by Steve Goddard
Tamino has named me “Mr. Cherry” for picking start dates of graphs which are different from the ones he chooses to cherry pick. For instance, he considers 1975 to be the start of “the modern global warming era.”
Living up to his high standards, I declare August 16, 2010 to be the start of “the 2010 La Niña cool down”. Since August 16, UAH channel 5 global temperatures have been dropping at a rate of 1,554 degrees per century.
See below how that plots out.
If the trend continues, the earth will reach absolute zero in about 15 years.
That’s ridiculous, of course.
But the demonstration above is based on a similar logic of picking a start date of 1975 for measuring the global temperature record.
Why pick 1975? It makes the best pie.
That’s hilarious. Thanks for taking the time to tweak.
OMG… its really worse than we thought…
Looks like the additional CO2 kicked in precisely at time of Pacific and Atlantic oscillation switch. But how the CO2 forcing theory explains, that in mid-80ties the NH was as cold as before 1900? Just look at the oceans or Armagh record.
If this be incorrigible, you have all my incorrigement. I lolled.
Is Tamino’s analysis too complicated for you to understand? Unlike your absurd example, Tamino’s analysis seeks to describe the past in the most parsimonious way, rather than predict the future.
REPLY: ah, the predictable sour cherry from Mr. Telford. Thanks for being consistently humorless. Note the “satire” tag. – Anthony
Tamino has named me “Mr. Cherry”
Don’t take it personally. Tamino isn’t very imaginative. He’s just projecting.
Personally, I would never eat the cherries that you pick, Steve. The are so sour and tart and only good enough for good old fashioned cobbler.
They are so to the point and lacking verbosity or sweetness….they are not good for anything else.
You damn cherrypicker!
Complement. Complement. Complement.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Why pick 1975? It makes the best pie.
But it starts rotting in 1999. Doesn’t taste good now. Kevin Trenberth is searching for the missing flavor.
richard telford says:
August 26, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Tamino’s analysis seeks to describe the past in the most parsimonious way
Please.
The The Great Pacific Climate Shift happened in 1976. Natural warming lasted from then until 1999.
‘parsimonious’….. shya
I pointed out to him that the temperatures jump up at exactly the points when the PDO and AMO each went into their warm phases – he didn’t let that comment get published for some odd reason :).
Next weather baseline: only thermometers with open bottoms and closed tops, situate on no less than a 100 feet of black asphalt on each side will be accepted for recordation. After “Peer Review”.
LOL-tastic! Keep it up, you guys!
Funny, thanks Steve. Btway, what’s the average lag period between SST and tropospheric temperature, 1 or 2 or 3 months? I remember that SST started its plunge sometime in late May. It’s now late August, so 3 months? Thanks.
Tamino makes a compelling case for establishing 1975 as a baseline. You criticize him for focusing on “minor details” with, rather ironically, a “satirical” response of no substance.
” R. Gates says:
August 25, 2010 at 11:52 am
Alexej Buergin says:
August 25, 2010 at 8:25 am
“The world is cooling a bit…”
? Compared to what and duirng what time period? 2010 will be either the #1 or #2
warmest year on instrument record. What data set are you looking at?”
Anthony Watts closed that thread; therefore I add my answer here:
Since I uttered the above comment in connection with an ice extend prediction for September 2011, it can only mean that the summer of 2011 will be cooler than the summer of 2010. The maximum of the El Niño year 2010 was in March, temperature anomalies have been going down slightly since then and should do so during the next months because of La Niña.
As far as I know UAH presentation on the internet is better than RSS, so that is the only data set I refer to (I have a soft spot for GISS and Dr. Hansen, though, namely a big bog). It is disappointing that CRU missed their chance to set a standard, especially for long term trends satellites cannot provide.
Mr Goddard’s cherry sauce tastes oh so sweet. Mr. Telford supplies the lame duck. :0)
Steve
What happens if another date or series of dates are chosen. Albeit the idea of a global temperature based on the data used must be based on some trick?
Like thegoodlocust above, I too caught Tamino out on his own blog, but my post never got published either. It’s so annoying, as the other posters never got to see that I had caught him out on one of his own points. All you can do is walk away – which I did.
Steve.
If you look very closely at the UAH trend since August 16th it is actually dropping at an accelarated pace so we’ll reach absolute zero long before 2025.
It is not so much dropping as plummeting.
It is much, much, worse than we thought.
Wow. It’s hard to believe you can’t really understand the logic behind identifying 1975 as a point at which the climate regime shifted. You don’t even need logic to see that there is an obvious change in global temperature trends. Tamino has demonstrated mathematically that there was a change in global temperature trends in 1975.
You don’t understand what cherry-picking is.
Richard Telford, this link shows the past:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/hope-it-lasts.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html&h=334&w=408&sz=30&tbnid=HjkQNxm7833lyM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlittle%2Bice%2Bage&zoom=1&hl=en&usg=__lHSHSNJwpAXhxKoRyvB4Y6SyNHM=&sa=X&ei=x3F3TPWVFcmKOKGi9KgG&ved=0CDkQ9QEwBg
Modern global warmingdid not commence in the seventees or sixtees or whatever, but it is a natural consequence of the end of the LIA that followed the MWP. Cherry picking is very easy, cherries being such tiny things. Try lifting the MWP, its massive.
I’m sure there’s another organisation that gets it dates mixed up and thinks the universe is only a few thousand years old, then again there nothing like real global warming scientist with there creationism theories, silly billy’s creationism doesn’t fit a model so can’t be true.
Steve,
“Living up to his high standards”
I seriously question this comment.
I didn’t know Tamino had high standards.
So I prefer:
“I have adjusted my high standards to match his low standards”
or
“Living down to his low standards”
Take your pick.
” thegoodlocust says:
August 26, 2010 at 11:33 pm
I pointed out to him that the temperatures jump up at exactly the points when the PDO and AMO each went into their warm phases – he didn’t let that comment get published for some odd reason :).”
Cherry picking comments, is he? 😉
Love it!
But you will be charged with obviously picking a too short time period for an accurate measure of climate change. I suggest a much longer time base. The AGW folks use the 3o year average of weather as a proxy for climate, but it isn’t. It’s just 30 years of weather (as things like the PDO, AMO, AO, etc. can run longer than that and they are known weather processes). So why not re-do this analysis with, oh, the Carboniferous as your start date? And again with the 4.5 Billion year old molten earth as a start point. Then you could see if there is any common trend over those various time periods. After all, with such largely spaced samples you ought to find proof, dare I say it, “robust” proof of ongoing cooling.
I’d even go so far as to speculate that you will find it is ‘accelerating’ and that we have reached a ‘tipping point’…
FWIW, folks regularly get nailed by this kind of thing in stock trading from charts. They see a ‘trend’ in one time frame and project it into another (the future). So if today is “up” tomorrow will be “up” too… Or some folks say if the month is up, then it’s time to get in… or the year, or… But prices, just like temperatures, are prone to stochastic jitter and have a series of cyclicalities built into them (and, I’d assert, with a fractal character to the noise at the different time scales). Because of this, the more successful methods do not ‘trend follow’ so much as they ‘reversal predict’.
I use a combination of both. I trend follow just AFTER a reversal has been predicted and then happened. If you do not expect and accept that trends reverse, you will get cleaned out. IMHO, the same thing is true of ’30 year average weather’ research. They keep crashing on the rocks of 60 year weather cycles. They do a great job of projecting things, right up until they are exactly wrong.
