Open Letter to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

Dear WMO:

Thanks for furnishing the lovely graph of global temperature anomalies in your WMO Statement on Status of the Global Climate in 2012. I’ve reproduced it here.

WMO Figure 4

The caption for it reads:

Figure 4. January–December global land and ocean surface temperature anomalies (relative to 1961–1990) for the period 1950–2012; years that started with a moderate or strong La Niña already in place are shown in blue, years that started with a moderate or strong El Niño already in place are shown in red; other years are shown in grey.

If you’re not aware, persons see the following three periods in that graph.

WMO Figure 4 Modified

Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.

The graph that you’ve provided as part of your press release is worse. The funky blue shading at the bottom of the 2012 bar will make persons wonder what you’re trying to show with it. One thing is for sure: it draws the eye down. Odd that you should do that when you’re struggling to show global warming.

Press Release Graph

A question: The WMO recommends that the base years used for anomalies be updated every 10 years. Many organizations, such as NOAA, comply with that recommendation. They now use 1981 to 2010 as the base years for anomalies for many of their datasets. Is there any reason you continue to use 1961-1990, other than to make the temperature anomaly map look warmer? Also, the non-linear color-coded scaling of the contour intervals is very awkward.

WMO Figure 1

Last, earlier this year I prepared an illustrated essay that discusses global warming. It’s titled “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge”. The preview is here [4MB] and the full essay is here [42MB]. It’s easy to read and understand. I thought you might be interested in a copy.

Sincerely,

Bob Tisdale

About these ads

125 thoughts on “Open Letter to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

  1. “Is there any reason you continue to use 1961-1990, other than to make the temperature anomaly map look warmer?”
    _____________________________________________
    Great question!

  2. And then there’s this…

    “If this alarming trend continues, the planet will be completely covered with Antarctic ice in 1,000 years…”

    The WMO gets a lot of mileage out of their scary zero baseline graphs. But those of us who know what they’re doing understand that there has been no acceleration in global warming since the Dalton Minimum.

    NO acceleration in global warming. In fact, global warming has stopped for a decade and a half. But CO2 has risen by 40%.

    What is wrong with this picture?

  3. Always been a fan of your work. Should have said so sooner…. still been away from the blogosphere for a while…. nice to be back….way to go bob….

  4. I don’t see it the way you assume everyone will. I can see steady warming from 1965 to 2005 and only outside that something that can be called “no warming”.
    But that’s no science. There’s enough noise in the graph to allow a whole lot of different interpretations.

  5. Open letter? Why? Seriously, some minor issues and then you want them to pay attention to a presentation of yours. I wonder how many presentations the WMO gets every day unsolicited.

    So revealing:

    “Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. ”

    With other words, Nuccitelli is half right with the escalator graph!

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    “And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”

    So, you are not open to any other interpretation than the one that suits your preconceptions upon the first viewing of a graph… *cough* skeptic *cough*

    “The funky blue shading at the bottom of the 2012 bar will make persons wonder what you’re trying to show with it. One thing is for sure: it draws the eye down.”

    Oh no! Some funky stuff drawing my attention down so I am almost not able to get a grasp of the whole graph!

    “The WMO recommends that the base years used for anomalies be updated every 10 years. Many organizations, such as NOAA, comply with that recommendation. They now use 1981 to 2010 as the base years for anomalies for many of their datasets. Is there any reason you continue to use 1961-1990, other than to make the temperature anomaly map look warmer?”

    You seem to have figured it out even though they were concealing the truth from you! No, seriously, one may question why they don’t abide by their own recommendations, but if they changed it accordingly the past would start to look colder… Anyway it is clear enough what the baseline is.

    But is this worth an open letter? Do you think they will read your presentations and then see in what erroneous thinking they have been engaged in?

  6. “There’s enough noise in the graph to allow a whole lot of different interpretations.”

    So how come only one interpretation is the politically correct one? Where is the diversity of opinion that all this messy data implies should exist? What is warping the proper role of the scientific method in this situation?

  7. Kasuha:

    At May 3, 2013 at 1:44 pm you say

    I don’t see it the way you assume everyone will. I can see steady warming from 1965 to 2005 and only outside that something that can be called “no warming”.

    OK. I understand that and what it indicates.
    If you cannot afford the new spectacles you require then there are some good charities willing to help.

    Richard

  8. Reich.Eschhaus said:
    May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm
    But is this worth an open letter? Do you think they will read your presentations and then see in what erroneous thinking they have been engaged in?
    ————————————-
    So much better to do nothing.

  9. They suffer form this mental illness . .

    How to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance
    There are three key strategies to reduce or minimize cognitive dissonance:
    Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.
    Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.
    Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.
    Why is Cognitive Dissonance Important?
    Cognitive dissonance plays a role in many value judgments, decisions and evaluations. Becoming aware of how conflicting beliefs impact the decision-making process is a great way to improve your ability to make faster and more accurate choices.

  10. RE: Reich.Eschhaus says:
    May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm
    “And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”

    So, you are not open to any other interpretation than the one that suits your preconceptions upon the first viewing of a graph… *cough* skeptic *cough*

    Perhaps you should go see a Doctor for that cough, it sounds bad (perhaps Dr Mann)
    And while your at it perhaps you could enighten us as to why YOUR preconceptions only allow for what you view as the one true explanation *cough*warmist*cough*

  11. Reich.Eschhaus:

    At May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm you say to Bob Tisdale

    Open letter? Why? Seriously, some minor issues and then you want them to pay attention to a presentation of yours.

    Tisdale did not say he wanted anybody “to pay attention to a presentation” he provided. He offered the WMO the opportunity to gain another interpretation of the data which – their being scientists – they would be eager to evaluate.

    Of more interest is
    Another long comment from Reich.Eschhaus? Why? Seriously, nobody reads past the first sentence of any of them.

    Richard

  12. @Mark and two Cats

    “So much better to do nothing.”

    Is it a question of doing something useless or not doing anything at all? What about doing something that might have an effect? I think this open letter is useless. I think Bob should write his ideas down in an article and submit it to some meteorological or climate publication. That way he maybe could get some traction.

  13. Respect you Bob along with the work you do, but the snarky attitude is not helpful. Imo it reflects poorly on the writer. It almost always does. Why not just state your case and leave the attitude out of it. I think the letter would be more effective…

  14. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    “I think this open letter is useless.”

    Reich is a real complainer, isn’t he?

  15. Reich.Eschhaus said: “Do you think they will read your presentations and then see in what erroneous thinking they have been engaged in?”

    Glad to see you’re out trolling again, Reich.Eschhaus. To answer your question, actually yes.

    My tiny little website…

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/

    …is visited daily by researchers around the globe. A website with an audience as great as WUWT must be visited by many more researchers.

