Are We in a Pause or a Decline? (Now Includes at Least April* Data)

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source


Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org

Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts

*At least April data was my intention. However as of June 8, HadCRUT3 for April is still not up! Could it be because as of the end of March, the slope of 0 lasted 16 years and 1 month and they do not want to add another month or two? What do you think? WoodForTrees (WFT) is up to date however, thank you very much Paul!

The graph above shows a few different things for three data sets where there has been no warming for at least 16 years. WFT only allows one to draw straight lines between two points, however climate does not go in straight lines. Often, temperatures vary in a sinusoidal fashion which cannot yet be shown using WFT. However we can do the next best thing and show what is happening over the first half of the 16 years and what is happening over the last half. As shown, the first half shows a small rise and the last half shows a small decline. Note that neither the rise in the first half nor the drop in the last half is statistically significant. However the lines do suggest that we are just continuing a 60 year sine wave that was started in 1880 according to the following graphic:

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s – Clive Best – Click the pic to view at source

Do you agree? What are your views on the question in the title? Do you think we are presently in a pause or in a decline or neither?

In the sections below, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show the period that there has been no warming for various data sets. The second section will show the period that there has been no “significant” warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2013 to date compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record. The appendix illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different format. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.

Section 1

This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 5 months to 16 years and 6 months.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 1 month. (goes to March 31, 2013)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (This goes to May. I realize that Hadcrut3 is not up to date, but on the basis of its present slope and the latest numbers that I do have from the other three sets. I am confident that I can make this prediction.)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to April 30, 2013, or 16 years, 2 months.
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May) RSS is 198/204 or 97% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years. This 97% is real!
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above for what can be shown. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the sloped wiggly line shows how CO2 has increased over this period.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly. It goes from 0.1 C to 0.6 C. A change of 0.5 C over 16 years is about 3.0 C over 100 years. And 3.0 C is about the average of what the IPCC says may be the temperature increase by 2100.

So for this to be the case, the slope for all of the data sets would have to be as steep as the CO2 slope. Hopefully the graphs show that this is totally untenable.

The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted.

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming according to their criteria. The numbers below start from January of the year indicated. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the magnitude of the second number is larger than the first number so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out. (To the best of my knowledge, SkS uses the same criteria that Phil Jones uses to determine significance.)

The situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.

The details are below and are based on the SkS site:

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
RSS since August 1989;
UAH since June 1993;
Hadcrut3 since July 1993;
Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
GISS since October 1994 and
NOAA since May 1994.

Section 3

This section shows data about 2013 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and bottom, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:
1. 12ra: This is the final ranking for 2012 on each data set.
2. 12an: Here I give the average anomaly for 2012.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first two letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.
8. sig: This is the whole number of years for which warming is not significant according to the SkS criteria. The additional months are not added here, however for more details, see Section 2.
9. Jan: This is the January, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
10. Feb: This is the February, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
11. Mar: This is the March, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
12. Apr: This is the April, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
13. May: This is the May, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
21. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs by one, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.
22. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. Of course it won’t, but think of it as an update 20 or 25 minutes into a game. Expect wild swings from month to month at the start of the year. As well, expect huge variations between data sets at the start. Due to different base periods, the rank may be more meaningful than the average anomaly.

Source UAH RSS Had4 Had3 Sst2 GISS
1. 12ra 9th 11th 9th 10th 8th 9th
2. 12an 0.161 0.192 0.448 0.405 0.342 0.56
3. year 1998 1998 2010 1998 1998 2010
4. ano 0.419 0.55 0.547 0.548 0.451 0.66
5. mon Ap98 Ap98 Ja07 Fe98 Au98 Ja07
6. ano 0.66 0.857 0.829 0.756 0.555 0.93
7. y/m 8/5 16/6 12/6 16/1 16/2 12/4
8. sig 19 23 18 19 18
9. Jan 0.504 0.441 0.450 0.390 0.283 0.61
10.Feb 0.175 0.194 0.479 0.424 0.308 0.52
11.Mar 0.183 0.204 0.411 0.387 0.278 0.58
12.Apr 0.103 0.219 0.425 0.353 0.50
13.May 0.074 0.139
21.ave 0.208 0.239 0.440 0.401 0.306 0.553
22.rnk 6th 8th 11th 12th 11th 10th
Source UAH RSS Had4 Had3 Sst2 GISS

If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following links, UAH,
For RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2,and GISS.

To see all points since January 2012 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below:

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

I wish to make a comment about this graph from WFT. It is right up to date. The only reason that both HadCRUT3 and WTI only go to March is because WTI uses 4 data sets, one of which is HadCRUT3, so if HadCRUT3 is not there for April, WTI cannot be there for April as well.

Appendix

In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.

RSS

The slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May) RSS is 198/204 or 97% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.239. This would rank 8th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.192 and it came in 11th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Both show all plotted points for RSS since 1990. Then two lines are shown on the first graph. The first upward sloping line is the line from where warming is not significant according to the SkS site criteria. The second straight line shows the point from where the slope is flat.
The second graph shows the above, but in addition, there are two extra lines. These show the upper and lower lines using the SkS site criteria. Note that the lower line is almost horizontal but slopes slightly downward. This indicates that there is a slight chance that cooling has occurred since 1990 according to RSS
graph 1 and graph 2.

UAH

The slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.208. This would rank 6th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.161 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to UAH.
Graph 1 and graph 2.

Hadcrut4

The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April.)
For Hadcrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.440. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.448 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4.
Graph 1 and graph 2.

Hadcrut3

The slope is flat since March 1 1997 or 16 years, 1 month (goes to March 31, 2013)
For Hadcrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.401. This would rank 12th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.405 and it came in 10th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut3.
Graph 1 and graph 2.

Hadsst2

For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 2 months. (goes to April 30, 2013).
The Hadsst2 average anomaly for the first four months for 2013 is 0.306. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.342 and it came in 8th.
Sorry! The only graph available for Hadsst2 is the following
this.

GISS

The slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.553. This would rank 10th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.56 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to GISS.
Graph 1 and graph 2

Conclusion

Above, various facts have been presented along with sources from where all facts were obtained. Keep in mind that no one is entitled to their own facts. It is only in the interpretation of the facts for which legitimate discussions can take place. After looking at the above facts, do you think that we should spend billions to prevent the claimed catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or do you think we should take a “wait and see” attitude for a few years to be sure that future warming will be as catastrophic as some claim it will be? Keep in mind that even the MET office felt the need to revise its forecasts. Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

By the way, here is an earlier prediction by the MET office:

“(H)alf of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998.”

When this prediction was made, they had Hadcrut3 and so far, the 1998 mark has not been broken on Hadcrut3. 2013 is not starting well if they want a new record in 2013. Here are some relevant facts today: The sun is extremely quiet; ENSO has been between 0 and -0.5 since the start of the year; it takes at least 3 months for ENSO effects to kick in and the Hadcrut3 average anomaly after March was 0.401 which would rank it in 12th place. Granted, it is only 3 months, but you are not going to set any records starting the race in 12th place after three months. So even if a 1998 type El Nino started to set in tomorrow, it would be at least 4 or 5 months for the maximum ENSO reading to be reached. Then it would take at least 3 more months for the high ENSO to be reflected in Earth’s temperature. How hot would November and December then have to be to set a new record? In my opinion, the odds of setting a new record in 2013 are extremely remote.

About these ads

277 thoughts on “Are We in a Pause or a Decline? (Now Includes at Least April* Data)

  1. “Are We in a Pause or a Decline?”

    My WAG is, neither. We’re just in another blip in the noise that is climate. Jumping up and down about any small change in either direction is pretty moronic.

  2. IMO we are continuing upward at a lower rate (about 0.1C per decade) than the satellite record (about 0.13 or 0.14C per decade). That rate is unlikely to continue and would be mild warming anyway. The reason we are not likely to continue upward is that the sun has rolled over and we have yet to feel the effects of that due to thermal inertia. We should see a real downtrend in a few years, probably 10 at the most.

  3. From what playing around I’ve done on WTF, it’s all too easy to come up with trend lines that are positive or negative, so I tend not to experiment much any more.

    One thing that I find very intriguing is the analysis in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/ that shows 2006 may be the peak and start of 60 years of cooling. See http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/china/liu-2011-predictions-web.gif

    I’ll give things a couple years to get the downslope established, assuming it verifies, then I can point to a warming period nearly as long as “no significant warming” period and point to the new cooling period.

  4. When you show the previous increase of temperatures–the one that we are supposedly no longer experiencing–you attribute it to “little ice age recovery” when the overwhelming number of scientific studies, evidences and historical temperature analyses show that this warming had nothing to do with “recovery” of the little ice age.

    that being said. I find it a little disturbing that you seem to think that the surface of the earth is the only warming that matters. What I mean to say is that, under certain variable conditions, like the negative PDO we have been experiencing, there is greater mixing of water in the oceans which causes more of the heat energy to be moved to the deeper ocean. When this happens (surface mixing) the upwelling currents cause the sea surface temperature to cool.

    right now about 98% off the warming that is occurring is happening in the oceans. Only 2% of the heat is actually going into the air and land surface. Even with 98% of the heat going into the oceans, 9 out of the 10 hottest years in recorded history globally have occurred in the last decade.

    http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/01/16/nasa-2012-was-9th-warmest-year-on-record-the-9-warmest-years-have-all-occurred-since-1998/

    how you can say that this indicates a “cooling” or a “stagnation” is beyond me.

    I look at northern hemisphere land surface temperatures only. I disregard south latitude sea temperatures. Because the majority of our food and population is grown on the land in the northern hemisphere.

  5. Worse case is this is a start of the glaciation phase, perhaps triggered by obliquity, negative ocean oscillations confluence, and the solar minimum. In which case the 70’s worry of glaciation was just premature. Yeah, it is just a guess, but does anyone have a good handle on what initiates the glaciation phase? LIA may have been just a trial run.

  6. As jai mitchell says above, AGW alarmists don’t care about air temps any more. They’re irrelevant because the heat is going into the oceans… or it is until we can prove it’s not and by then they’ll have found somewhere else for it to be hiding. Keep your eye on the pea, as someone around here sometimes says :).

  7. HADCRUT are now on Version 4, and April figures are out here.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

    For me, the significant thing is that we have been in a neutral ENSO phase for the last few months (since the small El Nino last summer.) The last time we had a long neutral phase was April 2001 – May 2002.

    For the last 3 months, GISS temperatures have been running slightly lower than than that earlier period.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/waiting-for-hadcrut-again/

    There can be no accusation of cherry picking, as we are comparing like with like.

  8. Thanks very much for Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s telling graph. I note that the excellent article from which it was excerpted was published in 2008, the year after he retired as Founding Director from the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, having served in that position since 1998. He had previously directed UAF’s Geophysical Institute from 1986.

  9. I wonder if the distinguished Dr. Akasofu is one of the three percent, or not among the select 77 “active climate scientists” cherry picked from the survey of over 10,000 colleagues, more than 3000 of whom responded?

  10. Every month this year in Central England has been below the 136 year average and I’m freezing.

  11. Hey , if you want to know whether a dataset shows warming or cooling look at the rate of change.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/-temp/from:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2010/derivative/plot/uah/from:2010/derivative/plot/rss/from:2010/derivative/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2010/derivative/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010/derivative/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2010/derivative

    Now if someone know how to trick the crippled WFT interface into putting a grid on the plots or plotting a line at y=0 so we don’t have to guess where zero is or put a piece of paper across the screen that would be a real plus as well.

  12. My next book: The Pause and Decline of Global Warming.
    Seriously, assuming we have been recovering from the Little Ice Age, we have had some “CO2 Assisted?” warming since 1850 or before.
    Now wait a second… we’ve seen a *near identical* rate of temperature change now and before the rise in CO2 (as during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century compared to now). C3 has presented a great piece on the rate of temp change, with a powerful graphic.
    View the graphic here: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01901d26f85e970b-pi

    And my comment on the C3 piece just now in a jonova thread:
    Baa Humbug, that is an OUTSTANDING graphic! Beyond no actual evidence at all of CO2 causing temperature change, what really casts doubt on the notion that CO2 has ANY effect on temps is the graphic you present. Clear as day. No change at all in the rate of temperature change despite CO2 having risen to “dangerous” levels.
    Even many skeptics hold to the line that it is indisputable “established science” that CO2 has a direct greenhouse effect (GHE) of at least 1°C per doubling, and that it is only the feedbacks that are in question. But the chart you present clearly shows that the whole 9-yards should be in question. Barring all kinds of possible epicycle style explanations, the chart shows CO2 hasn’t done squat. CO2 has done… nothing.
    As it is, there’s no empirical evidence that CO2 causes temp change: all that the warmists can point to is a theoretical model, but there are other theoretical models that maintain that CO2 won’t cause -any- temp change, for example, the one that posits that there is effectively no more GHE after 200ppm.
    I saved that C3 link you gave as a favorite. We all should do the same.

  13. “A Pause or a Decline”
    Makes absolutely no difference since we can’t do a ding, dong doodily bit about it.
    I would like it much warmer though

  14. If it’s true that the sun is going into a minimum phase reminiscent of the Dalton or Maunder minimum phases, then the multi-century LIA recovery trendline in your 2nd figure above should be clearly broken.

    This is the tough thing about climate — there are a huge number of factors that contribute. Everything from CO2 from human activity to the sun to CFCs to volcanic eruptions, must be considered. (That doesn’t even begin to form a complete list of factors.)

    If solar activity and the 60-year PDO-type are both trending cooler, and we get volcanic eruptions (say from Katla), it could get very cold very quickly. Don’t give away your winter parka just yet…

  15. Paul Homewood says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    HADCRUT are now on Version 4, and April figures are out here.
    Hello Paul, I did have the Hadcrut4 numbers. It was Hadcrut3 for April that I do not have. Would you have that one? Thanks!

  16. Werner, it is not a Pause nor a Decline, but a slowly DECLINING PLATEAU, the
    very top of a sine wave: http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/eoo_paper.html
    Akasofu makes the mistake of using a LINEARY recovery line from the Little
    Ice Age…..he should have extended this recovery line 3- to 400 years or more
    back in the past, then the sine line would have surfaced…..therefore, his future
    projection with a lineary increase is wrong…..cheers JS

  17. jai mitchell says:

    When you show the previous increase of temperatures–the one that we are supposedly no longer experiencing–you attribute it to “little ice age recovery” when the overwhelming number of scientific studies, evidences and historical temperature analyses show that this warming had nothing to do with “recovery” of the little ice age.

    Jai–do you actually read those papers? In the 350 years of instrumental records, depending on where you begin, there are warm trends and cool trends. When you have a “cool” trend–and it gets warm again–it is called a recovery from the cool trend. Or do you think that the freezing cold temps in the LIA are the planet’s normal temperature? Actually the planet has been much warmer for longer periods of time and the warmer trends might actually be the norm. If, as you say, the “overwhelming number of scientific studies” show that warming from the LIA is not a recovery from the cold–what do you think it was? I certainly haven’t read papers that suggest the LIA temperatures are the norm for the planet (if there is such a thing). The warming wasn’t caused by atmospheric CO2 now was it? I think as others do that a “trip to the real historical record” might clear this up for you.This paper could help: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/

    @ that link, davidmhoffer says:

    August 14, 2012 at 5:58 pm Plot that graph using the baseline temp on a scale relevant to the human experience, like -40 to +40 and suddenly all those “huge” fluctuations, past and present, stand out for what they really are. Pretty much flat.

  18. My projection is for the next 3 years that only an El Nino year will make it into the top ten warmist years. For the following five years even a super El Nino year will struggle After that it will be two decades before a year makes it into the top ten.

  19. Aside from his lack of any plausible explanation as to how all that phantom heat managed to evade all the sensors and magically become located in the deep ocean, jai makes the usual illogical argument that since the last so and so years have been the warmest ever (actually, only in the brief period of direct temp measurement) then we must still be warming. The obvious fact is that once warming stops, the following years will ALWAYS be warmer than what went before, even though zero warming is now occurring. Yes, the last few years have been among the warmest over the past few centuries and YES, the warming has stopped. Get it?

  20. jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    I find it a little disturbing that you seem to think that the surface of the earth is the only warming that matters. …..right now about 98% off the warming that is occurring is happening in the oceans.

    If 98% of the heat is going into the oceans, then we do not have to worry about global warming anymore. Who cares if the deep ocean warms from 3.0 to 3.2 degrees or whatever the amount is? Due to the laws of thermodynamics, the deep oceans have to get above 15 C to make the air warmer than 15 C. And there are simply not enough fossil fuels around to enable us to get anywhere close to raising the deep ocean temperature to 15 C.

    NOAA says the following:

    ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    I am not aware of NOAA changing the goal posts as to what is important with regards to validating the climate models.

  21. jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    9 out of the 10 hottest years in recorded history globally have occurred in the last decade

    It seems to me that you are not counting the MWP and a few other periods. However, at the same time, with RSS, 2012 ranks 11th, and 2011 ranks 13th, and 2008 is 22nd. So three of the last five years are not even be in the top ten!

    That is why we are talking about a “cooling” or a “stagnation”.

  22. Paul Homewood says:
    June 9, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Werner Brozek

    As far as I know, HADCRUT3 has been discontinued now.

    Paul
    ————————————————-
    Paul, I emailed the MO back in Jan on the subject of the discontinuation of HadCRUT3 and its constituent parts and received the following:-

    “The plan is to keep both HadSST2 and HadSST3 running in parallel for a while”

    Now how long is a while? Maybe a while is no longer than now?

  23. John Tillman says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    Thanks very much for Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s telling graph. I note that the excellent article from which it was excerpted was published in 2008

    I assume you are alluding to the following article by Dr. David Evans who uses it on page 21 of:

    http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

    If you have contact with him, please let him know his graph is very much appreciated!

  24. Here in the UK the trends in the weather patterns since 2007 are pointing towards a decline.
    The big question about how long it will remain, is still unknown.
    But here in the UK at least all the signs are that its beginning to bed in.

  25. Which should we use? The IPCC numbers? If so we’re cooling to their horror. If we’re using numbers as presented on the above graphs none of those agree with each other to any degree outside of temperature so small verify. Jai Mitchell says the oceans are warming. Right – based on how many verified reports done by whom? For whom? There are ten thousand volcanoes down there and more no one had ever seen to this point in time. And they do what? Cool the deep ocean? Right – magical IPCC volcanoes?

    In any case – it is darn cold in my neck of the woods no mater what those number and graphs show. And I’m not the only location where it’s colder then usual either.

  26. JM Van Winkle
    lts a pet project of mine to try and understand what was going on “weather wise” to set in place a ice age. Here in europe at least l think am beginning to understand that process, after seeing the changes to the jet stream since 2007. But its still work in progress.

  27. jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    “that being said. I find it a little disturbing that you seem to think that the surface of the earth is the only warming that matters. What I mean to say is that, under certain variable conditions, like the negative PDO we have been experiencing, there is greater mixing of water in the oceans which causes more of the heat energy to be moved to the deeper ocean.”

    Now first of all I’d like to know what happened to stratification. Is it out of fashion these days? Second, has the governement scientist cult of CO2AGW already produced bogus papers i.e. model runs that “show” an increased mixing of ocean waters. I dare not ask whether there is any observational evidence. Because I know what I’ll get as answer, a pointer to the OHC data, to which I reply: That does not show mixing, it shows heat content. And there is a way for “heat” to get into the depths between 100 and 700 meter, the only layer that actually warmed that is not part of the IPCC climate models or the CO2AGW theory, namely UV and the significant variation of UV during the course of a solar cycle.

  28. Donald L. Klipstein says:
    June 9, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    “Smoothed HadCRUT3 is running around where it was in 2001. We have had 12 years of no warming.”

    Well and if you smooth even more you get smooth continuous warming since 1750; such is the nature of smoothing. And?

  29. Just a general comment and one only loosely related to this post….

    I think we in the post digital error have become too enamored with sin waves. The Fourier transform is one of many, many transforms. It’s very convenient for somethings, especially for describing an oscillating system with no net change of internal energy, systems with rigidly defined boundaries, etc., but that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with whatever system we might be looking at any particular day. I say that as a person who has used it a lot and seen it mislead or even fail too often.

  30. wbrozek says:
    June 9, 2013 at 2:36 pm

    I should have specified to which image I referred. Dr. Evans’ paper cited Dr. Akasofu’s graph comparing the LIA recovery warming trend and superimposed observed & predicted cycling around it with the IPCC’s imaginary extrapolation to one small part of the curve from a trough to a peak, down from which temperature Earth is now cycling. For a brief portion of the last cycle (c. 1980-2000), rising CO2 just happened accidentally to correspond with the natural upswing.

  31. Jai: “right now about 98% off the warming that is occurring is happening in the oceans.”

    Or coming out of the oceans into the air. Or not.