One of the most important bits of market wisdom is “The first loss is the best loss”; meaning that if things reverse on you, cash out now with a small loss – that will be far better than a later larger loss. The ’30 year average weather’ researchers didn’t learn that rule after the ’70s ice age scare, and are repeating it again now that ‘global warming’ has turned back to cooling. The faster they cut their losses and swap positions, the better off they will be. But folks doggedly stick to their ‘trends’ until it’s way too late, then swap just in time to be wrong again…
Basically, for systems with multiple time period cycles in them, you need to be very very careful about any kind of ‘trend’ prediction if you do not have a cyclical view.
For fun, you can blend a half dozen sin waves of different frequencies and get all sorts of ‘natural’ looking patterns in the resultant “data”. Then you can ‘cheery pick’ any ‘trend’ you want by adjusting your time scope. Filtering that correctly is very very hard for most folks to grasp. Add in long time lags and it’s nearly hopeless (look how many folks have trouble getting the shower temperature stable when the water pressure fluctuates.)
http://www.smhi.se/sgn0102/n0205/upps_www.pdf
has a nice chart of temperatures from 1722 in Sweden showing it’s the same now as during the start. Just a dip in the middle. So pick your trend by picking your start time.
even more fun if you use even longer time scales as in
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/
especially in the ice age cycles graphs.
That’s a great quote:
“If you can’t debate your opponents on the substance of the issue, crush them on the minor details.”
It echoes some others I recently stumbled across:
“If the big picture is clear enough to decide, then decide from the big picture without using a magnifying glass.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book) )
and
“Distracting oneself with the weakest evidence possible, as if there was no clear-cut evidence available, is clinical d*.”
(Willard at http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/20/the-brushback/comment-page-2/#comment-15354 )
“I declare August 16, 2010 to be the start of “the 2010 La Niña cool down”.
Look, Gooddard, it’s all well and good making woolly-minded assertions about alleged start dates, but such shoddy vagueness simply isn’t sufficient to convey the required credibility.
Now, what TIME on August 16 2010 did the cool down begin?
I would have picked 1963.
Thank you for your gracious admission of defeat, Steve.
Only periods of warming count. Therefore, any cooling period, or downward trend from the cherry picked warming should be ignored. Then you can confidently declare that eg 2007 will be the hottest year on record, and that the “mild winters continue”.. If this turns out not to be the case, and that, in fact, the opposite turns out to be the case, then you can just conveniently brush the wrong predictions under the carpet and pretend that one’s knowledge is becoming better all the time.
Thats how the Met Office here in the UK bluff their way through climate science – which is not something they know much about. (Hence the need to bluff it)
What happened in 1975 that made that the year to start ‘modern global warming’?
Nothing.
Except the convenience of the true believer’s need for a scary graph.
Jimmy Haigh: August 27, 2010 at 12:59 am
It is not so much dropping as plummeting.
This evening’s choice of desserts are cherry cobbler and plummet pudding…
[snip] Invalid email address – RTmod
The “classical period” for climate is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (Wiki).
To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, they would wouldn’t they.
When Hansen made his congressional testimony in the hot summer of 1988, there was absolutely no evidence of the climate responding to human CO2 forcing.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1987/mean:25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1987/trend
[snip] – Invalid email address – RTmod
EM Smith
Pretty much agree with you. I prefer reversal picking methods myself, generally the reversals to the minor corrections that occur within a somewhat longer trend. For me predictions of such a reversal are only good for 1 to 2 days and after that all bets are off if the market doesn’t initially go your way.
Right back at them !!
Great work !!
I doubt that they will get it though !!
richard telford
I understand exactly. Tamino’s analysis turned a 0.7/century trend into a 2.0/century trend, by cherry picking the start date.
Did CO2 somehow change its fundamental properties in 1975?
If is not a four-letter word, is it?
” if La Nina doesn’t blow it.”
Is this MSM report suitable for the Cherry picking file? If not, delete/ throw/stash it in the La Nina file for the record.
Here’s MSM & Environment Canada’s modeller’s guarantee:
“Phillips guarantees we won’t have a winter like last year, when it was four degrees warmer than usual.”
…-
“TORONTO — Canada is on track to have the hottest year on record by far — if La Nina doesn’t blow it.”
“Canada headed for warmest year yet
First half of year 3.5 degrees higher than normal
By PAT HEWITT The Canadian Press ”
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1198947.html
“Tamino”‘s graph has a 300,000 year running average?
I put “Tamino” name in double quotes, because to my ears, it sounds like a girl name, but I am told “Tamino” is a guy.
If you google the term, it comes pre-packaged with words like ‘debunk’, ‘call out’, and the like.
I remember “Tamino” tried recovering after his *** was handed to him, twice in a row now. McIntyre and VS.
The link to that Tamino’s blog post is wrong. It should be
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/mister-cherry/
where Steve debates with Tamino in detail.
There once was a pundit named Goddard,
Who came down on critics, oh so hard.
His humor so dry
Made his enemies cry:
“We’re worse than you thought, so there!”
Cherries make the best humble pie. Pass Tamino a large spoon.
E.M. Smith: Don’t give the warmists too good ideas, they’ll just choose the “Snowball Earth” of 716 million years ago 😉
Hmm.. That looks exactly like Hansen’s recent hockey stick:
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/hansentreends.jpg?w=510&h=369
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/trendthroughjuly2010.png?w=510&h=393&h=393
Pretty obvious exactly what chart they’re cherry picking – the one with no recent cooling. Means to an end all over again. Now for the satellites:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_10.jpg
Looks pretty different eh? Hansen making up for “short” falls again. Maybe he should drive a Viper..
CheshireRed
Which time zone are you thinking?
RW says:
“You don’t understand what cherry-picking is.”
Is it like when RW picks a comment by John Hayter, and posts the same thing?
Piping hot french toast lathered with cherry preserves — yummy breakfast.
Also on the menu — a heap of humor and satire; great for the mind for those that have one.
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:06 am
Did CO2 somehow change its fundamental properties in 1975?
Of course it did! Everyone knows that. It froze from the ice age we experienced based on the prevailing wisdom of that time!
Well, my recollection of the ’70’s, UK in particular and during the rolling power black-outs, even 1975, was that it was very cold (Fortunately, we had an open fire). Melbourne, Vic, Australia, apparently suffered it’s coldest few days, on record, so far this week during political “negotiations” (According to an SBS newscast). I can’t find a link however. Also, heavy snows on the hills, and snow looking to continue into spring.
Both sides cherry pick in pretty much every debate. Nothing to see here, move along.
-Scott
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:09 am
CheshireRed
Which time zone are you thinking?
In keeping with the convenient methods of Tamino, who cares? “Pick a time zone, any time zone…”
” Patrick Davis says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:09 am
heavy snows on the hills, and snow looking to continue into spring.”
Best August snows since 92, they say..
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/heavy-snows-all-the-go-for-spring-20100826-13u63.html?autostart=1
This is all so entertaining. This thread, plus the one on the supposed odd nutrino-radioactive decay effect, indicate exactly why it is essential and desirable to pick the whatever is the longest (and most reliable) data set available, no matter what, if you’re really interested in gaining some true understanding, as opposed to making a case for “your side”. This would be like saying you prefer to pick cherries from all orchards using a blindfold. In the end, you’ll have a large bushel of cherries of a nice average variety, that will indicate the general nature of cherries. Then, while the rest of us are arguing about our cherries, once in a while science is blessed with a Newton or an Einstein who messes up the whole routine and says, “oh, by the way guys, there’s is an orange grove over here.”
hunter says:
August 27, 2010 at 3:06 am
What happened in 1975 that made that the year to start ‘modern global warming’?