    Example: I noted the error in NOAA’s recent State of the Climate report, about their definition of La Nina years:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/noaas-definition-and-data-contradict-their-claim-that-2012-was-the-warmest-la-nina-year/

    I had a least two visitors from NOAA hosts at my blog that day. That post was also cross posted here at WUWT. A few weeks later, NOAA corrected their mistake:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/noaa-corrects-their-2012-state-of-the-climate-report-2012-was-not-the-warmest-la-nina-year-on-record/

    I’ll let others attend to the rest of your nonsense. Based on my past experience with you, Reich.Eschhaus, you simply repeat your same argument over and over again, no matter how many times or ways I offer evidence to the contrary. I have no want or need to deal with a troll.

    Have a nice day.

  16. @Bryan A

    Lame…

    “Perhaps you should go see a Doctor for that cough, it sounds bad (perhaps Dr Mann)
    And while your at it perhaps you could enighten us as to why YOUR preconceptions only allow for what you view as the one true explanation *cough*warmist*cough*”

    It was Bob I was quoting. He said ‘no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report’. I remarked that that didn’t sound quite right on a website that prides itself on being skeptical. Do you have anything to say about that?

    Do you think that turning an argument around to my preconceptions (of which you have no idea) without a quote of me saying “I don’t care what you say I am not hearing it” is making a valid point?

  17. What I see in that first graph is two step-changes, one around 1977 and one around 1997.

    If I went to my skeptical about skeptics place, the argument could be made we’re due for another step-change up.

    It looks to me that pretty similar arguments being made today by skeptics could have been made around 1996 about the “pause” in warming going back to around 1982.

    We’ll see. I would, of course, much prefer that the next step-change is somewhat down (partially or wholly reversing the 1997 step-change up), or that at least we keep bumping along this current more-or-less plateau for an extended period.

  18. pokerguy says: “Respect you Bob along with the work you do, but the snarky attitude is not helpful.”

    Thanks for the preliminary kind words, pokerguy. I went back a read what I wrote and I don’t see it as snarky. I will say that it’s not written as I would write a professional letter. It’s more down to Earth. I pointed out my observations and I don’t think I was being overly critical. But that’s how I view it.

    Thanks again.

  19. @richardscourtney

    Another comment from Richard! Not that long this time but directed at me!

    “Of more interest is
    Another long comment from Reich.Eschhaus? Why? Seriously, nobody reads past the first sentence of any of them.”

    I am sure you haven’t! Displaying that deep skeptical streak of you again…

  20. Reich.Eschhaus:

    Thankyou for your post to me at May 3, 2013 at 3:04 pm.

    Unfortunately, it contained as much useful information as all your other posts; i.e. none.

    Perhaps you would consider thinking before making posts?
    It would save everybody the trouble of scrolling past them.

    Richard

  21. Reich.Eschhaus: You ended your reply to Bryan A with two words: “valid point”. Yet you’re wasting your own time on this thread belaboring your differing opinion about what I wrote as a personal opinion. You’ve expressed your opinion, nothing more. You haven’t made any authoritative statements. Why would you expect valid points when you offer none.

    The only thing you do quite well is play the role of troll.

  22. @Bob Tisdale

    “My tiny little website…

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/

    …is visited daily by researchers around the globe. A website with an audience as great as WUWT must be visited by many more researchers.”

    How do you know? I see you post the same stuff there as here. The number of comments over there is a lot smaller than the number of comments here (simply by eyeballing the first page, if there are exceptions to this let me know).

    “Example: I noted the error in NOAA’s recent State of the Climate report, about their definition of La Nina years:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/noaas-definition-and-data-contradict-their-claim-that-2012-was-the-warmest-la-nina-year/

    I had a least two visitors from NOAA hosts at my blog that day. That post was also cross posted here at WUWT. A few weeks later, NOAA corrected their mistake:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/noaa-corrects-their-2012-state-of-the-climate-report-2012-was-not-the-warmest-la-nina-year-on-record/

    So you noted an error, and two visitors from NOAA came to your blog to read it themselves. The error was corrected. That’s all? Good for you to spot the error!

    Now, regarding the open letter, what error did you spot? What good is the open letter?

    I’m happy seeing you glad!

  23. As if there are actually people in the world who don’t understand what an “open letter” is… no, it’s not designed to make the “recipients” suddenly realize their errors and change their ways. It’s a public notice that we’re on to you, everyone is on to you, and for those who didn’t realize something is going on, well, now they can see what’s going on. “Open Letters” were a favorite tactic of the left for passive-aggressive aggression during the Nixon years, among other times. Some people see them as a sort of “are you still beating your wife?” thing, since the “recipient” doesn’t usually have the ability to respond in the same manner in the same forum.

    The WMO graphs are intentionally misleading, as are the majority of warmist diagrams. They’re designed to communicate “the message” quickly to a gullible audience, and rarely stand up to any level of scrutiny. But the average guy on the street doesn’t really scrutinize, does he? Why would he? He trusts the WMO and other official organizations to be honest and thorough. They are not. And placing one’s trust in a science “organization” is no longer even remotely the right thing to do.

    Again, WHOSE recommendation is it to change the baseline every 10 years? Why…. the same people who fail to do that because it would reduce the impact of the fake, fraudulent, ridiculous message.

  24. @richardscourtney

    Oh! We could exchange vapid posts all day (I am not going to do that btw). But when you write:

    “Unfortunately, it contained as much useful information as all your other posts; i.e. none.”

    after you have admitted that:

    “Seriously, nobody reads past the first sentence of any of them.”

    then it seems to me you are a) reading the content of my posts or b) making it up as you go. In any case you need to come up with something substantial if you want to escape the reciprocal posting of content free messages.

  25. Reich.Eschhaus said (May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm)

    “…With other words, Nuccitelli is half right with the escalator graph!
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47…”

    It’s amazing how in trying to be clever, SkS actually proves a couple of points.

    First, using their “escalator” portion, they’re able to show what some see: since 2003, there’s been a slight decline (negative trend) in global temps. Their chart, their figures, negative trend for the last 10 years.

    True, when you look at the second portion (the slope), they do show overall warming of slightly more than .6 degrees since 1970. But take it one step farther: superimpose the “escalator” lines with the “slope” line (like I did here: http://imageshack.us/a/img515/1710/escalator.png)

    You’ll see another potential “hide the decline” moment. You’ll see that the “escalator” trend since about 2009 actually goes BELOW their overall slope line. So take your snapshots now. This is SkS, after all.

    Questions: 1. How long will we have this current negative slope, increasing the length of the latest top step?

    2. If “global warming” continues, at what point will they find a need to provide a new upper step to “the escalator”?

  26. There’s nothing Warmists hate more than when their own team are forced to present data which undermines their beliefs.
    Full marks to the WMO for presenting the data so clearly.
    I just love that squealing noise that people like Reich.Eschhaus makes, you know you’ve hit the target!

  27. @ Bob Tisdale

    First you write:

    “I’ll let others attend to the rest of your nonsense. Based on my past experience with you, Reich.Eschhaus, you simply repeat your same argument over and over again, no matter how many times or ways I offer evidence to the contrary. I have no want or need to deal with a troll.”