    Since the transport of heat into and out of the oceans cannot be proven Jai, how do you know which direction it is flowing?

  32. Good stuff.

    I especially liked this very important questions:

    After looking at the above facts, do you think that we should spend billions to prevent the claimed catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or do you think we should take a “wait and see” attitude for a few years to be sure that future warming will be as catastrophic as some claim it will be?

    Once in a while my suspicious mind has wondered if the warmist scientists could see in their own (unpublished) work that the rise in global temps would abate and that if they could do a bum’s rush on the whole thing, then they could take credit for this “lull” and would not have to explain any “missing energy”, because they could then have claimed that the anti-CO2 efforts were working.

    White knights to the rescue! (…of a damsel who wasn’t really in distress.) If they could have gotten away with it, just think where we’d all be. Thank de good lawd fer de Climategate emails! Hallelujah!

    I’m just saying. . .

    Steve Garcia

  33. I can explain it in a second.

    1998 the strongest el nino on record with the highest abnormal sea surface temperatures.

    with some small exception most of the other years had much cooler sea surface temperatures. but land surface temperatures continued to rise.

    cool sea surface temperatures, according to this site, are caused by increased winds pushing warm water across the sea, leaving the cold water (deeper water) behind. This is called mixing.

  34. Dinostratus says:
    June 9, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    Just a general comment and one only loosely related to this post….

    I think we in the post digital error have become too enamored with sin waves. The Fourier transform is one of many, many transforms. It’s very convenient for somethings, especially for describing an oscillating system with no net change of internal energy, systems with rigidly defined boundaries, etc., but that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with whatever system we might be looking at any particular day. I say that as a person who has used it a lot and seen it mislead or even fail too often.

    It is foolish to create a linear ‘projection’ based on the outputs of a chaotic system. Is it any more logical to carry out a Fourier transform on the outputs of a chaotic system?

  35. We are in the magic period now where the ENSO is more-or-less neutral and the AMO is more-or-less back to Zero.

    Solar irradiance is still 0.3 W/m2 higher than normal given that we are at the top of the solar cycle (even though it is perhaps 0.1 W/m2 to 0.2 W/m2 lower than would be expected at the top of solar cycle) so it is just a tiny positive, 0.025C or so.

    So this is a time period of neutral natural cycles.

    UAH n May was +0.074C and RSS wass +0.139C.

    Welcome to the un-noticeable change in the climate.

  36. jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    1998 the strongest el nino on record with the highest abnormal sea surface temperatures.

    The record is very short, and our understanding of climatic processes is still pretty low. So what is there to worry about again?

    Oh, and if you think there is a catastrophe happening, why are you using a computer?

  37. jai mitchell says:

    “…9 out of the 10 hottest years in recorded history globally have occurred in the last decade.”

    If you believe that, you must be drinking your Kool Aid at blogs like SkS. In fact, the 1930’s were by far the warmest decade of the past century; warmer than the 2000’s [and that warming occurred when CO2 levels were much lower than now]. If you follow WUWT for a while, you will find plenty of evidence of data tampering, which results in the misinformation such as: ‘the past decade was the warmest &etc.’

    Face it, Mann’s bogus Hokey Stick has been turned upside down by the real world.

    Finally, I should point out that even the über-alarmist Phil Jones admits that the recent [natural] global warming episode had the same slope as past warmings, which occurred when CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. How do you explain that — except by admitting that CO2 does not have the claimed global warming effect?

  38. I am very happy that this site is also posting political AGW (I am a scientist and very adverse to politics in science). Its now the only way these guys will stop, for example the Tim Yeo story today (thank god for the internet). Just another domino falling…. but the money trough will have to stop if we are to have any chance in stopping “AGW Climate Science Drivel” LOL

  39. jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    When you show the previous increase of temperatures–the one that we are supposedly no longer experiencing–you attribute it to “little ice age recovery” when the overwhelming number of scientific studies, evidences and historical temperature analyses show that this warming had nothing to do with “recovery” of the little ice age.
    ———————————————————————

    This unsupported assertion is patently false. To what exactly do you imagine that “studies, evidences & analyses” attribute the warming from ~1850 to 1945 if not recovery from the LIA, ie natural causes?

    Certainly not to CO2.

    Please point me to these studies & analyses & state the evidences to the effect you claim. Thanks.

  40. milodonharlani says:

    “This unsupported assertion is patently false.”

    I agree. The planet is still recovering from the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,700 year Holocene.

  41. Maybe it’s a dumb question, but has Climate Science provided a definition of warming, that can be measured? For example, if some mitigation strategy was put into place, how would we measure to see if it was effective? I had thought such a measure was the global temperature anomaly, but it seems now it has seemingly stalled, it’s not sufficient. Surely in the “hundreds of years of scientific advancement” a measurement scheme must have been defined?

  42. @jai mitchell says:
    ++++++++
    jai mitchell: So let me get this straight. All you have is this: The ilk was not wrong when they said surface temperatures were rising due to CO2, because even though surface temperatures are not rising, now we know the heat is hiding, it must be hiding… yeah, we found it… it’s in the deep oceans… it must be, because all these studies can’t be wrong. And then you add in drivel that the surface temperature is not in decline.

    You are all over the place and you continue with nonsense. But, here you’re allowed and free to show us the best that your political ilk have to offer. Nothing based on science. Just circular arguments to continue the hoax foisted upon the world.

    The truth is that you don’t know where the heat is and I think you wish that temperatures were rising so that the politics that ban fossil fuel wealth can proceed at the expense of thriving.

  43. jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    “What I mean to say is that, under certain variable conditions, like the negative PDO we have been experiencing, there is greater mixing of water in the oceans which causes more of the heat energy to be moved to the deeper ocean.”

    “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” – R. Feynman

    Your conjecture is just that, it is a long stretch, and a desperate attempt to salvage something from the wreckage.

    Greg Goodman says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    “Now if someone know how to trick the crippled WFT interface into putting a grid on the plots or plotting a line at y=0…”

    Your wish is my command.

  44. “However the lines do suggest that we are just continuing a 60 year sine wave that was started in 1880 according to the following graphic”

    I assume you mean 1980.

  45. dbstealey says:
    June 9, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    milodonharlani says:

    “This unsupported assertion is patently false.”

    I agree. The planet is still recovering from the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,700 year Holocene.
    ————————————

    Were Jai Mitchell actually interested in studies, evidence & analysis of recovery from the LIA, he or she could start with this 2010 Natural Science journal article:

    http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217

    On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
    PDF (Size:1496KB) PP. 1211-1224 DOI: 10.4236/ns.2010.211149

    Author(s)

    Syun-Ichi Akasofu

    ABSTRACT
    A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them

    Cite this paper
    Akasofu, S. (2010) On the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Natural Science, 2, 1211-1224. doi: 10.4236/ns.2010.211149.

    References

    [1] Lamb, H.H. (1982) Climate, history, and the modern world. Methuen, New York, 387.
    [2] Grove, J.M. (1988) The little ice age. Methuen, New York, 498.
    [3] Esper, J., Cook, E.R. and Schweingruber, F.H. (2002) Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability, Science, 295, 2250-2253.
    [4] Frank, D., Esper, J. and Cook, E.R. (2007) Adjustment for proxy number and coherence in a large-scale temperature reconstruction. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16709.
    [5] National research council of the national academies. (2006), Washington, D.C., 145.
    [6] Ito, K. (2003) Global warming (Chikyu Ondanka). Nippon Hyoronsha, 209.
    [7] Nunn, P.D. (2007) Climate, Environment and society in the pacific during the last millennium. Elsevier, 302.
    [8] Oppo, D.W., Rosenthal, Y. and Linsey, B.K. (2009) 2000-year-long temperature and hydrology reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool. Nature 460, 1113-1116.
    [9] Fagan, B. (2000) The Little Ice Age: How climate made history, 1300-1800. Perseus Book Group, 246.
    [10] Keigwin, L.D. (1996) The Little Ice Age and medieval warming period in the Sargasso Sea. Science, 274, 1503-1508.
    [11] Tarand, A. and Nordli, P.O. (2001) The Tallinn temperature series reconstructed back half a millennium by use of proxy data. In: Ogilvie, A.E.J. and Jónsson, T. Eds., The Iceberg in the Mist: Northern Research in Pursuit of a “Little Ice Age, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Holland, 189-199.
    [12] van Engelen, J., Buisman, J. and Ijnsen, F. (2001) A millennium of weather, winds, and water in the lower countries. History and Climate: Memories of the Future, Kluwer Academic Press, New York, Boston, London, 101-124.
    [13] Pollack, H.N. and Smerdon, J.E. (2004) Borehole climate reconstructions; spatial structure and hemispheric averages. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D11106.
    [14] Asami, R., Yamada, T., Iryu, Y., Quinn, T.M., Meyer, C.P. and Paulay, G. (2005) Interannual and decadal variability of the western Pacific sea surface condition for the years 1787-2000: Reconstruction based on stable isotope record from a Guam coral. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, CO5018.
    [15] Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M. and Karlen, W. (2007) Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613-617.
    [16] Holmes, J.A. Zhang, J., Chenand, F., Qiang, M. (2007) Paleoclimatic implications of an 850-year oxygen isotope record from the northern Tibetan Plateau. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L23403.
    [17] Liu, X., Shao, X., Zhao, L., Qin, D., Chen, T. and Ren, J. (2007) Dendroclimatic temperature record derived from tree-ring width and stable carbon isotope chronologies in the Middle Qilian Mountains, China, Arctic. Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 39, 651-657.
    [18] Richey, J.N., Poore, R.Z., Flower, B.P. and Quinn, T.M. (2007) 1400 yr multi-proxy record of climate variability from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Geology, 35, 423.
    [19] Aono, Y. (2006) Climate reconstruction of spring-time temperature using phonological data flowering of cherry tree from old document. Grad. School of Life and Environmental Science, Osaka Prefecture University, 111.
    [20] Fritzsche, D., Schutt, R., Meyer, H., Miller, F., Wilhelms, T., Opel, T. and Savatyugin, L.M. (2006) Late Holocene ice core record from Akasemii Nauk Ice Cap, Severnaya Zemlya. Annals of Glaciology, 42, 361-366.
    [21] Polyakov, I.V., Alekseev, G.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Bhatt, U., Colony, R.L., Johnson, M.A., Karklin, V.P., Makshtas, A.P., Walsh, D. and Yulin, A.V. (2002) Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 4.
    [22] Isaksson, E., Hermanson, M., Hicks, S., Igarashi, M., Kamiyama, K., Moore, J., Motoyama, H., Muir, D., Pohjola, V., Vaikm?e, R., van de Wal , R.S.W. and Watanabe, O. (2003) Ice cores from Svalbard—useful archives of past climate and pollution history. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 28, 1217-1228.
    [23] Alexeev, V.A., Langen, P.L. and Bates, J.R. (2005) Polar amplification of surface warming on an aquaplanet in “ghost forcing” experiments without sea ice feedbacks. Climate Dynamics, 24, 655-666.
    [24] Magnuson, J.J., Robertson, D.M., Benson, B.J., Wynne, R.H., Livingstone, D.M., Arai, T., Assel, R.A., Barry, G. R., Card, V., Kuusisto, E., Granin, N.G., Prowse, T.D., Stewart, K.M. and Vuglinski V.S. (2000) Historical trends in lake and river ice cover in the Northern hemisphere. Science, 289, 1743-1746.
    [25] Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C. and Holgate, S. (2006) Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 11.
    [26] Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J.C., Grinsted. A. and Woodworth, P.L. (2008) Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08715.
    [27] Vinje, T. (2001) Anomalies and trends of sea-ice extent and atmospheric circulation in the Nordic seas during the period 1864-1998. Journal of Climate, 14, 255-267.
    [28] Zhang, X., Lindsay, R., Steele. M. and Schweiger, A. (2008a) What drove the dramatic retreat of arctic sea ice during summer 2007? Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L11505.
    [29] Zhang, X., Sorteberg, A., Zhang, J., Gerdes, R. and Comiso, J.C. (2008b) Recent radical shifts of atmospheric circulations and rapid changes in Arctic climate system. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L22701.
    [30] Muskett, R. (2008) Personal communication.
    [31] Molnia, B. (2008) Glaciers of North America and Alaska. USGS, professional paper 1386K, 525.
    [32] ACIA (2005) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, UK, 1042.
    [33] Strom, R.G. (2007) Hot House: Global climate change and the human condition. Copernicus Books, 302.
    [34] Grove, J.M. (2001) The onset of the Little Ice Age. In: Jones, P.D., Ogilvie, A.E.J., Davies, T.D. and Briffa, K.R. Eds., History and Climate, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publication, 153-185.
    [35] von Michael Kuhn, H. (2007) Fluctuations of the ‘Mer de Glace’ AD 1500-2000; an interdisciplinary approach using new historical data and neural network simulations. Zeitschrift für Gletscherkunde und Glazialgeologie, 40, 183.
    [36] Holzhausen, H., Magny, M. and Zumbuühl, H.J. (2005) Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years. The Holocene, 15, 789-801.
    [37] Kargel, J. (2008) Earth Observatory newsroom: New images-retreat of Gangotri Glacier USGS, 2008. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16584
    [38] Crowley. T.J. and North, G.R. (1991) Paleoclimatology. Oxford University Press, UK, 339.
    [39] Holgate, S.J. (2007) On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492.
    [40] Nerem, R., Chambers, D., Choe, J., Mitchum, G. and Ries, J. (2008) Building and understanding a climate data record of sea level change. http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/ science/scientific-investigations-2008/nerem.html
    [41] Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). http://www.data.kishou.go-jp/climate/cpinfo/temp/ay-wld.html
    [42] NOAA. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ anomalies/index.html
    [43] Bryant, E. (1997) Climate Process & Change. Cambridge University Press, UK, 209.
    [44] Wu, Z., Huang, N.E., Long, S.R. and Peng, C.-H. (2007) On the trend, detrending, and variability of nonlinear and nonstationary time series. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 14889-14894.
    [45] Dahl-Jensen, D., Mosegaard, K., Gundestrup, N., Clow, G.D., Johnson, S.J., Hansen, A.W. and Balling, N. (1998) Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science, 282, 268-271.
    [46] Alley, R.B. (2000) The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews, 19, 213-226.
    [47] Burroughs, W.J. (2001) Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, UK, 298.
    [48] Lang, K.R. (2000) The Sun from Space. Springer, New York, 357.
    [49] Musccheler, R., Joos, F., Beer, J., Vonmoos, M.S. and Snowball, I. (2007) Solar activity during last 1000yr inferred from radionuclide records. Quaternary Science Reviews, 26, 2682-2692.
    [50] Lean, J., Beer, J. and Bradley, R.S. (1995) Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implication for climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 3195- 3198.
    [51] Nozawa, T., Nagashima, T., Shiogama, H. and Crooks, S.A. (2005) Detecting natural influence on surface air temperature change in the early twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L20719.
    [52] Scafetta, N. and West, B.J. (2006) Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters 33, Lo5708.
    [53] Scafetta, N. and West, B.J. (2006) Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature records. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L17718.
    [54] Soon, W. (2005) Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multi-decadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L16712, 5.
    [55] Duhau, S. and de Jager, C. (2008) The solar dynamo and Its phase transitions during the last millennium. Solar Phys. 250, 1-15.
    [56] Kerr, R.A. (2009) What happened to global warming? Scientists say just wait a bit. Science, 326, 28-29.
    [57] University of Washington (2008). http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
    [58] Pielke Sr., R.A. (2008) A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 11, 54-55.
    [59] Polyakov, I.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Alexseev, G.V., Bhatt, U., Colony, R.L., Johnson, M.A., Makshtas, A.P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875-2000. Journal of Climate, 16, 2067-2077.
    [60] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007). http://www.ipcc.ch

  46. DocBud says:
    June 9, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    I assume you mean 1980.

    No, I did mean 1880. Note the peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000, or about every 60 years. If people are inclined to say the last 8 years is just a small wiggle, at one level I would agree with them. However against the backdrop of what has been happening over the last 130 years, and for which there is no apparent tie to CO2, the most recent 8 year “wiggle” takes on a lot of significance in my opinion.

  47. In jai mitchell’s world of the Hockey Schtik with no MWA or LIA, the only way is up. If you’ve only read Mann and his disciples then your ignorance is partially excusable. However, what this layman finds intriguing would like to know more about is the “right now about 98% off (sic) the warming that is occurring is happening in the oceans.” Do you have some source of empirical evidence or are you just “on the sauce” ? If you are a ‘teenage scientist’ … you should consider a career in standup comedy.

  48. I originally created the first chart using only RSS because I wanted to see what happened when the PDO went negative. I used 2005 because that was ENSO neutral and I didn’t want to overly influence the result. And, it was half way through the 16.5 years of no warming which was nice. Given we are currently in ENSO neutral conditions as well, it looks pretty clear that a cooling trend had started. Also note that 1996 was ENSO neutral.

    Keep in mind that the 10+ years of warming through the late 1980s was considered enough to create the IPCC and have scientists proclaiming future catastrophe. So, 8+ years of cooling with a defined mechanism (PDO) is right in line with that process.

    Also note that before the alarmists got their hands on the surface data the graphs showed .5C of cooling from 1945-1975. Now those same graphs show almost no cooling. I suspect the 1930s were as warm as today and we have reached the end of the LIA recovery. All indicators point to future cooling.

  49. J.Seifert says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    Akasofu makes the mistake of using a LINEARY recovery line from the Little
    Ice Age…..he should have extended this recovery line 3- to 400 years or more
    back in the past, then the sine line would have surfaced…..therefore, his future
    projection with a lineary increase is wrong

    Over a short enough period a straight line is a good enough approximation of a sine curve. Or most others.

    From my reading of Akasofu, he didn’t look at a long enough period to come up with the period of the sine you’re looking for.

    For a WUWT look at Akasofu’s paper and other stuff, see

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/01/dr-syun-akasofu-20-points-of-context-on-global-warming-politics-and-the-economy-of-the-world/

  50. The 40 years solar activity trend since the 1964 minima (which in the period 1964-1994 had according to Solanki TSI data the slope of +0.142 W/m^2 per decade and which most probably caused the recent mid70s-2000 warming period wia warming the sea water – as the absolute ocean surface heat budget numbers <a href="show quite convincingly) contrary to the common belief turned to downward heading slope in March 2006 and descended steeply since then. Which quite coincides with the turning point at the first graph of the article.

    Even the fact we are now in the solar cycle maxima period nothing much changes on the relatively steep downward slopes.

    The current solar cycle is so weak that even the TSI trend from the 1996 solar minima to current maxima is relatively steeply descencing at pace of 0.56 W/m^2 per decade according to SORCE-TIM level normalised ACRIM TSI composite And as you can see on this graph.it would be no better for other TSI datasets neither.

    And as I wrote we are currently at the solar cycle maxima activity period, so it will only descend and so we surely can’t expect the solar activity trends turn back to upward slope at least in the next 15 years, even if the solar cycle 25 will be the strongest solar cycle ever on record. And if the next solar cycle 25 will be simmilarly weak as the current solar cycle 24 – as some now predict – then we can’t expect solar activity trends to have an upward slope at very least quarter of century.

    Therefore my bet is we are at the beginning of a relatively long ride down. It will be of course nothing catastrophic and the surface temperature anomaly will descend just couple of tenths of centigrade*.

    But if my prediction, based on a study of the available data and the solar influence on the sea surface temperature anomaly, then it would be absolutely killing roller-coaster crash trip for all the CAGW hype the mankind paid so dearly for so far.

    —————-
    *Which is nothing if we would compare it with the due to axial precession inevitable shift of the Earths perihelion (now at the beginning of January) to summer months in about ~12000 years, which most probably will somewhere on the way start the ice age due to catastrophicaly low insolation of the ocean – which is mainly at the southern hemisphere (62.8%) and therefore the now more or less maximaly insolated oceans during the Earth’s perihelion (when the real TSI at the real Earth distance from the Sun reaches ~1408+ W per square meter while in aphelion it is 1306- W per square meter), will become considerably less insolated, causing then according to my calculations considerable net global average decline of the solar radiation extinction in the ocean (a process producing ~90% of the heat on this planets suface layer) leading to negative forcing of ~ -5-6 W per square meter averaged globally (- alone leading to several degrees decline of the average suface temperature, not speaking about the positive feedback due to the glaciation and rising albedo, which would cause further temperatures decline). So it is btw impossible the CO2 atmospheric content ever can cause a catastrophic global warming even if the estimations of it’s forcing would be true.

  51. IMO, the Modern Warm Period still has some more cycles of cooler & warmer phases to go, but agree cooler should be next. The Minoan Warm Period has been variously dated, but let’s say 1450–1300 BC; the Roman WP by one accounting lasted from ~250 BC to 0 (or until AD 400), & the Medieval from perhaps AD 950 to 1250 (possibly starting around 800). So if the Modern WP be 150 years old, it could in fact be coming to an end, but another 100 to 150 years in duration is perhaps more likely. The length of the warm cycles (if such they actually be) doesn’t seem to be shortening or lengthening with the aging Holocene interglacial.