Nothing.
Except the convenience of the true believer’s need for a scary graph.
———————————————————————————————————-
Nothing happened that was caused by anthropogenic changes and this was clearly a natural turning point. After 1975 the oceans changed with the natural PDO, AMO, AO and NAO all becoming increasingly positive. The Jet stream during this period moved further North because of this change and these define natural warmer periods of weather. Tamino is just one of the biggest cherry pickers with the team, as they completely ignore this part of climate science.
Yes, picking 1975 as the the point in showing so called anthropogenic influences is cherry picking when it was initially caused by the Great Pacific shift.
Regarding sensitivity of CO2 with climate is it low or high?
1) If it is high, there is no evidence because all the sudden rises in temperature during the period have been caused by natural events. (El Nino etc)
2) If it is low, there is no evidence because temperatures would have risen over the past decade despite an increase in the number of El Ninos. (temperatures have been stable, not counting GIStemp although it it clearly the odd one out)
Therefore whatever influence CO2 has on climate is underlying and natural ocean/solar cycles drive climate. Hence there is no alarm for CAGW because the planet does not demonstrate it. (no hot spot in the tropopshere, no positive feedback and no sensitivity from CO2 detected with climate) = failed theory.
E.M.Smith says:
August 27, 2010 at 1:53 am
Right! You can pick any segment of many different wave-length cycles to get what ever trend you want to support your bias. I have found 13 statistically significant cycles in the Antarctic isotope depletion data. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf. The wave lengths range from around 20 years to around 100,000 years. A plot of these combined cycles show the Roman warm period, MWP, and LIA and that our present long term warming started with the LIA and not the exponentially increased burning of fossil fuels. Tamino doesn’t allow my comments. Nor does Gavin.
No doubt the climate began a major change in 1975.
“The Cooling World” ~Newsweek, April 28, 1975
This was the end of a 30 year cooling period of 0.5 degrees. England had lost 2 weeks of growing season. Biggest tornado outbreak evah. Sudden increased snow cover in North America. 1.3% less sunshine hitting the ground. One sixth of the way to ice age temperatures. Calls for stockpiling food. Discusses covering arctic ice cap with black soot to stop the temperature plunge.
Yeah, thank God the climate started changing in 1975, eh? If it weren’t for global warming we’d all be starving but instead the global population increased by billions. Average lifespans increased. World agricultural reliably grows more than enough food to feed the much larger population as well as or better than in 1975. We even have enough excess capacity to divert billions of tons of corn, sugar cane, and beets into fuel alcohol production.
Cooling is bad. Been there, done that. Warming is good. Been there, done that too.
Life’s a bowl of cherries unless you show up late to the table, then it’s pits. It is humorous to see who doesn’t get satire. Good one Steve G.
“The Cooling World” ~Newsweek, April 28, 1975
Forgot a link to the article text if anyone wants to read it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993807/posts
What kind of cherries do you pick?
BINGo cherries.
R. Gates
If you choose the longest data set (as you recommend) the global trend is 0.65C/century. So why does Hansen quote 0.17-0.20?
You have to feel a little sorry for the warmists like Tamino and his critical thinking deficient worshipers. They know the forth coming La Niña will create an entire new crop of cherries for the skeptics. The previous crop of El Niño ripened cherries was a godsend for them and they have been harvesting them in bountiful quantities. Alas, that crop has been exhausted and they can see the writing on the wall.
The 1975 date is such a joke that I can’t even fathom someone choosing it with a straight face. And, anyone that accepts that kind of nonsense is just admitting they are complete and utter [self-snip]s.
Of course you will get warming starting in 1975. That is the start of the upswing in temperatures on the AMO cycle. Duh!
paulw: August 27, 2010 at 4:53 am
It should be http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/mister-cherry/ where Steve debates with Tamino in detail.
Thanks, paulw — I got a real chuckle from Didactylos | August 13, 2010 at 5:05 pm:
Goddard warbled: “Anyway, if Mann’s hockey stick was accurate, it wouldn’t make any difference what start date I chose.”
That’s the most braindead thing I’ve read all day. Since Mann’s temperature reconstruction is well supported, we can stipulate the main conclusion is true: modern temperatures are very anomalous compared to historical temperatures.
And that was only four days before http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/17/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/ popped up. I wonder if he’s turned cherry-red with embarrassment yet…
1970 to 1975 is the date they are using for the beginning of global warming because that is the timeline of when GHG forcing started to overtake the cooling of Aerosols forcing. It is also the time when we started to get serious about cleaning-up the air and sulfate emissions.
It is a certain explanation among others that could be used. It also infers that 1850 to 1970 was a “cool climate period”, cooler than it would have been normally because Aerosols were dragging us down and there were some volcanoes. It also requires some “new negative forcing” that we haven’t identified yet for the recent decade of flat temperatures because the Aerosols are going down and there is no volcanic effects and the oceans are not taking up the heat content that would be expected in this scenario. It also requires some actual Aerosol estimates over time rather than a fitting the Aerosol guesstimates to match the temperature cycles (and not matching those cycles very well in doing so). It also provides no explanation for the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period hence the need to suppress these events.
Explanations should work better than this in my mind and cherry-picking often leads one to a poor explanation. I always go back as far as possible.
Scott says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:10 am
Both sides cherry pick in pretty much every debate. Nothing to see here, move along.
You are missing the point.
It is the Warmists who need to do the cherry picking to “prove” their Alarmist conjecture. Without that, we are left with the null hypothesis, which is that what we’re seeing is simply the result of a natural warmup from the LIA, and 30-year alternating cycles overlaid. Skeptics/Climate Realists don’t need to cherry pick. All we need to do is point out their cherry-picking to show that their Alarmist conjecture is flawed. With regard to CAGW/CC, you are right, there really is “nothing to see”, though in addition to being experts at cherry picking, they are also very handy with their smoke and mirror act.
R. Gates: August 27, 2010 at 6:40 am
In the end, you’ll have a large bushel of cherries of a nice average variety, that will indicate the general nature of cherries. Then, while the rest of us are arguing about our cherries, once in a while science is blessed with a Newton or an Einstein who messes up the whole routine and says, “oh, by the way guys, there’s is an orange grove over here.”
It’s a real blessing if we want to have marmalade on our toast as a change of pace from cherry preserves.
Picky, picky, picky…
RW says:
August 27, 2010 at 1:07 am
“Wow. It’s hard to believe you can’t really understand the logic behind identifying 1975 as a point at which the climate regime shifted. You don’t even need logic to see that there is an obvious change in global temperature trends. Tamino has demonstrated mathematically that there was a change in global temperature trends in 1975.”
Yeah…the mean temperature in Alaska rose 5 degrees in a single year. Doesn’t correlate very nicely with a slow monotonous rise due to CO2. It does make for nice ‘the arctic is on fire’ graphs though. Funny how all the warming in Alaska occurred in a single year.
I declare 1979 to be the year God created the Arctic Ocean.