    Thanks for the compliment by the way! Then you still post another reply:

    “You ended your reply to Bryan A with two words: “valid point”. Yet you’re wasting your own time on this thread belaboring your differing opinion about what I wrote as a personal opinion. You’ve expressed your opinion, nothing more. You haven’t made any authoritative statements. Why would you expect valid points when you offer none.

    The only thing you do quite well is play the role of troll.”

    Thanks again! However you only quoted ‘valid point’. You did not quote:

    “It was Bob I was quoting. He said ‘no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report’. I remarked that that didn’t sound quite right on a website that prides itself on being skeptical.”

    Don’t you think that your original post

    “Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”

    sounds definitely un-skeptical?

  28. Bob Tisdale says:
    May 3, 2013 at 3:03 pm
    pokerguy says: “Respect you Bob along with the work you do, but the snarky attitude is not helpful.”

    Thanks for the preliminary kind words, pokerguy. I went back a read what I wrote and I don’t see it as snarky. I will say that it’s not written as I would write a professional letter. It’s more down to Earth. I pointed out my observations and I don’t think I was being overly critical. But that’s how I view it.

    Thanks again.
    =========================================================
    I disagree Bob.
    I think that there is snark.
    Well written and well deserved snark.

    Keep up the great work !

  29. @henrythethird

    “…With other words, Nuccitelli is half right with the escalator graph!

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47…”

    It’s amazing how in trying to be clever, SkS actually proves a couple of points.”

    I agree, take snapshots, and we will see how it compares a few years from now.

    The reason I brought Nuccitelli in is because it seems suddenly everybody wishes to take issue with him around here. This, I guess, has a lot to do with the escalator graph. Bob sees stagnation – rise – stagnation which appears halfway between the two options in Dana’s graph.

    Good night!

  30. I see “No Warming” then “Warming” then “No Warming But Still Freakin Hot”

    and I’m no warmist.

  31. @Charles Gerald Nelson

    “I just love that squealing noise that people like Reich.Eschhaus makes, you know you’ve hit the target!”

    squeal! squeal! squeal!

  32. Reich.Eschhaus says: “sounds definitely un-skeptical.”

    I’ll play along one more time. In your viewpoint, what does “un-skeptical” mean? To me it means gullible or trusting. I don’t see how the opinion I wrote portrays gullibility and trust.

  33. @dbstealey

    “Reich is a real complainer, isn’t he?”

    If, after several rounds of negotiations, we could agree on the term “selective complainer” then I agree!

  34. Kasuha says: May 3, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    I don’t see it the way you assume everyone will. I can see steady warming from 1965 to 2005 and only outside that something that can be called “no warming”. But that’s not science. There’s enough noise in the graph to allow a whole lot of different interpretations.

    That’s my interpretation of this particular graph as well; i.e., it shows steady warming from 1965 to 2005, and a pause in temperature rise since 2005.

    But regardless of what graphs like this one show, Global Mean Temperature must decline steadily for a continuous period of from thirty to fifty years before the climate science community ever begins to question its fundamental AGW dogma.

    In the meantime, only concerted efforts on the part of AGW political activists to impose strict limits on carbon emissions through legislative or regulatory action could instigate the kind of transparent and unbiased public examination of AGW theory needed to disprove, in the general public’s mind, the dogma the climate science community is now pushing.

  35. Matthew W. writes:
    “I disagree Bob.
    I think that there is snark.
    Well written and well deserved snark.

    Keep up the great work !”

    >>>>>>>
    Well at least we can agree on the tone of the letter.

  36. @ Bob Tisdale

    Still playing along? Am I now a troll that deserves your attention?

    “Reich.Eschhaus says: “sounds definitely un-skeptical.”

    I’ll play along one more time. In your viewpoint, what does “un-skeptical” mean? To me it means gullible or trusting. I don’t see how the opinion I wrote portrays gullibility and trust.”

    As I said in my first comment and which you didn’t reply upon (on that part):

    “And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report”

    shows no inclination to consider arguments that go against your opinion. That is what I would call not skeptical at all.

  37. Beta Blocker & Kasuha: For me, the mistake they made was only color-coding the years that begin with moderate and strong El Ninos and La Ninas. The red lines in 1998 and 2010 catch the eye and create the impression of a separate time period.

    Regards

  38. Reich.Eschhaus says: “Am I now a troll that deserves your attention?”

    Nope. I was too busy to go to the book store today, so I’m bored, but I think I’ll watch a rerun of TopGear when I’m done with this comment.

    Reich.Eschhaus says: “…shows no inclination to consider arguments that go against your opinion. That is what I would call not skeptical at all.”

    Must be that you’re misinterpreting it because you’ve taken the sentence out of context. Here’s the paragraph in its entirety.

    “Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”

    Earlier you expressed pleasure at being called a troll, Reich.Eschhaus. I’m not sure why. Like most trolls, you argue for argument’s sake and offer nothing of substance. Let me be more frank: your lack of substance is not an enviable trait. Alas! Such is role of the troll.

    Have good night.

  39. Anthony, Allowing these ongoing useless unscientific comments between Mr Righteous and the others lessens the quality and value of WUWT. Reich as far as I can see made his point early – the rest of the discussion is crap.

  40. Snarkiness?? *gasp* Why, it’s almost as if Bob Tisdale were….mortal! A brilliant mortal who has taken enough snark from the batcrap crazies in the past to earn a complete pass should he determine to compose an entire Broadway musical filled with snark, but a mortal nonetheless.

    Of course, those who would declare that “Bob should write his ideas down in an article and submit it to some meteorological or climate publication” because “maybe” that would help him ” get some traction” with the AGW crowd, most likely have some loose wires in their connection to reality in the first place.

    And to CGN-
    As far as that squealing noise…it’s more like the sound an overinflated balloon makes when you stretch it’s neck and let all the air out of it quickly. *evil grin*

  41. Meh!

    “Reich.Eschhaus says: “Am I now a troll that deserves your attention?”

    Nope. I was too busy to go to the book store today, so I’m bored, but I think I’ll watch a rerun of TopGear when I’m done with this comment.”

    You call me a troll, then you say you don’t interact with me no more, then that you are too busy, and here you are reacting! Am I still a troll or is it time to take your accusation back? Are you still at the bookstore?

    “Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”

    “And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report”

    Bob Tisdale, simply accept that you screwed up with that sentence! Who cares, errors happen, accept it, everyone does it.

    “Earlier you expressed pleasure at being called a troll, Reich.Eschhaus. I’m not sure why. Like most trolls, you argue for argument’s sake and offer nothing of substance. Let me be more frank: your lack of substance is not an enviable trait. Alas! Such is role of the troll.”

    you mean I was making fun of people calling me troll, quite possibly :D

  42. Actually I like this graph.

    If we take just the end points we get 0.25 + 0.45 °C over about 60 years giving a sensitivity of 0.7 * 100 / 60 < 1.2 °C per century. And that's using the maxima rather than the nearest means.