  52. Other Minoan dates include 1500-1200 & 1450-1250 BC. So call it roughly 300 year intervals at about the controversial Bond cycle peak to peak of 1100 to 1500 years.

    It’s possible however that the following cold period could be the next Big Ice Age instead of another slightly less little one.

  53. You like all rabid magic mirror believers sound intoxicated every time you speak.

    jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    When you show the previous increase of temperatures–the one that we are supposedly no longer experiencing–you attribute it to “little ice age recovery” when the overwhelming number of scientific studies, evidences and historical temperature analyses show that this warming had nothing to do with “recovery” of the little ice age.

    that being said. I find it a little disturbing that you seem to think that the surface of the earth is the only warming that matters. What I mean to say is that, under certain variable conditions, like the negative PDO we have been experiencing, there is greater mixing of water in the oceans which causes more of the heat energy to be moved to the deeper ocean. When this happens (surface mixing) the upwelling currents cause the sea surface temperature to cool.

    right now about 98% off the warming that is occurring is happening in the oceans. Only 2% of the heat is actually going into the air and land surface. Even with 98% of the heat going into the oceans, 9 out of the 10 hottest years in recorded history globally have occurred in the last decade.

    http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/01/16/nasa-2012-was-9th-warmest-year-on-record-the-9-warmest-years-have-all-occurred-since-1998/

    how you can say that this indicates a “cooling” or a “stagnation” is beyond me.

    I look at northern hemisphere land surface temperatures only. I disregard south latitude sea temperatures. Because the majority of our food and population is grown on the land in the northern hemisphere.

  54. jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    9 out of the 10 hottest years in recorded history globally have occurred in the last decade.
    ===================

    God you’re a tool………

  55. I wonder if jai is just another one of those out-of-work comedians. They like to try out their humor. It is working….

  56. jai mitchell:

    Some are treating you like a troll, which seems justified. However, you’ve asked a few questions and been given answers. What I’d like to know is, are you actually listening? I’d like to believe that you are a real person who is wanting to find out things, rather than someone just trying to stir up the forum (there have been many of those in the past, which is why people are making the assumption).

    So here’s the thing. Nothing you have told us is new to WUWT regulars. We are all more than aware of the things you’ve discussed, including “unprecedented warming”, warmest decade on record, ocean acidification, deep sea warming, etc. We’ve also discussed the inaccuracy of past records, uncertainty of proxies, the fact (not belief, fact) that Mann’s hockey stick is a fabrication, not science.

    We are also aware that most “climate scientists” hold a certain opinion, but are you aware than “climate scientist” is a new discipline, and in order to get any sort of certification you would need to be of the same mind? Other scientists in other disciplines have clearly pointed out the shortcomings, errors, and outright failures in “climate science”. In fact, many regular commenters at WUWT are scientists.

    Facts: the observed temperatures are NOT matching the predictions. There is no credible or observed mechanism for “heat” to flow into the deep oceans, bypassing the atmosphere. The surface temperature record over the last 100 years has been altered, and is not credible in its current, “adjusted” form, while most of the original data is “lost”. The Argo bouys which were deployed to measure ocean temperatures are free floating, which means they tend to follow currents, which are nature’s way of moving HEAT, therefore they will probably always show heating where there is none.

    Typically, the majority of WUWT regulars used to believe as you. Asking just a few questions and seeking the answers have made most of us realize that the story we’ve been told is just that: a story. There are far more questions than answers, and the people who were tasked with finding the answers have pretty much made them up to push their own beliefs.

    I think if you can stop echoing the AGW line and actually look at what’s being discussed here, you might realize that you, too, are a “skeptic”.

  57. Jai, is
    “Because the majority of our food and population is grown on the land in the northern hemisphere.”

    supposed to explain

    “I look at northern hemisphere land surface temperatures only. I disregard south latitude sea temperatures”?
    If so, either they should be a single sentence, or you should start the explanation with “This is because”.

    It seems that Global Warming is destroying good writing.

  58. CodeTech

    yes, I am a real person. The problem with you folk here is that you are taking an ideological stance that is aligned along political parties. I would estimate that if properly polled, 95% of posters here would agree with the following statement, “socialized government programs intrude on the effectiveness of the free-market system of capitalism and impedes the well being of the population.”

    The reason I am saying this is that, without a doubt, the very conservative think tanks and propagandists have been paid very well by those interested in maintaining the status quo. They have found a captive audience in the conservative political camp and most if not all of these are captured ideologically.

    ———–

    when you say there is no “credible” method for heat to flow into the deep oceans, you are denying the fact that we have already measured warming in the oceans. That the amount of warming that has been required to produce the measured warming would raise land surface temperatures by over 10 degrees C.

    Even posts on this website speak to the fact that surface winds produce cool sea surface temperatures. What they don’t say is that this is simply due to mixing with colder water below.

    What they also don’t say is that it is the temperature differential that drives heat exchanges so a cooler surface temperature MUST absorb more heat energy than a warmer one.

    The fact is that the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the coal and oil lobby to prevent responses to climate change is the dominant player. And there are people out there who are paid to lie. Like Bill Happer (Marshall Institute) who recently went on the CNBC (financial news) and stated that we would be “fine” if CO2 went to 4000 ppm since our early ancestors survived “ok” then.

    what he didn’t say is that our early ancestors at that time were the size of cats and ate fruit and bugs that they caught with their own hands. That the sea level was 150 feet higher then and that the average temperature was 12C warmer (PETM Maximum)

    So basically he is advocating a world where none of our populations centers near water survive, that our fruits and grains fail to germinate and we have a massive depopulation due to heat stress, and water/food resource depletion.

    the Marshall institute was revealed during the lawsuits against the tobacco industry as being paid to thwart science and cloud the discussion around second hand smoke by the tobacco industry. They just moved on over to climate change and there are millions of dollars spent over the last 5 years to keep it up in the face of collapsing arctic sea ice loss, record heat waves and droughts, the driest January-February in California state history, and all of the other weather extremes that are going to be coming more and more rapidly now that the arctic has reached a tipping point.

    I do wish that there was more discussion that wasn’t based on falsified arguments and conspiracy theory on this site. That is why I stopped by.

  59. So basically he is advocating a world where none of our populations centers near water survive, that our fruits and grains fail to germinate and we have a massive depopulation due to heat stress, and water/food resource depletion.

    During the Holocene optimum temperatures were several degrees higher than today. The Sahara desert was a well watered plain and the Levant and the Arabian peninsula were part of the fertile crescent. On the negative side the American midwest was a desert as far east as Iowa.

    The point is that when you make predictions about climate, you only make those that suit your own political biases.

    The second point is that if we wanted to get off of hydrocarbons we could do so rapidly with the massive implementation of nuclear power. Yet the only solution that the climate science community (that has ZERO competence in this arena) can side with is solar panels and wind turbines, a solution that is in itself completely unsustainable yet the word sustainable has been attached to it.

    I will start to take climate scientists more seriously when they keep their noses out of the field of systems engineering that they have zero competence in but just happen to coincide with the leftist philosophy of the failed 1970’s.

  60. I’m fond of saying, albedo rules the climate.

    Antarctic sea is increasing at a record rate and a new maximum record looks a certainty. Winter has just begun and there is already sea ice north of the Antarctic Circle.

    It’s not widely appreciated that around and below the Antarctic Circle, at the SH summer solstice, gets more daily solar irradiance than any place on Earth. Come the spring there will be a large increase in solar energy that gets reflected back into space.

    This a very powerful positive (cooling) feedback, and I believe we will see year after year of increasing SH sea ice.

  61. milodonharani asked jai mitchell:

    “Please point me to these studies & analyses & state the evidences to the effect you claim. Thanks.”

    Response: nothing relevant. Instead, JM says:

    “The problem with you folk here is that you are taking an ideological stance that is aligned along political parties.”

    If that is not pure psychological projection, I’ll eat my hat. The alarmist crowd is constantly making this debate political, while skeptics post verifiable facts. jai mitchell is incapable of engaging in a real debate, because he lacks the empirical facts needed to support his AGW/CO2 belief system.

    Several of us have now posted facts that deconstruct the demonizing of “carbon”, but the only response we get is jai mitchell’s political screeds. That is not science, that is global warming propaganda.

    If mitchell can support his beliefs with real world facts, he needs to post those facts here. Otherwise, he joins the long list of climate alarmists who make baseless assertions, and expect everyone else to accept their beliefs.

    The Scientific Method doesn’t work like that. The alarmist crowd makes the conjecture that CO2 will cause runaway global warming. But they cannot support their conjecture with testable facts. No wonder they are losing the scientific debate.

  62. Frank Mlinar says:
    June 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    The observational data of the first plot appears to be very inaccurate.

    I had just plotted the last 16 years and not since 1850. However if you do plot from 1850, the only time in 130 years that both CO2 and temperature went up at the same time is during the 27 years from 1975 to 2002. Is it possible that the sun or ocean cycles or CFCs were responsible for this simultaneous rise rather than CO2? See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/normalise

  63. cool sea surface temperatures, according to this site, are caused by increased winds pushing warm water across the sea, leaving the cold water (deeper water) behind. This is called mixing.

    Pushed across the sea where? This isn’t mixing at all. Mixing involves moving warmed surface water down into cold water at depth. The problem with this is that warmed surface water literally floats on top of colder water underneath. It is as difficult to push down into the cold water as it is to push a beach ball down underwater (at the appropriate scale). You might want to take a look at the temperature profile of ocean water:

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html

    Note well that the time required for any significant mixing in depth to occur is very, very long. Note also that (as Bob Tisdale has made very clear in repeated studies of sea surface temperatures published in articles on this site) with the exception of ENSO–related events, sea surface temperatures have been nearly perfectly flat over extended periods of time. Since the ocean covers 70% of the Earth’s surface and we are supposedly talking about GLOBAL warming, the fact that ocean temperatures are not rapidly increasing (on the contrary, they are warming at most very, very slowly) is a good thing, is it not?

    Finally, it is a bit early to conclude that we know where the “missing heat” is going in spite of claims to the contrary. There are serious problems still with the ARGO data, although there is also hope than in time it will become as reliable as the satellite data. In the meantime, the satellite data is by far the most reliable metric for global temperature out there — it is truly global, for one thing, it isn’t corrupted by sampling bias, “adjustments”, and the UHI effect, and it directly measures the warming of the troposphere, that is, the part of the atmosphere below the stratosphere where we actually live. The satellite data (as indicated above) shows more or less no warming at all for somewhere between twelve and sixteen years. This is strongly confirmed by radiosonde data — soundings — collected by balloons. The warming observed is remarkably less than that predicted by any of the general circulation models — this has to be counted as a significant failure of the physics and/or parameters used in those models.

    It is really quite difficult to imagine how all of the heat that should be appearing in the troposphere is instead going into the deep ocean without appearing as surface warming first. Things warm from the inside out, and as I noted above, thermal expansion and Archimedes principle work against downward mixing, which is why almost all of the ocean is at a temperature of 4 C! (See the graph linked above). This is the temperature where water attains its maximum density. To give you an idea of how much “warming” is being claimed for a (comparatively small fraction) of the thermocline — if all of that supposed warming (0.1 C over fifty years, although the article here is not terribly specific about where that warming occurred as it certainly didn’t happen in the deep ocean below the thermocline) were subtracted from the curve on the linked article and plotted on the same graph, you could not possibly distinguish them.

    Note well the absurdity of the claim, BTW. The ocean covers 70% of the planet. It is far from homogeneous in temperature anywhere BUT below the thermocline. Even now, there are the merest handful of ARGO buoys compared to the vast, vast area, let alone depth, of the ocean, and ARGO has been semi-complete and taking data on a global basis for at most a handful of years, nothing even close to 50. Any sane estimate of probable error in the temperature estimates obtainable under the best possible circumstances from the best possible instrumentation would surely be many times 0.1 C — remember, they have to measure the temperature profile at depth more or less everywhere in the ocean to get a reliable estimate. So one should probably read this supposed increase as 0.1 C plus or minus 0.3 C or even 0.5 C. Note well that we can measure temperatures on the land far more easily and even there the published estimated errors (when you can find them) are order 0.1 C or more. Yet another reason to trust the satellite data over both the land data and (so far) the sea data.

    In the 33 years or so of reliable satellite observations of global troposphere temperatures — which includes the bulk of the so called “hockey stick” — global temperatures have increased at an average, linearized rate of a bit over 0.1 C/decade. Currently they are only 0.17 C or thereabouts over the 30 year mean, and falling. And as noted above, they have been more or less stable ever since the 1997-1998 “Super El Nino” that is almost certainly the proximate cause of the last and only significant warming spell the planet experienced over the entire satellite record, where global temperatures jumped 0.3 C or so in just one year, then fell back, then stabilized around the current flat to slightly decreasing level.

    The really funny thing is that there has been no discernible warming from the time that the IPCC succeeded, by dint of Al Gore’s book and movie and an “unprecedented” public relations campaign, in convincing the public that we were certain to warm at a uniform, catastrophic rate for the rest of the century. That prediction, at least, is categorically and manifestly untrue. Perhaps we will one day resume warming. Perhaps not. But we certainly didn’t keep warming as all of the GCMs claimed that we should, which is precisely why everybody is now scrabbling around looking for the missing heat. It is “missing” because it was supposed to warm, and didn’t. The seas were supposed to rise dramatically, and they haven’t, and aren’t. The world’s icepack was all supposed to be dramatically melting, but global ice is almost perfectly normal, with the deficit in the arctic balanced by a substantial (all time record) surplus in the antarctic.

    This leaves catastrophic anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in a difficult position. In law it might be called habeus corpus — the need to produce a body before you go around trying somebody for murder.

    Is it really so very unreasonable to require nature to produce some actual, definitively athropogenic, global warming before spending trillions of dollars preventing what may be a phantom, and condemning millions of people to a life of misery and poverty and disease and death as a consequence? Because every dollar you spend on inflated energy prices and measures intended to combat global warming condemns somebody in the third world to wait a little bit longer living in an energy impoverished state that you literally cannot imagine living in. You worry about a 0.1 C rise in the ocean temperature, a substantial fraction of which could not possibly have been caused by carbon dioxide. They worry about how to light their huts at night with a small smoky fire, where to find dried cow dung to burn for light and cooking, where to find water that isn’t infected with horrific parasites, how to get medical care for their children and food for their table, all without affordable energy.

    If you asked them to vote — take a chance on an additional 1.6 C temperature increase by the end of the century or remain in abjectly miserable energy poverty for the rest of their lives, a human sacrifice to your certain vision of doom and disaster (while you, of course, continue to live with electric lights and clean water throughout) — how do you think they would vote? All 3 or 4 billion of them?

    rgb

  64. @rgbatduke

    when you said, Pushed across the sea where?
    from: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/the-tao-of-el-nino/
    What has happened is that when the Pacific gets to a certain threshold warmth (other conditions being equal), the rising air from the heated surface waters of the El Nino reinforces and strengthens the eastern trade winds. And these strengthened winds simply blow the warm surface water mass to the west, where it divides and goes towards both poles. This exposes the atmosphere to the cooler waters from below

    when you said,

    It is really quite difficult to imagine how all of the heat that should be appearing in the troposphere is instead going into the deep ocean without appearing as surface warming first.

    you are again not understanding basic hydrology and surface mixing due to wind and wave action.
    what do you suppose causes the thermoclines in the first place???
    mixing and pooling in the subsurface layers

    when you said,

    that is almost certainly the proximate cause of the last and only significant warming spell the planet experienced over the entire satellite record

    you are neglecting the fact that the globally warmest years have all been since 2000.

    . . .

    you have so many misunderstandings about the basics it makes me wonder if you are actually doing this to purposefully lie.

    especially when you say,

    take a chance on an additional 1.6 C temperature increase by the end of the century or remain in abjectly miserable energy poverty for the rest of their lives

    you are assuming 1. that it will only be 1.6C when the real range is going to be from 4-6’C with a final ESS of 8-10C
    and
    2. That fixing it will lead to poverty.

    I ask you only 1 question: regarding number 2 above,

    What was the event that caused the U.S. to get out of the great depression and develop a globally defining economic engine?

    And, bonus question IF you get that one right.

    what was the U.S. response to the event that was the catalyst for the economic growth???

  65. @ jai.

    ‘I would estimate that if properly polled, 95% of posters here would agree with the following statement, “socialized government programs intrude on the effectiveness of the free-market system of capitalism and impedes the well being of the population.”’

    You may be right about that. Since I am an unrepentant old socialist, though, I feel I can respond to your claim ‘The problem with you folk here is that you are taking an ideological stance that is aligned along political parties.’

    Let us suppose that all, and not just some, of the commenters here are swivel-eyed, foam flecked, ravening right-wingers, obsessed with reds under the beds, and full of Thatcherite ambitions to plunge us back into Victorian slums.

    Even so, their politics are irrelevant. The big question is
    “Are they right?”, for even total loonies can be right about some things.

    And that is a question to be answered by facts and scientific reasoning.

    ‘I do wish that there was more discussion that wasn’t based on falsified arguments’

    Please show how the arguments have been falsified. Give the facts and the scientific reasoning for your position, and then see what response you get.

    ‘and conspiracy theory on this site.’

    When you say ‘the very conservative think tanks and propagandists have been paid very well by those interested in maintaining the status quo’, that sounds rather like a conspiracy theory to me.

  66. Blast! I shouldn’t have admitted to being a socialist. Exxon just phoned and said they would stop sending the $57,000 cheques.

  67. @rgbatduke
    ‘The really funny thing is that there has been no discernible warming from the time that the IPCC succeeded, by dint of Al Gore’s book and movie and an “unprecedented” public relations campaign, in convincing the public that we were certain to warm at a uniform, catastrophic rate for the rest of the century.’

    That proves that Al Gore stopped Global Warming and saved us all.

  68. jai mitchell said @ June 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    yes, I am a real person. The problem with you folk here is that you are taking an ideological stance that is aligned along political parties.

    Since I was a branch secretary of the Australian Labor Party for several years, and I take it your politicz must be the opposite of mine if your assertion carries any force, that you are some kind of extreme right-wingnut ;-)

    BTW, Huon Branch of the ALP was notoriously the greenest branch in Australia at the time. And no, I don’t believe a word of your half-baked catastrophe nonsense either.

  69. jai mitchell said @ June 9, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    @rgbatduke

    you have so many misunderstandings about the basics it makes me wonder if you are actually doing this to purposefully lie.

    Now that’s really funny!

  70. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative.

    So you are deliberately choosing your start date to find the trend you want: thinking perhaps, that this is equivalent to saying that this is the longest time for which the globe has been cooling?

    On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.

    The slightly negative trends picked out are not statistically significant either. Doesn’t this rate a mention?

    The most you could say from this analysis is that it is not possible to say there is a trend.

    What happens if you choose the earliest point in time where any trend is statistically significant (95% level) from this data? By my reckoning (using the SkS app), all data sets show warming if as soon as the regression becomes statistically significant.

    As to whether the short-term flattish trends continue, that would seem unlikely at the present rate of GHG emissions. The climate sensitivity estimates have a wide range, but they tend to agree that warming must continue. If espousing that climate sensitivity is large is alarmist, then believing it is small from short-term data (and by focussing on a small set of estimates) is pollyanna-ish, to my mind. We don’t know.

  71. Folks, Jai Mitchell has repeatedly quoted temperature rise figures from GCM estimates as “fact”… i.e. Jai Mitchell is an unreasonably persistent troll. Jai Mitchell completely disregards any changes to the southern hemisphere due to its higher percentage of water, which has been demonstrably cooling, as evidenced by the record, or near-record Antarctic ice sheets, yet has the gall to shriek “the oceans are warming” over and over. Jai Mitchell is a troll and should be eliminated from serious discussions from this point forward. I come to this site to learn about and to research the Earth’s coming climate, in order to best protect and provide for my family. Jai’s posts add nothing at all, and merely distract the more-knowledgeable into diverse side arguments which decide nothing and waste precious resources (space and time in these forums). I’m not saying that Jai shouldn’t be allowed to post; just please, from now on, stick to the topics and do not feed the troll! LOL

  72. Things warm from the inside out, and as I noted above, thermal expansion and Archimedes principle work against downward mixing, which is why almost all of the ocean is at a temperature of 4 C! (See the graph linked above). This is the temperature where water attains its maximum density.

    Thank you for your excellent comments above! But it appears as if a minor slip up occurred here.

    That 4 C only applies to fresh water, not ocean water. See:

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/density.html&edu=high

    “The density of ocean water continuously increases with decreasing temperature until the water freezes.”

  73. Just came back here to read Jai Mitchell’s evidence for an increase in ocean mixing and the end of stratification as we know it.