Cherry picking aside, whether sweet or sour, since we can walk faster than the growing ice advances us into the next glacial, I suggest we begin planning how to stop it. Even a Little Ice Age is too much for me. Perhaps technology will offer us an answer; readers of this blog are knowledgeable — lasers, clean nukes, even old fashioned dynamite? Tow the chunks/bergs to the tropics while we give up some land to tall ice — Siberia, No Canada, e.g. Woops, perhaps the plates will tip over. More imagination please. Why dont the warmists get over themselves and get to work on the real problem. And if co2 gives us even a little warming, then we better begin releasing a lot more (fossil fuels, anyone?) as the oceans stop outgassing.
In the same vein, Eureka, California, will be in an Ice Age soon. Very soon!
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/eureka-ca-headed-for-ice-age-in-67.html
And of course, 1975 and the years immediately following had cold winters. This led to what I refer to as the Abilene Effect.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-warming-from-co2.html
It’s quite scary, really. If things continue at their current rate, we shall all be dead by the year 2200 – every one of us.
“Stu says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:38 am”
Thanks. But it was links to “record cold” in Melbourne, rather than lots of snow in the hills I was after. I don’t expect to ever find one on record cold in Melbourne in the Aussie MSM.
While global aerosols have declined since the 1970’s the total amount over this period is only ~18 percent of just one volcanic eruption increase from Pinatubo in 1991. The change in aerosols over the period is small and long lasting, yet the global temperature increases short and sudden. The decline over the past decade with no temperature change also highlights how small this change indeed is. Therefore not mainly down to aerosols, but natural changes mentioned previously.
For example
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/171624main_aerosol_dim_2sm.jpg
18 percent of temperature change from this volcanoe over the past 5 decades is just too small to explain the non-warming period earlier and now. Therefore the PDO switch during the time explains most of the temperature changes.
The US and portions of Europe cleaned up the air in their cities in the 1970s, but certainly not Asia.
What explains the similar warming from 1910-1940?
Steven G. here is a recipe site for chokecherries- grew up on that jam. My high plains bred mother and my native American granma had many recipes. Chokecherries are very sour and edible only after cooking. Cooking is the operative word for Tamino’s
work here…
http://www.kiowacd.org/Tips_Links/chokecherry_recipes.htm
“If the trend continues, the earth will reach absolute zero in about 15 years.”
AHHHH! Better get those coal fired power plants running a full capacity! All new cars shoud weight a minimum of 5000 lbs and be powered by 6.6 litre eight cyl engines with straight exhause, none of those silly cats. Looking foward to the newly remodled retro Chevy Impala based on the 1973 version or maybe a late 60s Olds 88.
Dave Springer says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:54 am Newsweek
http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Why Pick 1975?
That’s easy. It’s called change point analysis. Standard approach..
Why we’ve discussed it before here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/13/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part-2/
And long ago at CA.
The date isnt “cherry” picked. The data pops out, ONCE you pick your method and parameters.
What is ‘normal’ for the Holocene?
Surely that is what we should be interested in? So average the temperatures (if you must use temperature ) from the first stable temperatures after the climb from the last ice age until now.
Anything else _is_ cherry picking.
Steven Mosher,
Had you not pointed it out, I never would have noticed that there was a change point in 1975. And 1940. And 1910. And 1900.
As you said, we have discussed this before on WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/22/picking-carbonated-cherries-in-1975/
John Hayte says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:18 am
Tamino makes a compelling case for establishing 1975 as a baseline…
RW says:
August 27, 2010 at 1:07 am
Wow. It’s hard to believe you can’t really understand the logic behind identifying 1975 as a point at which the climate regime shifted…
are these guys really serious??
tamino is a ridiculous charlatan, just like hansen and mann
I predicted that the 2008 La Nina meant the resumption of ENSO oscillations that were interrupted by the 1998 super El Nino and its aftermath, the twenty-first century high. Sure enough, the 2010 El Nino followed and the next La Nina is now clearly on the way. We should expect these cycles to continue as they have ever since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea. This is the normal way our climate works, with El Ninos alternating with La Ninas in a repeating cycle that takes about four-five years to complete. The interruption caused by the super El Nino was a once-a-century affair and its nearest precedent was probably in 1877. Our super El Nino did not belong to the ENSO system and was probably caused by a storm surge that deposited warm water at the beginning of the equatorial countercurrent near New Guinea. All El Ninos come to us when the equatorial countercurrent deposits warm water on South American shores near the equator. The timing is determined by wave resonance in a giant bowl of water we call the Pacific Ocean.
R Gates said
“This thread, plus the one on the supposed odd nutrino-radioactive decay effect, indicate exactly why it is essential and desirable to pick the whatever is the longest (and most reliable) data set available, no matter what, if you’re really interested in gaining some true understanding, as opposed to making a case for “your side”.
Glad we agree on the criteria. Here are 12 of the oldest and most reliable temperature datasets in the world. Clearly temperatures have been rising throughout instrumental records-since 1660
http://i47.tinypic.com/2zgt4ly.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/125rs3m.jpg
Lots more very old datasets can be found at my site here;
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
I suggest you read Fred Haynies excellent presentation
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.
“The wave lengths range from around 20 years to around 100,000 years. A plot of these combined cycles show the Roman warm period, MWP, and LIA and that our present long term warming started with the LIA and not the exponentially increased burning of fossil fuels. Tamino doesn’t allow my comments. Nor does Gavin.”
Well R Gates, glad we are all in agreement at last.
Tonyb
My cherry pick for 2010 is that it will probably be remembered by sceptics as the year with the one of the greatest declines in global temperature over the 12 month period from Jan 1 to Dec 31.
However, warmists will remember 2010 as being the ‘hottest year on record’ and conveniently forget what happened in the second six months of the year. Warmists will also downplay the impact of El Nino earlier this year, which resulted in an unusual temperature spike of ~0.5 degrees C.
To a warmist, an El Nino temperature spike is normal climate, while a La Nina temperature trough is definitely abnormal and must be ignored.
Undoubtedly, warmists will also overlook the fact that this year’s temperature spike produced a maximum temperature of about 0.1 degrees C less than the big El Nino of 1998.
Is it just me, or when you read Tamino’s acerbic comments on his blog do you see the tall, skinny one in ‘The Big Bang’? Socially dysfunctional, rude, arrogant, never-had-a-friend, instantly-dislikeable. The man in The Big Bang, of course, not Tamino, oh no.
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:07 am
R. Gates
If you choose the longest data set (as you recommend) the global trend is 0.65C/century. So why does Hansen quote 0.17-0.20?
_____
If that is indeed what he quotes, then you’d have to ask him. Personally, the longest data set (that is accurate) is all I care about in understanding climate, and I’d be looking for AGW to accelerate and not stay linear (if some GCM’s are right). Unfortunately, most of us will be old men and women before we know if that is happening…
thought though.
I pick 1977 as the start of the “modern global warming era,” which by the way did not happen. We are told that there was this “late twentieth century warming” in the eighties and nineties which is totally faked. Satellite data show that temperature oscillated, up and down by half a degree, as El Nino was followed by a La Nina five times in twenty years. Real warming did not start until 1998 when a super El Nino arrived. But how is it possible for NASA, the Met Office, and NOAA to show that warming? As I told you, during this period warm El Ninos alternated with cool La Ninas. They left the El Ninos in place and lifted up the bottoms of La Nina valleys in between. This way a horizontal temperature curve became a rising temperature curve and was presented to the world as proof that global warming had started. That was how NASA and the Met Office did it. NOAA was even more outrageous, just jettisoned the La Nina valleys in between the El Nino peaks and simply stayed with the peaks. This kind of temperature manipulation is called scientific fraud. But right in the middle of this period, in 1988, Hansen gets up and testifies to the Senate that global warming has started and that carbon dioxide is the cause. He had over ten television cameras trained on him and that night the whole world knew about anthropogenic global warming.