    One can get higher rates over shorter periods or one can use sine fits as henryp does, but this is extrapolation which I was taught in my engineering courses is always risky.

    Regards,
    John.

  43. Bob Tisdale says: May 3, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Beta Blocker & Kasuha: For me, the mistake they made was only color-coding the years that begin with moderate and strong El Ninos and La Ninas. The red lines in 1998 and 2010 catch the eye and create the impression of a separate time period.

    Bob, for my own tastes in casually looking at graphs, 1998 is an obvious outlier, regardless of what color the bar is.

    So I ignore that year as I am visually interpreting the series of vertical bars shown on the graph.

    This gives me a visual interpretation of continuous warming between 1965 and 2005 — for whatever that is worth to anyone, alarmist or skeptic alike.

  44. Reich.Eschhaus,

    You’re arguing with multiple other commentators on various different threads.

    Are they all wrong? Or is it you?

  45. After you observe a posters behavior for a while and determine that they are a troll ……. just don’t respond to them anymore. Success for a troll is derailing the thread and just bickering with anyone who is on the thread and who is up for it at the moment.

    For a troll, distracting from the thread is success, totally hijacking it is ultimate victory.

    This thread is a perfect example.

    To say it another way, always give people the benefit of the doubt, but just DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!!!

  46. Reich.Eschhaus says: “Bob Tisdale, simply accept that you screwed up with that sentence! Who cares, errors happen, accept it, everyone does it.”

    I didn’t make a mistake. I wrote exactly what I meant to write, and as long as you keep pulling that phrase out of context, you’ll keep making a fool of yourself.

    Reich.Eschhaus says: “you mean I was making fun of people calling me troll, quite possibly :D”

    Let me quote what you wrote that shows how enthusiastic you were about being called a troll. You wrote, “Thanks for the compliment by the way…” and “Thanks again!” in response to my calling you a troll. You can’t spin what’s obvious.

    Adios!

  47. Thank you, Mr. Tisdale, for so generously sharing your hours and months and YEARS of work with us. Only a master of a subject can teach it well. This non-science major learned a lot. What a great HEART you have to persevere so steadily and continue to the engage the enemies of truth in spite of their ignorantly vacuous and, at times, willfully vicious twisting of your arguments.

    [BTW nice ripostes to Mr. or Ms. Troll above, but ignoring them is, indeed, what they hate the most.]

    You are a hero, O Robert the Lionhearted!

    @ Codetech — PRECISELY! Well put. That ol’ “cc:” line is a wonderful communication device….. . “Uh oh, looks like he cc’d all those people who know what the truth is…. ” [sound like a balloon rapidly losing air -- NICE ONE, aetheressa, heh, heh].

  48. Thanks, Bob. Whenever I see a temperature series I look back from the end and find find long a stasis period it shows, then I go to around 1975 to see how warming it shows before stasis.
    Then I look further back to see the cooling period before the warming, then I match the whole thing to ENSO activity.

  49. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    May 3, 2013 at 5:58 pm
    ===
    At a slow burn.
    You only talk about yourself, enlighten us.

  50. Sorry, I meant to write “I look back from the end and find how long a stasis period it shows”.
    And “then I go to around 1975 to see how much warming it shows before stasis”.

  51. Thanks Bob, another fine post.
    I love it when the “authority” are caught breaking their own rules, shows them for what they are.
    Seems you have attracted the passions of either a longwinded pedant or a paid by the word troll, after reading its comments through I must confess I lean toward; troll droppings scroll on by; as there has been an absence of content in said trolls offering to date.

  52. @dbstealey
    “Reich is a real complainer, isn’t he?”
    Reich.Eschhaus says: May 3, 2013 at 4:27
    pmIf, after several rounds of negotiations, we could agree on the term “selective complainer” then I agree!
    ——————————
    Serial complainer ! Do you have any good reason why anybody should take any notice of your banal whine ? Suggest that you book in for an optirectomy … rather sooner than later.

  53. Jesse G. says:

    May 3, 2013 at 9:36 pm

    No moderation is a disaster.
    ==============
    But your ability to proclaim it, isn’t ?

  54. Has any else noticed while looking at the graph that the range of year to year differences has become considerably smaller over the last 10 years? To my eye there is high year to year variability up to 1987, moderate from then to 2002 and then low from then to now. I have no idea what this means; I wonder if anyone else had any thoughts. Maybe it means a warmer world is more stable world.

  55. Let me get this straight … the WMO doesn’t follow the WMO’s recommendation for displaying global temperature anomaly data? Whoda thunk?

  56. I think most people would extend the warming period a few years, to ca 2001?

  57. Bruckner8 says:
    May 3, 2013 at 4:07 pm
    I see “No Warming” then “Warming” then “No Warming But Still Freakin Hot”
    and I’m no warmist.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Excellent point. All these “natural fluctuations” that never seem to “fluctuate” down.

    Well, if a “pause” is all you’ve got…it’s all you’ve got. JP

  58. Bob,
    Have you done longterm analysis that could show whether or not LaNina/ElNino effects “zero out” over time? In other words, are ENSO effects a radiative forcing, or are they simply a climate oscillation? JP

  59. John Parsons aka atarsinc:

    At May 4, 2013 at 12:05 am you say

    Well, if a “pause” is all you’ve got…it’s all you’ve got.

    For the first time on WUWT, you make a good point.

    The “pause” is all the warmunists have got. And they said it was impossible.

    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the “pause” could not happen because of “committed warming” which is an inherent part of the AGW-hypothesis as emulated by climate models.

    The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    It says there

    The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

    In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

    This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

    So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

    Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

    This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

    Richard

  60. The graph has the politically-correct expanded vertical scale to make it look
    more scary. Close the scale down to 1 degree/per vertical unit and it looks
    totally trivial. One tenth of a degree as the vertical scale for a planetary
    measurement is just too precious given all the fudge factors used to arrive
    at the numbers.

    Does the planet even care for such tiny units?

  61. Betablocker,
    why don’t you ignore the dip of Pinatubo?
    el chichon?
    and maybe the PDO?
    or …..

  62. richardscourtney says:
    May 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm
    OK. I understand that and what it indicates.
    If you cannot afford the new spectacles you require then there are some good charities willing to help.
    _____________________

    Is that a scientific argument?

  63. Kasuh:

    re your question to me at May 4, 2013 at 2:15 am.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/open-letter-to-the-world-meteorological-organization-wmo/#comment-1296897

    Yes, it is a completely scientific argument.

    Empiricism is the foundation of science. An observation is made and a conclusion is drawn from it. Also, good report suggests future work.

    I assumed the datum (i.e. what you claimed you saw) was correct. Then I concluded from the datum that your perception was distorted by faulty sight. And on that basis I recommended how you could obtain funds for the needed optical correction.