    I find
    jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 4:03 pm
    “I can explain it in a second.”
    “cool sea surface temperatures, according to this site, are caused by increased winds pushing warm water across the sea, leaving the cold water (deeper water) behind. This is called mixing.”

    That sounds like Jai is a twelve year old.
    Listen Jai, go to the wikipedia, read up about stratification, and read about El Nino / La Nina, where they explain the prevailing theory about in which depth the temperature changes happen; you might be surprised that it all happens above the stratified layer;

    and please inform yourself that the first 3 m of the ocean contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere, just to put things in prespective.

  74. barry says:
    June 9, 2013 at 9:43 pm
    you wrote: “As to whether the short-term flattish trends continue, that would seem unlikely at the present rate of GHG emissions. The climate sensitivity estimates have a wide range, but they tend to agree that warming must continue. If espousing that climate sensitivity is large is alarmist, then believing it is small from short-term data (and by focussing on a small set of estimates) is pollyanna-ish, to my mind. We don’t know.”
    +++++++++++++++
    Your ilk have used models to suggest the trend must continue towards warming. Your ilk said a pause in warming could not happen for 10 then 15 years. So your ilk disagrees with you. You are creating another strawman argument because their argument fell on its face.

    Right now, according to your ilk, the impossible is happening. You disagree with them, now after the fact, because the warming, whether significant or not, has stopped and that’s impossible given the state of climate change that you’re siting. People like you cannot be reasoned with. What will it take?

  75. barry says:
    June 9, 2013 at 9:43 pm
    So you are deliberately choosing your start date to find the trend you want

    I did not “choose” any date. The last date is the most recent month for which WFT had data and I had no choice in that. The furthest date in the past was where the slope is very slightly negative. I did not “choose” that date either. I just went where the data took me to find the longest period of no warming.

    The slightly negative trends picked out are not statistically significant either. Doesn’t this rate a mention?

    It does rate a mention and I did mention it: “As shown, the first half shows a small rise and the last half shows a small decline. Note that neither the rise in the first half nor the drop in the last half is statistically significant.”

    The most you could say from this analysis is that it is not possible to say there is a trend.

    The following 7 data sets show a small, but insignificant negative trend since January, 2005: UAH, RSS, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT3, Hadsst2, GISS and NOAA. I now have a question for you that I do not know the answer to: Does the fact that all 7 have a negative trend since January 2005 increase the probability that we really did have cooling since then?

    Regarding your other question about the 95%, I really do not like that distinction. I prefer to think of the straight line sections that have a 50% chance of going either up or down. For some reason, climate science and NOAA seem to think the 95% number is important.

    As to whether the short-term flattish trends continue, that would seem unlikely at the present rate of GHG emissions. The climate sensitivity estimates have a wide range, but they tend to agree that warming must continue.

    However the ocean cycles and the sun and negative feedbacks could nullify the effects of more CO2.

  76. Mario,

    Your ilk have used models to suggest the trend must continue towards warming.

    I don’t know who my ‘ilk’ are meant to be. I don’t feel I belong to any particular club in this debate.

    Climate scientists rely on physics, not models, to posit that an enhanced greenhouse should warm the Earth. It is a notion shared by the reputable climate scientists and Anthony watts, who rightly forbids at this site the unphysical proposition to the contrary.

    Your ilk said a pause in warming could not happen for 10 then 15 years.

    The mid-range model ensembles include runs that have flat trends for 10, 15 and 20 years. Where do this ‘ilk’ say that a pause could not happen?

    You are creating another strawman argument because their argument fell on its face.

    What strawman? That the greenhouse effect is real?

  77. This is why I love this site. People of different stripes are allowed to express their views. Alarmists, sceptic, none are snipped unless totally abusive. Even trolls like jai(oneworldnet in disguise) are allowed. Compare to the warmists sites. There is only one problem…nice guys finish last,and the warmists are not nice guys. Food for thought.

  78. barry said @ June 9, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    Climate scientists rely on physics, not models, to posit that an enhanced greenhouse should warm the Earth. It is a notion shared by the reputable climate scientists and Anthony watts, who rightly forbids at this site the unphysical proposition to the contrary.

    I think you have that back asswards Barry. The enhanced greenhouse effect relies upon a posited, not measured, increase in specific humidity. AFAICT, specific humidity has been declining over the last thirty years, or so. The greenhouse effect is physical; the enhanced greenhouse effect is unphysical.

  79. I did not “choose” any date. The last date is the most recent month for which WFT had data and I had no choice in that. The furthest date in the past was where the slope is very slightly negative. I did not “choose” that date either. I just went where the data took me to find the longest period of no warming.

    Looking for the furthest date for a negative trend does not indicate that cooling has happened if that trend is mathematically non-significant.

    Does the fact that all 7 have a negative trend since January 2005 increase the probability that we really did have cooling since then?

    Not when the uncertainty is so much greater than the trend. And the data sets are correlated: surface sets have overlapping station data, and the satellites are measuring the same data.

    If you are going to posit no warming due to lack of statistical significance, then the same must apply to cooling or there is a double standard.

    If you think positing a result and then tracing data to back to the most recent point is valid, what do you think of my argument of tracing back the data to a point where statistical significance is reached? Aren’t results with statistical significance more meaningful than those without?

  80. barry said @ June 10, 2013 at 12:00 am

    Aren’t results with statistical significance more meaningful than those without?

    In statistics the term significant does not mean important or meaningful. Given sufficient data, a statistically significant result may be very small in magnitude.

    Given that Hansen’s original paper was based on an interval of 10 years’ warming, then any period of 10 years or greater should be sufficient to weigh against “Hansenist” claims.

  81. jai mitchell says: June 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    the Marshall institute was revealed during the lawsuits against the tobacco industry as being paid to thwart science and cloud the discussion around second hand smoke by the tobacco industry. They just moved on over to climate change and there are millions of dollars spent over the last 5 years to keep it up in the face of collapsing arctic sea ice loss, record heat waves and droughts, the driest January-February in California state history, and all of the other weather extremes that are going to be coming more and more rapidly now that the arctic has reached a tipping point.
    I do wish that there was more discussion that wasn’t based on falsified arguments and conspiracy theory on this site. That is why I stopped by

    It seems that you, yourself, are promoting a conspiracy theory: the belief that evil corporations are trying to destroy all life on earth.
    A curious idea, but surprisingly prevalent amongst those who believe the world is ending. But I do wonder why you think 95% fewer consumers surviving on earth is deemed profitable by the world-wreckers. It isn’t particularly coherent.

    Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the corrupt corporate interests aren’t interested in a world fit for man at all because they are actually giant lizards!

    Yes, of course, that makes a lot more sense than your post.

  82. Lets say there was a country where unemployemnt had risen from 2 million to 5 million over 10 years. The government falls and the new government implements policies which reduce the unemployement to 3.5 million. So is unemployment rising? or falling? The good thing about such stats is that like some odd schools at sports day, everyone can win or get a prize, you just pick your own criteria or time frame. Personally with the example above I would say unemployment was falling, but if were spinning the argument I would say that unemployment remained 1.5 million higher than it was 10 years ago so theoreticaqlly the trend is still up. To my eyes as a non-scientist but one with a reasonable grasp of research methodology is what is happening when the climate trend is discussed.

  83. @Ian W June 9, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    “It is foolish to create a linear ‘projection’ based on the outputs of a chaotic system. Is it any more logical to carry out a Fourier transform on the outputs of a chaotic system?”

    I think that in time the latter could be productive. Maybe. Maybe not.

    I’ve been harping on the former for quite some time. I’ve just recently seen people picking up on this and shaking their heads, and I am happy to see it. Linear regressions that are straight-line outputs are the simplest and easiest for Show and Tell, such as for speaking down to policymakers. I understand that. If it is too complicated, like a curve, they are going to lose non-scientists, and that is the last thing they want to do. But to use it when talking to other scientists, I can’t believe that the other scientists would ever accept it. I am not aware of sinusoidal or other oscillating curve fits as outputs, but if they exist, I am in favor of THAT sort of best fit curve for climate type chaotic systems. That doesn’t mean I am right, but straight line output/fit is absurd. No one in their right mind would accept that as valid for any lengthy period. The R values alone should tell everyone it is tells them nothing.

    Steve Garcia

  84. Jai Mitchell is not a troll, he is merely posting his view of climate change, that’s healthy. If you start accusing people of being trolls on the basis that they have different views you will end up like Skep Science where very little debate or alternate views are ever allowed and that would be a disaster for for this site. Some of what I he says I endorse, some of it I don’t, but lets encourage debate and not condemn so easilly.

  85. There was some criticism on another thread (kadaka (KD Knoebel)) of my extrapolation of the CET (going back a year or two, now updated) showing an immediate downturn.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm

    In order to clarify the method used, I have added the Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s graph quoted above, which does employ the same principle.
    I used 3 principal components to create multi-decadal variability, enabling me to produce more detailed future trends, this time in the CET, but it is worth noting that the instrumental record for global temperature has similar trend.

  86. Garethman says:
    June 10, 2013 at 1:32 am

    Jai Mitchell is not a troll, he is merely posting his view of climate change, that’s healthy.

    Normally I would agree with you. But he lost the plot when he claimed that “I do wish that there was more discussion that wasn’t based on falsified arguments and conspiracy theory on this site.”

    It’s the conspiracy theory part that’s the problem.
    You can’t debate with someone who genuinely believes that everyone who disagrees with them is paid to disagree with them and wouldn’t diagree with them if it weren’t for the conspiracy.

    Therefore, if you who disagree with him you are a hypocrite.
    That’s not debate. That’s just taunting.

  87. About a year ago I made a fit to HADCRUT3 data which included a logarithmic dependence on CO2 forcing, and sinusoidal signals at 60 years, 11 and 9 years. The logarithmic dependence assumes a linear climate response to CO2 forcing (DS = 5.3LnC/C0). I used the Mauna Loa CO2 data extrapolated backwards to 1750. I got a good fit with a strong 60 year signal – see graph here

    I then extrapolated this fit forwards in time assuming 2 different emissions scenarios from IPCC. – A1B and B1. The result is shown here

    If we take the more reasonable B1B scenario then we find.
    o Temperatures remain flat until 2030.
    o Thereafter occurs another warming period of ~0.5C ending in 2070.
    o Then another flat period lasting until 2100.
    o Total global warming from pre-industrial times to 2100 is then ~ 1.7C

    So assuming that warming is only caused by CO2 and no action whatsoever was taken to curb emissions – nothing catastrophic happens !

  88. Well, you can’t say I wasn’t sincerely attempting to help out.

    However, jai, you have lost whatever respect I was willing to give you. It might take you a long time to regain it, if you care to.

    You ignore rgbatduke’s comments at your intellectual peril. That man has more knowledge in his pinky than you and I combined may ever have. The fact that he even responded directly to your statement should be something of a badge of honor. But you wouldn’t know that, right? Because you’re new.

    But the bottom line is this: I don’t take any scientific stance based on my politics. None. I follow what I see with my own eyes. I demand evidence. I won’t take someone’s word for it when they have shifty eyes while hiding the process. That’s why I don’t buy the AGW alarmists claims. Luckily, it appears that most people smart enough to think the same way also reject leftist beliefs.

    By the way, you’ll never know what a delicious irony it is to read your claims about conspiracy theories, while in the next sentence mouthing off against the tobacco industry. Too, too funny.

  89. barry says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    The mid-range model ensembles include runs that have flat trends for 10, 15 and 20 years. Where do this ‘ilk’ say that a pause could not happen?

    That does not seem to jibe with what NOAA thinks. The exact quote from pg 23 is:
    ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    barry says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:00 am

    If you think positing a result and then tracing data to back to the most recent point is valid, what do you think of my argument of tracing back the data to a point where statistical significance is reached? Aren’t results with statistical significance more meaningful than those without?

    The reason I am mentioning this here as well is that yes, your “argument of tracing back the data to a point where statistical significance is reached” is very valid. The only issue is that when you do this, you reach a time of greater than 15 years and according to NOAA, the models show a “discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.

    Looking for the furthest date for a negative trend does not indicate that cooling has happened if that trend is mathematically non-significant.

    If you are referring to my flat lines with a slope of perhaps 5 x 10^-6, I do not even consider those as showing cooling, but rather as showing no slope. But the lines with a slope of 5 x 10^-3 show a slight cooling which is not significant.

  90. “As to whether the short-term flattish trends continue … ” etc. (barry).
    Most of the ~0.6C rise since c.1950, a minimum 0.3C of which the IPCC claims to be due to the monotonic rise in allegedly human CO2, occurred in the twenty-year period c.1980 – c.2000 — i.e. 20 – 25 years out of 60.

  91. Andres Valencia says: June 9, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    Thanks, JustTheFacts.
    Good work.

    Thank you, but Werner Brozek did the vast majority of the work and he deserves the vast majority of the credit.

  92. jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    you are neglecting the fact that the globally warmest years have all been since 2000.

    And you haven’t listened to others’ responses on that.

    Nice graph, but try this exercise. Start at the line for year 2000 and step up to 2008, the last item on the plot. 2001 is 6 steps warmer, 2002 is 4, 2003 is 1, 2004 is 2 steps cooler, 2005 back up 3. Note that four year stretch occupies the warmest slots, except for the 1998 extreme El Niño. Then 2006 is 4 steps cooler, 2007 1 more, and 2008 is 3 more. Heading down.

    I think 2009 and 2010 would resume the rise, but 2011 and 2012 would go back down. You might want to look for more current data but do keep in mind that the data is consistent with a plateau before a long decline, as that Chinese 2450 year trace suggests.

    I also strongly recommend you use the UAH or RSS satellite data set, there are too many problems with the ground temperature record.

  93. Kevin Trenberth has a model that “shows” that the heat is going into the ocean but he doesn’t know why (“This result suggests that changes in the atmospheric
    circulation are instrumental for the penetration of the
    warming into the ocean, although the mechanisms at work
    are still to be established.”).

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

    Hm, how do we call it when we have a model that does a hindcast correctly but we have no mechanism? Numerology, right?

    Nuccitelli loves it:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html

    So Trenberth and Nuccitelli are both numerologists.

  94. We are in a decline, and this decline was predicted decades ago. The negative phase of the PDO coupled with the decline of Solar Activity will likely cause the climate to cool in a non-linear way over the next two decades.

  95. If a scientist wanted to claim that there had been a pause in the underlying rate of warming, or that the temperatures were declining, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE OBSERVATIONS, then normal scientific practice would require them to show that there is statistically significant evidence to support this claim. If someone can give detais that show that there is statistically significant evidence for a change in the rate of warming, then lets see it. I very much doubt that such evidence will be forthcoming as the confidence intervals include both 0 and 0.2 degrees per decade (i.e. the IPCC projected rate of warming) and so the observations don’t rule out either hypothesis. For the evidence for a change in the rate of warming to reach statistical significance, the error bars would have to exclude the long term rate of warming.

    Note the lack of statistically significant warming does not imply that there has been no warming, just that the observations do not effectively rule out the possibility that there has been no warming. Statistical hypothesis tests are not symmetric.

    Note also that claims of global warming are not made solely on the basis of observed global surface temperatures, for example there is also ocean heat content etc.

    Lastly, cherry picking the start dates invalidates the test anyway.

  96. There has been lots of warming within the last 16 years. Since 2008 there has been strong warming. Looks like the rate of change is on a significant upswing.

  97. What has happened is that when the Pacific gets to a certain threshold warmth (other conditions being equal), the rising air from the heated surface waters of the El Nino reinforces and strengthens the eastern trade winds. And these strengthened winds simply blow the warm surface water mass to the west, where it divides and goes towards both poles. This exposes the atmosphere to the cooler waters from below

    This is just a description of ENSO, and is how the ocean COOLS — the warmer water that goes to the poles cools as it moves. I’m still waiting for a description of how heat gets transferred down into the deeper ocean in this process. Warm water on top of cold water is stable. Warm water on top of REALLY cold water at the poles is REALLY stable. Also, this is hardly “missing heat” — this is SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE, the part that has failed to warm while the subsurface water that you allege is warming has supposedly warmed.

    ENSO has been happening forever, since long before CO_2 levels were rising. It may well have been a factor in surface warming ever since the ice age. It is not, however, a good place or mechanism to look for “missing heat” in.

    you are again not understanding basic hydrology and surface mixing due to wind and wave action.
    what do you suppose causes the thermoclines in the first place???
    mixing and pooling in the subsurface layers

    Yes, a process that has been going on for a very long time, that has a very, very long relaxation time, and that has to respond to heat that first appears on the surface. Now, please explain how the heat magically appears far below the surface without first being observable in the sea surface temperature records> for the last 16 years, which are flat since the 1997-1998 super-ENSO.

    Bear in mind that the people that are trying to credibly explain this are making noises about things like ultraviolet radiative heating that bypasses the atmosphere and that pesky surface layer that isn’t heating because it has a phenomenally efficient latent-heat-driven surface cooling mechanism, in addition to being basically opaque to IR.

    when you said,

    that is almost certainly the proximate cause of the last and only significant warming spell the planet experienced over the entire satellite record

    you are neglecting the fact that the globally warmest years have all been since 2000.

    Have you actually ever looked at the thermal record of the Holocene? Somebody posted a graph of it earlier, but I’m guessing you must have skipped it. Try this one:

    although there are better ones. Note well two specific features of this graph. First, the LIA that you blithely dismiss is an outstanding climatological milestone on this graph by virtue of being the coldest point in the entire Holocene. That’s right, the coldest single feature since the Younger Dryas. Note also that on this curve there is nothing unremarkable about the current temperature, nothing at all remarkable about the fact that the world warmed after the coldest fluctuation observed in a chaotically fluctuating series, nothing remarkable in the assertion that the warming that began at the end of the LIA continues today. The second point is that plotting the current temperature fluctuations on an annual or monthly scale is not an apples to apples comparison (although everybody who wishes to sell something does it). This curve is coarse grain averaged — necessarily, because the data is so averaged — over a comparatively long time period to eliminate the statistical noise of unknown dynamics with shorter time periods and reveal real climate trends. Trends that, I should point out, we cannot explain in any way that works! We have no idea why this curve looks the way that it does. We have no idea what it would look like if humans didn’t even exist. We therefore have very little idea what the human contribution to the overall curve is. If I were to point out an additional feature to make it a triplet look at the implicit uncertainty in the curve! This curve shows the kinds of variation visible in different proxy determinants of past climate, and each of the underlying (colored) curves has its own error bars (unshown, because nobody ever shows error bars on climate curves because then our ignorance would be revealed in a way that any idiot could see).

    Eyeballing it, it looks like we don’t really know global temperatures over any time frame up to the very modern era indeed — really the satellite era — within perhaps 1-2 C. There are always enormous, often partially cancelling oscillations in local surface temperatures, oscillations that last centuries, oscillations where the northern hemisphere (for example) warms and the souther hemisphere cools or vice versa. We don’t understand this. We don’t really understand much of anything about the climate, and the GCMs that all of the belief in CAGW is based on fail badly to even agree with each other within 1 C, and are currently diverging rapidly from the actual observed global temperature.

    Now, if you want to argue that the present is the warmest time in 300 to 400 years, no argument — warming from the LIA. It is basically impossible to determine if it is the warmest since the MWP. It is probably NOT the warmest similar period since the Roman Warm Period. Both of these previous warm periods occurred naturally, without human help. The LIA occurred naturally, without human help. Finally, given that the temperature is fluctuating around a more or less stable 16 years high (since the 1997-1998 ENSO) it is hardly surprising that a lot of years occur in the top ten. That doesn’t mean that the globe is still discernibly warming in this stretch, only that it warmed in the past. Indeed, as both the lower troposphere temperature and the sea surface temperature make rather clear, it only warmed in specific, discrete increments associated with ENSO — hardly the behavior one expects from a continuously increasing locally linear stimulus response (to CO_2) model, eh?

    you have so many misunderstandings about the basics it makes me wonder if you are actually doing this to purposefully lie.

    Ah, now the ad hominem starts. But no matter Obi-Wan. Feel free to instruct me and repair my ignorance. Bear in mind that I’m the author of several physics textbooks as you do so, although I freely confess that climate science is merely a hobby, not a profession. So although I’ve worked through e.g. Grant Petty’s First Course in Atmospheric Radiation and Caballero’s book on climate physics, I’m quite certain that my ignorance is profound, because I cannot yet explain the thermal record of the last 16,000 years, the last 2000 years, the last 500 years, or the last 100 years. Can you?

    If so, let me know. Right after you explain what measurably changed in ENSO or the laws of physics to permit “missing heat” to somehow bypass the surface layer and end up in the thermocline.

