what the effect would be though, unless the amount of water were quantified and given a forcing value. Of course, this may be picking nits and all, but if we are gonna dump tons of cash into studying climate, shouldn’t we at least study NATURE first instead of building fancy computer models? Understand, then model.

    And if any of the warming at all is non-anthropogenic, then what of the forcing equation?

    See: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091204_cooling.html

    Last winter, NOAA released a study saying that the recent cooling was all because of natural causes. Unfortunately, these natural causes are not defined in this story. This was covered on WUWT also. I can’t find the story on WUWT, which has a link to the actual paper and NOAA doesn’t provide it for some reason. All of that aside, I have been told by our warmist friends that the net natural contribution to climate is about 0. Yet, I am also told that cool spells are to be expected because of nature. It all leads to these questions:

    How much of the recent warming is from natural trends?

    Which natural trends?

    Why aren’t those natural trends included in the 0.6C of claimed warming from 1880?

    0.6C of warming over 120 years of massive technological advances could be caused by nothing more than more accurate (or just more) observations. Why is this not true?

    And, a new one, why is the rate of warming from 1910-1940 from natural causes and the 1970-2000 warming from manmade sources?

  71. barry says:

    This is a point I have made many times. The slope of the warming from 1910 to 1945 is at least as great as from 1978 to 2000. Why is one manmade and the other not?

    False dichotomy. There are other processes at work. The basic flaw in the reasoning from the top post, which is perpetuated in the comments., is the implication that there is only CO2 acting on temperature at all times in the instrumental record. Thus, a portion of the earlier warming period can be attributed to industrial CO2, another portion to solar increase, waning volcanic activity and so on. The difference with the latter period is that there has been little solar influence (neutral or negative depending which data set you look at), and neutral long-term volcanic influence. One of the reasons that the post-195 period is highlighted is that the period is little influenced by other forcings – hence, the warming can be attributed more readily to human industry.

    So a proper examination of human contribution to climate change would factor in the other influences on climate, rather than pitting a bi-polar argument. That this rounder treatment is entirely lacking in the top post fatally compromises its conclusions.

  72. Neil Jones says:

    “People who don’t like themselves will find rationalizations to take the blame for almost everything” and people who don’t like humanity will do the same for us all.

  73. DonK31 says:

    The fact that there are 3 different instances of Global Warming with roughly equal periods of frequency, magnitude, and length does not prove that the third instance is not caused by CO2.
    It does require that those who claim that the 3rd is caused by CO2, but not the first 2, find a plausibly different reason for nearly identical phenomana.
    Those who make the assertion must be able to back it up better than just saying that they can’t think of another explanation.

  74. Nigel Brereton says:

    I can see the point made that the continual increase in global temperature predicted by the IPCC is not shown in the actual data, thus disproving the eventual outcomes of the theory.

    It would be interesting to compare the cooling periods in the thirty year cycle as the past ten years have been to all extent more of a levelling period. Are we going to see a sharp drop off or will the next thirty year warming period start from a higher point?

    If we do see a sharp drop off then the rate of change could have a far more severe impact than the actual change and this is what the IPCC should be advising about if they were doing their job correctly.

  75. evanmjones says:

    Those who make the assertion must be able to back it up better than just saying that they can’t think of another explanation.

    Yeah. That logic works fine for Sherlock Holmes. Thing is, you gotta be Sherlock Holmes for that to work. And as for these dudes, well, Sherlock Holmes they ain’t!

  76. Steve Milesworthy says:

    Stating that the trend “could be” linear plus oscillating does not make it so.

    The AGW theory is that other influences come into play – a linear trend is most certainly *not* expected. So the Argument is using a mis-statement of the theory to disprove the theory. You can do that with any theory you like.

    A quote from Orssengo’s latest paper on brain mechanics should indicate that the author ought to realise that linear models are not always appropriate: “Numerical studies showed also that the linear, viscoelastic model of brain tissue is not appropriate for the modelling brain tissue deformation even for moderate strains.”

  77. barry says:

    The fact that there are 3 different instances of Global Warming with roughly equal periods of frequency, magnitude, and length does not prove that the third instance is not caused by CO2.
    It does require that those who claim that the 3rd is caused by CO2, but not the first 2, find a plausibly different reason for nearly identical phenomana.
    Those who make the assertion must be able to back it up better than just saying that they can’t think of another explanation.

    Here we have again a false dichotomy. ‘Caused by CO2/not caused by CO2′. Attribution has been and is discussed at great length in the scientific literature, and those suggesting that ‘they can’t think of another explanation’ are clearly completely ignorant of the subject.

    At the woods for trees site, you can run trends for solar influence for the periods in question.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/to:2000

    This is a very basic start to doing some research. We see that the solar trends anti-correlate for two out of the four temperature periods mentioned in the top post. For a reasonable enquirer, this would lead to more questions being asked, rather than any conclusions. What other influences are there, how strong are they etc?

    If you think these questions have not been addressed, start with the IPCC, and then go to google scholar and put in some well-selected search terms. There is plenty of information out there.

    I’ll provide references if anyone is interested, but I’m leery of wasting time with people who have fixed opinions and are only into jousting.

  78. having discovered a comparison of annual CO2 sources entering the atmosphere I learned that sources other than manmade ones outweigh them by a factor of about 30:1! See blog above. Mike, CleanEnergyPundit

  79. Mike Haseler says:

    Global warming graphs are like those butterfly ink blots which tell you more about the psychology of the observer than about the ink blot. Glass half full, glass half empty, the two faces that turn out to be a vase.

    If you were to look at the global warming plot and believe it to be part of a natural cycle, then you can’t imagine how anyone could be afraid of it. If however you look at it as someone unnatural and increasingly unnatural, then you project the graph to explode “climatixally” upward.

    Fortunately for me I’m an electronics engineer by background and have the tools to analyse signals by mathematics and can bypass the brain’s tendency to over-interpret such graphs.

    So … it’s totally consistent with 1/f type noise. This kind of signal will appear to the untrained eye as if it has patterns: short cycles, up or downward trends. These are just illusions of the mind and if there were any real signal in the last 150 I would have found it by now!

  80. tallbloke says:

    Mike says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    My guess is this post was not peer reviewed.

    It’s being peer reviewed right here right now. My guess is that you are one of the less competent reviewers.

    Thanks for pointing out the AMO in your post though. How much of the 1970-2000 warming did the IPCC attribute to its positive phase?

    From your link to the NOAA:

    “Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?
    Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain. “

  81. jim hogg says:

    Boris on August 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm – I’m an AGW sceptic, but I have to agree with you completely. The weaknesses in this piece are elementary. It doesn’t deserve the space on this site. Intelligent warmists (yes, of course there must be some) will be licking their lips at the thought that so many “sceptics” have fallen for it’s simplistic approach. I think the believers on here need to re-read this with Boris’s 2 simple criticisms in mind, and to allow their natural scepticism at least to come to the fore. It’s school kid stuff. The idea that’s it’s of PhD calibre is farcical.

  82. Shevva says:

    It maybe a silly question but i’m a novice at this, but i’ve seen stated that CO2 follow’s temp, now i understand that we are pumping CO2 into the air but should the CO2 levels then drop over the next 20 years as the temp drops? which we all know around here it will following natural cycles.

  83. pwl says:

    “One must also keep in mind that correlation is not causation.” – David Springer

    Yes, if only the IPCC and other alarmists would keep that in mind when they are soothsaying doomsday scenarios in papers and to the media or writing their “climate projection” software and marketing the results as “valid certain futures” rather than admitting that it’s pure speculation (and usually Nostradamus has a better track record).

    Correlation is not causation. Prediction without understanding the causal relationships is no better than soothsaying dead tree ring entrails. Nature’s simple systems of weather and climate produce internal randomness preventing any prediction at all. Climate is not an equation that can be solved. No model is the territory of Nature. To truly know the future of systems that generate their own internal randomness you must observe the present and let the future unfold (Stephen Wolfram). To be complete and valid all good scientific hypotheses must state how they can be falsified (Richard Feynman). It is easy to fool others when you’ve fooled yourself in science (Richard Feynman).

  84. tallbloke says:

    Boris says:
    August 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm (Edit)

    “That is, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 on change in global mean temperature was nearly nil, which disproves IPCC’s theory of man made global warming.”

    This is really, really bad logic.: Hint Co2 contributed to early 20th century warming. Further hint: solar forcing increased in the early 20th century.

    Solar forcing increased from low to medium 1900-1930

    It decreased from Very high to high 1960-1990

    Remembering the decade lag between solar activity and global temperature response noted by the Norwegian study on David Archibalds thread here recently, the solar answer still looks like the right one to me.

    It has been shown many times that increases in co2 over and above 200ppm or so have negligible effect:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/john-eggart-laymans-guide-to-the-greenhouse-effect/

  85. JohnH says:

    If you look at the Jones BBC interview, when this same info was presented to him and he was asked why this last warming period was different, his explanation was that the Climatologists could explain the earlier warming periods but not this latest one. No details were forthcoming and not likely to be either.

    But foundations of sand come to mind. ;)

  86. Girma says:

    Jim hogg

    Please tell me honestly what you see from the data shown in Figure 2?

    Does not it show global warming is cyclic? Disregarding the obfuscations of the AGW camp.

  87. tallbloke says:

    Girma says:
    August 2, 2010 at 2:23 am (Edit)
    Please tell me honestly what you see from the data shown in Figure 2?
    Does not it show global warming is cyclic? Disregarding the obfuscations of the AGW camp.

    For a look at other phenomena which correlate with detrended temperature better than co2 does, have a look at this:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/

  88. NS says:

    “False dichotomy. There are other processes at work. The basic flaw in the reasoning from the top post, which is perpetuated in the comments., is the implication that there is only CO2 acting on temperature at all times in the instrumental record.”

    The point of the original post is to point out the weakness of the IPCC theory of CO2 induced global warming, not to offer an alternate theory. That would be the job of GISS or CRU or NASA or the EPA or …..no wait……………..

  89. Christopher Hanley says:

    Boris says (7:01 pm):

    “…This is really, really bad logic.: Hint Co2 contributed to early 20th century warming…”

    CO2 from human fossil fuel use could not possibly be a major factor in the c.1910 – c.1940 warming:
    http://photos.mongabay.com/09/0323co2emissions_global.jpg

  90. KPO says:

    James Sexton says: August 1, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    Geoff Sherrington says:
    August 1, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    Actually James you might be onto something here – possibly we are at the beginning of an upward “trend” (love that word).”If man can change the climate by accident, surely we can nudge it here and there on purpose! It could be roses and sunshine forevuh!!!” Perhaps we are moving forward on the Kardashev scale – Type I — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet. Type II — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single star. Type III — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy. It has been calculated that we are at 0.72 on the scale at present, so with our abilities to alter the climate at will, in 30 years or so we will be at 0.73. Maybe the alarmists should relax a little; this is just a small step in man’s evolution to ultimately controlling the universe.

  91. Laws of Nature says:

    Re: Dave Springer, August 1, 2010 at 10:41 pm
    “[..]If the last 75ppm increase resulted in 0.5C per century it will take 150ppm to get a 0.5C increase in the next century and to get an additional o.5C above that will require 300ppm more. So it’s credible that a doubling of CO2 from present level will raise global avg. temperature about one degree C. This is actually about what the IPPC predicts for CO2 alone. They get the rest of their 3-6C increase by wholesale invention of an implausible positive feedback mechanism that has absolutely no observational data that supports its existence. [..]”

    Just in order to clarify, since I am not sure how much of the statement above is Dave and how much is reciting from IPCC:
    There is a recent trend of about 0.5C per century in measurements, which can be attributed to CO2 and from there (at least that what I understand) you conclude, that inceasing the CO2 from now by 150ppm should have roughly the same effect.
    So I just want to point out that this measurment, seems to indicate about 1C total warming since 1880 until 2100 as a maximum CO2-effect concluded from the measurements. However this already includes all feedback and contradicts the IPCC-estimate of 3C per doubling.
    I asked a similar question at RC and if I understand Gavin’s answer correctly the IPCC-position depends on delayed effects (which are not found in nature AFAIK).