    Of course, as in any scientific assessment, the datum and/or the conclusion may be an error and, in that case, the suggested ‘future work’ may be inappropriate.

    Both the datum and the conclusion drawn from it are open to challenge (such is all science). For example, you may not have been truthful in what you said you saw, and if you were truthful then the distortion may have been a result of delusional tendencies. The suggested “future work” would not be the most appropriate in either of these cases.

    Richard

  64. atarsinc says: “Have you done longterm analysis that could show whether or not LaNina/ElNino effects “zero out” over time?”

    The instrument temperature record indicates that ENSO acts as a recharge-discharge oscillator, with La Niñas acting as the recharge phase and El Niños acting as the discharge phase, so that complicates answering your question.

    That aside, there are periods when the frequency, duration and magnitude of El Niño and La Niña events are more equal based on an ENSO index, like from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s when ENSO was slightly skewed toward La Niña, and in that period, surface temperatures didn’t warm.

    Then again, ENSO indices only represent the impacts of ENSO on the variables being measured and the impacts of ENSO on other variables can be quite different. Example: Referring to the SOI or NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies, the 1995/96 La Niña was a rather weak La Niña, but looking at ocean heat content for the tropical Pacific, the 1995/96 La Niña was freakishly strong:

    If you want to assume for the sake of discussion that an ENSO index represents ENSO, then you could use a running total to answer your question:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/el-nino-southern-oscillation-myth-2-a-new-myth-enso-balances-out-to-zero-over-the-long-term/

    But as noted in the post, the shape of the curve depends on the choice of base years and the sea surface temperature dataset.

    Another way to view the skewness toward El Niño or La Niña is to smooth an ENSO index like NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies with a 121-month filter. Then the choice of base years isn’t as important because they only shift the curve up or down. 1950-1979 Base Years:

    And 1900-2000 Base Years:

    BTW, Trenberth found 1950-79 was a more appropriate choice of base years:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/clivar97/en.dfn.html

    atarsinc says: “In other words, are ENSO effects a radiative forcing, or are they simply a climate oscillation?”

    There are persons who attempt to find agreement between solar variations and ENSO indices, but I haven’t seen anything convincing. Many researchers believe it’s simply random variability—chaos. And since there are so many things (different types of weather events) that are known to have triggered ENSO events, and for a multitude of other reasons, I would tend to agree it’s chaotic.

  65. Against all GHE predictions we have rising CO2 concentrations with stalled temperature. If a theory is wrong change the theory not the data. So far the warmists have done the latter but kept the former.
    Idiots.

  66. It looks like it has warmed since the start of your no warming period around the year 2000. It also looks like it has been warming since 2008 and 2011 How could this be if there has been no warming?

  67. Reich.Eschhaus says:
    May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm
    Open letter? Why? Seriously, some minor issues and then you want them to pay attention to a presentation of yours. I wonder how many presentations the WMO gets every day unsolicited.
    _______

    Why? Because Mr. Tisdale wanted to share his opinion with both the WMO and the readers of his blog and WUWT. It’s called “free speech”.

  68. sceptical:

    At May 4, 2013 at 4:24 am you ask

    It looks like it has warmed since the start of your no warming period around the year 2000. It also looks like it has been warming since 2008 and 2011 How could this be if there has been no warming?

    It is a matter of confidence or – if you prefer – uncertainty.

    You are making the same mistake as Kasuha.
    It does not matter what you think “it looks like” because your view may be distorted.

    It only matters what the data says.

    All data has uncertainty. So-called ‘climate science’ uses the low confidence limits of 95% for determination of acceptable certainty.

    Warming is a rise of temperature over a period. This – according to ‘climate science’ is determined by a linear trend. If the trend is positive then there is warming, and if the trend is negative then there is cooling.

    But if the trend does not differ from zero at 95% confidence then there is no discernible warming or cooling (at 95% confidence).

    There are various time series of global temperature (RSS, UAH, GISS, HadCRUTx), Depending on which data set is chosen there has been no warming for at least more than 16 years (GISS) or at most just over 23 years.

    Richard

  69. Any use of non-satellite data after 1980 is questionable to say the least. The historic data has been adjusted by biased researchers. You can see that in the WMO chart where the cooling from 1950-1975 is removed. Without those adjustments we would see a perfect match for the phases of the PDO.

    Now, here is a better view of the nearly 17 years with no warming:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.8/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/to/trend

    It demonstrates the pause actually consists of a slight warming until 2005 while the PDO was still warm. Since then it switched to cool mode and the planet has cooled along with it … with continued cooling in the latest April satellite data.

    Also, we now know for a fact that Antarctica is gaining ice. This latest paper using 67 ice cores shows large increases in ice.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/new-paper-finds-antarctica-has-been.html

    This refutes the claims that land ice melting is the cause of increased sea ice around Antarctica. And, with that refutation the alarmists can no longer claim losses of sea ice in the Arctic have any meaning relative to GHGs. It would need to affect both poles equally. The warm AMO now becomes the only reasonable cause for the Arctic losing sea ice.

    Finally, the lack of a hot spot and the 14 year lack of measureable increases in downward LWIR provide experimental evidence that the entire global warming theory is bogus.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim

  70. @ richardscourtney

    “If you cannot afford the new spectacles you require then there are some good charities willing to help….”

    “because your view may be distorted…”

    you are really too negativ richardscourtney;

    if somebodys view is distorted and if somebody is in need of spectacles, it is for sure the author of the article with his artificial break-up of the graph of the WMO and the false so called “no warming” years during the years of maximum warming (circa +0,5 degree Celcius)

    well, you don’t even need spectacles: Open your eyes!

  71. aetheressa writes: “Snarkiness?? *gasp* Why, it’s almost as if Bob Tisdale were….mortal! A brilliant mortal who has taken enough snark from the batcrap crazies in the past to earn a complete pass should he determine to compose an entire Broadway musical filled with snark, but a mortal nonetheless.”

    Easy to sneer, God knows I do enough of it myself. The question is, is that the most effective way to communicate, assuming that your goal is to do more than gratify those who are already on your side. I don’t think it is.

    As always, opinions can and do vary.

  72. Richard M: You referred to the PDO a number of times in your comment. Unfortunately, the PDO doesn’t represent the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific north of 20N.

    If you were to say that the cooling of the sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific since 2005 impacted global temperatures, I would have to agree.

    The PDO is actually inversely related to the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/an-inverse-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-north-pacific-sst-anomaly-residuals/

    Last, there is no mechanism for the PDO to vary global temperatures, The mechanism in the Pacific is ENSO. The PDO (the spatial pattern of sea surface temperatures in the extratropical North Pacific) is an aftereffect of ENSO and the sea level pressure of the North Pacific.