What happened?
Then we will call Tamino… Mr. Pitt.
Mr. Mosher – I regard it as brilliant that you had prepared the outline and documentation so that when climategate hit you were able to hit the ground running and be first to press with a book on a hot topic.
Anthony has shrewdly seized the Dick Clark position, now, with WUWT = American Bandstand, featuring all the acts – he’s got a good gig that will stay fresh for a long time.
Steve Goddard has a hit series with his Ice Report and frequent satirical sketches.
It seems you’ve chosen the Chubby Checker position- and it’s a fact of life on the celebrity circuit that people don’t wish to ‘Twist Like We Did Last Summer’.
Please turn your talents to something with a future or retire gracefully. It’s fine with me to remember you for an awesome one-hit wonder.
Just sane…
Stevengoddard
What caused the warming from 1910 to 1940?
Despite an increase in aerosols mainly the change in oceans, with solar influencing the amplification. PDO, AMO, AO and NAO become positive like recent decades now and evidence of the jet stream also moving further North during this period. (based on weather observations)
Since the PDO has become recently negative over the past few years the jet stream has also suddenly moved back south again closer to the equator. This behavour is known to increase severe weather events because cooler air is pushed further south and can interact more often with warmer air from the sub-tropics.
Steven Mosher
Not cherry picking? Oh good I’m not cherry picking here either and will show you that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures.
The date ‘1940’ isnt “cherry” picked. The data pops out, ONCE you pick your method and parameters. CO2 increases throughout this period, but only shown since around 1957 on this example.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/normalise/to:1975/offset:0.139/plot/gistemp/from:1940/normalise/to:1975/offset:0.171/plot/esrl-co2/to:1975/normalise
Arno Arrak says:
August 27, 2010 at 11:21 am
Despite the complete lack of evidence for everything you said–I could not agree with you more. Let’s throw the book at all of those fraudsters. However, you forgot to explain how Dr Spencer shot up into outer space (while we we were all sleeping one night) and manipulated his sattelite to show the warming that has occurred in his sattelite data since 1979. What a scam. I am outraged.
MJK
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 9:07 am
What explains the similar warming from 1910-1940?
________________________________________________
Ignore that time frame please.
It’s before 1975, therefore it doesn’t exist and it never happened.
… so many cherries, so little time
harrywr2:
“Yeah…the mean temperature in Alaska rose 5 degrees in a single year. Doesn’t correlate very nicely with a slow monotonous rise due to CO2”
Firstly, who ever said anything about Alaska? And second, who ever expected that climate response would be linear anyway?
Bill Illis says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:17 am
1970 to 1975 is the date they are using for the beginning of global warming because that is the timeline of when GHG forcing started to overtake the cooling of Aerosols forcing. It is also the time when we started to get serious about cleaning-up the air and sulfate emissions.
I wish the 1940-1975 aerosol cooling hypothesis was challenged more robustly. I think it’s nonsense. What’s more I suspect even some of the ‘warmers’ think so too.
Mann & Jones, in a paper published in ~2003, describe the effect of aerosols as “regionally specific”. There is goord reason for this. Most industrial (not volcanic) aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere within a few weeks. Therefore, if aerosols were responsible for mid 20th century cooling (or non warming) there should be a clear pattern of cooling which should be concentrated in the industrialised regions. In the 1945-75 period, this was the NH mid-latitude regions. However the region that experienced the greatest cooling (by far) was the arctic. The GISS zonal temperature record shows the arctic (64N-90N) cooled 4 times more than any other latitude band between 1945 and 1975.
Of course, some aerosols will make their way up to the arctic but what would be the effect?
According to a number of studies the effect of aerosols in the arctic is warming – not cooling. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_haze which includes the following
There are other reasons why the aerosol hypothesis is probably flawed. Not least is the fact that the aerosols would need to – not only suppress warming – but actually reverse an existing warming trend. What evidence is there for the huge impulse of aerosols that would be needed for this to happen – not just in one year but in each subsequent year. Aerosols are not like CO2, i.e. they do not accumulate. They need to be replaced to maintain the forcing.
Add to this Dr. Svalgaard’s recent estimates of sunspot numbers (and past solar activity) and it’s clear that the pattern of 20th century climate cannot be explained.
If this (below) isn’t a definition of “cherry picking” in action, then I don’t know what cherry picking means:
From Tamino
“[Response: Something did happen in 1975. The slope of the global temperature trend changed. That’s just a fact, and comes from proper statistical analysis of the data. And that’s an “objective reason” to choose 1975.”
Am I missing something?
John Finn says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Bill Illis says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:17 am
I wish the 1940-1975 aerosol cooling hypothesis was challenged more robustly. I think it’s nonsense. What’s more I suspect even some of the ‘warmers’ think so too.
———————————————————————————-
Wasn’t that done by the Kuwaiti oil fires that made Carl Sagan stfu and find his secret place, lately occupied by Al Gore?
RW asks “who ever expected that climate response would be linear anyway?”
James Hansen for one.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
“”” Shub Niggurath says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:53 am
“Tamino”‘s graph has a 300,000 year running average?
I put “Tamino” name in double quotes, because to my ears, it sounds like a girl name, but I am told “Tamino” is a guy.
If you google the term, it comes pre-packaged with words like ‘debunk’, ‘call out’, and the like. “””
Why would you google it; everybody knows that Tamino is the big hero of Mozart’s “Magic Flute” Whenever you get your rear end in the ringer; you just whistle on your Magic Flute; and the fairies come along to rescue you; well maybe it was the Queen of the Night or Osiris; all pure phantasy of course. And his side kick of course was Papageno; who as I recall, was all tarred and feathered; wonder who that could be; maybe Hansen or Phil Jones ?
The aerosol theory comes in the same category as the Ozone Hole cooling Antarctica theory. i.e. : “We don’t have any clue and we can’t blame it on CO2, so let’s blame it on some other evil human activity.”
SteveGoddard:
Your evidence that climate scientists predicted a linear increase in temps is Hansen et al from 1988 where year to year variability is explicitly built into all the models? Care to try again?
Robert Murphy
I always assume that people will actually read the link before commenting. I will try again. Please look at
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Figure 3
Looks pretty darn linear.
And looks nothing like the 1977 PDO shift, which is the topic this particular discussion.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/graphics/temp_dep_49-08_F_sm.jpg
i was always baffled why someone chose “tamino” for an alarmist enviro blog, as the mozart opera was the only use of the name i with which i am familiar.
as a tenor, i now cannot sing “dies bildnis” without *cringe* thinking of our tamino!
Ya know, when I first looked at that second chart I thought to myself, “Hey, wouldn’t it be interesting if the trend line were plotted against integer values instead of tenths on one axis and tens on the other?”
But I’m willing to have my mind changed and having given myself time to reflect before commenting I freely admit I’ve reconsidered my position. After all, that would only result in a really long and nearly flat line; and what’s so exciting about that?
Peter says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:26 am
It’s quite scary, really. If things continue at their current rate, we shall all be dead by the year 2200 – every one of us.
I won’t – you don’t see people like me in the obituaries.