    I think you can write the IPCC-point of view in the following relations:
    280 -> 560ppm 3.7W/m^2 additional forcing (without feedback) => 3C
    280 -> 380ppm +X1 1.7W/m^2 additional forcing (without feedback)+X2 => 1.4C+X3

    Where the X1,2,3 are all other (natural!?) effects which happened during the increase of CO2. Gavin points out, that these estimates might have huge error bars!
    (Actually I thought direct the forcing for different CO2 levels is known quite well)
    In any case it seems to me, that the IPCC seems to count on almost 1C warming which is caused by the actual CO2-level but somehow delayed/hidden (the lack of evidence for that is what K. Trenberth called a “travesty”)

  92. Girma says:

    Is it not extremely curious for the AGW camp in effect say the global warming rates for the period from 1910 to 1940 is nearly identical to that for the period from 1970 to 2000 because nature and human emission of CO2 swapped sides to produce equal effect in opposite directions after a 60-years interval?

    I wonder who organized nature and human emission of CO2 to swap sides exactly after 60 years to produce the same effect!

    I am extremely curious to know.

  93. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Girma says:
    August 2, 2010 at 2:23 am “Does not it show global warming is cyclic? Disregarding the obfuscations of the AGW camp.”

    Girma, I’m not picking on you. I’m merely using your expresion as similar to many others, so I can make a counterpoint.

    Yes, it is possible to use statistical deconvolution to tease out cycles of various periods in the data of the past. There is however, not always certainty that a given cyclicity will continue into the future. Simply because we have a rise from 1910-1940 and another that loks a bit similar from 1970-2000 (author’s graph 3), there is no guarantee at all that the future will give us a more or less similar rise from 2030-2060, thus completing a graphical pattern. It might happen, it might not. The fact that we cannot predict that it will, is a travesty.

    I carry no torch for CO2 warming of the range of IPCC values – don’t get me wrong there. I simply used CO2 in my example above, as one of several mechanisms that plausibly can produce some warming. I used it because mechanisms are needed, not merely graphical repetitions. Climate science continues to lack a quantitative explanation of the warming that CO2 change produces.

    I hope that this clarifies the objections I raised on August 1, 2010 at 7:45 pm .

    Finally, people who adopt a temperature/time series for analysis have to use extreme care in their choice of data. I simply do not have faith in hadcrut3. I’ve examined some of its parts in detail.

  94. Jack Simmons says:

    Tenuc says:
    August 1, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    It is a travesty that governments around the world are being badly misled by climate scientists and they and their supports will have to take responsibility for not preparing for the coming cold which could prevent the deaths of millions of people in the third world.

    I’ve come to the conclusion the governments have enticed and prodded some scientists into building the AGW model, not the other way around. After all, the UN asked the scientists asked the scientists to find evidence of AGW. The first question should have been “Do natural variations account for AGW”?

    Governments have no problem making decisions resulting in the deaths of million. Ponder the behavior of governments during WWI and WWII if you don’t believe this. Or consider the decisions made by governments after WWII regarding the potential use of nuclear weapons.

    The death of millions?

    I used to think the quote of breaking eggs to make omelets was an original with Stalin, it is actually much older and used by other ruthless politicians. See http://lawsoflife.co.uk/stalins-law/.

    The other thing governments have no trouble with is raising taxes, which is the whole point to AGW.

  95. jim hogg says:

    Girma

    Yes, I agree that there is a roughly 60 year cycle (30 years up and 30 down) that can be abstracted from the total process – it’s been identified on here many times – and there is every likelihood that it will persist, but according to the temp data, the up and down steps are not self cancelling within the whole, ie their removal doesn’t leave the trend neutral – you had to level it out of the upward trend of the 20th C. to illustrate its dimensions clearly. I’m not saying of course that the upward trend is caused by the increase in atmospheric Co2, because so far as I can see there has been no entirely convincing explanation for it; it may even be the case that we don’t have the wherewithal to explain it yet, given the complexity of the beast.

    Nor should we be entirely convinced that the temperature trend is upwards to the extent claimed either. The comparability of much of the data with previous data is not as strong as it should be for various environmental reasons, and so much processing has been inflicted upon it, that its value is questionable. I’m still waiting for someone to identify only those sites which have not been contaminated and which give a continuous record for 100 years plus, and to present the data (unprocessed) for consideration.

    The final leg of the argument depends upon the passing of the next twenty years at least – probably 50 – before your case is made. Modelled evaluations and the collision of opinion over models may be interesting and occasionally revealing, but the only test worth quoting conclusively is the reality test. But to fully make sense of the reality test I think we need to know a little more than we do at present. The AGW group may turn out to be right – or wrong – but as much by chance as anything else . . . Toss a coin – an apparently simple act with many unknown factors at work – and there’s a fair chance you’ll guess which way up it lands . . . . It’s going to be some time yet before the climate coin lands . . . I see much groping in some serious darkness until then.

  96. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Mike Haseler says:
    August 2, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Global warming graphs are like those butterfly ink blots which tell you more about the psychology of the observer than about the ink blot.

    It’s called Rorschach inkblot test . And I agree. What people say about global warming reveals more about them than about the ‘science’ of global warming.

  97. MartinGAtkins says:

    barry says:
    August 2, 2010 at 1:12 am

    At the woods for trees site, you can run trends for solar influence for the periods in question.

    Indeed they can. If we do a little cherry picking.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970/to:2002/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/to:2009

    This is a very basic start to doing some research. We see that the solar trends anti-correlate for two out of the four temperature periods mentioned in the top post.

    The first person to mention solar forcing was:-

    Boris says:
    August 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    This is really, really bad logic.: Hint Co2 contributed to early 20th century warming. Further hint: solar forcing increased in the early 20th century.

    Up until then nobody mentioned it. So it’s a red herring he used to patch up the infallible hypothesis of AGW.

    Tenuc takes the bait
    August 1, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    1910-2000 warm – (HSA) High Solar Activity

    He didn’t attribute any solar forcing too the upstep in temps between 1970-2000, that was your invention. So is was right?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1910/to:2000/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/to:2000

    Indeed he was. So barry the article is not about attributing any thing too the warming since the LIA. It is just assumed to be natural. I’ll leave you to demonstrate the Marxist approach to science with a masterful example of how to construct infallible hypothesis, using your own words.

    Thus, a portion of the earlier warming period can be attributed to industrial CO2, another portion to solar increase, waning volcanic activity and so on.

    Throw in rice farming and get Nature or New Scientist to peer review it and you have publish work to your name. Welcome to the consensus.

  98. Bill Illis says:

    We need to be able to describe what is driving these cycles.

    - Without a cause, we would have to say the climate can have some random up and down cycles that can add up to a few tenths of degree. Not impossible but it would be random. Maybe we will now enter a random up cycle.

    - The Sun could have 60 year up and down cycles. There are clearly 11-year cycles but they don’t change enough to cause much temperature change at the surface. There was clearly a Maunder Minimum which reduced temperatures somewhat but in the last 170 years, there has just been a small uptick in solar output causing about a 0.05C increase in temperatures. Generally, we are still arguing about whether there is longer cycles in the Sun.

    - Snow and Ice on the planet can vary and through reflecting sunlight, the Albedo can change the temperature on the planet. Sea Ice in the Arctic has clearly gone up and down but the data is uncertain. My calculations of potential Albedo impacts from these potential cycles shows that it would be very, very small – less than 0.1C.

    - Clouds also affect Albedo. More than half of the 30% reflected sunlight comes from clouds. We have certainly seen changes in cloud levels in the last 30 years (not looked at enough in my opinion because these changes are relatively large). Maybe there are longer cycles but we have no data to base that on.

    - The Climate Models incorporate a large upswing in sulfur Aerosols starting in 1948 and peaking out at about 1990. The Aerosols guesstimates used in the models actually off-set ALL OF THE WARMING until 1970. In fact, between 1880 and 1970, Aerosols have more negative impact on temperatures than GHGs has a positive impact on temperatures. The Climate Models address these 60 year cycles by varying the impact of the assumed Aerosols impact (you just need an acceleration starting in 1948 versus building in a cycle). The math doesn’t actually work and I’m not certain whether the modellers know they did this.

    - The Ocean surface certainly has cycles. We have the ENSO with a +/-0.2C direct and very clear impact on temperatures. No one doubts this. A particularly long period of El Ninos leading up to 1944 may have had a longer-term impact, A cycle up and then a cycle down – The AMO and the PDO also have 60 year cycles which matches the up and down cycles very closely. So, we now have a solid explanation for these cycles. The surface and deep ocean exchange energy which has matched the 60 year cycles seen since 1850. There is no reason to assume it will continue like this because there is some evidence the cycles can vary. The climate scientists are careful to exclude these impacts in their back-cast reconstructions. They don’t appear to be big enough to explain all of the 0.7C warming-to-date, however, so there is still a warming left-over probably caused by GHGs.

  99. Jack Simmons says:

    By the way, Dr. Orssengo this was an outstanding article.

    Very clear and understandable with compelling evidence for your assertion.

    Thank you for taking the time to write this excellent article.

  100. old construction worker says:

    Laws of Nature says:
    August 2, 2010 at 3:25 am
    ‘Where the X1,2,3 are all other (natural!?) effects which happened during the increase of CO2. Gavin points out, that these estimates might have huge error bars!
    (Actually I thought direct the forcing for different CO2 levels is known quite well)
    In any case it seems to me, that the IPCC seems to count on almost 1C warming which is caused by the actual CO2-level but somehow delayed/hidden (the lack of evidence for that is what K. Trenberth called a “travesty”)’

    Ah, yes. The old 2.5 “Amplification Number” that someone pull out their hiney to “balance the books” for “positive feedback”.

    If I did that in my business, I would be out of business and/or in jail.
    So what have we got?
    The sun has a better correlation to “temperature”than CO2 .
    The oceans have not been heating up as per hypothesis.
    No “hot spot’ in the upper troposphere unless you correct for “wind chill” .
    Wind has a much larger affect on evaporation than CO2.
    Don’t know how, why, where or when clouds will form or if they will produce rain.
    PDO, AMO, La Nina, El Nino, and aerosols (which could either heat or cool) has a stronger effects on “temperatures” than CO2.
    We still don’t know what cause the MWP which may have warmer than today but not as warm as the Roman Warm Period. Like wise, we don’t why “temperature” cooled down from the Roman or Mid Evil Period.
    We do know the Mediterranean Sea was larger than today and that there were three lakes in the Sierra desert 8000 years ago.
    Climate Models have never been V & V.
    Melting glaciers are uncovering old mine site in France.
    But “CO2 Drive the Climate” science is settled and we need to regulate CO2. Shut up and give us more money so we can spread the wealth.
    The EPA is getting an 20% increase in funding. Got to pay off all those scientist promoting more regulations based more on opinions (Polar Bears will die) than facts.

  101. old construction worker says:

    Oh yes. One more “thing” for the scientist that want all this regulations.
    Be warned. The regulations you seek will turn around and bit you or your children or your grand kids or their grand kids. It just a matter of time.

    What freedom are you NOT WILLING to give up before you make a stand?

  102. Gary says:

    J.Hansford, DirkH, Vorlath, Ed Caryl, JamesS, DoubtingThomas, and Tenuc:
    To varying degrees you miss my point which simply is that this essay assumes correlation is causation in it’s refutation of the “IPCC first claim.” Read carefully and avoid jumping to conclusions that I support the IPCC or that I think CO2 is the sole or even primary cause of warming (neither of which I do, btw). I’m only criticizing the author’s naive argument here. He needs to do better. Jumping to the defense of poor arguments and misrepresenting criticism of them does nothing to advance understanding.

  103. barry says:

    barry: At the woods for trees site, you can run trends for solar influence for the periods in question.

    Martin: Indeed they can. If we do a little cherry picking.

    Why on earth are you cherry-picking? I used the same time periods as the top post did. You did not.

    Up until then nobody mentioned it. So it’s a red herring he used to patch up the infallible hypothesis of AGW.

    What, are you saying that nobody mentioned it upthread of Boris’s post, or that this wasn’t mentioned in the early part of the 20th century?

    Well, the former is irrelevant, and the latter is irrelevant because scientists had not attempted to plot the global temperature in the early 20th century.