    Regards

  73. @ richardscourtney May 4, 2013 at 7:17 am

    as far as I am concerned, sceptical’s point of view is not so stupid to call his vieuw “distorted”

  74. maarten:

    re your post to me at May 4, 2013 at 7:23 am

    We differ. So what?
    I accept what the data indicates and what the data cannot indicate.
    And any perception of a pictorial representation of the data is distorted if it does not agree with what the data indicates and what the data cannot indicate.

    You refuse to agree that. Your disagreement is your right, but it does not make you right.

    Richard

  75. Interesting the WMO report manages to have 2 pages on Sea Ice with 3 pictures depicting the Arctic over one and a half pages, and somewhere hidden is a small paragraph about the Antarctic ice.
    Why not give them the importance as per their ice coverage or ice mass? or at least equal?

  76. I used to think that 1998 was the warmest year to date but the WMO graph shows that it has been beaten twice. Is this generally accepted or has the raw data been “homogenised” to downgrade 1998?

  77. Bob,

    Thanks for the reply. I followed the links you provided and found an interesting post entitled “Is there a Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing?” There was also a “Part Two”. I thought that, at last, I would find the answer I was looking for.

    But I didn’t see an answer to the question posed in the title. Or perhaps I should say no explicit answer. I did notice that in a previous post you mentioned parenthetically that “ENSO isn’t a forcing, but that’s neither here nor there.”

    Bob, could you answer the question you posed, “Is there a Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing?”
    A Yes or No, would be most welcome; if that’s possible in this case.

    Thanks again for taking the time to address commenters questions. It’s very much appreciated. JP

  78. ” Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”

    The surface stopped warming not the temperature. You can warm the air or water not the temperature.

  79. Reich.Eschhaus says:
    May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm
    Open letter? Why? Seriously, some minor issues and then you want them to pay attention to a presentation of yours. I wonder how many presentations the WMO gets every day unsolicited.

    —————————————————

    Full support, Reich!

    Bob is barely unserious with his “open letter”.
    This is certainly NOT a way to convince anybody.

  80. Reich.Eschhaus

    “Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. ”

    With other words, Nuccitelli is half right with the escalator graph!

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    Oh Dear!, here’s my escalator, the one that John Cook removed from Scomical Science within one minute of it being posted, is it just possible you can see what Cook was so afraid of?

    http://tinyurl.com/cx62ssj

  81. Alex:

    Your post concludes saying

    This is certainly NOT a way to convince anybody.

    I agree. Your post “is certainly NOT a way to convince anybody”.

    But, of course, one anonymous troll does not support another anonymous troll with the intention of convincing anybody.

    Personally, I would prefer that all anonymous trolls clear off and stop disrupting threads with meaningless drivel.

    Richard

  82. Bob, after chastising me for something I never said, you said :

    “Last, there is no mechanism for the PDO to vary global temperatures, The mechanism in the Pacific is ENSO. The PDO (the spatial pattern of sea surface temperatures in the extratropical North Pacific) is an aftereffect of ENSO and the sea level pressure of the North Pacific. ”

    Look closely at what you said. First you said there is “no mechanism” and then you said “The PDO is an after effect of ENSO …”. That is, you specified a mechanism.

    If you go back and read what I said you’ll see I never stated the PDO was related to ocean temperatures. You must have assumed I meant that and I apologize if I wasn’t clear. What I did was point out was the PDO correlates to changes in global temperatures. My assumption is the same as yours … the mechanism is, primarily, changes in ENSO. Since the reason for the changes in ENSO is, as yet, unknown, I will continue to use the PDO as a general index for conditions in the Pacific that lead to changes in global temperatures. Hopefully, more will be learned in the future and we will be able to pinpoint the base mechanism/s.

    I think we agree more than we disagree.

  83. @ richardscourtney / May 4, 2013 at 7:34 am

    there are two problems: first there is a difference in interpretation of the temperature graph of the WMO; some people (including Tisdale) see a stalling of the increase of the average worldtemperature, and some (including me) do not;

    the other problem is a matter of semantics: here I againn differ from you:

    you call a positive change in temperature warming, and a negative change cooling;

    but: no change in temperature is no warming says Tisdale (and you);

    howcome? because this is odd, while it is also no cooling;

    so to be clear: no change in temperature should be called (according to your argumentation):
    no warming / no cooling;
    any other formulation is manipulative, tisdale has to change explanatory remarks in his graph;

    let me put it differently:

    a car can increase its velocity: we call that accelaration;
    when the car goes slower it is called decelaration;
    when the car is not changing its velocity it is neither accelarating nor decelarating, however it is still having some velocity;(don’t step out of the car!)

    you understand the analogy? well, please propose the right expression for cruising or speeding in climate matters;

  84. Maarten:

    At May 4, 2013 at 3:13 pm you ask me

    you understand the analogy? well, please propose the right expression for cruising or speeding in climate matters;

    I do not know why I am required to provide the definition: it seems to me that e.g. the WMO should do it.

    However, since asked I will provide my own. Global temperature varies and, therefore, the present lack of discernible warming or cooling is certain to end with either global warming or global cooling.
    Therefore, what can be said is:
    There has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets.

    Richard

  85. richardscourtney says:
    May 4, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Richard, do you think that name calling and snide remarks reflect well on you as a person? Is this how you want people to see you? JP

  86. To be helpful, this is what GISTEMP gives for 2012 relative to the baseline of 1981-2010.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2012&year2=2012&base1=1981&base2=2010&radius=1200&pol=reg

    The center of that baseline period was 1995, 17 years ago. So this shows 2012 0.16 degrees warmer than the climate mean taken over the last 30 years centered on 17 years ago. It seems warming is still going on when you look at it this way because 2012 is raising the moving 30-year average, and not by a little.

  87. Wow! So many comments! Can’t answer them all! Anyone who considers me a ‘troll’ should not respond (don’t feed the troll and all that) and I would be possibly spared some silly reactions.

    “You haven’t made any authoritative statements. Why would you expect valid points when you offer none.”

    authoritative statements? By who?

    “Here’s the paragraph in its entirety.

    “Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”\\

    It is a stupid thing to say. Even within your context it doesn’t sound that you are giving other views any thought.

    Btw, I think you are trolling above the line!

    @dbstealey

    I think they are all wrong! (irony can be kept by those who find it)

    @ Bob

    “Let me quote what you wrote that shows how enthusiastic you were about being called a troll. You wrote, “Thanks for the compliment by the way…” and “Thanks again!” in response to my calling you a troll. You can’t spin what’s obvious.”

    How else should one respond to accusations of being a troll, enlighten me!

    @Streetcred

    I don’t know! Why are people reacting to me? Might I have a point?

    @ k scott denison

    “Why? Because Mr. Tisdale wanted to share his opinion with both the WMO and the readers of his blog and WUWT. It’s called “free speech”.”

    sure! he can do that and he does. I employ my free speech by saying he is wasting his time!

    @alex

    “Full support, Reich!”

    Thanks very much!

    @ Albert

    “Oh Dear!, here’s my escalator, the one that John Cook removed from Scomical Science within one minute of it being posted, is it just possible you can see what Cook was so afraid of?”