    And at your leisure, you might instruct me about the “missing error bars” in the entire general field of climate science. I’d argue that this is by far the more pressing of the missing items.

    especially when you say,

    take a chance on an additional 1.6 C temperature increase by the end of the century or remain in abjectly miserable energy poverty for the rest of their lives

    you are assuming 1. that it will only be 1.6C when the real range is going to be from 4-6′C with a final ESS of 8-10C

    Horseshit. Not even a decent minority of climate scientists think this anymore. The current AR5 report might end up as high as 2.5 C, but there is (as is completely expected!) considerable pressure due to the fact that there has been no discernible warming for 12-16 years and the predictions and data are diverging, with the data looking remarkably like the “no increase in CO_2″ prediction curve. Climate sensitivity is dropping like a rock, constrained by the data. Is your last name really Hansen? I thought he was the only person left who believed his own crack…

    2. That fixing it will lead to poverty.

    I ask you only 1 question: regarding number 2 above,

    What was the event that caused the U.S. to get out of the great depression and develop a globally defining economic engine?

    World war 2, of course. I’m actually not an idiot.

    And, bonus question IF you get that one right.

    what was the U.S. response to the event that was the catalyst for the economic growth???

    Building lots of war materials and sending vast numbers of the unemployed off to fight and die overseas. Inventing deficit spending and ways of inflating the money supply.

    But of course you miss my point. In the United States, no matter what we do that spends money like water it can “stimulate the economy”, or not. Whether or not it does depends in great measure on how money balances out deep within the banking industry. This is utterly irrelevant to the problems of the third world. The third world — and I grew up in New Delhi, India, and have seen more poverty outside of my back door than you can even imagine — is suffering right now from energy poverty. You might recall that the electrification project back in the earlier part of the century — wait, you weren’t going to assert that it was that that brought an end to the Great Depression, were you? Silly beanie — instantly raised the standard of living throughout the US, and more or less defined “civilization”, at least where citizens had jobs and could afford even comparatively cheap electricity (which was generally less expensive than other forms of lighting and enabled the production and delivery of safe, clean water from something other than hand pumped wells and hence put an end to the outhouse society).

    When you make carbon based energy artificially more expensive, you know what you do? You kick a state like California into a depression that continues there even though it is over nearly everywhere else. You kick the entire continent of Europe into a monetary crisis so profound that they are abandoning the carbon trading ponzi scheme like the hot potato it always was because a) there hasn’t been any discernible warming over the entire lifetime that the scheme has been in place and b) it has cost Europe several times the collective debt of the nations in financial crisis. Given that energy is the critical resource upon which all economies survive, raising energy prices is purely inflationary or, in the case of countries like Greece or Italy that are already marginal economically, enough to push them entirely underwater.

    This is, however, a tiny fraction of the impact it has in the third world. There, the impact is — no impact at all. It is the mere continuation of an impoverished life straight out of the nineteenth century — energy poverty. No electrical lights. No electrical heat or air conditioning. No clean water, no sanitation systems. No power to drive new industry to permit people to raise themselves out of poverty and build a 21st century economy.

    This impact is the real catastrophe, and it is happening right now. You are obviously ready to allege that we should be fearing Hansen’s hallucinatory 5 meter ocean rise by the year 2100, while the actual rate of SLR might add ten whole inches by 2100, if it is sustained. I suggest you meditate upon just how rapid an ocean rise is required to produce his “catastrophe”, and just how non-catastrophic the roughly ten inch rise over the last century has been.

    rgb

  98. @sceptical cherry picking is an error in either direction.

    Loosely speaking, if the confidence interval doesn’t exclude the hypothesis you wish to be falsified, then you should not assert your hypothesis is true, based solely on the observations. That is essentially the principal on which statistical hypothesis testing is based, and while it has many flaws, it is still a useful sanity check.

  99. Brilliant reply Dr.Brown, to the lousy third rate troll who is not even fit to lace your boots.

  100. jai mitchell says: June 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    the Marshall institute was revealed during the lawsuits against the tobacco industry as being paid to thwart science and cloud the discussion around second hand smoke by the tobacco industry.

    The case against second-hand smoke was oversold, until the latest findings came it. If Marshall pointed that out before those findings came in, it wasn’t unprincipled. The case against second-hand smoke in a casual setting (outside a family or workplace environment) has not been proven. (Hopefully e-cigs will make the whole matter moot.)

    They just moved on over to climate change …

    I believe they’ve been involved with the climate issue for over a decade.

  101. The 60 year multidecadal sine wave is superimposed on the “Recovey of the Little Ice Age” linear upward trend of Akasofu. Just by calling it a “recovery” doesn’t make the warming trend sufficiently explained. What is the physical cause of the recovery?

  102. jai mitchell says: June 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    … collapsing arctic sea ice loss, record heat waves and droughts, the driest January-February in California state history, and all of the other weather extremes that are going to be coming more and more rapidly now that the arctic has reached a tipping point.

    Check out WUWT’s arguments to the contrary on this reference page:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

  103. The Pompous Git says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:28 am

    In statistics the term significant does not mean important or meaningful. Given sufficient data, a statistically significant result may be very small in magnitude.

    I know. I was querying the value of focussing on non-statistically significant trends when statistically significant trends are available with a few more years data.

    Given that Hansen’s original paper was based on an interval of 10 years’ warming, then any period of 10 years or greater should be sufficient to weigh against “Hansenist” claims.

    Hansen’s model (1981? 1988?) was but one. We have ensembles from the latest IPCC report, which include 10, 15 and 20 year flat trends within a long-term (mid-range) warming scenario.

  104. That does not seem to jibe with what NOAA thinks. The exact quote from pg 23…

    They did not say that 15 years of flat trend was “impossible” as Mario put it, though they did say that it would “create a discrepancy with the expected warming rate.”

    Santer et al posited 17-year trends as a minimum for climate studies. Others say more. I’m not sure that the one quote from the NOAA document wraps it up. In any case, there are flat trends for 15 – 20 years in the model ensembles – presumably not for runs developed by NOAA.

    The reason I am mentioning this here as well is that yes, your “argument of tracing back the data to a point where statistical significance is reached” is very valid. The only issue is that when you do this, you reach a time of greater than 15 years and according to NOAA, the models show a “discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.

    The NOAA limit isn’t a standard. They may be wrong about that estimate (I don’t know). But regardless, one cannot posit a trend, or even no trend, if there is no statistical significance.

    dikran,

    Loosely speaking, if the confidence interval doesn’t exclude the hypothesis you wish to be falsified, then you should not assert your hypothesis is true, based solely on the observations. That is essentially the principal on which statistical hypothesis testing is based, and while it has many flaws, it is still a useful sanity check.

    Yes, that is the point succintly put.

    I note that the analysis, reflecting the headline, is an open query. There certainly seems to be a pause in warming – of the lower troposphere and surface. If one includes OHC and land and sea ice retreat, it would appear that warming of the whole system has continued. The budget is not closed, but the theory does not seem to be broken as yet.

  105. Note Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s paper does not surmise when the recovery from the LIA will end, just that it has the appearance his graph depicts.

    Would the climate have recovered if humans were not on the planet? Sure, just as similar climate fluctuations have happened even before we humans began walking the planet.

    But, I suspect, if we weren’t here we probably wouldn’t care about the changing climate.

    Probably.

  106. rgbatduke says:
    June 10, 2013 at 5:54 am
    ……….
    Informative and useful comment raising number of interesting points. I will take a chance with the first one, if I may.
    You say:
    I’m still waiting for a description of how heat gets transferred down into the deeper ocean in this process. Warm water on top of cold water is stable. Warm water on top of REALLY cold water at the poles is REALLY stable.

    In the North Atlantic there is an area just south of Greenland with warm salty water at the surface. It gets battered by strong cold westerly winds, releasing heat at several hundred of W/m2. Previously salty warm water is now colder and heavy due to its retained salinity, down-wells to depth of about 1000m.
    Important point here is that the down-welling water’s temperature is higher than some of the surrounding deep cold water layers, but it is heavier due to its higher salinity.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CB.htm

    The heat release effect interferes with polar jet-stream affecting climate of whole of the Northern Hemisphere.
    Although I have limited understanding of what is going in the north Atlantic, I assume there might be some similar process going on in the Pacific involving either wind or cold Humboldt Current.

  107. How hot would November and December then have to be to set a new record? In my opinion, the odds of setting a new record in 2013 are extremely remote.

    Once the alarmists get around to reworking the data, that is manipulating it to reflect their distorted point of view, I can all but guarantee 2013 will be one of the hottest on record.

  108. Paul Clark has just given me a tip to produce a line a zero so I’ve added it to the rate of change plot.

    Now we can see directly what years are cooling or not. End of the guessing game.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/-temp/from:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2010/derivative/plot/uah/from:2010/derivative/plot/rss/from:2010/derivative/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2010/derivative/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010/derivative/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2010/derivative/plot/rss/scale/from:2010

  109. Werner Brozek says:
    June 9, 2013 at 8:25 pm
    Frank Mlinar says:
    June 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    The observational data of the first plot appears to be very inaccurate.

    “I had just plotted the last 16 years and not since 1850. However if you do plot from 1850, the only time in 130 years that both CO2 and temperature went up at the same time is during the 27 years from 1975 to 2002. Is it possible that the sun or ocean cycles or CFCs were responsible for this simultaneous rise rather than CO2?”

    Perhaps I should have said the first graphic; the one attributed to Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu. The straight line approximation shown does not fit the observational data. Yes, the sun, ocean cycles and CFCs contribute. The sun and ocean cycles show up as periodic changes in the data. I am not sure how CFCs contribute. The goal is to identify these contributors and show how they affect the curves. Climate scientists do this all the time. Regarding your short time period; there have been other periods in the past showing this behavior, and ones showing increases and decreases. You need to look at all the data and try to identify how the contributors contribute. I did a study once on gun control and I saw a paper that took a total of three data points on murder rates from over 20 years of data and tried to show that murder rates were rapidly increasing when they were in fact not.

  110. Jai says:
    That the sea level was 150 feet higher then …

    That number has been cut way way down thanks to a recent study discussed here. It found that the geological layers near the Appalachians that contain markings of wave action were not 150 feet above sea level, as had been thought, but more like 30, back in the day.
    (I haven’t been able to track that thread down. Anyone who can find it should post its link.)

  111. I still would like to see what “deep ocean heating” look like. Is it similar to the Tropical mid-tropospheric “Hot-spot”? Does warm water sink and cold water rise? Do the oceans actually “store” heat energy in their depths?

  112. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 5:39 am

    If a scientist wanted to claim that there had been a pause in the underlying rate of warming, or that the temperatures were declining, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE OBSERVATIONS, then normal scientific practice would require them to show that there is statistically significant evidence to support this claim.

    I agree with you that when errors bars are included, we cannot say there is a pause and we cannot say there is a decline.
    However we also cannot say any warming is catastrophic. But there is one thing we can say and that is that the climate models are no good.

  113. rgb says:
    This leaves catastrophic anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in a difficult position. In law it might be called habeus corpus — the need to produce a body before you go around trying somebody for murder.

    The term you wanted was corpus delicti (habeus corpus means release the prisoner):

    (Found by Googling):
    The phrase corpus delicti might be used to mean the physical object upon which the crime was committed, such as a dead body or the charred remains of a …

  114. Just a comment on the last one. , this is rate of change. So what we see is _deceleration_ started in 1998 and rate of change crossed into negative territory around 2005.

    This is exactly the turning point that Willis found in his look at north Pacific yesterday:

  115. sceptical says:
    June 10, 2013 at 5:48 am
    There has been lots of warming within the last 16 years. Since 2008 there has been strong warming. Looks like the rate of change is on a significant upswing.

    The year 2008 ranks 22 on RSS. And until we get a La Nina that is as deep as the one in 2008, it is quite possible that even in 5 years time, the slope could be positive from 2008. However as far as “a significant upswing” is concerned, the error bars are huge! They are 0.224 ±1.238 °C/decade (2σ) according to SkS. (And I know I told you this on an earlier thread.)

  116. My prediction, based on the UAH data series, is that UAH Global values will average above 0.13 until the end of 2013 and will then drop with minimums below -0.2 through 2014 and return to above the 0.13 figure in 2015/6.

    What fancy methodology is the basis for this conclusion you ask? It is just a summary of the UAH Global data so far, the observation of the fairly clear periodic nature in the signal and hence the most probable future based on that data.

    http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b550/RichardLH/uahtrendsinflectionfuture_zps7451ccf9.png.html

    This shows plotting a sequence of moving average filters (in cascade and with particular values designed to remove the digital sampling artifacts that are otherwise created) on the UAH Global data series to identify the major underlying periodic features contained therein. These are evident (in the record and not from any external theory) at 37 months, 4 years and ~60 years. The nodal points indicated are where the various filter outputs ‘cross’ revealing the local ‘zero’ crossings nodal points in the otherwise fairly noisy signal.

    Removal of those identifiable cycles would probably reduce the whole series to white noise but that would require much more analysis and, preferably, a much longer data series :-).

    In any case it is interesting to pose the question, when is the next falling node due and what value should be placed on it? Also what are the reasons for the above periodic features?

    The ones that come to mind are 37 months = Lunar, 4 years = Solar and ~60 years Jupiter? That would mean that tiny lateral tidal/gravitational forces in the atmosphere modify where the jet streams form with consequent (and probably lagged) impacts on Global temperature data.

    It is likely that data from RSS data series will show similar charteristics (as they actually come from the same data source after all).

    It may also be possible to detect this in the average North/South position of the jet streams which should move based on the above periodicity if the suggestion about gravity being the cause is true.

    It is, therefore, possible to claim that all of the observed data variation so far in the UAH Global series can be explained just by using natural periodic cycles of particular periods, phase and magnitudes. This claim is based purely on the data so far collected and the most probable future extention of that data set given the periodic nature of the data observed so far.

  117. Chris Schoneveld says:
    June 10, 2013 at 6:11 am

    What is the physical cause of the recovery?

    I am not sure if we know that. Perhaps the sun and ocean cycles play a role. However it seems certain that CO2 had nothing to do with it based on the following graphs.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/normalise

  118. wbrozek says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:50 pm

    “barry says:
    June 9, 2013 at 9:43 pm
    So you are deliberately choosing your start date to find the trend you want

    I did not “choose” any date. The last date is the most recent month for which WFT had data and I had no choice in that. The furthest date in the past was where the slope is very slightly negative. I did not “choose” that date either. I just went where the data took me to find the longest period of no warming.”

    This, folks, IS cognitive dissonance in action.

  119. Werner Brozek “I agree with you that when errors bars are included, we cannot say there is a pause and we cannot say there is a decline.”

    I am glad we are in agreement on this, in future, please can you make this point explicitly when you present your summaries of observed trends, otherwise you are likely to mislead your audience and cause them to look ignorant when promulgating canards of the form “no global warming since [insert cherry picked date here]“.

  120. @rgbatduck

    When you make carbon based energy artificially more expensive, you know what you do? You kick a state like California into a depression that continues there even though it is over nearly everywhere else.

    —————

    California has a 4 billion budget surplus this year.

    —————

    #2 — WRONG

    building lots of war material, and then transforming that domestic spending from war material to be blown up into roads and bridges and other infrastructure.

    Just like we will do when you capitulate and realize that you have been sold a flat-earth bill of goods by people PAID to do it by those who want to continue making money selling carbon-based fuels.

  121. No warmist I have presented this approach to can handle it – they all turn into foam-flecked imbeciles.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you Werner B.

  122. barry says:
    June 10, 2013 at 6:47 am

    Santer et al posited 17-year trends as a minimum for climate studies. Others say more.

    From the article:
    “For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May) RSS is 198/204 or 97% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years. This 97% is real!”

    As for Santer’s 17 years and more by others, were any of these time periods quoted 10 or more years ago or is it a matter of people shifting goal posts because the original goal posts were too narrow?

  123. @M Courtney

    do you have any idea how many children in the united states have died as a result of ideologically biased, politicized “scientists” who were working for PR firms paid by the tobacco industry worked to cloud the issue regarding the hazards of second hand smoking? At that time it was still legal to smoke in airplanes. . .

    These things are well documented in the papers released by Stephen Glantz as a result of the lawsuits against the tobacco industry.

    (they also showed how the tobacco industry used cartoons to specifically target children for their products and that they were intentionally manipulating the nicotine levels in their products to make people more addicted).

    At the same time the CEOs of the tobacco industry stood up before congress and stated, under oath, that they did not “believe” that nicotine was addictive.

    do YOU believe that nicotine is addictive???

    If ONLY a scientist could tell you nicotine as addictive or not (based on proven studies and scientific experiments) would you believe it was addictive?

    so don’t tell me that evil corporations aren’t interested in killing innocent people and children to make a buck. The fact is, they are and they spend LOTS and LOTS of money doing it.

  124. wbrozek, Santer’s paper is concerned with the statistical power of the hypothesis test; if you don’t have much data, you will fail to reject the null hypothesis when when it is false. This is not a matter of shifting goal posts, the statistical analysis is pretty standard, the reason that the Santer paper was written was to address a common misunderstanding of climate data, namely “no warming since 1998″. If climate blogs and the media had not been so keen to promulgate this misunderstanding, Santer would have had no need to point out where the goalposts actually were.

    Climatologists have traditionally used periods of around 30 years because they know from experience that conclusions drawn from shorter periods are unreliable, so there was previously no need for a paper to be published stating what the research community already knew to be the bleedin’ obvious.

    Another paper of this nature is Easterling and Wehner (2009) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037810/full, which shows that periods of little or no warming have happened before in the observations and also crop up in model projections (i.e. the models say that this sort of thing will happen now and again, but they are chaotic phenomena so the models can’t predict when they will happen).

  125. JP says:
    June 10, 2013 at 7:41 am
    I still would like to see what “deep ocean heating” look like.

    It looks like a desperate ploy to keep the idea of CAGW alive. They love to talk of all the 10^22 Joules that supposedly have gone into the deep ocean, but when you do the calculations, you find it amounts to a small fraction of a degree that you cannot even detect if you were to go from one pool to the next at the slightly higher temperature. Furthermore, if in fact the huge oceans are such a huge buffer that absorbs 98% of the excess heat, then we of course have nothing to worry about. So now the warmists have a further problem, namely to explain how this extra extremely diluted extra heat will somehow concentrate in one place and spike the air temperature.

    • wbrozek says:
      June 10, 2013 at 8:42 am
      They love to talk of all the 10^22 Joules that supposedly have gone into the deep ocean, but when you do the calculations, you find it amounts to a small fraction of a degree that you cannot even detect if you were to go from one pool to the next at the slightly higher temperature.

      Yes.
      If we do simple calculation only the upper 1m of the ocean has more heat content than 10^22 Joules.
      -The weight of the upper 1m of the ocean is
      1,026[surface layer mean sea water density in grams per cubic centimeter] x (3,61132×10^20[ocean area in square meters]) = 3,7×10^20 grams
      and has the heat capacity 4.2 × (3,7×10^20) = 1.5×10^21J.K-1
      so the upper 1m ocean heat content is (1.5×10^21) ×290 K = 4.35×10^23 Joules

      To put the things into perspective I’ll add a sea surface anomaly dependence on Total solar irradiance calculation for the 30 years period 1964 solar minima to 1994 I made recently for my upcoming paper:

      How much the SST anomaly changed during the 1964-1994 period in question?
      +0.27 K (HadSST2 11 year running average to filter out the periodic solar signal)

      What TSI trend was there?
      The 1964-1994 (1964.0-1993.92) 30 years TSI trend (Solanki daily TSI reconstruction data)
      +0.437 W.m-2 (0.146 W.m-2/decade)

      Now the calculation what could be the thickness of the warmed ocean layer relative to the measured SST global anomaly change:
      +0.437 x 0.92 (1- water albedo 0.08 = 0.92) = 0.402 W.m-2 got under the sea surface
      x 946080000 (x60 seconds x60 minutes x24 hours x365 days x30 years = 946080000 number of seconds in 30 years)
      = up to 380362003 Joules.m-2 (1 Joule = 1 W.s-1)

      How much water this heats it +0.27 K?
      380362003/1.1283 [4.179 J.cm-3.K-1 volumetric water heat capacity x 0.27K SST anomaly rise = 1.1283 Joules.cm-3 was needed to heat the water the 0.27 K.]
      =337110700 cm3
      /1000000 (cm3 in 1m3)
      =337 m3 water per m2 of the ocean surface
      /4 (We divide by two because always only one half of the Earth is insolated and we divide by another 2 because only half of the linear trend value realizes as the TSI mean rise throughout the whole trend period – the average of the zero on the beginning and the full value at the trend’s end is half of its value)
      = 84.25 m3
      x 0.82 [1 - the rest of the terrestrial albedo]
      = 69.09
      – means up to 69 meters upper layer of the ocean could be in average heated by the sun the 0.27 K realizing the TSI trend of +0.437 W.m-2 converting the solar shortwave radiation into heat and to sea temperature rise during the period 1964-1994.