    I can’t make sense of much of your post. I pointed out some anomalies re the advice in the top post, in order to encourage enquiry. Ignorance can be cured by curiosity. There is no cure for a lack of curiosity.

    I’m still willing to link up to sources on attribution if any genuine enquiry is forwarded.

  104. Rob says:

    Although being very resonable observations, unfortunately it will take very hard evidence to convince the warming crew they have it all wrong – they have too much at stake, especially in terms of reputation. Ironically, very little evidence was required to support the theory, but to dispel it will be a different matter. They will have an excuse for everything. And the harder they dig in, the harder it will be to convince them they’re wrong.

  105. Dave Springer says:

    Girma says:
    August 2, 2010 at 3:30 am
    Is it not extremely curious for the AGW camp in effect say the global warming rates for the period from 1910 to 1940 is nearly identical to that for the period from 1970 to 2000 because nature and human emission of CO2 swapped sides to produce equal effect in opposite directions after a 60-years interval?

    I wonder who organized nature and human emission of CO2 to swap sides exactly after 60 years to produce the same effect!

    I am extremely curious to know.

    It’s quite understandable once a person examines the year to year history of ppm CO2 concentration. 25ppm rise 1880-1950. 50ppm rise 1950-2000. Additionally one must understand how insulation works to see that it takes twice as much additional Co2 to get the same effect as the last increment.

    In short, the two periods are perfectly consistent with each other and with hypothetical anthropogenic CO2 warming ocurring over the entire period at the rate of about 0.05C/decade or one half degree per century.

  106. Dave Springer says:

    Laws of Nature says:
    August 2, 2010 at 3:25 am

    Just in order to clarify, since I am not sure how much of the statement above is Dave and how much is reciting from IPCC:

    There is a recent trend of about 0.5C per century in measurements, which can be attributed to CO2 and from there (at least that what I understand) you conclude, that inceasing the CO2 from now by 150ppm should have roughly the same effect.
    So I just want to point out that this measurment, seems to indicate about 1C total warming since 1880 until 2100 as a maximum CO2-effect concluded from the measurements. However this already includes all feedback and contradicts the IPCC-estimate of 3C per doubling.

    I asked a similar question at RC and if I understand Gavin’s answer correctly the IPCC-position depends on delayed effects (which are not found in nature AFAIK).

    I think you can write the IPCC-point of view in the following relations:
    280 -> 560ppm 3.7W/m^2 additional forcing (without feedback) => 3C
    280 -> 380ppm +X1 1.7W/m^2 additional forcing (without feedback)+X2 => 1.4C+X3

    Where the X1,2,3 are all other (natural!?) effects which happened during the increase of CO2. Gavin points out, that these estimates might have huge error bars!
    (Actually I thought direct the forcing for different CO2 levels is known quite well)
    In any case it seems to me, that the IPCC seems to count on almost 1C warming which is caused by the actual CO2-level but somehow delayed/hidden (the lack of evidence for that is what K. Trenberth called a “travesty”)

    You have me understood. I’m aware of the idea that CO2 rise is so rapid that equilibrium surface temp might be as much as 50 or 100 years in the future. In other words energy from the sun reaching the surface is more than what’s being radiated away and will persist until surface temp rises to reestablish equilibrium.

    How can that be put to the test?

    As far as I know investigators are seaching for what’s commonly called the “missing heat”. So far it hasn’t been found. The only place it can be stored “out of sight” is in the ocean.

    It’s difficult to determine if the total oceanic heat content is rising except perhaps through very precise sea level measurement so I’ve been monitoring progress in getting reliable paleotide data and precision current measurements.

    So far it doesn’t look like the ocean is doing anything other than the expected thermal expansion commensurate with the surface temperature record – no missing heat that would make it thermally expand faster than expected.

  107. k winterkorn says:

    After this and similar posts (eg. Goddard’s work), the CAGW’s are reduced from “I believe in ghosts” to “There still could be ghosts, since you have not proved they do not exist.

  108. k winterkorn says:

    Bill Illis, 7:00 AM
    Good post, but left out the Urban Heat Island effects on the “Raw Data” on which the trends are based. Also, airport siting effects. Subtract a modest amount from the 0.7C for UHI and Airport siting, and along with the other effects/cycles you mention, there is not much room left in the data for direct CO2 forcing, much less any postive feedbacks from CO2 forcing.

  109. Alexander K says:

    Excellent and clearly expressed article.
    When the complex concept of Man-made global warming that can never be falsified due to the contrary qualities assigned to it by its proponents is given some consideration, suspicions arise that the UN strong-armed various governments to entice tame scientists to provide the unfalsifiable scenario to enable the UN to take over the reins (and the Revenue) of national governments around the world and redistribute that Revenue to favoured nations. I am beginning to think that many scientists are ‘willing fools’, eager to do ‘science’ for gain.
    Thanks are due to WUWT for providing a sane, rational and gentlemanly forum which will allow the scientific truth to emerge.

  110. MartinGAtkins says:

    barry says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Why on earth are you cherry-picking? I used the same time periods as the top post did. You did not.

    You used a solar proxy to try and dismiss the essence of the article. The article only noted that there was an apparent 30 year oscillation between global warming and cooling over the CRU data range. It noted the trend was up but all the steps up were of the same magnitude. Since the IPCC states:-

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

    The article stated:-

    “mid-20th century” means year 1950

    The implication is that anthropogenic CO2 cannot be singled out as the driver of global warming because the long term trend has been rising since before industrialization. In order to explain how you can make such a claim you would need to identify the drivers of all the other upward steps in the data range and why they stopped at the onset of industrialization.

    You cannot without throwing more ad-hoc hypotheses to patch up the already failed hypothesis.

    I can’t make sense of much of your post. I pointed out some anomalies re the advice in the top post, in order to encourage enquiry.

    You were doing nothing of the kind. You were using the post-modern science tactic of introducing ad-hoc hypotheses to discredit the writers observations. These are your words:-

    Thus, a portion of the earlier warming period can be attributed to industrial CO2, another portion to solar increase, waning volcanic activity and so on.

    Typical of the sloppy thinking that infests our sciences these days.

    Chuck in a little bit of this, throw in a little bit of that and bingo, the train wreck that is AGW lives to fight another day.

    Well, the former is irrelevant, and the latter is irrelevant because scientists had not attempted to plot the global temperature in the early 20th century.

    So no one is doing any historic climate research? I know the tax funded overgrown university students aren’t doing any real climate research but surely there are some real scientists out there.

    I’m still willing to link up to sources on attribution if any genuine enquiry is forwarded.

    Please feel free to post any attributions you like. So long as they are in the public forum and not behind the pay wall of a coffee table magazines like Nature or New Scientist.

  111. charlie says:

    Isn’t the accepted premise amongst the proper scientific community that heat increase pre-dates any CO2 increase by a factor of 500-800 years. If this is the case, isn’t the recent increase in CO2 therefore attributable to the MWP and not AGW? Just a thought………….

  112. Enneagram says:

    A better procedure would be using a “Lie detector”

  113. barry says:

    I wonder who organized nature and human emission of CO2 to swap sides exactly after 60 years to produce the same effect!

    Well, only you, I think. It’s not as seen as one or the other in the literature.

    Basically, solar activity increased during the early part of the instrumental record, supplementing the warming from CO2, such that the rate is similar to the morwe recent period, when the solar trend has been flat or slightly declining.

    But that’s only a piece of the puzzle. There are other factors at play. Without assessing as much as possible, there isn’t enough data to draw any kind of conclusion.

    Once again, it’s not an either/or situation. Solar activity, volcanic activity, industrial CO2 and aerosols and so on contribute to climate change. These effects have been teased out to the best of our ability, and should be read up on.

  114. JamesS says:

    Gary says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:15 am

    J.Hansford, DirkH, Vorlath, Ed Caryl, JamesS, DoubtingThomas, and Tenuc:
    To varying degrees you miss my point which simply is that this essay assumes correlation is causation in it’s refutation of the “IPCC first claim.”

    I just don’t agree that the OP is arguing or assuming that correlation is causation. I see his point as being “trend A is exactly the same as trend B, yet the IPCC says that trend B is caused mainly by human-produced CO2, while trend A was natural.”

    I’d say that the IPCC has made that error first.

  115. barry says:

    Isn’t the accepted premise amongst the proper scientific community that heat increase pre-dates any CO2 increase by a factor of 500-800 years. If this is the case, isn’t the recent increase in CO2 therefore attributable to the MWP and not AGW?

    No.

    CO2 increased by 100 ppm over 4200 years during the temperature rise out of the last ice age. We’ve had a 100 ppm increase in 150 years in the modern era.

    Further, the planet warmed by 5 – 6C out of the last glaciation. Medieval warming – according to the highest figures suggested by skeptics – was barely half that.

    Also, the isotopic ration of industrial CO2 is different to that naturally occurring. We can measure the anthropogenic portion of CO2 change, and we find that what we estimate from calculating how much we’ve burned, is a good match with chemical analysis.

  116. Dear Dr. Orssengo,

    I have quoted extensively from your “Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections”, at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm and http://www.oarval.org/CambioClima.htm (Spanish).

    This is another very interesting article, I’m linking to it. Thanks!

    Thanks again Anthony

  117. barry says:

    Martin, your post is illogical, and you have misinterpreted my contribution and the thrust of the top post. I have no interest in sorting that out with you, but here are some scientific papers on attribution, most available in full text. There’s been plenty of work done on it.

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/papers-on-formal-attribution/

    IPCC dedicate a whole chapter of the latest report to attribution:

    “A key objective of this chapter is to understand climate changes that result from anthropogenic and natural external forcings, and how they may be distinguished from changes and variability that result from internal climate system processes.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

    If you have any curiosity in you, happy reading.

  118. Vince Causey says:

    By concentrating on the temperature changes from trough to peak, you are ignoring the fact that the latest peak is higher than the 1940 peak. Since the radiative flux F required to maintain a temperature T is given by sigma * T^4, this little increase in temperature implies a higher flux. It is therefore not inconsistent with AGW hypothesis to have periods of similar temperature increases even though CO2 had little effect on the first. It is not inconsistent because the latest peak is at a higher absolute temperature and therefore requires a higher energy flux. It is the higher energy flux, or forcing, that is attributed to CO2.

    Altough there are many arguments to discredit AGW, this isn’t one of them.

  119. Girma says:

    MartinGAtkins (#10:52)

    Thanks a million for your excellent response to their questions.

    I loved this one:

    Chuck in a little bit of this, throw in a little bit of that and bingo, the train wreck that is AGW lives to fight another day.

  120. Arno Arrak says:

    First of all the HadCRUT3 temperature curve in Figure 1 is worthless and ought not to be used as indication of what the actual temperature did. The last thirty years that parallel satellite temperature curves can be shown to be entirely faked. In the eighties and nineties there was no warming, just temperature oscillations, up and down by half a degree until the super El Nino of 1998 showed up. But they finessed it into a rising curve called the “late twentieth century warming.” With the arrival of the super El Nino global temperature started to rise and in four years global mean rose by 0.3 degrees Celsius and then stabilized for six years. I have called it the twenty-first century high. Your Figure 4 recognizes it too in their curve but they actually raised up that entire section to line it up with the fake warming of the eighties and nineties. You can see their handiwork when you look at the two sides of the Super El Nino of 1998. It’s the last red peak in Figure 4. It and the twenty-first century high are at the extreme right in Figure 1. Both sides of the super El Nino are actually even but in their graph you can see how much fake warming is added to that section of the curve. This global temperature “standard” is from CRU section of the East Anglia University, lately the source of Climategate files. And older parts of the curve are also weird – thirties are not shown as particularly warm but World War II that follows is depicted as a heat wave. It should be the reverse – thirties that brought us the dust bowl should be warm and World War II cold. In any case, satellite data show that the only warming within the last thirty years was a stepwise warming that followed the super El Nino of 1998. Global mean temperature held steady during the eighties and nineties, then rose by 0.3 degrees within a four year period and became steady again for six years. It is this non-carboniferous warming that is responsible for the first decade of this century being the warmest on record, not some greenhouse effect that does not exist. Ferenc Miskolczi has shown that the greenhouse effect from addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is physically impossible [E&E 21(4):243-246 (2010)].