I lived in Glasgow for a while and got to know a music teacher there who had loads of good musical stories – one follows. Glasgow is well known for its “excellent” pub singers. One guy went up to the resident band in one of the pubs one night and told the band leader that he wanted to sing a song.
“OK – what do you want to sing?”
“I want to sing ‘Life is a Bowl of Cherries.”
“OK – what key do you want?”
“Och – anything somewhere around G will do – but I want it in 5/4 time, not 4/4.”
“5/4? Are you sure?”
“Aye! Of course I’m sure! LIfe is a Bowl of Cherries. In 5/4.”
OK said the band and they started up ‘Life is a Bowl of Cherries’. In 5/4 time. At the appropriate bar after the intro in comes our intrepid Glaswegian singer:
“Life is a bowl of effing cherries…”
Bill Illis says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:17 am
1970 to 1975 is the date they are using for the beginning of global warming because that is the timeline of when GHG forcing started to overtake the cooling of Aerosols forcing. It is also the time when we started to get serious about cleaning-up the air and sulfate emissions.
No it wasn’t – that was in the 80’s. If the 70’s had been the era of the clean-up, we would not have had the acid rain scare.
Ray says:
August 27, 2010 at 11:38 am
Then we will call Tamino… Mr. Pitt.
He could be the brother of Bradley Pitt – Cessley…
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:57 pm
RW asks “who ever expected that climate response would be linear anyway?”
_____
I tend to think the case can be made that IF AGW is happening, it will definitely not be linear, but again, we won’t know for a few more decades. The next few years are a very interesting time, as the skeptics of a certain brand believe we’re due for a period of cooling from both the shift back to a cool phase in the PDO, plus the current La Nina etc. But suppose we see another record warm year in 2012, 2013, or 2014? What then…a “cooling spiral”?
“I always assume that people will actually read the link before commenting. I will try again.”
I did read it. Hansen predicted that there would be year to year variability (random volcanoes and the like), which is pretty explicit in the paper. Figure 3 in Hansen ’88 clearly shows year to year variability, with pronounced dips and rises. Neither he nor anybody else ever predicted a steady regular increase in air temps from one year to the next. That’s why trying to disprove AGW with a very small sample size is so much nonsense.
Jimmy Haigh
I remember getting off the train in Glasgow as a child. We took our Vauxhall to a petrol station in Stirling and asked directions. No one understood a word the attendant said. We smiled and drove off.
As far as I can see the reasoning for the 1975 date is this:
– How do we know that global warming overtook aerosal cooling in 1975? Because that is when temperatures started to rise.
– How do we know 1975 is the right start date? Because that’s when global warming overtook aerosol cooling.
It’s all perfectly circular.
Pull My Finger says:
August 27, 2010 at 9:37 am
“If the trend continues, the earth will reach absolute zero in about 15 years.”
AHHHH! Better get those coal fired power plants running a full capacity! All new cars shoud weight a minimum of 5000 lbs and be powered by 6.6 litre eight cyl engines with straight exhause, none of those silly cats. Looking foward to the newly remodled retro Chevy Impala based on the 1973 version or maybe a late 60s Olds 88.”
Since when does a catalytic converter do anything for CO2? They reduce nitrous oxides, CO and HCs in the exhaust by converting them to N2 and O2, CO2 and H2O respecively. But, since CO2 is believed by some to be such a big greenhouse gas, and for H2O it is known to be, it’s the warmers who should demand that catalytic converters are removed.
R Gates
We will only see a chance of a record warm global year (2012-2014) if an El Nino is stronger than 1998. (this would be down to ENSO not CO2, have to be shown by majority of data sources not just GIStemp.)
Braddles
I have demonstrated that the 18 percent change in aerosols over 5 decades is far too small. For example just say the eruption in 1991 caused 0.25c cooling. Only 18 percent of this has occured by background changes since 1975. (0.05c) This occured over 5 decades so we down to 0.01c per decade. This change is far too small to explain rises after and cooling before.
Aerosols only have a global responce when reach the stratosphere. This shows that the cooling ended because the PDO changed negative to postive, with sudden responce that aerosols can only get anywhere even remotely close with a major volcanic eruption which penetrates the stratosphere. What you say is not supported and scientific evidence just doesn’t support the aerosol theory. In 1910 global temperatures also increased and the aerosol theory doen’t explain this either.
Sorry made an error (getting late here)
“This occured over 5 decades so we down to 0.01c per decade. This change is far too small to explain rises after and cooling before.”
should read
” This occurred over nearly 4 decades so we are down to 0.01 per decade. This change is far too small to explain rises after and cooling before.”
Robert Murphy
The straw man grows larger.
“The straw man grows larger.”
Then stop using it. RW asked “who ever expected that climate response would be linear anyway?”, in response to an assertion from harrywr2 that “a slow monotonous rise due to CO2” was predicted. You replied directly by linking to Hansen et al from ’88. The model runs from that paper, in particular figure 3, show marked year to year variability. There is no “slow monotonous rise due to CO2” predicted, by Hansen or anybody. That’s the strawman that gets used by people who don’t want to understand what a trend is and why picking too few years can easily allow natural variation to overwhelm the underlying signal.
Robert Murphy
Your argument is completely spurious, but just for fun – here is Hansen’s five year running mean forecast.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uidj3j98uRY]
Bill Illis
August 27, 2010 at 7:17 am
Thank you Professor Illis.
Matt G
evidently you did’t understand my sarcasm, or the concept of circular reasoning.
Just for reference, this is my high-resolution, ten-line-segment approximation of the NOAA NCDC monthly combined land and sea temperature anomaly index. The initial point, interior break-dates and slopes were optimized by the Microsoft Excel Solver utility after an initial rough manual approximation. The Excel Match() and Offset() functions were used to dynamically select and access the applicable table parameters for each date and value listed in the NCDC source data. All segments were required to have lengths of at least one-year. I selected the number of segments after estimating the apparent number of minor and major inflection points in the data.
This approximation appears to match the data quite well with 0.118 deg C RMS average error (primarily data noise) and a 0.46 deg C peak error spike. At this resolution, the temperature rise pause in the last decade is quite apparent.
Data Source:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
Unofficial, Ten-Line-Segment Approximation of the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Monthly Combined Global Land and Ocean Anomaly Index. Segment Global Temperature Segment Decimal Year Dates Anomalies, deg C Slope Number Start End Length Start End deg C / yr 1 1880.042 1893.112 13.070 -0.117 -0.279 -0.01244 2 1893.112 1899.713 6.601 -0.279 -0.134 0.02210 3 1899.713 1908.579 8.866 -0.134 -0.388 -0.02874 4 1908.579 1944.944 36.365 -0.388 0.164 0.01520 5 1944.944 1947.041 2.097 0.164 -0.080 -0.11632 6 1947.041 1961.125 14.084 -0.080 0.033 0.00799 7 1961.125 1974.534 13.409 0.033 0.016 -0.00127 8 1974.534 1994.042 19.508 0.016 0.325 0.01583 9 1994.042 2003.059 9.017 0.325 0.559 0.02598 10 2003.059 2010.542 7.483 0.559 0.567 0.00113Sorry Braddles, did realise shortly after that this could actually be sarcasm.
Steve, judging by the harsh & sophomoric comments that were launched at you via Tamino’s site, I’d say that you were quite effective!! That crowd just cannot tolerate alternative views & analysis, can they?
Er, you think Hansen claimed there would be a linear response? OK… have you heard the phrase “tipping point” used in relation to climate? Do you know who is primarily responsible for popularising this term?