      How much surplus heat in absolute numbers the 1964-1994 0.437 W.m-2 TSI rising trend could add to the ocean?
      0.2185 [half of the 1964-1994 TSI trend] x 361132000000000 [ocean area in square meters] x 946707782 [number of seconds in 30 years] x 0.7 [1-terrestrial albedo] = 5.23 x 10^22 Joules could be delivered by the solar irradiance to the sea – which morever translates to heat content contained in just 5.23 x 10^22 / 4.35×10^23 [the heat content of the upper 1m of the ocean] = 0.12 which means such a heat is contained in the uppermost 12 centimeters of the ocean surface layer.

      So why talk about “missing 10^22 Joules” in the first place when all the solar energy surplus delivered to the ocean by the elevated solar irradiance was just in order of 10^22 Joules during the 30 years 1964-1994?

      ——-
      Purely under line I yet compare to 100 years period 1900-2000:
      How much the SST anomaly changed during the period in question?
      +0.657 K (HadSST2 11 year running average to filter out the periodic solar signal)
      The 1900-2000 (1900.0-1999.92) 100 years TSI trend (Solanki daily TSI reconstruction data)
      is +0.694 W.m-2 (0.069 W.m-2/decade)

      The warmed ocean layer thickness relative to the measured SST anomaly change calculation:
      +0.694 x 0.92 (1- water albedo 0.08 = 0.92) = 0.638 W.m-2
      x 3153600000 (x60 seconds x60 minutes x24 hours x365 days x100 years)
      = up to 2013510528 Joules.m-2 (1 Joule = 1 W.s-1)
      How much water this heats it +0.657 K?
      / 2.745603 (4.179 J.cm-3.K-1 volumetric water heat capacity x 0.657 K SST anomaly rise = 2.745603 Joules.cm-3)
      =733358220 cm^3
      /1000000 (cm^3in 1m^3)
      =733 m^3 water per m^2 of the ocean surface
      /4 (We divide by two because always only one half of the Earth is insolated and we divide by another 2 because only half of the linear trend value
      realizes as the TSI mean rise throughout the whole trend period – the average of the zero on the beginning and the full value at the trend’s end is half
      of its value)
      = 183.33 m^3 / m^2 ocean surface
      x 0.82 [1 - the rest of the terrestrial albedo]
      = 150.3
      – which means up to 150 meters upper layer of the ocean could be in average heated by the sun the 0.657 K realizing the TSI trend of +0.694 W.m-2 converting the solar shortwave radiation to heat and sea temperature rise during the period 1900-2000. The number is very well in terms of the ocean surface epipelagic layer thickness which has 50+ times heat content when compared to whole the atmosphere and therefore we can conclude the bulk of the 20th century sea surface temperature rise can be attributed to total solar irradiance rise as the chief cause.

      Just to check more: How much surplus heat in absolute numbers the 1900-2000 0.694 W.m-2 TSI rising trend could add to the ocean?
      0.347 [half of the 1900-2000 TSI trend] x 361132000000000 [ocean area in square meters] x 3153600000 [number of seconds in 100 years] x 0.7 [1-terrestrial albedo] = 2.766 x 10^23 Joules – which translates to heat content contained in just 2.766 x 10^23 / 4.35×10^23 [the heat content of the upper 1m of the ocean] = 0.63 which means in the uppermost 63 centimeters of the ocean surface layer heat content is equivalent to the heat delivered by the rising TSI extinction in the ocean upper layer during the 100 years, but it is nevertheless a number well in order of 10^23 Joules which can be directly attributed to the rising solar activity just in the ocean’s surface layer.
      So maybe Trenberth is missing “the 10^22 Joules” somewhere, but does it even matter?

  126. ***
    jai mitchell says:
    June 9, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    you have so many misunderstandings about the basics it makes me wonder if you are actually doing this to purposefully lie.
    ***

    ROFLMFAO. Rgb’s understanding is a whale compared to your gnat.

  127. jai,

    Do you for one second think that the fossil companies will not sell their entire inventories regardless of what the right/left do/believe?

  128. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 8:36 am

    Climatologists have traditionally used periods of around 30 years because they know from experience that conclusions drawn from shorter periods are unreliable

    In light of the 60 year sine wave that apparently has some role, perhaps 60 years should be used. In my opinion, way too much emphasis has been placed on the 30 year upswing part of the 60 year cycle from about 1975 to 2005.

  129. However we also cannot say any warming is catastrophic. But there is one thing we can say and that is that the climate models are no good.

    Climate models do have flat runs of up to 20 years. These were in the IPCC mid-range ensemble, which end up warming in the long-term. To repeat what Dikran said, the models can’t predict when flat trends will occur.

    “We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming….

    An individual simulation, as opposed to a multi-model, multi-realization average, reveals interesting decadal scale features that can provide insight into the single trajectory that the actual climate is taking. We highlight two periods in Figure 2, 2001–2010 [10 yrs] and 2016–2031 [16 yrs]. Both of these periods show a small, statistically insignificant negative trend based on a simple least-squares trend line and there are other periods, such as the last seven years of this simulation, that show a similar lack of trend. This behavior occurs without any simulated volcanic eruptions or solar variability (natural forcing) that could result in a widespread cooling for some period of years and thus is presumed entirely due to natural internal variability.”

    http://www.crd.lbl.gov/assets/pubs_presos/grl25859.pdf

    Those models are based on surface, not satellite (lower troposphere) temps. If we get 25 years of flat or negative trend, then the models are definitely broken. I think it is fair to ask the question at this time, but it is overreach to reckon conclusively.

  130. “Are we in a pause or a decline?” And the answer is…based on just the last 16 years, we are in a pause (or maybe a decline). If we look at much larger timescales, we could say this is a wiggle in the graph similar to what we have experienced before that overlays a continual increase (and not a straight line increase). There are many causes for the shape of the data, and those causes should be pointed out (and how they contribute) before we can make an increase/pause/decline assessment.

  131. wbrozek wrote “In light of the 60 year sine wave that apparently has some role, …” I note that you ignored the substantive point of my post, which was pointing out that Santer’s paper was not at all moving the goal posts and was just the application of basic statistical principles in response to promulgation of canards.

    Is there statistically significant evidence to show that there is an [enter cherry picked period here] year periodic signal in the dataset and that it isn’t just the effect of noise on top of the effect of known changes in the forcings? No, but if you have such evidence I’d very much like to see it (genuinely).

  132. Frank Mlinar says:
    June 10, 2013 at 9:24 am

    There are many causes for the shape of the data, and those causes should be pointed out (and how they contribute) before we can make an increase/pause/decline assessment.

    So let us suppose that neglecting errors bars, we can show that temperatures dropped over the last 8 years. Furthermore, let us suppose that someone pointed out that the last 8 years had twice as many La Ninas as El Ninos. Are you suggesting that if this was indeed the case, that we could turn around and say the temperatures really went up?

    • “So let us suppose that neglecting errors bars, we can show that temperatures dropped over the last 8 years. Furthermore, let us suppose that someone pointed out that the last 8 years had twice as many La Ninas as El Ninos. Are you suggesting that if this was indeed the case, that we could turn around and say the temperatures really went up?”

      What I am saying is until one identifies and accounts for the contributors, one cannot say which way the temperatures are going long term. If you look at long term data, it appears that the latest pause is a reasonable one. That is, it has happened before. I personally do not know the why behind the current pause nor how long it will last. The most I can do is extrapolate from the long term data. Regarding La Ninas and El Ninos, I assume that “signal” can also be detected, but it would be a high frequency signal when compared to things such as solar, Pacific Decadal, etc. CO2 does not show a periodicity and would be a very low frequency (almost DC) signal (actually signal without a cyclical component). CFCs are man made and are also a low frequency signal but I have no idea what the shape is other than what I have read. Aerosols are another signal that depends on natural and man made emissions.

  133. RichardLH the eye is only too good at seeing signals that don’t actually exist in noise, which is why we have statistics. If you use moving average FILTERS, the output will accentuate any variability that is matched to that FILTER, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I said “statistically significant” for a good reason, it is a very useful sanity check that is absent from most discussions of trends and cycles in the blogsphere.

    However, in this case I suspect the oscillation you are seeing there is a mixture of ENSO and volcanic activity, superimposed on a longer terms warming trend. Satelite temperature datasets are not the only evidence for ENSO or volcanic activity.

  134. barry says:
    June 10, 2013 at 9:19 am
    If we get 25 years of flat or negative trend, then the models are definitely broken.

    If we assume this is the new goal post, then in the meantime, are the world governments willing to not waste money on something that may not be a problem after all?

  135. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 9:47 am
    “RichardLH the eye is only too good at seeing signals that don’t actually exist in noise, which is why we have statistics. If you use moving average FILTERS, the output will accentuate any variability that is matched to that FILTER, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I said “statistically significant” for a good reason, it is a very useful sanity check that is absent from most discussions of trends and cycles in the blogsphere.”

    The definition of statistically significant is defined by the predictive model you use, and at the core of that (autoregressive forecasting) model you find a FILTER. And there has just been a debate between Keenan and the Met Office which filter to use. Keenan won.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/keenan-confirmed-met-position-laid-to-utter-waste/

    So when you say, don’t use filters, you are saying, do not make statements about statistical significance / do not use models.

  136. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 9:47 am

    “RichardLH the eye is only too good at seeing signals that don’t actually exist in noise, which is why we have statistics.”

    Hmmm. Centered moving average filters are quite good at removing most high pass components in their input. They do have a tendacy to add a ‘ring’ in the output (due to sampling with a square wave) but that can be minimised by multiplying the span value by 1.3371 at each stage which is what is being shown here. This creates a well defined low pass filter with minimal distortions in the output.

    In any case what is being detected here is the nodal points. Those lead to the periodic signals. That can be shown with poorer filters as well.

    Indeed if you want statistics then by all means distribute the measured values around the curves produced by the interaction of the 37 month, 4 year and ~60 year periodic features visible in the data.

  137. wbrozek wrote: “If we assume this [If we get 25 years of flat or negative trend, then the models are definitely broken.] is the new goal post, …”

    The goalposts are set by the credible interval of the model projections, when the observations stray outside those, then youcan claim the observations are inconsistent with the models. Nobody is shifting the goalposts, but it is worth checking out the playing field first to find out where they are before entering the game.

  138. RichardLH, I note that your reply did not contain a statement about how the statistical significance of your oscillation was obtained.

    Note I did point out that I accept that there is an oscillation there as there are other lines of physical evidence.

  139. the fact that the only chart in this post that shows a timeline greater than 16 years has a prequalifier of “recovery from little ice age” (as if that is a scientific assertion) is very very telling.

    reminds me of a book

    The fact that both the politically liberal and politically conservative believe in anthropogenic climate change but the very conservative politically DON’T is also very very telling.

  140. DirkH wrote “So when you say, don’t use filters, you are saying, do not make statements about statistical significance / do not use models.”

    I didn’t say don’t use flters, I did say *do* use tests of statistical significance (if only as a sanity check) the two are not mutually exclusive.

  141. wbrozek says: …. As for Santer’s 17 years and more by others, were any of these time periods quoted 10 or more years ago or is it a matter of people shifting goal posts because the original goal posts were too narrow?

    Nothing short of a statistically significant drop in Global Mean Temperature occurring continuously over an extended period of time — probably no less than thirty years, and likely no less than fifty years — might cause the climate science community to reexamine their basic AGW narrative.

    We have not seen anything in the way of a true public debate over the validity of current AGW theory, one that the average Joe and Jane might pay any real attention to.

    A truly broadscope public examination of climate science will not begin until after politicians have imposed severe constraints on the public’s access to liquid carbon fuels, either through raising the price of carbon fuels artificially or through a program of outright fuel rationing as was done in World War II.

    The late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, a commodity allocation administrator in World War II, noted that gasoline was far and away the most difficult commodity to ration, and even the government’s own administrators never did believe they were very effective at it.

  142. “dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:03 am
    RichardLH, I note that your reply did not contain a statement about how the statistical significance of your oscillation was obtained.”

    Can i suggest that you apply this very, very simple statistical test to the referenced image.

    Place your finger between red and black diamonds. Can you see more or less of the points locally if you choose red-black or back-red?

    I’ll let you derive a more statiscal result for confirmation if you wish.

  143. RichardLH, I note that you are still avoiding the topic of statistical significance. There is nothing wrong with not being able to assess the statistical significance of a finding, there is everything wrong with not being able to admit it and trying to evade the issue. Sorry, life is too short.

  144. RichardLH wrote “[something else that avoided the issue of statistical significance]“

  145. Also according to Phil Jones, the most recent warming trend was no different from other past warming trends, which occurred when CO2 was much lower. Thus, the entire CO2=AGW conjecture is completely deconstructed. Sorry, life is too short to make that dog hunt.

  146. dikranmarsupial : Try this for a first pass statistical distribution.

    Sorry that should be the newer image not the older one.

    If you know a good statatician then I am sure they will confirm it with precise values.

  147. dbstealy yes, Phil Jones did say that, becuase scientists have a tendency to give direct answers to direct questions. He also went on to explain that this is pretty much what you would expect if you looked at a trend calculated over such a short period. It is clear that he at least understands the concept of the statistical power of a test and what “statistically significant” actually means (and what it doesn’t mean).

    To be clear “no statistically significant warming” doesn’t mean “no warming”, it just means (loosely speaking) that the observations do not rule out the possibility that there had been no warming.

  148. dikranmarsupial says:

    “He also went on to explain that this is pretty much what you would expect if you looked at a trend calculated over such a short period.”

    Thank you for giving your translation of Phil Jones’ statement. But I note that Jones has not corrected it — and I further note that the ‘no warming’ trend has been extended by a couple more years.

    You cannot have it both ways. If global warming had continued, the alarmist crowd would be beating skeptics over the head with that fact. But global warming has stopped for at least a decade and a half, and you cannot credibly complain now that by parsing Jones’ words you can change that fact.

    The endless and almost universal predictions of runaway global warming have failed. Those predictions turned out to be flat wrong, all of them, as any honest scientist will now acknowledge.

    As a scientific skeptic I was fully prepared to accept the CO2=CAGW conjecture in the mid- to late-1990’s. But the real world intervened, and set me straight. The difference between alarmists and skeptics is that when real world facts and empirical observations falsify a conjecture, skeptics acceot reality — while alarmists attempt to make excuses for their failed predictions.

  149. dbsteally wrote “Thank you for giving your translation of Phil Jones’ statement.”

    actually I read the interview, so I know what he actually said, which was:

    “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. ”

    Note the part where he relates the difficulty of achieving statistical significance to the length of the period.

  150. There is a good reason for the error bars: calibration is not perfect, equipment is not perfect, and humans are not perfect. The trend could easily be negative; we just don’t know. So we use error bars. And thus, there was neither warming nor cooling as far as we can tell. Again, you can’t have it both ways. Error bands are only statistical probabilities, not testable reality.

    Also, the endless alarming predictions were for catastrophic runaway global warming. Even I suspected that was occurring. But Planet Earth showed me I was in error, so I adjusted my view accordingly.

    Since the planet has warmed along the same long term trend line since the beginning of thermometer records, without any acceleration despite the large rise in CO2, it seems obvious that CO2 is not the cause of that warming.

    Most likely the recent warming step is a continuing recovery from the depths of the LIA, and as such it will stall for a while, then resume. But CO2 — whether human-emitted or natural — has nothing measurable to do with global warming.

  151. wbrozek says:
    June 10, 2013 at 9:02 am

    “”Henry Galt says:
    June 10, 2013 at 8:14 am

    This, folks, IS cognitive dissonance in action. “”

    Sorry – I was unclear as you probably guessed from my next post.

    ‘barry’ is a welter of dissonance, some of it cognitive ;)

    Your analysis, however, I use all the time and thank you for it here.

  152. “dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:31 am
    RichardLH, that STILL isn’t a test of statistical significance.”

    I would have thought that a better than 90% chance that data points fall within an envelope dictated by the observed periodic feature is a pretty good correlation.

  153. dbstealy wrote “…Error bands are only statistical probabilities, not testable reality…”

    actually there is a direct equivalence between “error bands” (i.e. confidence intervals) and statistical tests, see http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section1/prc15.htm In this case, the test for the statistical significance of a warming trend is to see if the confidence interval excludes zero. However as I said, the lack of statistically significant warming does not imply that there has been no warming, just that the observations do not rule out the possibility that there has been no warming.

    If you don’t undestand that, then I am not surprised that you misinterpreted Phil Jones’ statement.

  154. jai mitchell says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:05 am

    the fact that the only chart in this post that shows a timeline greater than 16 years has a prequalifier of “recovery from little ice age” (as if that is a scientific assertion) is very very telling.

    Are you disputing the recovery from the LIA? FYI, the LIA was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. We are fortunate that the climate is rebounding.

    And that recovery is happening despite — not because of — the rise in CO2. The long term global warming trend line has not accelerated, despite the ≈40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. Global warming has actually stopped for the past decade and a half, despite the large rise in CO2.

    Thus, “carbon” is causing no measurable rise in global warming. None at all. That conjecture is being debunked by Planet Earth, to the great consternation of the alarmist crowd.

  155. RichardLH a correllation is just a measure of the similarity of two signals, but how do you know if the correllation is high enough to be confident that the apparent correlation does not arise through random chance? That is determined by statistical significance testing. No amount of plotting data and smoothing of the data or visual inspection can determine that, it requeires formal statistical analysis.

  156. dikranmarsupial,

    Mile thick glaciers could once again cover Chicago, and you would still be a CAGW True Believer. I would ask you: how many more years of no global warming would it take for you to admit that your CAGW conjecture is wrong? But I’ve asked that many times, with no credible answer.

    That demonstrates the difference between scientific skeptics and climate alarmists: skeptics pay attention to reality, while alarmists only pay attention to their belief system. It’s science vs religion; emotion vs logic. Reality vs Belief.

  157. dikranmarsupial: I understand correlation which is why I used it. Correlation between the observed data and a peridoicity in that data.

    I have no doubt that the distribution in the UAH data into the future will be matched by by a function that only requires white noise and 37 month, 4 year and ~60 year cycles with appropriate phase and magnitude.

  158. @jai mitchell says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:05 am

    the fact that the only chart in this post that shows a timeline greater than 16 years has a prequalifier of “recovery from little ice age” (as if that is a scientific assertion) is very very telling.

    reminds me of a book

    The fact that both the politically liberal and politically conservative believe in anthropogenic climate change but the very conservative politically DON’T is also very very telling.
    ————————————-

    Still awaiting your response to my question asking to what you imagine scientists attribute the recovery, 1850-1945, from low temperatures during the LIA, if not to natural causes, since CO2 didn’t really take off until after WWII.

    On what possible can you doubt that temperatures recovered from the LIA when that’s what the data show? Granted that valid observation, what do you suppose explains about a century of net warming, without benefit of elevated carbon dioxide concentrations?

    Please reply this time. Thanks.

    Also, among the many other areas of your apparent abject databaselessness is the number of leftwing AGW skeptics, such as radical environmentalist Dr. Denis Rancourt or the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore. Liberals who care about humans still mired in poverty support energy enrichment over the destructive, deadly fantasy of AGW.

    Do you also imagine that the astronauts & NASA mission controllers who wrote in protest against Hansen’s lunacies are all “very conservative”, despite having spent their careers as federal employees?

  159. RichardLH, you are missing the point, there is nothing wrong with using a correllation, it is a perfectly good statistic for many tasks. The question though is how high a correllation needs to be to be confident it isn’t spurious. This is why scientists go a step further and ask how likely we would see a correllation that high if the observations were simply noise (the usual null hypothesis, but this isn’t always the appropriate choice). They call this the p-value and “reject the null hypothesis” if this probability is below some threshold (commonly 0.05). They do this as a sanity check to avoid jumping to conclusions when they see an apparently good correllation between variables in an analysis (or equivalently the fit of a model). It is this step that you have missed out, but it is a step that involves a fair bit of statistical background. There is nothing wrong with not having this background, but it does mean that you need to be very cautious in interpreting your findings.

    As I said, I have no problem agreeeing that there is an oscillation in the data that really does mean somthing about the climate, however the fact that real physical processes can be identified that explain it is much better evidence than a correllation. I am a statistcian and as such I am normally much more easily convinced by physics than I am by statistics, as I know how easy it is to be misled by statistics unless you take the proper steps, such as hypothesis testing (which is deeply flawed, by a useful sanity check nevertheless).

  160. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:01 am
    wbrozek wrote: “If we assume this [If we get 25 years of flat or negative trend, then the models are definitely broken.] is the new goal post, …”
    Nobody is shifting the goalposts

    In that case, the following comment by Phil Jones seems very strange:
    Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

    http://mnichopolis.hubpages.com/hub/ClimateGate-The-Smoking-Gun-email

  161. dikranmarsupial: Have you looked at the data analysis I provided? Does it represent a fair summary of the data so far? Is it reasonable to assume that it provides at least some clue as to the likely future?