  121. Smokey says:

    barry,

    The UN/IPCC is thoroughly corrupt. They refuse to follow their own written policies, and when Michael Mann was lead author he used the IPCC as his own personal CAGW propaganda organ to disseminate false information to support his bogus hockey stick papers, MBH98 and MBH99. Nothing has really changed since, which is not surprising with the organization being headed by a financially self-serving reprobate, or worse.

    I’m not just spouting an opinion. The wrongdoing by Mann, Osborne, Briffa and the rest of the alarmist clique is extremely well documented in A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. I challenge anyone to read it and argue that either Mann et al. or the IPCC are honest.

    To quote your statement above: “If you have any curiosity in you, happy reading.”

  122. Girma says:

    Vince Causes (#12:22 pm)

    According to the data, I accept that there is an overall linear warming of 0.6 deg C per century, but there is also an oscillation component that has to be added to it as shown in the following graph:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png

  123. Tenuc says:

    Gary says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:15 am
    “J.Hansford, DirkH, Vorlath, Ed Caryl, JamesS, DoubtingThomas, and Tenuc:
    To varying degrees you miss my point which simply is that this essay assumes correlation is causation in it’s refutation of the “IPCC first claim.” Read carefully and avoid jumping to conclusions that I support the IPCC or that I think CO2 is the sole or even primary cause of warming (neither of which I do, btw). I’m only criticizing the author’s naive argument here. He needs to do better. Jumping to the defense of poor arguments and misrepresenting criticism of them does nothing to advance understanding.”

    Gary, just to be clear that this is the IPCC statement you refer to.

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. ”

    Please explain how, given the long-term climate warming trend since the Little Ice Age, the rate of warming from the period starting 1920, is the same as the rate of warming seen since the mid-20th centuary? CO2 levels were vastly different between those two periods. This means that the extra CO2 had no statistical effect on temperature trend or the influence of CO2 was so weak in was drowned out by natural changes. In either case, the CAGW conjecture is falsified.

    Dr. Girma Orssengo’s post is a brilliantly simple refutation of the IPCC’s extraordinary and risible claims. In science, the null hypothesis (in this case natural changes due to the vagaries of the deterministic chaos inherent in this complex system) remains in place, until a new conjecture makes better predictions. CAGW has failed and needs to be consigned to the waste bin.

  124. Buffoon says:

    Dr. Dave says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Dave, I alluded to this point in the swiss cheese post. The reported accuracy of anomaly trends is given with greater accuracy than the measurement from which the anomaly is derived. No respect for pure or commutative error is apparent.

  125. RW says:

    I posted this many hours ago and it has still not appeared. I’ll give it another go.
    —-

    This post makes several very basic errors.

    The method proposed to answer the first question is absurdly simplistic. It could only work if a) no climate-influencing variable other than CO2 concentrations were varying; b) the effect of CO2 concentrations on temperature was linear. We know, in fact, that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, not linear, and that many other things differed between the first and second halves of the 20th century, such as solar and volcanic activity. The attempt to conclude that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is ham-fisted in the extreme.

    The attempt to disprove the second claim is yet another confusion of “weather” and “climate”. 10 year temperature trends are largely meaningless in climate terms – they are too short. I would have thought that anyone who was actually interested in the science of Earth’s climate would have learned this distinction very early on. And yet, this blog continually, and presumably deliberately, confuses the two.

    On a broader point, it is strange to see the post talking about “the IPCC’s theory of man-made global warming”. There is no “theory of man-made global warming”; there is the theory of atmospheric physics, and predictions of anthropogenic global warming are a consequence of that theory. And the IPCC certainly did not invent this non-theory in the first place. I think this shows a certain ignorance of the scientific background and the nature of the IPCC.

  126. Christopher Hanley says:

    As others have commented, the AGW hypothesis is not falsifiable.

    Post WWII warming that allegedly can’t be attributed to identified natural factors like solar irradiance, volcanic activity etc. is assumed to be anthropogenic.

    It is a rudimentary logical fallacy (argument to ignorance) — “the defendant has no alibi, therefore must have committed the crime”.

  127. Carrick says:

    Boris:

    This is really, really bad logic.: Hint Co2 contributed to early 20th century warming. Further hint: solar forcing increased in the early 20th century.

    There was a net zero contribution to warming from anthropogenic activity, anthropogenic CO2 being balanced by sulfates… and we don’t know solar forcings increased, that is an inference (it is required to explain the early 20th century warming…chicken meet egg).

  128. JamesS says:

    Arno Arrak says:
    August 2, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    First of all the HadCRUT3 temperature curve in Figure 1 is worthless and ought not to be used as indication of what the actual temperature did. The last thirty years that parallel satellite temperature curves can be shown to be entirely faked.

    I’m pretty sure the OP used that figure to show that the IPCC was wrong even using their own data. Not many here would argue with you about the quality of the data.

  129. George E. Smith says:

    If somebody had turned in a graph like that (fig 1) with that green “trend line” on it in my Physics class; they would have gotten a failing grade.

    The green line clearly contains much less information than the Red line. Why not simply get rid of ALL of the information, and simply replace the graph with a single number; the simple average of all the points; or maybe the RMS average of all the points; or maybe the average of the fourth power of all the points; or maybe the RMS of the 4th power of all of the points.

    Alternatively; why not just leave the information alone to tell its own story.

  130. John Murphy says:

    JohnH

    Jones was worse than that. He said to Harridin that because the warming wasn’t caused by the sun nor by volcanoes (????) it must be caused by man, because he couldn’t think of any other cause..

    That’s just the argumentum ad ignorantiam. It means that Jones and therefore the IPCC haven’t got a clue why the temperature could be going up or down at any given time or over any given period. That means their “predictions” are worthless.

  131. George E. Smith says:

    “”” RW says:
    August 2, 2010 at 2:12 pm
    I posted this many hours ago and it has still not appeared. I’ll give it another go.
    —-

    This post makes several very basic errors.

    The method proposed to answer the first question is absurdly simplistic. It could only work if a) no climate-influencing variable other than CO2 concentrations were varying; b) the effect of CO2 concentrations on temperature was linear. We know, in fact, that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, not linear, and that many other things differed between the first and second halves of the 20th century, such as solar and volcanic activity. The attempt to conclude that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is ham-fisted in the extreme. “””

    “”””” We know, in fact, that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, not linear “””””

    So T2 – T1 = (cs).logbase2(CO2,2/CO2,1) where the symbols are obvious to anyone with ordinary skill in the art.

    So where are your FACTS that establish this; either actual observed peer reviewed measured data; or a peer reviewed Physics theory that explains why the relationship is logarithmic and not linear; or something else.
    Since (cs) is uncertain to the tune of +/- 50 % giving a 3:1 range of values; and since we have less than 1/3 of one doubling of CO2 of actual measured global CO2 abundance since 1957/58 IGY, how could anyone possibly distinguish between a linea fit to that data, and a logarithmic fit; or for that matter a fit to the function:- y = exp (-1/x^2)

    The decay time of a radioactive nuclide species is logarithmic with the abundance of the nuclide. The forward Voltage of a semiconductor diode is logarithmic with the forward Current.

    There is no basis for claiming that the mean global surface Temperature is logarithmically related to the atmospheric CO2 abundance; they do not even always move in the same direction; and by the way; just what is the time delay between the value of the atmospheric CO2 abundance, and the mean global surface temperature that it is logarithmically related to; or does the same relationship hold for any time delay ?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    By the way; the primary “FORCING” that drives the CO2 causation of mean global Temperature change is in fact the surface emittance of LWIR thermal radiation from the suface of the earth; that is where everything must start. That “forcing” is itself a function of the fourth power of the very surface Temperature it purports to cause; and from point to point on the earth that emittance varies by more than an order of magnitude; and everywhere in between at the same time; somewhere on earth.

    So please straighten all that out for us; and please don’t introduce any other possible causation sources like say some effect due to other materials like water for example; which is permanently present in the earth’s atmosphere in all three phases of ordinary matter; we are only interested in the CO2-Tempertaure connection; not the entirety of known Physics and Chemistry.

  132. Jeff Alberts says:

    P.S., Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer give us absolute assurance they do not take the surface record into any account whatever when they make their conversions. I trust them. But I bet Hansen and Jones keep a fearful eye on UAH! I’d bet a third of the farm that UAH keeps ‘em (kinda-sorta) honest since 1979. Well, more honest than they’d otherwise be.

    Which is why they had to adjust pre-satellite temps down, to make modern warming seem higher.

  133. barry says:

    Smokey,

    The UN/IPCC is thoroughly corrupt.

    So you say. My point was that attribution has been studied – against Martin’s notion that no work had been done on it. There is another link in my post to a list of scientific papers on the subject.

  134. Girma says:

    New AGW Theory:

    For the period from 1970 to 2000, after human emission of CO2 for 60 years, the effects of nature and human emissions of CO2 swapped places to produce the same global warming rate as for the period from 1910 to 1940.

  135. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Have others beaten me to the term “Meltdown Man”?

  136. Bill Tuttle says:

    James Sexton: August 1, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    I recall a G8 summit where the guys and gals promised not to raise the global temp by 2 degrees or such.

    They can only accomplish that by sitting quietly in the corner.

    It’ll reduce the Political Heat Island effect created by their blathering..

  137. MartinGAtkins says:

    barry says:
    August 2, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Martin’s notion that no work had been done on it. There is another link in my post to a list of scientific papers on the subject.

    After reading through my posts I cannot find any instance of my having said that “no work had been done on it” with regard to attributing causes for past climate variations. Threads can become complex and errors can occur but please in future be more careful about attributing something to me that is not based on fact.

    Thank you for the links, I will read through them at length and I’m sure you will agree that each paper in the first link would deserve detailed examination before an in depth response. We may at some later date and in an appropriate threat pickup this subject again. I will however give you a first glance response.

    I have read through various chapters of the IPCCs report and I am not going to do it again. It’s you who are positing causation for past climate responses. Virtually throwing a pile of papers at me and thinking this lets you of the hook won’t work. It only shows you have no grasp of the subject and defer to a higher authority to do your talking for you. Do you think I’m going to trawl through pages of crap just to find out what you think supports your position? Here you are using the debating tactic of the organized retreat. When you can’t answer the question you hand your opponent a book and ask them to find the answer for you.

    So we can chuck the IPCC pdf in the trash can unless you can cite the study and on what page you think supports whatever position you hold.

    As for the link to:-

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/papers-on-formal-attribution/

    These papers would take detailed study but let’s have a few brief snippets of the quality we can expect from them.

    Anthropogenic forcing dominates sea level rise since 1850 – Jevrejeva et al. (2009) “
    “Here we use a delayed response statistical model to attribute the past 1000 years

    Don’t you just love the way pseudo-scientists can model anything and get the result they want. The paper progresses thus:-

    We show that until 1800 the main drivers of sea level change are volcanic and solar radiative forcings. For the past 200 years sea level rise is mostly associated with anthropogenic factors.

    Brilliant! With a little data input here and a radiative forcing there we can run our model for a few cycles and show that evil humanoids have been buggering up the climate for two hundred years. Gosh darn, if we run the model some more we can eliminate the Chicxulub impact from killing the dinosaurs and blame it on the carbon dioxide that mankind was going to produce some time in the future, just like we can get those wicked wealth producing nations to compensate under developed nations for the all the climate catastrophes that occur now and in the future. Is there anything Marxist science cannot prove if it is so wishes?

    The next paper is another toy town study.

    A Multimodel Update on the Detection and Attribution of Global Surface Warming – Stone et al. (2007)

    “This paper presents an update on the detection and attribution of global annual mean surface air temperature changes, using recently developed climate models”.

    This next paper can apparently model anything with or without the required parameters. It’s hard to tell because the link to the full text doesn’t work.

    The Detection and Attribution of Climate Change Using an Ensemble of Opportunity – Stone et al. (2007) “This paper presents an extension to the fingerprinting technique that permits the inclusion of GCMs in the multisignal analysis of surface temperature even when the required families of ensembles have not been generated.

    And so on. I’m getting tired now, so I’m going to model My self some sleep after I’ve drunk my modeled cup of tea.