RW
So you acknowledge the monotonic nature of Hansen’s prediction, but have now changed the assault to the shape of the curve.
“If you can’t debate your opponents on substance …. ” LOL
RW,
BTW – it was the originator of this straw man (Robert Murphy) who used the term “linear” – not me.
You guys are a riot. Create a straw man, use imprecise terminology, abandon the straw man, and then blame your poor terminology on me. Brilliant!
CRS, Dr.P.H.
Blasphemers are always judged harshly by the religious.
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:06 pm
CRS, Dr.P.H.
Blasphemers are always judged harshly by the religious.
——
Heh! Amen to that!
Keep up the good work, Steve, you are really having an impact out there.
R Gates
In resp0nse to one of your earlier posts I said;
August 27, 2010 at 11:03 am
R Gates said
“This thread, plus the one on the supposed odd nutrino-radioactive decay effect, indicate exactly why it is essential and desirable to pick the whatever is the longest (and most reliable) data set available, no matter what, if you’re really interested in gaining some true understanding, as opposed to making a case for “your side”.
I responded;
“Glad we agree on the criteria. Here are 12 of the oldest and most reliable temperature datasets in the world. Clearly temperatures have been rising throughout instrumental records-since 1660
http://i47.tinypic.com/2zgt4ly.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/125rs3m.jpg
Lots more very old datasets can be found at my site here;
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
I suggest you read Fred Haynies excellent presentation
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.
“The wave lengths range from around 20 years to around 100,000 years. A plot of these combined cycles show the Roman warm period, MWP, and LIA and that our present long term warming started with the LIA and not the exponentially increased burning of fossil fuels. Tamino doesn’t allow my comments. Nor does Gavin.”
Well R Gates, glad we are all in agreement at last.”
Before this post drops off the edge of the world are we agreed that if we use your criteria of the longest and best quality data possible the world has been warming for at least 350 years?
I personally would put the dramatic climate shift referred to elsewhere as dating from 1698 not 1975. What do you think?
Tonyb
“Your argument is completely spurious, but just for fun – here is Hansen’s five year running mean forecast.”
Are you still going to avoid what was *actually* being disputed by RW- harrywr2’s claim that “a slow monotonous rise due to CO2″ was predicted? A year-by-year increase with no dips. That was the point of contention. That’s why the so-called skeptics like to look at absurdly short time frames like 10 years or less, while cherry picking start dates like 1998. Even within a 30 year period with a known strong positive trend (the last 30 for instance) there will be short periods with little rise and even negative growth. All within the overall rising trend. Because in the short term other forcings will cause variability in surface temps from year to year that can overwhelm the strong positive signal, as has been predicted by climate scientists from the get go. As was predicted by Hansen et al ’88 as the graphs provided clearly prove.
BTW, a 5 year running mean is not a year to year forecast. Year to year *none* of the the model runs were monotonic. And scenario’s B and C in that graph of 5 year means are not showing uninterrupted change. – the 90’s are rather flat (with a slight dip for both), as is the decade 2010-2020 (scenario C shows a dip that decade). It’s not *a slow monotonous rise* even with a slightly smoothed presentation. The slope for scenario A is not linear, as it is curving upward and the warming is accelerating. Looking at the year to year model runs right above that (still figure 3) and their clearly non-monotonic nature is obvious. Even scenario A has peaks and valleys.
Robert Murphy,
There’s only one thing wrong with your argument:
Hansen was wrong in his predictions. Every one of them was wrong.
Robert Murphy
I have never made any statement even vaguely along the lines of Hansen predicted a “a year-by-year increase with no dips.”
Your argument is a very transparent straw man. Why are you pursuing it?
Well my guys out here say it’s going to be a normal ( average ) rainy season.
http://www1.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=1421&cat=1
Tonyb says:
“I personally would put the dramatic climate shift referred to elsewhere as dating from 1698 not 1975. What do you think?”
_____
Eh, there’s the rub. Which data set do you use or choose to trust? But more to the point, let’s suppose that you can look at whatever data set you agree on, or better, perhaps a combination of data set for cross-checking (like getting those different cherries from different orchards using a blindfold), and then let’s say that you can agree that temperatures have risen since from some time to some time (your 1698 to 1975 or even the year 1000 to 2010). Then we need to factor out all the known natural cycles and their combinations such as solar, PDO, ENSO, AMO. Once all those are screened out, you see what is left. Is there still a temperature rise? If there is, then by what mechanism do you explain it, if all the KNOWN natural cycles are factored out. Of course, we “warmists” would say that what is left is the signature of AGW, primarily driven by the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s. But then, here is where I may part way with other “warmists” as I think what is left may be smaller than what other warmists might believe, because some natural cycles are still being fully understood, and perhaps the full role of the sun and longer ocean cycles not fully factored in. Still, I am a “warmist” as I do think it more likely than not that there is some AGW going on, and going into the future, if it is going on, it might be even more pronounced (i.e. accelerate) as there is no natural negative feedback to balance AGW. In this vein, humans will need to continue to use their large brains to understand what we are doing, and become as it were, our own negative feedback by mitigating our impact on the systems of the planet.
StevenGoddard:
“I have never made any statement even vaguely along the lines of Hansen predicted a “a year-by-year increase with no dips.””
You were responding to RW, who was correcting harrywr2′s claim that “a slow monotonous rise due to CO2″ was predicted by climate models. You later said, “So you acknowledge the monotonic nature of Hansen’s prediction…”. Monotonic means that there would be no dips – if you have oscillations by definition it’s not monotonic, yet Hansen’s models show many dips and rises, for all scenarios. NONE of his annual models for different scenarios were monotonic. Do you even pay attention to what you write, “Steve”?
Smokey:
Hansen’s scenario B fits decently within observed temps (certainly within the error bars). Scenario B is easily the closest match to the actual forcings that happened, so A and C are really not relevant anyway.
R Gates
So when you make a statement;
“This thread, plus the one on the supposed odd nutrino-radioactive decay effect, indicate exactly why it is essential and desirable to pick the whatever is the longest (and most reliable) data set available, no matter what, if you’re really interested in gaining some true understanding, as opposed to making a case for “your side”.
And I directly answer it ;
“Glad we agree on the criteria. Here are 12 of the oldest and most reliable temperature datasets in the world. Clearly temperatures have been rising throughout instrumental records-since 1660″
You then seem to suddenly stop believing in the desirability of using the ‘longest and most reliable data sets’ even though they precisely fit your criteria as they are the ones actually used by those writing the rules of AGW.
You then inadvertently give the game away be saying;
” Is there still a temperature rise? If there is, then by what mechanism do you explain it, if all the KNOWN natural cycles are factored out.”
We KNOW very little about the climate as yet, and to believe we do is fooling ourselves, easily done, through the use of theoretical mathematical calculations and numerous computer models all seeking-but failing-to prove we know more than we actually do.
Glad to see you’ve admitted to being a ‘warmist’ as previously your stated 25% scepticism appeared to be missing 🙂
best regards
Tonyb
Robert Murphy
Scenario B isn’t close
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/
Even worse, scenario A corresponds more closely to actual increases in emissions.
Excerpt from: R. Gates on August 28, 2010 at 7:58 am
Local climate systems have been affected by humans. Land use issues, soot on glaciers, UHI effects including the mega-city Tokyo which sheds so much heat it generates its own weather patterns, etc. Whether that all adds up to something “global” is an interesting question.