    Bob sees 2 stagnation periods and one rising period. I said half right! Figure it out!

  88. richardscourtney says, “There has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets.”

    So according to richardscourtney the claim that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years may not be factual. It may just not be discernible at 95% confidence. Good to see richardscourtney dispel the myth of no global warming.

  89. Let’s see…

    Reich.Eschhaus:

    “Here’s the paragraph in its entirety.

    “Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”\\

    It is a stupid thing to say. Even within your context it doesn’t sound that you are giving other views any thought.”

    Bob said “Just thought you’d be interested”. He did not say “You should be interested. He did not say “You MUST be interested”. Maybe they were interested. Maybe they were not. Unless you are the official spokesperson of the WMO, stop wasting your time presuming that they need you to defend or represent them to the big, bad, skeptics.

    Bob then said “That’s what I see” (indicating HIS point of view) “and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph”. The word “suspect” indicates an intuitive guess, and “many other persons” does not indicate “all” or “every other person” which “many other persons” just might think SOUNDS an awful lot like his OPINION gives plenty of room for “other views”. (For someone whose knickers seemed to knot immediately upon your irrational determination that Bob was being arrogant and assumptive….you might want to consider toning down the arrogance and ass…umptiveness just a tad yourself)

    As far as context goes, looking at the chart itself, which was the point upon which Mr. Tisdale’s article revolved, it is completely accurate to state that according to that visual representation, “many other persons” will more than likely “see and take away from the report that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”

    ” (irony can be kept by those who find it)”

    I find it hilariously ironic that you seem oblivious to the fact that this blog and the reactions you get here JUST MIGHT be indications that “many other persons” see it as a huge waste of YOUR time attempting to declare that Bob Tisdale is using HIS free speech and time in a wasteful manner. Just zips right over your head doesn’t it?

  90. Solomon Green says:
    May 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm
    I used to think that 1998 was the warmest year to date but the WMO graph shows that it has been beaten twice. Is this generally accepted or has the raw data been “homogenised” to downgrade 1998?

    It depends on which data set is used. 1998 is the hottest on the two satellite sets, RSS and UAH, as well as Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2. However 2010 is warmest on GISS and Hadcrut4.

  91. sceptical says:
    May 4, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    So according to richardscourtney the claim that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years may not be factual. It may just not be discernible at 95% confidence.

    On three data sets, there is no warming at all for 16 years or more. As a matter of fact, there is cooling for the last half of the 16 years, although the cooling is not statistically significant. See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/to:2004/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004/trend

  92. sceptical:

    Your daft post at May 4, 2013 at 8:43 pm says in total

    richardscourtney says,

    “There has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets.”

    So according to richardscourtney the claim that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years may not be factual. It may just not be discernible at 95% confidence. Good to see richardscourtney dispel the myth of no global warming.

    What!?

    I made a factual statement and I stated the confidence with which we know that fact.
    That fact is that there has been NO global warming for at least 16 years.
    On the basis of that you asert I have dispelled the myth of no global warming.

    Clearly,
    You are an anonymous troll trying to spread disinformation
    or
    you are insane
    or
    you are an insane, anonymous troll trying to spread disinformation.

    Richard

  93. maarten:

    Your post at May 4, 2013 at 10:49 pm says in total

    @ richardscourtney May 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    you are not really answering my questions;

    Say what!?
    My post at May 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm quoted your “questions” verbatim then gave a complete answer with explanation of that answer.

    This is a link to my post which you egregiously pretend I was evasive

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/open-letter-to-the-world-meteorological-organization-wmo/#comment-1297348

    Anybody wanting to see the truth of the matter can click the link and jump to my post.

    I object to your untrue and offensive trolling.

    Richard

  94. Jim D:

    Your post at May 4, 2013 at 4:48 pm is ridiculous.
    It is not “helpful”: it is plain daft.

    Your post says in total

    To be helpful, this is what GISTEMP gives for 2012 relative to the baseline of 1981-2010.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2012&year2=2012&base1=1981&base2=2010&radius=1200&pol=reg

    The center of that baseline period was 1995, 17 years ago. So this shows 2012 0.16 degrees warmer than the climate mean taken over the last 30 years centered on 17 years ago. It seems warming is still going on when you look at it this way because 2012 is raising the moving 30-year average, and not by a little.

    1.
    Discernible global warming stopped 23 years ago according to RSS and at least16 years ago according to all data sets.
    2.
    Nobody disputes that global warming was happening before 23 years ago.
    3.
    You are taking average values for a 30 year period centered on 17 years ago.
    4.
    The early part of that 30 year period was warming and all you are doing is showing that warming existed early in the period.

    Similarly, according to your method, and using 14-day averaging, the SS Grauniad is now moving in the Atlantic because it sailed from New York 14 days ago then stopped in Southampton a week ago where it has stayed since.

    Richard

  95. Richard M says: “Bob, after chastising me for something I never said…”

    Richard, you presented the PDO as if it was the cause of the cooling since the mid-2000s. Also, I wasn’t chastising. I was attempting to clarify the PDO—what it is and what it isn’t.

    Richard M says: “Look closely at what you said. First you said there is “no mechanism” and then you said ‘The PDO is an after effect of ENSO …’. That is, you specified a mechanism.”

    That’s right. The mechanism is ENSO, not the PDO, so why not include ENSO in your comments, instead of the PDO? Example: El Niño dominant period versus La Niña dominant.

    Richard M says: “Since the reason for the changes in ENSO is, as yet, unknown…”

    And because the PDO is in part an aftereffect of ENSO, that would mean the reason for the changes in the PDO is also unknown.

    Richard M says: “…I will continue to use the PDO as a general index for conditions in the Pacific that lead to changes in global temperatures…”

    And you’ll likely find comments trailing yours that are similar to what I wrote on this thread. Keep in mind, Richard, I’m also commenting for those reading the thread who might misinterpret the PDO based on your comment.

    Regards

  96. atarsinc says: “I followed the links you provided and found an interesting post entitled ‘Is there a Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing?’”

    What I presented in that April 2008 post was one of the things that prompted my ENSO research. I misused the term forcing way back then. ENSO is a natural process, not a forcing.

    atarsinc says: “Bob, could you answer the question you posed, ‘Is there a Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing?’”

    Since forcing is incorrect in my title question, I’ll rephrase it: Does ENSO cause long-term variations in global temperature? The answer is yes.

    Regards

  97. richardscourtney, as you clearly demonstrated it is incorrect to claim no global warming over the last 16 years. The most that can be said is no discernible warming with other qualifiers. It may have warmed over the last 16 years.

  98. @ richardscourtney May 5, 2013 at 2:52 am

    “Say what!?
    My post at May 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm quoted your “questions” verbatim then gave a complete answer with explanation of that answer.