  138. Ken Hall says:

    The pdf report this article refers too is excellent.

    I wondered if there could be any correlation between the rapid decrease in the numbers of surface stations (in colder locations, like Canada and Siberia) and the rapid warming observed in the latter 20th century.

    I overlaid the number of stations graph over the GISS temperature anomaly graph and lo and behold there is a sharp climb in temperatures when the stations were being reduced.

    I also overlaid this with the 30 year negative and positive PDO phases and this shows that given the reduction in stations, the PDO, El nino and La Nina activity combined to create an almost entirely natural warming and cooling oscillation.

    I estimate that anthropogenic forcing is very low accounting for 0.1-0.2 degrees and the removal of surface stations would balance the current temperature to be approximately 1.8 – 2.2 degrees above the zero in the GISS chart rather than the 4.2 in their chart.

  139. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Does the argument hold if you go back into the 19th century also: think it’s Grand Slam in the 7th Game of the World Series if it does?

  140. MartinGAtkins says:

    Ken Hall says:
    August 3, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I estimate that anthropogenic forcing is very low accounting for 0.1-0.2 degrees and the removal of surface stations would balance the current temperature to be approximately 1.8 – 2.2 degrees above the zero in the GISS chart rather than the 4.2 in their chart.

    The premise of this paper (article) is:-

    Figure 2 shows the following periods for relative global cooling and warming phases:

    1. 30-years of global cooling from 1880 to 1910
    2. 30-years of global warming from 1910 to 1940
    3. 30-years of global cooling from 1940 to 1970
    4. 30-years of global warming from 1970 to 2000

    Within reasonable bounds of tolerance do we accept this to be true?

  141. Andrew says:

    Andew says:
    August 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm
    The fact that the 1910-1940 warming had the same rate as the 1970-2000 warming does not disprove the conclusion that most of the warming 1950-present has been man made

    Andrew,
    so basically you are also associating that the warming from 1910-1940 is also mainly man-made. I disagree with this. The same natural factors that caused the warming from 1910-1940 occured from 1970-2000. However, with a big increase in CO2, one would expect that the rate from 1970-2000 would’ve been much higher, IF CO2 had an actual impact. Since they are the same, with the increase CO2, it disproves that the warming in 1970-2000 is man-made, in favor of natural cycles causing it

    No, I am saying some of the warming 1910-1940 was probably man made, man-made warming moderated the cooling 1940-1970, and intensified the warming 1970-2000. Thus the long term trend is upwards, and man-made warming is contributing an increasingly large % to the rate of temperature change. Perhaps the natural factors for warmign 1970-2000 were not quite as strong as those 1910-1940, or the starting point in 1910 was just much lower. But man-made warming is perfectly consistent with a long-term trend with two periods of equal rapid warming. In fact, it is the only way to fully explain the long-term trend since 1900.

  142. barry says:

    I have read through various chapters of the IPCCs report and I am not going to do it again. It’s you who are positing causation for past climate responses. Virtually throwing a pile of papers at me and thinking this lets you of the hook won’t work.

    I don’t know how you think any of this is legitimate. I don’t care about winning any argument, there is no hook, and it’s up to you whether you want to educate yourself enough to begin to have a conversation about attribution of climate change.

    Many papers come to the same conclusion – natural forcing dominated the early part of the 20th century warming, and was supplemented by CO2 warming. Late 20th century warming was dominated by CO2 forcing, while natural forcing had an overall cooling effect (eg, declining solar irradiation).

    Here are some specific texts.

    The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model if anthropogenic forcing (dominated by GHGs) is included, while the early twentieth-century warming requires the inclusion of natural forcings in the model (mostly solar).

    http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf

    It has been observed that globally averaged warming of surface air temperature in the twentieth century occurred in two stages, early in the century from about the early 1900s to the 1940s, and late in the century from about the late 1960s to 2000 (Fig. 1b). Previous work suggests that it is likely that the early century
    warming was caused mostly by solar and volcanic forcing, and the late century warming mostly by the increase of greenhouse gases (partially offset by aerosol cooling). These results are confirmed here.

    http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_solar.pdf

    Similar conclusions in this paper (not copyable, but full version).

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2000ESASP.463..201T/0000206.000.html

    This one concludes similarly to the others, but was not cut’n’pastable, either:

    http://www.geofaculty.org:16080/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Andronova_Causes_of_dT.pdf

    This paper looks at the cooling/warming periods of the 20th century – again similar conclusions.

    http://www.geofaculty.org:16080/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Andronova_Causes_of_dT.pdf

    Here is a scientific primer on detecting attribution over the 20th century:

    However, different forcings dominated at different times during the century (Takemura et al. 2006). For instance, the temperature rise in the early part of the century was dominated by natural forcings (Fig. 4B), whereas the warming after 1975 was dominated by man-made greenhouse gases (Fig. 4C). The cooling during the mid-century was consistent with a combination of natural volcanic and man-made aerosols (Nagashima et al. 2006).

    http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/PewSB1-Attribution-SMALL_102606.pdf

    These results are all pretty consistent. You could read the IPCC chapter and learn the same thing with less trouble – they collate the science after all.

    The failure of the top post is that it neglects various forcings on the centennial climate, pitting it as a bi-polar, either/or mechanism involving only CO2.

    It appears the early 20th century warming was a combination of natural effects (increased solar radiation, possibly less vulcanism) and CO2, and the late 20th century warming of similar rate is primarily CO2 forced while solar forcing had flat-lined or declined, with little vulcanism. Natural forcing dominated the warming of the early 20th century, but was supplemented by CO2 forcing (about 0.1K, 1910 to mid-1940s). CO2 dominated the late 20th century warming, with a flat or cooling contribution from natural forcings. Mid-20th century cooling is considered to be a result mainly of aerosol dimming, possibly exacerbated by decreasing solar radiation (period 1946 – 1975).

    I chose to plot 1946 – 1975 for solar radiation, as this is the period commonly associated with mid-century flat or cooling (depending on data set) temps. 1944 was the warmest year in the HadCRUt record.

  143. barry says:

    I overlaid the number of stations graph over the GISS temperature anomaly graph and lo and behold there is a sharp climb in temperatures when the stations were being reduced.

    Analysis of the temperature record including the dropped stations have shown that they make the later temperatures warmer, not cooler.

    http://clearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-simple-model-for-spatially-weighted-temp-analysis/

    (The second link is from a well-known skeptical blogsite)

  144. Tenuc says:

    Andrew says:
    August 3, 2010 at 8:47 am
    “No, I am saying some of the warming 1910-1940 was probably man made, man-made warming moderated the cooling 1940-1970, and intensified the warming 1970-2000. Thus the long term trend is upwards, and man-made warming is contributing an increasingly large % to the rate of temperature change. Perhaps the natural factors for warmign 1970-2000 were not quite as strong as those 1910-1940, or the starting point in 1910 was just much lower. But man-made warming is perfectly consistent with a long-term trend with two periods of equal rapid warming. In fact, it is the only way to fully explain the long-term trend since 1900.

    It is very easy to explain the ‘climatically-short’ term trend since 1900 without resorting to the desperate fraud of increasing CO2. Just get yourself a good primer on deterministic chaos, paying particular attention to how driven oscillators work.

    It will all start to make sense!

  145. Smokey says:

    barry,

    So because it’s convenient to your point of view, someone flipped a switch in 1950 and the previously harmless and beneficial CO2 became the evil cause of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe?

    Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.

  146. Girma says:

    George E. Smith (#5:09 pm)

    Barry (#10:06)

    This is what you are saying in effect:

    For the period from 1970 to 2000, after human emission of CO2 for 60 years, the effects of nature and human emissions of CO2 swapped places to produce the same global warming rate as for the period from 1910 to 1940.

    Pure obfuscation!

    Just imagine the near zero probability for the effects of nature and 60-years of human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature rate to be equal but opposite after exactly 60 years.

    Just incredible!

  147. barry says:

    Girma,

    Barry (#10:06)

    This is what you are saying in effect:

    For the period from 1970 to 2000, after human emission of CO2 for 60 years, the effects of nature and human emissions of CO2 swapped places to produce the same global warming rate as for the period from 1910 to 1940.

    No, that’s what you are saying. I said something different, and I said it three times in the last post. I also backed it up with corroborating papers – as requested. Try reading them. Until someone can properly iterate and respond to what was actually said, then there’s no point continuing. I’ll check in over the next couple of days to see if anyone has something informed and substantive to say. If you’ve read up on the subject, please share your insights. Some reference material would be great, too.

  148. Central Coast Rick says:

    I posted this video 6 months ago after our local media wetted itself again over NASA’s reporting the ‘most hellish heat in the history of the earth’ or something similar.

    Knowing that the temperature has been more or less gradually increasing since the last ice age, I became unhappy with our local media hyping each new temperature ‘heat record!’ So I decided to consider this a bit more. This is a 2 minute summary of another way of looking at NASA GISS’s late January temperature plot and record.

    I really wish they’d stop scaring our children!

  149. jmrSudbury says:

    Interesting. My calculations were off by 5 years as compared to yours. My mid-points were 1930 and 1990 for the warming periods. I used mid-points for the reasons discussed in the recent WUWT posting about peak to peak. — John M Reynolds

  150. Girma says:

    Calculation of Global Warming Rates for Each Cooling and Warming Cycle

    From Figure 2, GMTA peak years are year 1940 & 2000.

    Also, GMTA valley years are 1910 & 1970.

    Global warming rate from 1940 to 2000 between the two peaks as end points (one cycle) is about 0.06 deg C per decade:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:2000/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:2000/trend

    Global warming rate from 1910 to 1970 between the two valleys (one cycle) as end points is about 0.06 deg C per decade:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1970/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1970/trend

    Global warming rate from 1880 to 2000 (two cycles) is about 0.06 deg C per decade:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend

    Conclusion: There has not been any shift in the global warming trend, which further disproves the theory of man made global warming.

  151. barry says:

    A better way to get the underlying trend (and smoothing the supposed cycle instead of emphasisng it), is to run a series of trends with a fixed start point, to see how the trend behaves over longer data periods.

    Linear regression runs:

    1850 – 1910
    1850 – 1940
    1850 – 1970
    1850 – 2000
    1850 – 2010.5

    The trend lines get progressively steeper in the positive.

    That was done using as much data possible. The same result is achieved using 1880 as a start point, and running trends to each of the nominated phase transition points.

    Apart from the statistical benefit of increasing significance with the longer trends, we better map the progress of the underlying centennial trend instead of subjecting the data to a questionable cyclicity.

    Girma, the linear trend for the time period in the top post (1880 – 2010) is 0.6. After compression, the detrend value selected is 0.775. Does this ring any alarm bells?

    I’ve replicated Orsengo’s graph at woods for trees.

  152. Girma says:

    barry

    What the GMTA pattern in Figure 2 shows is that it has cooling and warming phases. As a result, your comparing the warming rate of one period that has only one warming phase with another period that has a combination of warming and cooling phases will obviously show the maximum warming rate for the first period.

    We must compare two periods that have the same number of cooling and/or warming phases.

    For the periods 1940-2000 (one cooling and warming cycle), 1910-1970 (one cycle of warming and cooling) & 1880-2000 (two cycles of cooling and warming) all give you a nearly identical global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as shown in my previous post.

  153. barry says:

    This is also shown in the top post. Missing from the argument is analysis of the contribution of various forcings for those time periods – the study is known as ‘attribution’. I have posted numerous scientific references that DO examine attribution, and the findings are as follows.

    Increasing CO2 forces temperature upwards over the century.

    For the time period 1910 – 1940, natural forcings provide a positive contribution to the temperature trend. So does CO2. Natural and anthropogenic forcing combine to increase temperatures.

    For the time period 1970 – 2000, natural forcings provide a negative contribution to the temperature trend. CO2 provides a positive contribution. The trend is similar to the previous period, but the contribution of natural forcings is negative.

    Subtracting the natural forcing from each trend, we find that the forcing from CO2 has increased.

    Please refer to my post upthread for references.

    The flaw in the your argument is the assumption that natural processes contribute equally to the trends.