However, no natural negative feedback to balance AGW? Does this mean if you were shown a natural negative feedback that counteracts global warming, you would complain that it doesn’t handle the “special” anthropogenic form of global warming?
Tonyb says:
We KNOW very little about the climate as yet, and to believe we do is fooling ourselves, easily done, through the use of theoretical mathematical calculations and numerous computer models all seeking-but failing-to prove we know more than we actually do.
Glad to see you’ve admitted to being a ‘warmist’ as previously your stated 25% scepticism appeared to be missing 🙂
best regards
Tonyb
_______
A few items for you Tony:
1) What do you consider to actually be the longest and most reliable climate data set and why?
2) I’ve stated many times the reasons for my (25%) skepticism regarding AGW as well as the reasons I’m mostly (75%) convinced that AGW is happening. I’ve stated very specifically what my expectations are for the next few years regarding my main area of focus in AGW right now, which is the Arctic. I’ve stated why I’ve chosen the Arctic as my area of focus. I’ve stated why the solar cycles and the PDO/AMO remain my key areas of interest for my skepticism to AGW. I’ve never hesitated answering any question put to me here. Why do you doubt that I can be both a warmist and a skeptic?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 28, 2010 at 1:16 pm
However, no natural negative feedback to balance AGW? Does this mean if you were shown a natural negative feedback that counteracts global warming, you would complain that it doesn’t handle the “special” anthropogenic form of global warming?
_____
In fact, there are several natural feedbacks that counter global warming, and they act on completely different time scales. Cloud cover, for example, acts immediately to reduce solar insolation, and thereby modulates the temperatures, especially in the tropical areas. On the other end of the scale, an accelerated hyrdological cycle, which occurs when CO2 builds up in the atmosphere and the atmosphere is warm, works to wear down rocks that in turn take the CO2 out of the atmosphere, which in turn cools the atmosphere. Problem with this feedback is that it works over MILLIONS of years.
We also of course know that the oceans absorb much of CO2 and heat that has been anthropogenic in origin. Problem is, the heat seak may be reaching saturation, as the relatively rapid rise in CO2 since the 1700’s may be overwhelming the ability of the natural feedback mechanisms to cope. Human activity (from the persepctive of the longer geological cycle) represent nothing less than a slow but steady CO2 spewing volcano over the past few centuries. Volcanoes tend to overwhelm the natural ability of the ecosystems to cope, and as the human volcano continues to spew out CO2, this eruption seems far from over.
The 25/75 has taken us OT but not off target (I suggest all responders refuse to use his “handle” in future comments (we’ll know about whom were commenting)). The increase of more than 100ppmv Co2 from whenever you want to say it began increasing *should* have *caused* a 6C to 8C increase in global average temperatures. It obviously has not. Only disputed manipulations of the record indicate a current rise of approximately 0.7C in same. The 1930’s have been poorly defended to date, but i think that may be about to change. You stand in warmist quicksand fighting both the sun and the oceans. I hope that shield of CO2 you’re weilding has some substance to it!
Good luck,
Ralph Dwyer
Damn! That should have been “wielding”.
Re: R. Gates on August 28, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Strange, I would have thought an accelerated hydrological cycle, or should it be said one working at an increased rate, would occur with a warmer globe, period. Apparently the water molecules need to sense increased CO2 concentrations before they agree to comply with the physical laws regarding evaporation and condensation.
Yes, the weathering of rocks can take a long time. However that does not apply, and not just due to the time frame. You have (again) implied an increased CO2 -> warming link, when global warming was specified which can come from many different sources.
Following that link, you have compared anthropogenic CO2 emissions to “…a slow but steady CO2 spewing volcano over the past few centuries.” You also stated “Volcanoes tend to overwhelm the natural ability of the ecosystems to cope…” Yet warmist-approved literature states that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are vastly greater than the volcanic emissions, 130 times greater going by the highest estimate of volcanic CO2 emissions. Thus shouldn’t those anthropogenic CO2 emissions have overwhelmed those ecosystems some time ago?
Now we look at the oceans, which contain around 50 times the carbon by mass as the atmosphere. Water tends to readily absorb CO2. Which leads us to see the talk about rocks weathering was meaningless to begin with, as now we are dealing with CO2 in an aqueous solution which will quickly react with the CO2-buffering compounds in the water which are readily acquired from the many oceanic deposits of said compounds. Now you did mention about your worry that the “heat seak” (sink?) may be reaching saturation, which is meaningless as the oceans can continue to absorb heat and anyway the Ocean Heat Content has been dropping lately. Which leads us back to your link as by your wording the issue you worry about is the ability of the oceans to absorb the excessive anthropogenic CO2 emissions may be reaching saturation.
As has been discussed here before, many times, the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, thus it will take a lot more CO2 before we see great temperature increases. The ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 has also been discussed, and it is immense. Thus your “worry” boils down to the geologically-instantaneous CO2 increases, as in the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are generated so rapidly they will exceed the rate at which the oceans can absorb them, which will lead to ecosystem destabilization, as in something catastrophic will happen.
I talked about natural negative feedbacks to global warming, I got a bunch of stuff intimately tied to your increased CO2 -> warming link. It is automatic among (C)AGW proponents that the CO2 increases are anthropogenic. Thus when all is said and done, you have said there is something “special” about anthropogenic global warming that sets it apart from “normal” global warming, namely it being due to the increased CO2 -> warming link when the speed of the CO2 increases is considered.
Gee bud, you should have just cut to the chase and saved some electrons. Think of the children!
As to natural negative feedbacks that counter global warming, as I had originally mentioned, you did bring up cloud cover, saying it “…acts immediately to reduce solar insolation…” Thus it is a natural negative feedback which counters global warming, that does work within the time frame of the anthropogenic global warming as attributed to anthropogenic CO2 increases, which reasonable people would conclude should also work against the “special” anthropogenic global warming as well.
Thus, reasonable people would conclude, you yourself have stated the existence of a “natural negative feedback to balance AGW.” Of course, there shall be the quibbling that it alone is not enough to really “balance” AGW, other natural negative feedbacks are required. For which you have stated there are many natural negative feedbacks that counter global warming, the question being if they act against the “special” anthropogenic global warming as well.
Offhand, I think you need to make a stronger case as to what really makes anthropogenic global warming so different.
R. Gates: August 28, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Problem is, the heat seak may be reaching saturation, as the relatively rapid rise in CO2 since the 1700′s may be overwhelming the ability of the natural feedback mechanisms to cope.
Got any empirical evidence to show that *anything* has happened which permanently overwhelmed the Earth’s natural feedback mechanisms?
Human activity (from the persepctive of the longer geological cycle) represent nothing less than a slow but steady CO2 spewing volcano over the past few centuries.
In comparison with natural sources of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, it’s more like a seeping garden hose dripping into Lake Huron.
Volcanoes tend to overwhelm the natural ability of the ecosystems to cope…
Then why are we still here? You speak of ecosystems as if they were static, rather than dynamic.
R Gates
I think you missed the smiley in my comments.
As for the best, longest and most reliable data sets there are many although we do have a tendancy to adjust the past so everything needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and correlated if possible with complementary data.
I think temp data sets are pretty good until we get to a modern era where we can’t seem to leave them alone.
Tonyb
RE: Main Article: “For instance, he considers 1975 to be the start of ‘the modern global warming era.’ “
It is still far too early to call, but the temperature rise halt in 2003 may signal the beginning of a modern cooling period.