    This is a link to my post which you egregiously pretend I was evasive

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/open-letter-to-the-world-meteorological-organization-wmo/#comment-1297348

    Anybody wanting to see the truth of the matter can click the link and jump to my post.”

    so far your words:
    ————————————————————————–

    people should do it, click to your link and also read my questions that are just above your posting;

    I hold you to answer answer, because YOU did not agree with my earlier statement that the WMO-graph expresses that the world is warming;
    why warming? because all hottest 15 years are in the two last decennia, and sea ice is melting at an unprecedented rate; (see richardscourtney May 4, 2013 at 7:17 am)

    you should answer, because in my opinion YOU (and Tisdale) are misleading the people when saying ‘ no warming’ while following to your own proposed use of language it should be ‘no warming / no cooling’, which is totally different of course;

    even if the car is not accelarating nor decelarating it still can be speeding!

    while the climate is not warming / not cooling, it still can….(continuously be forced… maybe?)

    even a child can see that we live in a warming world, and that Tisdales remark ‘no warming’ is incorrect, if compared for instance with a 1980 – 2010 base period;

  99. maarten

    because all hottest 15 years are in the two last decennia, and sea ice is melting at an unprecedented rate

    even a child can see that we live in a warming world

    each year a child thinks he’s as tall as he will ever be, it takes an adult to understand that growth eventually ceases, see May 4, 2013 at 2:13 pm above

    it never ceases to amaze me how simplistic true believer warmists are

  100. John Bills says: May 4, 2013 at 2:14 am Betablocker, why don’t you ignore the dip of Pinatubo? el chichon? and maybe the PDO? or …..

    When I’m looking at a graphic like this one, doing so in a thoroughly casual manner, I’m just looking at the apparent trace of the bars without a whole lot of thinking as to what the individual differences between one bar or another might actually mean. Let’s call this approach “impressionistic interpretation.”

    Let’s recognize that Bob Tisdale has done a lot of excellent work, and I think that his contributions to climate science have as much value, if not more value, than anything the doctrinaire climate scientists have produced.

    But regardless of how finely we attempt to interpret the trace of temperature over the last 150 years of the instrumental record, the earth has been generally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, with localized accelerations and plateaus along the way,

    Most probably, the earth will continue to warm in this same pattern until at some point in the future, the general warming trend we have experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age will stop, and then temperatures will head generally in the other direction — also with localized accelerations and plateaus along the way.

    This has happened any number of times in the earth’s history, and will likely occur again.

    When viewed from that kind of perspective, factors such as rising CO2 levels, the effects of Pinatubo, el chichon, the PDO, ENSO, etc. etc. etc. — whatever else anybody wants to toss in there — will just be localized influences that may or may not have any lasting impact on the generally rising or generally falling temperature trend, whatever trend it happens to be this century.

  101. sceptical and maarten:

    I am answering both your posts at May 5, 2013 at 5:16 and May 5, 2013 at 5:28 am, respectively.

    I do this because I don’t want onlookers to think I could not answer but I cannot be bothered to put much effort into answering such unmitigated bollocks.

    sceptical,

    Few statements can be made with absolute certainty.
    An example of such a rare absolute certainty is the statement that you are an egregious, anonymous troll whose only purpose in posting is to disrupt the thread.

    However, such absolute certainties are very, very rarely obtainable.

    For example, the statement saying,
    “The Moon is not made of green trees”
    is not an absolute certainty because it may be made of green cheese but coated in rock.
    However, all the evidence we have is that the Moon is not made of green cheese but is made of rock.

    All the evidence we have is that global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.
    And the certainty on that is as good as the evidence for global warming prior to the global warming having stopped.
    GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED. LIVE WITH IT.

    maarten,

    I take extreme umbrage at your outrageous, offensive and insulting statement that says

    in my opinion YOU (and Tisdale) are misleading the people when saying ‘ no warming’ while following to your own proposed use of language it should be ‘no warming / no cooling’, which is totally different of course;

    How dare you!?
    My “language” is that of science and it is so carefully stated that the the other troll who posts as ‘sceptical’ is trying to claim it can be understood to be the opposite of what it says.

    I gave a full reply to you saying

    There has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets.

    That is the language of science. In plain language it means
    GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED. LIVE WITH IT.

    Richard

  102. Global warming has continued. Bob’s chart above makes this clear. His “no warming” period can be further divided into 3 sections, the latest of which from 2008 on clearly shows warming.

  103. Friends:

    The egregious troll posting as sceptical writes at May 5, 2013 at 10:02 am saying

    Global warming has continued. Bob’s chart above makes this clear. His “no warming” period can be further divided into 3 sections, the latest of which from 2008 on clearly shows warming.

    Actually, GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED AT LEAST 16 YEARS AGO.

    However, using the same kind of nonsense used by the troll I can outdo him/her/them/it.

    Global warming is occurring at an amazing pace.
    The globe warmed 1deg.C over the past month. This is more than the total rise of 0.8 deg.C since 1950 shown in “Bob’s chart”.

    Furthermore, the globe will warm by another 1 deg.C over the next two months.

    Unfortunately we cannot look forward to the great benefits of 2deg.C of global warming because global cooling will set in and global temperature will plummet by nearly 4 deg.C before next January.

    If anybody does not know why this rapid global warming and global cooling is certain then this link gives a short and clear explanation

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/

    In reality, and in the terms indicated by “bob’s chart”,
    There has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets.

    Richard

  104. Bob Tisdale,

    Hate to sound like a broken record, but I really do appreciate you taking the time to follow through with commenter dialogues.

    I also appreciate that you acknowledged that the Title of that post was not correct. Without that acknowledgement, a person without your comprehensive knowledge of ENSO would be at a loss to understand your premise.

    I look forward to see where your research takes you.

    Best Wishes, JP

  105. sceptical says:
    May 5, 2013 at 10:02 am
    Global warming has continued. Bob’s chart above makes this clear. His “no warming” period can be further divided into 3 sections, the latest of which from 2008 on clearly shows warming.

    This is true, and it is so because there was a strong La Nina in 2008, and until we get an equally strong La Nina in the future, it could be possible to show warming since 2008 for a while. However the error bars for such a short period are huge!!
    For RSS since 2008: 0.235 ±1.277 °C/decade (2σ)

    richardscourtney says:
    May 5, 2013 at 10:32 am

    There has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets.

    Note that your comment regarding 2008 does not negate Richard’s comment above.

  106. @ richardscourtney

    you must be mad to write this: “I take extreme umbrage at your outrageous, offensive and insulting statement that says….” (calling people ‘trolls’ and than getting of your mind when your posts are qualified as ‘misleading’……)

    well, thank you for the ‘discussion’ so far;

    I sincerely wish you guidance by God to come out of the dark cave you must be living in…

    I sincerely feel sorry for you, but I give up discussing with you;
    Goodluck;

  107. @ richardscourtney

    [snip . . this is not adding anything to the thread. It can be seen as trolling so please stop . . mod]

Comments are closed.