  154. Girma says:

    Barry

    New AGW Theory according to Barry:

    For the period from 1970 to 2000, after human emission of CO2 for 60 years, the effects of nature and human emissions of CO2 swapped places to produce the same global warming rate as for the period from 1910 to 1940.

  155. Girma says:

    Barry

    The global warming rate of about 0.15 deg C for a 30-year period recorded 100 years ago for the period 1910 to 1040 has not been exceeded.

    The current global warming rate is only 0.03 deg C per decade.

    No alarm.

    No catastrophe.

    Start to worry if, in the future, the global warming rate in any 30-year period exceeds 0.15 deg C.

    STOP SCARING THE WORLD AND BRAIN WASHING KIDS!

  156. barry says:

    There is nothing wrong per se with the statement you’ve typed out.

    However, it does not reflect what I have said.

    1910 – 1940

    CO2 forcings positive (~40% contribution)
    Natural forcings positive (~60% contribution)

    1970 – 2000

    CO2 forcings positive (100% contribution)
    Natural forcings negative (0% contribution)

    Clear enough?

    This is the case if you choose the 30-year warming periods, or divide the century in to pre and post 1950.

    You may examine my references upthread for corroboration.

    If we consider all causes of temperature change for the 30-year warming periods we find that natural forces are primarily responsible for the early warming, with CO2 providing a significant contribution (ie, natural forcing is dominant, but not solely responsible). For the later period, the warming trend is similar, but the natural contribution is negative or neutral. CO2, then, is the dominant driver of warming in the latter part of the century.

  157. Girma says:

    At this stage, I don’t believe humans are able to apportion percentages for the effects of man made and natural forces on the global mean temperature trend.

    Barry, we are at 0.03 deg C per decade. Why worry?

    Thanks by the way, unlike others in your camp, you play the ball, not the man.

  158. Girma says:

    Why worry as what caused the warming as long as the previous recorded maximum rate of 0.15 deg C per decade has not been exceeded?

    Actually, we are now at 0.03 deg C per decade.

    Please stop the alarm.

  159. Mike Hohmann says:

    Disprove the AGW myth? For me the easiest consideration is at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com

  160. Matt G says:

    Barry,

    Considering this 1970 – 2000 period you claim that doesn’t make any sense at all. Natural ocean cycles and albedo have clearly contributed towards the period.

    CO2 forcings positive (100% contribution)
    Natural forcings negative (0% contribution)

    If all forcings were only CO2 that means there is no influence from CO2 at all this past decade. There has been at best an 0.03c rise over the past decade not including made up data at the poles, using no observations. This is so much wrong with the above conclusion it’s not worth going any further.

    It is clear by observed planet data that natural forcing drives climate not CO2.

  161. barry says:

    I see a lot of assertions but no references. Is there anything to back up these opinions?

    For instance:

    At this stage, I don’t believe humans are able to apportion percentages for the effects of man made and natural forces on the global mean temperature trend.

    Ok, can you point me in the direction of the material you’ve read that helped you establish this position?

    There is, of course, uncertainty, particularly in the early part of the record. But the same goes for temperatures. The error bars on early temps are wider than recent temps. Do you think this qualification should appear in the top post, and modify the quite absolute conclusions? I do.

    And;

    Considering this 1970 – 2000 period you claim that doesn’t make any sense at all. Natural ocean cycles and albedo have clearly contributed towards the period.

    In what way? What caused ocean and albedo changes? Where are the scientific references that helped you form your opinion on the 1970 – 2000 period?

    It’s far too early to discern the climate trend from 2000. We’ll be able to say something meaningful (statistically significant) about climate from 2000 in 10 years. Weather influences dominate any trend from then at this time.

    Just for fun, though, seeing as we’re playing with short time periods, the global temperature trend since 2008 is 1.1C/decade. Global warming has returned with a vengeance! ;-)

    Why worry?

    I have no emotional attachment to the issue of global warming. I am fascinated by science, how people interpret it, and how people think, particularly amongst the skeptical milieu. I’ve learned that as a general rule, scientists qualify their conclusions (read just about any scientific paper): blog-based skepticism usually expresses itself in absolute terms (like news headlines – on either side). There’s plenty to keep me interested here, and enough convivial conversation to engage. I return the compliments on keeping to the subject, Girma. :-)

  162. Girma says:

    Barry

    I wrote:

    At this stage, I don’t believe humans are able to apportion percentages for the effects of man made and natural forces on the global mean temperature trend.

    You wrote:

    Ok, can you point me in the direction of the material you’ve read that helped you establish this position?

    I respond:

    I point you not to the interpretation by others, but to the data and IPCC’s claims.

    IPCC Claimed for 0.2 deg C per decade global warming rate without CO2 restrictions and for 0.1 deg C per decade warming rate with CO2 restriction at the 2000 level. What does the observed data show? Only 0.03 deg C per decade as shown in Figure 4. What is IPCC’s Magnification factor for the first case? =>0.2/0.03=6.7; What is IPCC’s Magnification factor for the second case? =>0.1/0.03=3.3. So IPCC, without the obfuscation of the AGW camp, is dead wrong. Here is its own graph compared to actual observation:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo1.jpg

    What does this result show? All observed temperatures BELOW IPCC’s projections for the case if CO2 had been held constant at the 2000 level.

    This is not science; it is “Voodoo Science”

    Why does IPCC want to increase fossil fuels prices and destroy the world economy and cause immense pain when human emission of CO2 has nothing to do with global mean temperature?

  163. barry says:

    Where does the IPCC posit that it wants to increase fossil fuel prices? I haven’t seen that in the report. My inclination is to reject this assertion outright, but I’ll wait to see if you can provide a reference from the body of the report. A page number would be good so I can check the context.

    IPCC posited a 0.2C rise per decade over the following two decades (from 2007, when the report was published). It is premature to judge three years out, and ten-year cool/flat trends are observed in the centennial trend, which is warming overall. Mid-range model projections ensembles also have runs with decadal flat or cooling trends, that wind up hot over the long-term.

    I don’t know how many times it takes to point out that a ten or twelve year trend is not statistically significant with respect to climate, before it sinks in. We will likely get neutral or cool trends for a decade into the future, even if the centennial trend winds up matching projections.

    destroy the world economy and cause immense pain

    Economic forecasts of mitigation costs put the figures around 1 – 2% of GDP. Forgive me, but I see your comment as the skeptics brand of alarmism.

    Personally, I doubt governments, particularly democracies, will do much for the foreseeable future. They are systemically unequipped to deal with long-term issues. Why worry?

  164. barry says:

    I put this poorly

    “We will likely get neutral or cool trends for a decade into the future, even if the centennial trend winds up matching projections.”

    Should be;

    We will likely get neutral or cool trends for a decade here and there as we move towards 2100, even if the centennial trend winds up matching projections.

  165. barry says:

    Girma, you realize that your reply to my query on your sources for attribution – has nothing to do with attribution?

  166. Girma says:

    Barry

    Thank you.

    Barry, I have one question.

    Do you agree or disagree that the short-term comparison between IPCC projections and observed GMTA is as shown in the following graph?

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo1.jpg

    Do you agree or disagree that the observed GMTA are below IPCC projection even for the case if human emissions of CO2 had been held at the 2000 level?

  167. barry says:

    Yes, Girma. I agree that’s what the graph shows.

  168. Girma says:

    Barry

    My hat tip to you Barry.

    Thank you so much.

  169. Girma says:

    Barry

    Girma, you realize that your reply to my query on your sources for attribution – has nothing to do with attribution?

    As IPCC’s projections as shown in the above link are wrong, its attribution cannot be right.

  170. barry says:

    Your logic is this:

    Because someone is wrong about X, they must also be wrong about Y (and Z, A, B, C etc…)

    You think that’s sound reasoning?

    But the IPCC is not ‘wrong’ here. Rather, the test is invalid for a number of reasons.

    The argument based on that graph relies on 4 years of data – the divergence from the projections from 2005 – 2009.

    If ten years of data is too short for a meaningful trend, 4 years is even worse.

    The IPCC projection lines shown in the graph are averages. They do not show, or attempt to predict interannual weather variability. A number of model runs in the IPCC mid-range ensembles show similar temps and trends to what is being observed – and they end up in the mid-range projections (2-3C) by 2100. That’s just a fluke of course. The IPCC runs do not and cannot predict interannual weather variability. The fact is, the recent variability, including the flat trends and the low 2008 global temperature, is contained within the full ensemble run for the mid-range projections. The graph does not show that variability.

    Basically, the graph is comparing apples with oranges – climate vs. weather variability.

    If you want to understand the invalidity of using short periods as an argument for climate trends, I will demonstrate using the woodofrtrees web site so that you can check the results and play with the variables yourself.

  171. Girma says:

    Barry

    Because someone is wrong about X, they must also be wrong about Y

    No. It is actually Because someone is wrong about X, they must also be wrong about X; where X is determination of global warming rates.

    Don’t you think it is more meaningful to look at a decadal global warming trend as indicator of global warming than talking about the “maximum annual temperature since record began”? (Look at Figure 4)

    Since global warming rate is positive and was 0.15 deg C per decade 100 years ago, does not this mean that the temperature in a given decade is in general greater than the decade before? Why is this used as scaring tactic by environmentalists?

  172. Mike Hohmann says:

    I follow this discussion and find that most arguments are within the IPCC NewSpeak vocabulary which leads nowhere. I am slowly becoming convinced that the whole IPCC AGW pronouncement amounts to the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever. Reason:
    Consider published estimates of annual global carbon dioxide emissions in Gt C/year (Gigatonnes of carbon per year):
    Gt C/year; average; % :
    Respiration (humans, animals, phytoplankton) 43.5-52, avge 47.75, = 22.96%
    Ocean outgassing (tropics) 90-100, avge 95, = 45.68%
    Soil bacteria, decomposition 50-60, avge 55, = 26.45%
    Volcanoes, soil degassing 0.5-2, avge 1.25, = 0.60%
    Forest cutting, forest fires 0.6-2.6, avge 1.6, = 0.77%
    Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.2-7.5, avge 7.35, = 3.53%
    TOTAL 192-224, avge 207.95, = 100.00%

    I find it hard to believe that about 7 Gt C/year out of total global emissions amounting to some 200 Gt C/year should alone and exclusively be responsible for affecting ‘global climate’, no less — let alone the unresolved question whether even the total of annual CO2 emissions does. Is profound scepticism not the only possible rational response in the light of these figures? I take a lesson from the Brothers’ Grimm ‘Die Sonne bringt es an den Tag’, i.e. ‘Truth Will Out’. And only sceptics will ever find it.

  173. jmrSudbury says:

    Wow. Barry suggests that the natural contribution is negative or neutral for the 1970 – 2000 period. That was when the warming rate was around 0.06 deg C per decade. We are now at 0.03 deg C per decade. Since CO2 levels are still rising, the natural forcing must be much more negative now in Barry’s eyes to cancel out the CO2 forcing.

    Either we are in the middle of a large cooling period that is being counteracted by our emissions, or Barry is wrong. Just in case he is not wrong, we should continue our emissions to keep us from freezing!

    John M Reynolds

  174. Matt G says:

    Barry,

    Only 2 climate parameters have changed just before and over the past decade, natural or unatural that we know about, to cause a non-warming period.

    These are slightly weaker solar output and cloud levels changing albedo at the surface. Lowering and increasing mid and/or low levels clouds effect how much short-wave radiation warms the oceans. (5 percent change in global cloud levels will make a big difference)

    Global cloud and solar levels can be found on the NASA website and at other sources.

    Oceans cycles have about 25-30 year periods of warming and cooling demonstrated to be natural with no evidence so far of human contribution. These familar terms are known as the PDO, AMO and have found to occur on the Earth for hundreds of years. The ocean temperatures also have some influence on how the AO and NAO behave. There are many sources and papers about these, but Iv’e linked a simple one from Joe with it’s effects on the Arctic.
    http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=128

    So far the planet Earth is still behaving as theses cycles have expected to behave and hence, why some scientists are forcasting a 20-30 cooler period ahead. (which makes sense)

    Refering to the last decade as you do is poor excuse (heard it many times) and shows that you are unable to explain this so why is your view credible? A good climate scientist can explain with scientific evidence virtually all the global temperature changes at whatever time frames. With regards to the sudden warming in just one year was down to a developing El Nino.

    p.s. If we take the El Ninos into account of the past decade with numbers higher than La Ninas, this stable trend becomes a cooling one.