  162. dbstealy wrote “Mile thick glaciers could once again cover Chicago…” however this was simply evasion to distract from his errors regarding what Prof. Jones actually said and about the relationship between confidence intervals (“error bands”) and testing. It is this sort of thing that gives skeptics a bad name IMHO. Science is a search for the truth and if you have to indulge in evasion its an indication that your position isn’t too solid. Compare this with Phil Jones who was willing to give a completely straight answer about whether the trend was significant or not.

  163. RichardLH, you are still missing the point. There is a good reason why scientists use statistical hypothesis testing. I’ve tried to explain it to you, but you don’t seem to be listening. It does provide a clue, but (a) why bother with a “clue” when there is an “physical explanation” and (b) why pay attention to a “clue” when no attempt has been made to establish whether the clue is likely to be spurious? Getting to grips with the data is a good thing, but don’t stop at plotting graphs, move on to the next step and you will have a really useful tool for spotting and refuting bogus arguments.

  164. I understand how and why scientists use statistics to demonstrate vadility in their conclusions.

    You evaded my question, Does my data summary represent a fair view of the dtaa so far and its likely future?

  165. jai mitchell says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:05 am

    the fact that the only chart in this post that shows a timeline greater than 16 years has a prequalifier of “recovery from little ice age” (as if that is a scientific assertion) is very very telling.

    reminds me of a book

    The fact that both the politically liberal and politically conservative believe in anthropogenic climate change but the very conservative politically DON’T is also very very telling.

    *********************

    What is telling is your use of “believe in”, since CACCA fits perfectly Feynman’s concept of a cult.

    You’ve been repeatedly shown the valid science behind the non-controversial recovery from the LIA. Clearly, objective reality is not your bag.

    Suggest you read your book about lying again, this time with more attention & comprehension.

  166. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:48 am

    Note the part where he relates the difficulty of achieving statistical significance to the length of the period.

    That is very true. But it is also true that if there were decent warming, then it could be seen in 16 years as the following shows. Note the second row.

    Start of 1995 to end 2009: 0.135 +/- 0.147. Warming for 15 years is not significant.
    Start of 1995 to end 2010: 0.138 +/- 0.132. Warming for 16 years is significant.
    Start of 1995 to end 2011: 0.111 +/- 0.121. Warming for 17 years is not significant.
    Start of 1995 to end 2012: 0.098 +/- 0.112. Warming for 18 years is not significant.

    And the present situation is that since July 1994 the number is 0.102 ±0.103 °C/decade (2σ). That is almost 19 years.

  167. In response to my saying “Nobody is shifting the goalposts…” wbrozek wrote

    ‘In that case, the following comment by Phil Jones seems very strange:
    Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”’

    However it is worth looking at what was deleted from “”Nobody is shifting the goalposts…”, what I actually wrote was:

    “The goalposts are set by the credible interval of the model projections, when the observations stray outside those, then youcan claim the observations are inconsistent with the models. Nobody is shifting the goalposts, but it is worth checking out the playing field first to find out where they are before entering the game.”

    Jones’s stament has precisely nothing to do with the credible interval on the model projections, so it is hardly an answer to my statement about the position of the goal posts. I’m sorry but this selective quoting is simply disingenuous, and I am not prepared to continue the discussion if this is the level to which you will stoop.

    For reference, Jones’ comment isn’t strange at all, all he is saying is that you shouldn’t make claims SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE OBSERVATIONS unless there is statistically significant evidence to support your assertion. This isn’t rocket science, it is normal scientific practice 101.

  168. Henry Galt says:
    June 10, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Sorry – I was unclear as you probably guessed from my next post.

    Thank you for clarifying that.

  169. JM VanWinkle says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    Worse case is this is a start of the glaciation phase, perhaps triggered by obliquity, negative ocean oscillations confluence, and the solar minimum. In which case the 70′s worry of glaciation was just premature. Yeah, it is just a guess, but does anyone have a good handle on what initiates the glaciation phase?…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    SEE:
    In order of publication

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-“trap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/

  170. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 11:57 am
    “This isn’t rocket science, it is normal scientific practice 101.”

    Normal science is, if you observe patterns in a data set then you try and determine how those patterns arise and their causes.

  171. wbrozek wrote “That is very true. But it is also true that if there were decent warming, then it could be seen in 16 years as the following shows. Note the second row.”

    “could” yes, but that is not the same thing as “should”, for that you need to make sure the test has adequate statistical power by using a sufficiently long period (and you need to stop cherry picking the start date as this invalidates the test for the reasons I explained earlier).

  172. Kelvin Vaughan says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    Every month this year in Central England has been below the 136 year average and I’m freezing.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I am in the ‘sunny south’ aka mid North Carolina and we have yet to see 90F (32 C) at my local airport. Ten years ago we had 6 days above 90 in April and 17 days above 90 in May. (Summer what Summer?)

  173. RichardLH wrote “Normal science is, if you observe patterns in a data set then you try and determine how those patterns arise and their causes.”

    yes, and ironically it was me that pointed out that the most likely causes for the observed patterns were ENSO and volcanic activity!

  174. Frank Mlinar says:
    June 10, 2013 at 11:28 am
    What I am saying is until one identifies and accounts for the contributors, one cannot say which way the temperatures are going long term.

    Scientists have a pretty good idea what the sun might be doing 2 years from now, but they have no clue if we will have an El Nino or La Nina or neutral conditions 2 years from now. So while we do not know the future, it seems clear we should not spend huge amounts of money on something that may turn out not to be a problem.

  175. dikranmarsupial says:

    June 10, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    “yes, and ironically it was me that pointed out that the most likely causes for the observed patterns were ENSO and volcanic activity!”

    All I am doing is pointing out that there is other periodicity in the data which needs explaining.

    The analysis shows that there are strong 37 month, 4 year and partial ~60 year cycles beating in the data. It seems reasonable to conclude that this will continue into the future.

  176. RichardLH wrote “The analysis shows that there are strong 37 month, 4 year and partial ~60 year cycles beating in the data. It seems reasonable to conclude that this will continue into the future.”

    You didn’t establish the 60 year cycle as over such a short timespan there isn’t enough data to distinguish it from a linear trend. A statistical hypothesis test might have told you that as a model that involves a linear trend, ENSO and volcanoes would be the obvious null hypothesis, which is basically what Foster and Rahmstorf’s well discussed paper actually does.

  177. Actually the estimated values at the end of the data range (which are based on less filter outputs and are therefore less precise) do indicate that there is a ~60 cyclic term in the data.

  178. To support this claim please note that the filter outputs rather nicely converge on a 3rd order polynomial fit to the data so far :-)

  179. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    (and you need to stop cherry picking the start date as this invalidates the test for the reasons I explained earlier)

    I am not sure why you are accusing me of cherry picking anything since it was Phil Jones who said in February, 2010 that the warming for the past 15 years was not quite significant. But a year later he said the warming over the last 16 years was significant. Are you suggesting then that Phil Jones cherry picked start dates?

  180. wbrozek wrote “I am not sure why you are accusing me of cherry picking anything since it was Phil Jones who said in February, 2010 that the warming for the past 15 years was not quite significant.”

    Phil Jones said this because he was asked a direct questions on the topic by journalists. Rather than evading the questions, as appears to be the norm in the blogsphere, he gave a direct and honest answer to the question. The cherry was picked by whoever suggested the question should be asked, I would have thought that was obvious to anybody that had taken the time to find out the actual circumstances of the quote.

  181. dikranmarsupial: You never did reply as to if my data summary is a fair represenation of the data so far and its likely future.

  182. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:39 am

    Thank you for your post. I am not going to verify all the math as you basically confirmed that a huge amount of J translates to very little temperature change in the ocean. However this caught my eye:
    and has the heat capacity 4.2 × (3,7×10^20) = 1.5×10^21J.K-1
    so the upper 1m ocean heat content is (1.5×10^21) ×290 K = 4.35×10^23 Joules

    Would you not have to raise the temperature by 290 K to multiply by the J/K to see how much energy is needed? And it is physically impossible to raise water by 290 K since it is ice at about 271 K. Or am I wrong here?

    • wbrozek says:
      June 10, 2013 at 12:48 pm
      “Would you not have to raise the temperature by 290 K to multiply by the J/K to see how much energy is needed? And it is physically impossible to raise water by 290 K since it is ice at about 271 K. Or am I wrong here?”

      The 290 K in the equation is simply the average sea surface temperature which if multiplied with the 1 m sea surface layer heat capacity (per 1 K temperature rise) gives the resulting heat content of the upper 1 meter of the ocean 4.35×10^23 Joules.
      Yes there was something which heated the water in the ocean to 290 K average surface temperature (the water in the ocean usually is a liquid, not an ice), and the something was chiefly the sun – as it was also the chief cause of the recent slight seawater warming since the 1960s – as the comparisons of the TSI->SST dependence in 1902-1932, 1964-1994 and 1900-2000 periods here confirm beyond reasonable doubt even in the absolute numbers.

      The points of my post was to show by the calculations using absolute numbers, that the amounts of energy/heat playing role in the sea water temperature fluctuations are way higher than anything which can be going on in the atmosphere and that there it looks like the enigmatic “missing heat of 10^22 Joules” is likely a mere Trenberth imagination – which is anyway too low number to compare with the by TSI rise directly induced SST anomaly rise by adding the 2 x 10^23 Joules of heat to the ocean surface layer in the 20th century – which can be easily accounted for – not in the deep ocean, but right at its surface. And that anybody who claims the solar variation is too low to influence the surface temperature anomaly changes in the actually measured range didn’t do the homework of actually checking it using a very simple high-school math.

  183. RichardLH, as far as it agrees with physics, yes, where it is not supported by physics or tests of statistical significance, no.

  184. JM VanWinkle says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    “does anyone have a good handle on what initiates the glaciation phase?”

    In my opinion one can sum it up in one paragraph: The glaciation phase will be triggered always when the previous warm period (caused by higher insolation of the ocean mainly at the southern hemisphere due to winter solstice-perihelion being in same phase) rised considerably the sea surface temperature and therefore surface air temperature and therefore atmospheric humidity and at the same time the Earth’s perihelion phases not with winter solstice (now the perihelion is in the beginning of January) but with summer solstice (due to axial precession once ~26 thousand years) leading to globally averaged forcing of minus 5-7 W per square meter (relatively to current TSI forcing) due to lower insolation of the ocean at the southern hemisphere, which then leads to seaice extent rise there, changes the southern thermohalines to the point of considerable slowing the equator-south indian ocean current and north pacific-south indian ocean surface current and so the south-north Atlantic surface current, cooling so north Atlantic, causing the summer snow meltdown insufficient at both hemisheres and triggers so the glaciation runout due to rising albedo caused by extending snow covered area – which will almost inevitably happen sometime next ~12 thousand years if someone doesn’t invent a way how to neutralize the minus 5-7 W per square meter forcing of the perihelion-summer solstice phase – which would mean to add ~1800+ TeraWatt into the system.somehow.

  185. “dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    RichardLH, as far as it agrees with physics, yes, where it is not supported by physics or tests of statistical significance, no.”

    So the fact that the filter outputs converge on a 3rd order polynomial fit to the data so far is not statistically significant?

  186. RichardLH wrote: “So the fact that the filter outputs converge on a 3rd order polynomial fit to the data so far is not statistically significant?”

    This is getting a tad repetitive. There are standard statistical tests for this sort of thing, so perform one and find out. That is not rocket science, it is normal scientific practice 101. The onus is on YOU to evaluate the statistical significance of your findings.

  187. @rgbatduke
    ‘The really funny thing is that there has been no discernible warming from the time that the IPCC succeeded, by dint of Al Gore’s book and movie and an “unprecedented” public relations campaign, in convincing the public that we were certain to warm at a uniform, catastrophic rate for the rest of the century.’
    ….
    RoHa says: @ June 9, 2013 at 9:14 pm
    That proves that Al Gore stopped Global Warming and saved us all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Nah, It’s just the Gore Effect in action. All that suppressed global warming will show up during the nex D/O event I am sure.

  188. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    “This is getting a tad repetitive.”

    Indeed. I observe periodicity. You decline to engauge but instead reply that my statistictics are not ‘good enough’. I will observe that averages ARE statistics are so are 3rd order polynomials.

    I have demonstarted a good fit to the underlying structure. You have not addresed why my analysys is wrong.

  189. RichardLH, I haven’t just said your statistics are “Not good enough”, I have explained exactly why and what you need to do to put your argument on sound statistical footing. The fact that you would rather argue than look up the appropriate statistical test and find out the result really says it all. If you really think a good fit is sufficient, try looking up the statistical term “overfitting”.

  190. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    “wbrozek wrote “I am not sure why you are accusing me of cherry picking anything since it was Phil Jones who said in February, 2010 that the warming for the past 15 years was not quite significant.”

    Phil Jones said this because he was asked a direct questions on the topic by journalists. Rather than evading the questions, as appears to be the norm in the blogsphere, he gave a direct and honest answer to the question. The cherry was picked by whoever suggested the question should be asked, I would have thought that was obvious to anybody that had taken the time to find out the actual circumstances of the quote.”

    You are funny. So saying it has warmed since 1750 is cherrypicking? So somebody utters a true statement and all you can think of is how to accuse him of SOMETHING? Hey, you could just as well accuse Phil Jones of being in the pocket of Big Oil; for which there is more evidence than for the Gelbspan Big Oil smear, as the CRU has been financed by BP.

  191. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    I have shown you the statistics. I have shown you that the fit to those statistics is good. You have not adderessed any part of the questions posed.

  192. RichardLH wrote “I have shown you that the fit to those statistics is good.”

    So in the six minutes that elapsed between my post and your reply, did you look up “overfitting”? No, because if you had you wouldn’t have focussed on the model fit being good. LOL!

  193. “dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    RichardLH wrote “I have shown you that the fit to those statistics is good.”

    So in the six minutes that elapsed between my post and your reply, did you look up “overfitting”? No, because if you had you wouldn’t have focussed on the model fit being good. LOL!”

    Never wise to assume people need to look things up before they understand the term.

  194. RichardLH, as I said, had you understood “overfitting” you wouldn’t try and justify your model using goodness of fit in isolation. You are just arguing for the sake of it now, life is too short, I’ll leave you to it.

  195. dikranmarsupial says:
    June 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    “RichardLH, as I said, had you understood “overfitting” you wouldn’t try and justify your model using goodness of fit in isolation. You are just arguing for the sake of it now, life is too short, I’ll leave you to it.”

    Thank you for not answering any of the questions posed. I would suggest that you study more and opinion less.

  196. Hypothesis

    The UAH Global temperature anomaly data series (ref: http://www.drroyspencer.com) can be modeled as a sequence with the following terms:

    1. 24 hours
    3. 12 months
    2. 37 months
    4. 48 months
    5. 60 years
    6. Weather

    Data Analysys

    http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b550/RichardLH/uahtrendsinflectionfuture_zps7451ccf9.png.html

    Cascaded central output running average filters of 12, 16, 21, 28 and 37 months span and the original data plotted on a scatter graph.

    Inflection points extracted at the conjunction points of the filter outputs. These indictate local ‘zero’ crossing points in the data.

    Peridoicity observed in the nodal values clustered around 37 months, 48 months, ~12 years and ~60 years.

    Prediction

    The values will continue to be bounded by an envelope dictated by the observed perodicity.

  197. RichardLH says:

    “Thank you for not answering any of the questions posed.”

    ==============================

    Yes, I noticed Dikranmarsupial’s total lack of answers, too. I suppose Mr Marsupial will also avoid trying to explain why none of the climate models were correct. [Click in graph to embiggen.]

    They all predicted rapid global warming. All of them. And they were all wrong.

    Anyone who does not repudiate the models and their predictions at this point is a religious true believer. They can no longer claim that they are debating science.

    What say you, Mr Marsupial?

  198. Paul Homewood says that HadCRUT3 may be discontinued!

    Oh my god, don’t they realize that people have placed monetary bets on the performance of HadCRUT3 into the future, especially with respect to the MetO prediction of “at least half of the next 10 years will break the 1998 record”.

    How can they discontinue this valuable statistic? Are they going to discontinue CET too, only 330 years old, because they don’t like that it is going down? Who do these people think they are? I want my taxes back!!

    /rant

    Incidentally, my very nom de plume “See owe to Rich” is a pun between “CO2 is rich and good for the environment” and “see, I’m Rich, and you’ll owe me money if you bet against me on HadCRUT3″.

    Rich.

  199. Frank Mlinar says:
    June 10, 2013 at 1:28 pm
    The temperature may actually go down for a few years, but the overall trend is increasingly up.

    That would then agree with Dr. Syun’s graphic and it is certainly not alarming. Right? But even if you think it is steeper, what can we lose by waiting and seeing if it is actually the case?

  200. See – owe to Rich says:
    June 10, 2013 at 2:52 pm
    prediction of “at least half of the next 10 years will break the 1998 record”

    Actually it was half of the next 5 from 2009. That is already out of reach. Here is the relevant quote:

    “We are now using the system to predict changes out
    to 2014. By the end of this period, the global average
    temperature is expected to have risen by around
    0.3 °C compared to 2004, and half of the years after
    2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current
    record hot year, 1998.”

    As for the rise of 0.3, as of now, it has dropped about 0.05 since then. See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/trend

  201. @ barry says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    Mario,
    [Mario said]
    Your ilk have used models to suggest the trend must continue towards warming.

    [Barry said]
    I don’t know who my ‘ilk’ are meant to be. I don’t feel I belong to any particular club in this debate.

    Climate scientists rely on physics, not models, to posit that an enhanced greenhouse should warm the Earth. It is a notion shared by the reputable climate scientists and Anthony watts, who rightly forbids at this site the unphysical proposition to the contrary.

    [Mario said]
    Your ilk said a pause in warming could not happen for 10 then 15 years.

    [Barry said]
    The mid-range model ensembles include runs that have flat trends for 10, 15 and 20 years. Where do this ‘ilk’ say that a pause could not happen?

    [Mario said]
    You are creating another strawman argument because their argument fell on its face.

    [Barry said]
    What strawman? That the greenhouse effect is real?
    +++++++++++++++++++
    ILK = people who take my tax money forcibly by threatening people to vote to steal it from me using a problem that does not exist. This ILK (think Gore, Mann etc) becomes wealthy at my expense and at the expense of the poorest in our society.

    First you deny that models are used to show warming, but instead say that physics is used to show warming. NO BARRY Physics does not show that the world is going to warm, only the models show that a single molecule called CO2 will trigger events leading to amplified warming. You seem to misunderstand the difference between the theory of GHE and hypothesis of CAGW

    Saying that the greenhouse effect is real is not proof of CAGW. The only evidence that CO2 caused the 20th Century warming is in “the models.” But as you know, the models are wrong. Sorry to rub salt in the wound, but we’re not going to boil over.

    PS – You don’t seem to know what your ilk professes and you make a poor representative for them. Your side changes history moving goal posts over and over again. First it was 10 years… then it was certainly not more than 15 years.

    Your ilk’s models show all sorts of things ranging from flatlining and huge amounts of warming. Most of them show huge amounts of warming –and the only ones you and your ilk believe in are the ones that heat us up towards catastrophe. Those ones are used for policy makers by the IPCC and those ones FAILED so quickly you have not taken the time to realize it.

  202. Ian W says:
    June 9, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    Dinostratus says:
    June 9, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    It is foolish to create a linear ‘projection’ based on the outputs of a chaotic system. Is it any more logical to carry out a Fourier transform on the outputs of a chaotic system?

    A) Just to be perfectly pedantic, we don’t know that climate is chaotic. What it is, I have no idea.
    B) I think you get my point. Any convergent expansion we know of is invalid, IMHO.

  203. We have had the assertion that models do in fact show periods of more than 15 years with no warming. However, I have not seen any reference to any such model. I strongly suspect that if we looked at the details of such a run we would find one or two volcanoes driving down the temperature. Since we haven’t had a single cooling volcanic eruption in the 16.5 years of current flat temps I doubt very much the claimed model has anything to do with what has actually occurred.

    Let’s see the detail of the supposed 20 year model run with flat temps.

  204. wbrozek,

    If we assume this is the new goal post, then in the meantime, are the world governments willing to not waste money on something that may not be a problem after all?

    25 years is my own reckoning. The classic climate period is 30 years to smooth out internal variability.

    You are here moving on to talk about policy. Is this the impetus for your analysis?

    The truth is we know that the world should heat up with enhanced greenhouse effect. We don’t know by how much. Here you focus on a recent flattish trend in the data to recommend that the models are broken, and that therefore there might not be a problem to fix. You are saying, essentially, that maybe (“surely”? “definitely”?) climate sensitivity is low. But we don’t know that either. It could be high or low.