  175. Girma says:

    Mike Hohmann
    August 6, 2010 at 1:55 am

    It would be excellent if we could provide links for your list of CO2 proportions from various sources.

  176. Mike Hohmann says:

    Hi Girma,
    I first came across of the list as quoted in Robert M Carter: ‘Climate: the Counter Consensus — a Palaeoclimatologist Speaks’, Stacey International, London 2010, page 269, endnote #84. Professor Carter there quotes the ‘Canada Free Press’ of 13 June 2008 as his source, to be found at
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3482

    I would say that Bob Carter’s book is essential reading! I quoted these figures on my blogsite — no response pro or con from anyone to date (Google now provides an excellent statistics counter for blogger sites, free, added to any blogger blog with a single mouse click; fantastic details provided). My immediately previous blog leads to Burt Rutan’s website where apart from his most recent fantastic presentation, there are, amongst many other leads, also four videos by Bob Carter, I think as given to the Australian parliament (?).
    Hope this may all be of interest. Mike, your CleanEnergyPundit

  177. Girma says:

    Mike Hohmann

    Thank you for providing the link.

  178. barry says:

    Girma,

    Since global warming rate is positive and was 0.15 deg C per decade 100 years ago, does not this mean that the temperature in a given decade is in general greater than the decade before?

    For the two periods in question, each decade is greater than the one before. And the last decade’s average temperature exceeded that of 1910 – 1940.

    But you cannot determine a reliable climate trend from 10 years of data.

    Bear with me and I’ll show you why:

    ————————————————————————————–

    I plot the first two decades in the period 1910 – 1940, which we learn has warmed at 0.15C over a thirty year period. If ten years is sufficient to determine a climate trend, any ten year trend within that period should be on or close to 0.15C.

    1910 – 1920 and 1920 – 1930

    The trend for 1910 – 1920 is 0.2/dec
    The trend for 1920 – 1930 is 0.07/dec

    The first decade diverges from the trend by 33%

    The second sample diverges from the-term trend by more than 50%.

    Ten year’s data is insufficient to reflect the 30-year trend.

    ————————————————————————————–

    If you followed that, what do you think?

  179. Girma says:

    Barry

    I agree with your previous post.

    How about if we compare the global warming rate since 2000 with all the other 10-years global warming rates for the two warming periods of 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 as shown in the following graph:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1920/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1920/to:1930/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1930/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend

    Here are the periods and their corresponding global warming rate in deg C per decade.

    For the first 30-years warming period of 1910-1940
    1910-1920=>0.21
    1920-1930=>0.07
    1930-1940=>0.22

    For the second 30-years warming period of 1970-2000
    1970-1980=>0.09
    1980-1990=>0.07
    1990-2000=>0.25

    When you compare the global warming rate since 2000 of 0.03 deg C per decade with the above results, we see the current warming rate is about half of the minimum rate of 0.07 deg C per decade above, showing that the current global warming rate has decelerated.

    Don’t you agree?

  180. Girma says:

    Just testing how to post URL links

    REPLY: just put in the URL and don’t worry about it, wordpress will auto-link any valid URL

  181. Girma says:

    Anthony

    The HTML help just below the comment box for URL links should be

    \title\

    instead of

    \

    REPLY: No, it shouldn’t

  182. Girma says:

    Anthony

    The instruction given at the bottom of the comment does not work.

    This one works

    “title”

  183. Girma says:

    sorry

    &lt a href=”url” tilte=”title” &gt does not work

    I wish I could preview before commenting

    Sorry Anthony

  184. barry says:

    When you compare the global warming rate since 2000 of 0.03 deg C per decade with the above results, we see the current warming rate is about half of the minimum rate of 0.07 deg C per decade above, showing that the current global warming rate has decelerated.

    Don’t you agree?

    If you are talking about weather trends, yes. If you are talking about climate trends, no.

    We’re agreed that 10-year trends are too short to reflect climate trends. This is seen with the data you have provided on decadal trends and the climate periods nominated in the original post. (30 years is a statistically valid length of time to measure climate)

    Now, if ten-year trends are too short to reflect climate, let’s use time periods that are long enough. 20 years is a valid minimum period.

    I will plot the temperature from 1980 – 2000. This is a 20 year period, the minimum we can safely use.

    Then I will plot the period 1980 – 2010 to compare.

    If global warming has ‘decelerated’ in the last 10 years, we would expect to see the second trend line at a lower rate than the first, right?

    Here is the result.

    Let’s try the same thing with the period 1970 – 2000, and then add ten more years up to 2010 and compare the trends.

    Here is the result.

    The logic of doing it this way is as follows.

    1) We are using time periods that are statistically significant with respect to climate

    2) Both trend analyses use the same data, and the second adds the last ten years (we’re comparing apples to apples)

    Let’s use the most up to date data in 20 year blocks. I will plot the trend lines 1970 – 1990, and 1990 – 2010 to compare.

    Here is the result.

    Global warming, with respect to climate, has not decelerated in any of these analyses. In each case, it has accelerated slightly.

  185. barry says:

    Other notes:

    In the top post, the 0.03C/dec temperature trend is calculated for the period January 2000 to December 2009 inclusive. However, we have data up to June 2010. What happens if we include that in the analysis?

    The trend 2000 to present is 0.053/dec, an increase of 84% in just six months. Clearly, weather variance is the dominating factor in this time period.

    What is the variance if we use 20 years 1990 – 2010, and then add the last six months?

    Here is the result.

    The trends diverge from each other by 1.1%.

    A side issue…

    The top post looks at only one data set – HADCrut. What are the trends, 2000 to present, for the other global temperature data sets?

    Here are the results.

    RSS = 0.11C/dec

    GISS = 0.16C/dec

    UAH = 0.14C/dec

    HadCRUt = 0.053C/dec

    Are the other data sets telling us that global climate warming has continued? No. The time period is too short.

    If we run the trends for 20 years on each data set, one thing we notice immediately is that there is much less divergence between them.

    The trends now are:

    UAH = 0.18C/dec

    GISS = 0.19C/dec

    RSS = 0.19C/dec

    HadCRUt = 0.17C/dec>

    Weather variation plays a very small part in the differences between these trends. The primary reason there is a slight difference between them is the different methodologies applied to each.

    While there are various issues with the analysis in the top post, three that stand out after our discussion are:

    1) The author does not consider attribution in any way, but rather makes implicit assumptions about it

    2) The analysis of temp trends for the last ten years is statistically invalid with respect to climate

    3) The author chose to use the data set that has by far the lowest trend for that ten-year period

  186. Girma says:

    Barry

    You wrote:

    In the top post, the 0.03C/dec temperature trend is calculated for the period January 2000 to December 2009 inclusive. However, we have data up to June 2010. What happens if we include that in the analysis?

    I disagree.

    As the day time temperature cannot tell you the average for the 24 hours, half years GMTA averages cannot tell you the average for the whole year. As a result, you must include the average for the whole your in your calculation of trends. We have to wait until December to calculate the new value for the warming trend since 2000.

    You wrote:

    If we run the trends for 20 years on each data set, one thing we notice immediately is that there is much less divergence between them.

    I disagree.

    As shown in Figure 2, there is a GMTA turning point at year 2000. As a result, it is not meaningful to calculate trends for the last 20 years, which includes the GMTA turning point. You need to start your calculation for current trends from year 2000.

    You wrote:

    The top post looks at only one data set – HADCrut.

    Barry, we only have two long range datasets: gistemp & hadcrut3vgl

    Unfortunately, gistemp manipulates its data as shown here:

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif

    As a result, the gistemp data is not cyclic and there is no GMTA turning points for 2000 or for any year since then as shown below:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2010/compress:60/detrend:0.746/offset:0.394/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2010/trend/detrend:0.746/offset:0.394

    As a result, unfortunately, the deceleration of GMTA & Cyclic GMTA does not apply for the gistemp data. I wish I could get the untempered gistemp data.

    For the CRU data, GMTA has decelerated as CLEARLY shown in Figure 4 of my article.

  187. Girma says:

    Barry

    You wrote:

    In the top post, the 0.03C/dec temperature trend is calculated for the period January 2000 to December 2009 inclusive. However, we have data up to June 2010. What happens if we include that in the analysis?

    I disagree.

    As the day time temperature cannot tell you the average for the 24 hours, half years GMTA averages cannot tell you the average for the whole year. As a result, you must include the average for the whole year in your calculation of trends. We have to wait until December to calculate the new value for the warming trend since 2000.

    You wrote:

    If we run the trends for 20 years on each data set, one thing we notice immediately is that there is much less divergence between them.

    I disagree.

    As shown in Figure 2, there is a GMTA turning point at year 2000. As a result, it is not meaningful to calculate trends for the last 20 years, which includes the GMTA turning point. You need to start your calculation for current trends from year 2000. GMTA trends should be calculated only between GMTA turning points.

    You wrote:

    The top post looks at only one data set – HADCrut.

    Deceleration of global warming rate for all dataset in the last 20 years can be clearly seen in the following graph:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/plot/gistemp/from:2003/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/trend/plot/none

    For UAH, from 0.26 to 0.07 deg C per decade
    For RSS, from 0.32 to 0.02 deg C per decade
    For GIS, from 0.17 to 0.01 deg C per decade
    For HADCRU, from 0.25 to 0.03 deg C per decade

    Barry, I want also to remind you the reply from the General from the AGW camp:

    Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Yes, but only just

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Barry, we only have two long range datasets: gistemp & hadcru

    Unfortunately, gistemp manipulates its data as shown here:

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif

    As a result, the gistemp data is not cyclic and there is no GMTA turning points for 2000 or for any year since then as shown below:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2010/compress:60/detrend:0.746/offset:0.394/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2010/trend/detrend:0.746/offset:0.394

    As a result, unfortunately, cyclic GMTA does not apply for the gistemp data. I wish I could get the untempered gistemp data.

  188. Girma says:

    Barry

    Actually, there is a much simpler way of using results from all datasets instead of just one. This is done using the WoodForTrees Temperature Index, which is the mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS.

    As a result, the declaration of the global warming rate since year 2000 compared to the decade before can be seen in the following graph:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1990/to:2000/plot/wti/from:2000/to:2010/plot/wti/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/wti/from:2000/to:2010/trend

    This result shows a declaration of global warming rate from 0.25 to 0.06 deg C per decade, which is a deceleration by a factor of 4.2!

  189. barry says:

    Gah. Please mods delete the last post. I’ve fixed the formatting in this one (I hope).

    As the day time temperature cannot tell you the average for the 24 hours, half years GMTA averages cannot tell you the average for the whole year. As a result, you must include the average for the whole your in your calculation of trends. We have to wait until December to calculate the new value for the warming trend since 2000.

    You miss the point. I was showing that a mere six months additional can alter a ten year trend by a significant amount. I’m not trying to figure out the new trend, just to show how much it deviates if you use time periods that are too short.

    But, to satisfy you, I will demonstrate by adding one whole year, and I will use a time period within the period 1970 – 2000.

    I’ve plotted 1988 – 1998, and 1988, – 1999 here.

    The first trend is 0.1C/dec

    The second trend is 0.23C/dec

    The deviation is greater than 100%

    The point is, these analyses are not of any climate trend, but instead reflect the variability in the data. I chose this series because 1998 was an extraordinarily hot year.

    Now let’s see what happens if I use a 20 year period that ends with the anomalously high 1998.

    Plot

    As expected, there is a noticeable deviation because the end of the series includes an extreme anomaly, but the deviation is reduced to 30%. If we add more data, say by starting from 1970, we get a more robust result.

    By the way, there is no reason to restrict my analyses to within the nominated 30-year periods. The point of running a long term trend through the last GMTA is to explore whether the decade 2000 – 2010 has introduced a cooling to the global climate. It hasn’t. Even though the period itself is one of little warming. If we’re talking about interannual variability, then the last decade has slowed from the previous. but this, as we agree, is not telling us anything about climate. 10 years of data tells us more about the variability than the trend.

    “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

    “Yes, but only just “

    I’m not sure what point you are attempting to make here, but Jones is saying what I am, except he is referring to a 15-year period. 1995 – 2010 is not statistically significant with respect to climate. I bolded the key part of the question that many people seem to misunderstand.

    Barry, we only have two long range datasets: gistemp & hadcru

    Actually, we have 5, but only two are used at woodfortrees. We also have two satellite temperature records available at that site. All of these have data for the last decade, and they all show a higher trend than HadCRUt, which should be at least mentioned in any analysis.

    It should also have been mentioned the analysis of the top post that 10 years of data is not meaningful with respect to climate. Instead, 10 the ten year trend is pitched as a climate indicator. We don’t have nearly enough data to work out what the climate trend is for the current GMTA.

    As a result, unfortunately, cyclic GMTA does not apply for the gistemp data. I wish I could get the untempered gistemp data.

    All global temperature records are adjusted, including HadCRUt, to account for inhomogeneities in the data sets and to try and balance the weighting of locations around the world. For the periods 1900 – 2009, 1960 – 2009, and 1978 – 2009, GISTEMP has the lowest trends against HadCRUt and analyses done by skeptics using raw data. (The link is to a skeptical site)

    The satellite records, of course, have no urban heat bias to influence them, the measuring devices are not located near any city.

    Deceleration of global warming rate for all dataset in the last 20 years can be clearly seen in the following graph

    True, but as these are in 10-year blocks, we’re not assessing climatic trends. We’re looking at trends that are heavily influenced by the year-to-year variability, as you agreed in a previous post.

    As you’ve agreed that ten year trends do not reflect climate trends, we should let go of the idea that the last 10 years is telling us anything about the supposed GMTA period (2000 – 2040), right?

  190. Girma says:

    Barry

    Agreed.

    But, you also need to agree that it is meaningless for the AGW camp to shout “the nth global temperature since record begun”. If you agree that a 10-year trend is not that meaningful, you need to agree that an individual annual GMTA value does not tell us much.

  191. Girma says:

    Phil Jones (5-Jul-2005), (Five years ago!)

    The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt

    The global warming rate from 1998 to 2005 was 0.06 deg C per decade

    The global warming rate from 1998 to 2010 is 0.00 deg C per decade

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2005/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend

    After 5 more years of Phil’s statement above, the global mean temperature trend still does not show any global warming. How many more years do you require to declare the global warming rate is flat?

  192. barry says:

    If you agree that a 10-year trend is not that meaningful, you need to agree that an individual annual GMTA value does not tell us much.

    Absolutely. A single year tells us nothing about a climate trend.

  193. barry says:

    How many more years do you require to declare the global warming rate is flat?

    If we abide by the 20-year benchmark, we have to wait another 7.5 years if we start the trend analysis in 1998. But we must be cautious here.

    When starting or ending a series with an extreme anomaly (1998 was the hottest year so far), that variation will have a bigger impact on the trend than if it appeared in the middle. As I demonstrated above, there is a 30% deviance in a 20-year trend with 1998 and then 1999 as the end year. While 20 years is sufficient, a longer time period will give us a clearer trend.

    You see a lot more variation in 20-year trends in the satellite records (el Nino years are hotter, and la Nina years cooler in the satellite records compared to the surface records). Consequently, they need longer time periods to achieve statistical significance. Sea ice trends, on the other hand, show less variance, and don’t need as long periods of data for deriving statistically significant trends.

  194. Girma says:

    Barry

    So you agree that the science of man made global warming is not settled yet?

    But don’t you agree that it is more in favor of the no “man-made global warming” camp than the AGW camp? (as our position of no global warming was true for the last 12.5 {20 minus your 7.5} years)

  195. Mike Hohmann says:

    Hi everyone,
    please help me, because I think this discussion is missing to recognise ‘the wood’ by only looking at the ‘trees’ (of temperature trends alone). Are the following figures anywhere near correct (if not, who knows of any more authorative ones):
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Or, please, tell me where I am wrong in crediting the above figures (haven’t found any better ones) or in arriving at the musings about what constitutes the real problem facing ‘my grandchildrens’ grandchildren’. Yes, the research about what influences climate needs to go on by those equipped to deal with that (I definitely am not one of those, but I can read and count to 200+ and muster the 3 Rs and a bit more), but not at the expense of just exposing the IPCC Lysenkoism and thereby missing what the problem is (starting with my Clean Energy Primer, perhaps).

  196. Mike Hohmann says:

    here is what’s missing between the <<>> marks above:
    Consider published estimates of annual global carbon dioxide emissions in Gt C/year (Gigatonnes of carbon per year):
    Gt C/year: estimated range, average, % :

    Respiration (humans, animals, phytoplankton) 43.5-52, avge 47.75, = 22.96%
    Ocean outgassing (tropics) 90-100, avge 95, = 45.68%
    Soil bacteria, decomposition 50-60, avge 55, = 26.45%
    Volcanoes, soil degassing 0.5-2, avge 1.25, = 0.60%
    Forest cutting, forest fires 0.6-2.6, avge 1.6, = 0.77%
    Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.2-7.5, avge 7.35, = 3.53%
    TOTAL 192-224, avge 207.95, = 100.00%

    I find it hard to believe that about 7 Gt C/year out of total global emissions amounting to some 200 Gt C/year should alone and exclusively be responsible for affecting ‘global climate’, no less.

  197. barry says:

    So you agree that the science of man made global warming is not settled yet?

    I think, like all climate scientists, skeptical and otherwise, that if CO2 accumulates in the Earth’s atmosphere, the planet will warm. I think this is ‘settled’ science. How much the planet will warm is less certain.

    But don’t you agree that it is more in favor of the no “man-made global warming” camp than the AGW camp? (as our position of no global warming was true for the last 12.5 {20 minus your 7.5} years)

    No – I think the planet is still warming. Picking a 12.5-year trend starting from an extreme anomaly is completely and utterly statistically invalid. When one uses time periods that are statistically valid (long enough), there has been no deceleration of global warming with respect to climate.

    As an exercise, try averaging every five years from the present back in time. I think you’ll find that every five year average is warmer than the last for the last 40 years. Each decade has been warmer than the last for the last 40 years.

  198. barry says:

    I averaged every full decade for the last 40 years, starting with January 1970 – December 1979, through to Jan 2000 – Dec 2009, using HadCRUt yearly anomalies.

    Anomalies in degrees Celsius

    1970 – 1979 = -0.0772
    1980 – 1989 = 0.0843
    1990 – 1999 = 0.2307
    2000 – 2009 = 0.4041

    (I haven’t updated the figures for a few months, so there may be very minute discrepancies with the current record – of a few thousandths of a degree)

    First thing you notice is that the average global temperature anomaly for 2000 – 2009 is 0.17C greater than the average for the previous decade (which included the warmest year on record). This is a layman’s way of working out 20 year trends.

  199. Girma says:

    Barry

    I very strongly disagree!

    Let us wait and see who is right.

    Observation is the only final arbiter of a dispute:

    After human emissions of CO2 for 60-years, there was no change in the global warming rate in the period from 1970 to 2000 compared to that in the period from 1910 to 2000. As a result, according to the data, according to the science, human emissions of CO2 has NO effect on the global warming rate.

  200. barry says:

    I don’t think any such thing is proved. The relative contribution of different forcings on the climate trends is entirely absent from the argument. The untested assumption is that natural climate drivers are the same for each period. Nothing can be concluded until this is examined.

    Which begs a question – what do you think is the cause(s) of overall global warming for the last 100 years?

    I assume you will not be positing natural causes, as you have previously vouched that,

    “I don’t believe humans are able to apportion percentages for the effects of man made and natural forces on the global mean temperature trend.”

    So, I’m curious to know how you will answer.

  201. Girma says:

    Barry

    As long as the global warming rate is less than 0.15 deg C per decade in a 30-years period, I will continue to reject man-made global warming.

  202. barry says:

    The global warming rate for the the most recent 30-year period is 0.16C.

    I don’t know if there’s much left for us to talk about on this topic. I have appreciated your sticking with the conversation and keeping it nice. Thank you. :-)

  203. Girma says:

    Barry

    Thank you to you too.

    The current global warming rate AFTER THE TRURNUNG POINT of 2000 is only 0.03 deg C per decade for the CRU data.

    Let us see in the next 5 to 10 years whether this global warming rate starting from 2000 decreases, stays the same or increases. If it increases to 0.15 deg C per decade the AGW camp wins. If it stays the same or decreases my side wins.

    Let the observations be our judge.

    Thank you and take care.

  204. Girma says:

    Here is what Phil Jones wrote five years:

    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt

    The global warming rate since 1998 when Phil John the above statement in 2005 was 0.06 deg C per decade.

    Five year later, in 2010, the global warming rate since 1998 is 0 deg C per decade as shown below:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2005/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend

    To establish conclusively that global warming has stopped requires only 5 to 10 more years. If we increase fossil fuel cost in order to reduce global warming and we find that the two are unrelated, it will be a pointless increase in cost of living without any benefit.

  205. Girma says:

    Excerpts from “It’s Always the End of the World as We Know It”

    Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems — poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems — needing intelligent attention. Even something as down-to-earth as the swine-flu scare has seemed at moments to be less about testing our health care system and its emergency readiness than about the fate of a diseased civilization drowning in its own fluids. We wallow in the idea that one day everything might change in, as St. Paul put it, the “twinkling of an eye” — that a calamity might prove to be the longed-for transformation. But turning practical problems into cosmic cataclysms takes us further away from actual solutions.

    This applies, in my view, to the towering seas, storms, droughts and mass extinctions of popular climate catastrophism. Such entertaining visions owe less to scientific climatology than to eschatology, and that familiar sense that modernity and its wasteful comforts are bringing us closer to a biblical day of judgment. As that headline put it for Y2K, predictions of the end of the world are often intertwined with condemnations of human “folly, greed and denial.” Repent and recycle!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

  206. Girma says:

    Excerpts from “The Curry Agonistes”

    KK[Keith Kloor]: I question if there is really this breach of trust between the climate science community and the general public. Again, the average person is probably not paying much attention to these fractious debates between skeptics and a subset of the climate science community. I mean, every profession gets dinged by its share of controversies. The foundation for anthropogenic global warming rests on numerous solid pillars, which you agree with. So how is that a batch of intemperate emails and a decade-old scientific controversy over the hockey stick can rock this foundation, which is what you seem to be arguing?

    JC [Judith Curry]: Evidence that the tide has changed include: doubt that was evidenced particularly by European policy makers at the climate negotiations at Copenhagen, defeat of a seven-year effort in the U.S. Senate to pass a climate bill centered on cap-and-trade, increasing prominence of skeptics in the news media, and the formation of an Interacademy Independent Review of the IPCC. Concerns about uncertainty and politicization in climate science are now at the forefront of national and international policy. There is an increasing backlash from scientists and engineers from other fields, who think that climate science is lacking credibility because of the politicization of the subject and the high confidence levels in the IPCC report. While these scientists and engineers are not experts in climate science, they understand the process and required rigor and the many mistakes that need to be made and false paths that get followed.

    Further, they have been actively involved in managing science and scientists and in assessing scientists. They will not be convinced that a “likely” level of confidence (66-89% level of certainty) is believable for a relatively new subject, where the methods are new and contested, experts in statistics have judged the methods to be erroneous and/or inadequate, and there is substantial disagreement in the field and challenges from other scientists. The significance of the hockey stick debate is the highlighting of shoddy science and efforts to squash opposing viewpoints, something that doesn’t play well with other scientists. Energy Secretary and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu made this statement in an interview with the Financial Times:

    First, the main findings of IPCC over the years, have they been seriously cast in doubt? No. I think that if one research group didn’t understand some tree ring data and they chose to admit part of that data. In all honesty they should have thrown out the whole data set.

    But you don’t need to be a Nobel laureate to understand this. I have gotten many many emails from scientists and engineers from academia, government labs and the private sector. As an example, here is an excerpt from an email I received yesterday: “My skepticism regarding AGW has been rooted in the fact that, as an engineer/manager working in defense contracts [General Dynamics], I would have been fired, fined (heavily) and may have gotten jail time for employing the methodology that [named climate scientists] have used.”

    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/

    Thanks Judy

Comments are closed.