    I don’t like to discuss policy options on climate change (I’m not interested and not informed), but as a broad idea, I would say that policy makers should see climate change as a risk with unknown outcomes, potentially serious, potentially inconsequential, and act prudently. This is the position Roger Pielke Snr endorses. The tricky thing is that if the effects are serious, the longer action is delayed, the worse it will be, and we won’t know for a few decades. A very difficult conundrum for policy makers who tend to look little further ahead than the next four or five years. It would be great if global warming was long, slow and not terribly disruptive, but your analysis, and the best efforts from those arguing similarly, do not persuade me that we can be sure serious impacts will not happen. Is this what you want people to believe?

  205. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:39 am

    “What TSI trend was there?
    The 1964-1994 (1964.0-1993.92) 30 years TSI trend (Solanki daily TSI reconstruction data)
    +0.437 W.m-2 (0.146 W.m-2/decade)”

    So I plot (you can do this too) the Solanki data for 1964 to 1994, and I see a periodic waveform with three cycles (assuming exactly three cycles are captured). Looking at the peaks, I see the first peak significantly depressed compared to the second two. Looking at the valleys, I see all valleys have about the same value. If I then calculate the total energy per cycle, I see the first cycle has significantly less energy than the next two. I see the second cycle having the greatest energy and the third cycle having slightly less energy than the second cycle. I conclude that a trend line for these three cycles is inappropriate.

    Instead, if I look at the temperature data sets, and I assume the Solanki data is the only contributor, I would expect to see lowest temperatures for 1964-1974, highest temperatures for 1974-1984, and slightly lower temperatures for 1984-1994.

    I plot two data sets of ocean surface temperatures.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1964/to:1994/offset:-315/scale:0.007/offset:-0.125/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1964/to:1994/mean:50/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1964/to:1994/mean:50

    I instead see the temperatures continually increasing (underneath the solar cycle) for two data sets.

    Next I do an energy balance calculation from:

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/sun_radiation_at_earth.html

    I find that if I use a 0.437 W/m2 increase, I only get a 0.02 degree temperature rise, not the actual 0.27 degree increase.

    Just for kicks, I plotted CO2 on the three ocean data sets. I offset and scaled the data to match the temperature data for two sets. (I am assuming the general temperature increase is primarily due to CO2. This is not necessarily so as there could be other contributions that I am ignoring for now.) Note the very good match in the general temperature increase (ignoring the solar cycle) to the CO2 curve.

    I could conclude from this that I can identify the solar cycle and the CO2 impacts on temperature. I also conclude that the impact of the average increase in solar irradiation over the given 30-year period is minimal compared to other contributions.


    • Frank Mlinar says:
      June 10, 2013 at 8:06 pm
      “I do an energy balance calculation from:

      http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/sun_radiation_at_earth.html

      I find that if I use a 0.437 W/m2 increase, I only get a 0.02 degree temperature rise”

      You don’t do calculation, you just use a (flawed) script at a website, not much knowing what are you doing.
      The model at windows2universe.org is obviously a mess and in any case is not at all useful for ocean surface temperature anomaly rise estimation.

      The ocean absorbs most of the incoming shortwave spectra converting it to heat -> temperature rise and most of the rest contributes to surface evaporation. And it works at most of the possible angles, because the water has quite low reflectivity and therefore quite a low albedo of <0.1, while it has very high transparency to solar spectra.
      By rule of thumb the ocean is responsible for ~90% of all solar shortwave spectra conversion to heat via solar photons extinction on this planet (I calculated it for myself, not red it somewhere on the internet), rest is going on the land surface and only ~1-2% in the atmosphere*. So if you want right numbers for the TSI rise -> SST rise dependence, you must calculate the absolute ocean surface heat figures via calculating how much heat results from the solar irradiation in the ocean surface layer. Then you’ll find it very well agrees with the TSI rise in the 20th century.

      Here you have the Solanki TSI trends plot.
      Here I’ve put to your WFT graph the SSN instead of CO2 and made it 1964 solar minima – 1996 solar minima for you to see the solar activity -> SST dependence and see that the solar cycle signal is quite well distinguishable in the SST anomaly data and it is in fact the strongest signal you can see there by bare eye together with intermitent ENSO signals. Nothing like that you can see there for CO2.

      I’ll add that from the above linked water absorbtion spectrum graph is absolutely clear the water is millions of times more opaque to the atmosphere 254 K ~10 µm spectra so the GHE can’t have a significant effect on the sea epipelagic layer temperature, because simply the 254K spectra cannot significantly penetrate it deeper than several hundreths of milimeter. So to compare SST data with CO2 data is a nonsense. You never can find a true CO2 signal in the SST data, because it is simply physically impossible to have it there.

      The 0.27 K SST rise dependence on 0.427 W/m^2 TSI rise calculation in relative and absolute numbers together with the comparison to the 1902-1932 period and to whole 1900-2000 period you can find here. It shows quite convincingly that the chief cause of the sea surface layer warming in the 20th century, including the last warming period since 1960s, was the rising solar activity. And I just repeat the ocean surface layer (the layer significantly penetrated by solar irradiance up to 200 m depth) has 50+ times higher heat capacity than whole the atmosphere and almost 1000 times higher heat capacity than surface atmosphere boundary layer, so it is clear it is the ocean (warmed by sun) which chiefly warms the atmosphere surface boundary layer, not vice versa.

      ——–
      * btw. even just the photosynthesis
      stores more heat per year at this planet than the whole atmosphere stores (due to its low thermal capacity and releatively low average temperature 254 K -weighted by pressure in standard atmospheric model, more or less equal to atmosphere blackbody temperature – which the atmosphere has not at the Earth’s surface but 5000+ meters above sea level, so all the alarmist Stefan-Boltzman law tricks claiming 33K higher temperature at the surface than predicted are obvious nonsenses only showing that the people claiming it have no clue what Stefan-Boltzman law is about – the atmosphere is in fact very well in terms with the Stefan-Boltzman law and theres no “33 K difference”) and the photosynthesis sequesters ~10 times more Carbon dioxide than the current anthropogenic CO2 emissions – so just the photosynthesis rate is the reason why the anhropogenic CO2 rise based CAGW pseudohypotheses are absolute bunk, designed to fool those who missed the high-school math and physics classes to get some money from them and let them feel as saviors of the world while the opposite is true.

      • tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
        June 11, 2013 at 9:01 am

        “You don’t do calculation, you just use a (flawed) script at a website, not much knowing what are you doing.”

        First I wish to thank you for the additional references as they further support my conclusions.

        Now:
        I used the energy balance equation for the earth directly:
        T=[(solar irradiance * albedo)/(4 * Boltzmans constant)] ^ 0.25
        Where:
        solar irradiance = 1366 W/m2
        albedo (actually 1 – albedo) = 0.31 ( I also tried 0.18 with minor impact)
        This equation plus its derivation is all over the internet: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/ for example.
        Here’s a discussion of seawater albedo: http://cove.larc.nasa.gov/papers/jingrl04.pdf

        Think of the energy balance this way:
        Construct an imaginary sphere around the earth at some distance (say at the top of the atmosphere for example).
        Integrate the energy entering/leaving across the complete surface of the sphere.
        According to thermodynamics, at equilibrium the net energy will be exactly zero.
        The albedo used for earth energy balance is about 0.3 (I used 0.31). This number can be found in multiple places.
        The equivalent temperature at equilibrium assumes a black body modified by the albedo. That temperature does not include the “greenhouse effect” from the atmosphere and things like water vapor CO2 CH4 CFCs, etc.
        The delta temperature between the black body and the earth’s surface temperature (or ocean surface) is the result of energy being “trapped”.
        I changed the albedo to zero (0), and the temperature rise using your trend line for 1964 to 1994 was 0.022 degrees K. For an albedo of 0.31 the temperature rise was 0.020.

        Regarding trend lines:

        The solar irradiance is a periodic function (close to a sine wave).
        Any trend line over multiple periods should be measured over an integer number of periods. This is especially true when trending over just a few periods. You can start at any point of the starting cycle, and you must end at the corresponding point of the end cycle.
        Your 1964 – 1994 trend line begins close to a minima and ends halfway up the side of the third period. That is you did not use an integer number of periods.
        This is also true for your 1902 – 1932 trend line.
        Easy places to use are at the maxima or minima.

        I recalculated your trend lines using three complete cycles and the minima. My time frames are: 1965.2 to 1996.7 (about). My trend line slope is 0.076 W/m2/decade; about half of what you calculated.
        For 1902 to 1932, I used 1902.1 to 1933.6 and got a slope of 0.071 where you got 0.094.
        For 1900 to 2000, I used 1902.1 to 1996.7 and got a slope of 0.074 where you got 0.694.
        As you can see, the start and stop points are important for periodic signals.

        Now for 1900 to 2000, just eyeballing the Solanki data, it appears that there is a general increase in solar energy from 1900 to about 1954 or so, From 1954 to 2000 there is a general decrease (or possibly flat) in solar energy. I would recommend two trend lines be used, and I would look for these trends in the SST data.

        Some trend line calculations using minima:

        1902.1 to
        1933.6 0.071
        1954 0.107
        1965.2 0.126
        1975.7 0.091
        1986.2 0.087
        1996.7 0.074

        Note how the trend increases up to 1965.2 as additional solar cycles are added. Then the trend decreases for additional solar cycles. This further substantiates the desirability of two trend lines across 1900 to 2000.

        Drawing a trend line from 1954 to 1996.7 results in a negative trend: -0.02.

        Using peaks and the time frame 1958.9 to 1990.8 results in a negative trend: -0.003.

        So for the solar energy to account for the general shape of SST, it should increase until about 1954 or so and then start decreasing (with wiggles). Again it does not.

        This all reminds me of a study I once did on gun control. I saw a paper where the author took three points of the gun murder rate; approximately 1960, 1970, 1980 and tried to claim the murder rate was increasing rapidly when it in fact was not. The murder rate was flat before 1960, rose rapidly during the 60s, flattened out during the 70s, peaked again in the early 80s and then went back to the 70s rate.

        “Here I’ve put to your WFT graph the SSN instead of CO2 and made it 1964 solar minima – 1996 solar minima for you to see the solar activity -> SST dependence and see that the solar cycle signal is quite well distinguishable in the SST anomaly data and it is in fact the strongest signal you can see there by bare eye together with intermitent ENSO signals. Nothing like that you can see there for CO2.”

        Look again. the SST has a general upward trend. That is, the solar signal minima continue to increase in the SST data. This cannot be accounted for from either the solar sunspot data or the Solanki datan as the minima remain at the same value. In other words the solar irradiance signal is riding on top of another signal that is continually increasing. I can scale the CO2 data such that it matches this increase. I am not implying that CO2 is the only other contributor, rather I am saying I can match the signal. In other, other words, solar irradiance does not account for this increase in overall temperature.

        Regarding photosynthesis, plants grow and die absorbing CO2 and releasing CO2, just like the energy balance equation. Humans keep increasing (and cutting down trees and planting asphalt) and burning more. If you want to use this argument, you need to back it up.

      • Frank Mlinar says:
        June 12, 2013 at 5:05 pm
        “I used the energy balance equation for the earth directly:
        T=[(solar irradiance * albedo)/(4 * Boltzmans constant)] ^ 0.25
        Where:
        solar irradiance = 1366 W/m2
        albedo (actually 1 – albedo) = 0.31 ( I also tried 0.18 with minor impact)”

        First let be clear that the solar irradiance 1366 W/m^2 is not a correct value to use in Stefan-Boltzman law equation. The 1366 W/m^2 is old obsolete TSI estimation resulting from satelite instrument systematic error by the instruments aperture backscatter. This was very improved with SORCE-TIM instrument, which gives last decade TSI average of 1361.2628 W/m^2. Here you find the data, please mind also the column 10 which are the actual real Earth’s distance TSI data which have ~1315-1410 W/m^2 variance during the year due to eliptic Earth’s orbit around the sun during the year, with perihelion maximum in January – this is not so important for short-term climate influences, but it is crucial for long-term ones, because of the axial precession which shifts the perihelion 20 minutes 24 seconds each tropical year and it will in the future – in about 12000 years – shift the perihelion in the summer months and cause the ocean – which is mainly at the southern hemisphere – being considerably less insolated – causing the net solar forcing on the sea surface temperature change of minus 5-7 W/m^2 averaged globally and trigger so the southern warm thermohalines slowdown, slowdown of the northward Atlantic current and lead to run-out glaciation and ice age. It is clear that even the most alarmist estimations of the CO2 forcing cannot offset it and therefore a runout GHE is impossible in the next 12000 years even if the CO2 forcing estimations would be true.

        Now to the meaning of the Stefan-Boltzman law. It predicts the atmosphere blackbody temperature of ~254.6 K (for TSI 1361.2628 W/m^2 and albedo 0.3) But it is not the surface air temperature which is predicted by the Stefan-Boltzman law. What is predicted by the Stefan-Boltzman law is in fact the mean temperature at which the atmosphere radiates. And this temperature ~254.6 K in fact very well agrees with the pressure weighted mean atmosphere temperature you can find at ~5100 m above sea level in the standard atmospheric model and if you go from there towards surface using adiabatic lapse rate, the resulting surface temperature very well agrees with the mean surface air temperature.

        In fact our atmosphere is very well in terms with the Stefan-Boltzman law and there’s no mysterious “33K difference” which cannot be explained by the wet adiabatic lapse rate. Moreover the fact, that the actual wet adiabatic lapse rate is so much lower than theoretical dry adiabatic lapse rate confirms that it is indeed the water vapor which causes the actual troposphere temperature gradient (~4-7 K/1000 m) be so less steep than it would be in the cause there’s no water vapor in the air (9.8 K/1000 m).
        So to use Stefan-Boltzman law for sea surface water temperature estimation is a nonsense the same way as it is nonsense to use it for the surface air temperature estimation – the surface air temperature is not the mean atmosphere temperature. A similar nonsense as to claim using it that the surface air temperature is somewhat (the mysterious “33K”) higher than theoretically predicted.
        It is not and only the people who in fact don’t much understand what the Stefan-Boltzman law actually predicts (the mean temperature at which the atmosphere radiates, which well agrees with the mean atmosphere temperature which you find at about 5100 m above MSL, not the surface air average temperature – which moreover is not “15 C” but only 13.4 C, because the mean Earth elevation is not zero but 245 m above MSL) claim something like that. This fundamental misunderstanding of the Stefan-Boltzman law is the “mother” of all the CAGW nonsenses the climatologists and their followers spew all around.

        The CO2 content in the atmosphere near surface (there’s ~25 times more water by mass in the surface air than CO2, the water which moreover is in form of vapor carying ~37.4 Joules per mole per Kelvin specific heat + 40.7 kiloJoules per mole latent heat, while the CO2 caries only the ~37.1 Joules per mole per Kelvin, never able to release the latent heat at the temperatures usual in the Earth’s atmosphere, which rarely go in the troposphere under the minus 57 C needed for the CO2 to condensate – not even the cold tropopause has such a low temperature) by far is not the chief surface temperatures driver. It has in fact only a minor effect if compared with the TSI rise ->heat content rise -> surface temperature anomaly rise numbers for the ocean.

        “Construct an imaginary sphere around the earth at some distance (say at the top of the atmosphere for example).”

        No, I’ll not do it, it is not a correct approach – as explained i.e. here. There’s no imaginary sphere around Earth, there’s the atmosphere, which radiates chaotically into all directions at all elevations (especially the CO2 is distributed in the atmosphere quite very evenly), nevertheless having slightly higher aperture (rising with elevation) to the space than back to the surface – due to the fact that the Earth is not flat, but it is a sphere – so in fact more radiating CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat dissipated by it back into the space in the real world, not in the flat discworld the CO2 GHE climatology often reminds me about with their sureal models. Moreover there’s the water vapor in the air, which is lighter than air and transports so the (huge 40.7 kiloJoules per mole) latent heat up until it condenses releasing it, changing so the adiabatic lapse rate quite considerably. Moreover it is mainly the surface liquids(ocean) and solids (the land with it green flora cover) which radiate the longwave mid-IR, not the atmosphere. Moreover it radiates it at considerably higher temperatures than is the mean atmosphere temperature (for example the ocean has ~290 K average surface temperature), and most of this longwave radiation passes the atmosphere unimpeded directly to the space and only a minor part of it heats the atmospheric water (having very high absorbtion rates for the 290 K spectra) and only very tiny part of it heats the CO2 content in the atmosphere.

        The solar irradiance is a periodic function (close to a sine wave).

        No, it is considerably different from a sine wave. It is not symmetrical as the sine wave if normalised to 1 AU distance and in fact it varies ~95 W/m^2 during the year due to the fact the Earth’s orbit is not round, but eliptical.

        “Any trend line over multiple periods should be measured over an integer number of periods.“

        I really don’t see a point for doing it when we calculate absolute solar shortwave radiation -> heat conversion numbers for arbitrary 30 years periods serving to compare same length periods both starting at solar minima for 1st and 2nd half of the 20th century. Moreover I anyway included the comparison with the 1900-2000 period which is arguably long enough to see the actual TSI trend – SST anomaly change ratio which in absolute numbers very well agrees with the actual ocean epipelagic layer thickness and temperature anomaly change and shows so it was indeed the sun which is responsible for most of the sea surface layer warming, moreover the absolute heat number of ~2×10^23 Joules is much higher heat content surplus caused by the TSI rise, than is the whole heat content of the atmosphere surface boundary layer and just the epipelagic layer has 50+ times higher heat capacity than whole the atmosphere and has 3-4 K higher absolute average temperature than the surface air layer (at the 245 meter mean elevation) and therefore it is clear what heats here what (the water the air).

        ”This is especially true when trending over just a few periods. You can start at any point of the starting cycle, and you must end at the corresponding point of the end cycle.”

        No, I must not do it when calculating in absolute solar shortwave radiation -> heat conversion numbers. In fact I used the exactly 30 years periods just arbitrarily, because 30 years trends are considered significant (and in this 1902-1932 and 1964-1994 cases ARE significant).

        ”desirability of two trend lines across 1900 to 2000.”

        I actually did two trends chart using SSN monthly data (I didn’t use TSI data, because the Solanki TSI reconstruction ends in 2004 and it is not a trivial task to homogenize them with the later satelite data). You can see it here.
        The animated graph shows very well the solar activity trends in terms of the sunspot activity still rose well into the 2000s. In fact the turning point of the SSN solar activity trends from the 1964 solar minima to downward slopes is in March 2006, and since then the trends quickly get a steep downward slopes due to relatively very low solar activity in the current cycle – if we use the L. Svalgaards Waldmeier discontinuity SSN correction, the current solar cycle sunspot activity level tends to become comparable to solar cycle 5 at the beginning of the Dalton minimum. (Mind also the trends tend to culminate not at the solar cycle maxima but typically 2-3 years after it. Which is due to the periodic, unsymmetrical, cumulative nature of the solar cycle signal. This you must take into account if doing solar trends-temperature anomaly correlations, otherwise you’ll cancel a big chunk of the relation in the process. It is simply not so simple to compare steep slopes periodic signals with the nonperiodic signals as the surface temperature anomalies, you must know what are you doing to get some telling results from it.) The turning point very well coincides with the sea surface temperature anomaly trends turning point in the 2000s, although well visible it becomes not sooner than when the current solar cycle will end in 2020s.

        Look again. the SST has a general upward trend.

        And so what? Does it prove that the SST anomaly rises because of the rising CO2 content in the atmosphere?
        NO. -a correlation – as the one of the CO2 rise-temperature rise – moreover a clearly intermittent one (now you don’t find such positive correlation anymore) – is not a proof of causality.
        Especially not in the last ~12 years where the CO2 rise-SST rise relation is an anticorrelation.

        As I showed above with the animated SSN trends graph, the solar activity trends had generally rising slopes most of the time up until mid 2000’s. If you correlate them with the SST anomaly trends you’ll get much better correlation than with the CO2 atmospheric content rise. As showed here, the SST trend vectors well agree with the solar cycle signal, except the last period of the rising solar activity in the SC24.
        Why? Simply because
        the trend from the 1996 solar minimum to the current solar cycle maximum has a relatively steep downward slope even it begins at solar minimum and ends in the current solar cycle maximum period. (This is a case which well shows why it is nonsense to do the solar activity trends only from minima to minima and maxima to maxima)
        A quite steep downward trend of -0.377 W/m^2 (-0.224 W/m^2 per decade) you find with the ACRIM satelite TSI composite (- which unlike the PMOD is now homogenized with the right SORCE-TIM 1361 W/m^2 level – and after studying in detail how it was created and comparing it to the PMOD composite I deem the ACRIM TSI composite way more reliable than the PMOD TSI composite. Nevertheless a significant downward TSI trend you would find with the PMOD anyway too -although you will need to homogenize it at SORCE-TIM level and fill the numerous missing daily values data gaps in it to be able calculate the trends from it.)

        “That is, the solar signal minima continue to increase in the SST data.

        The sea surface temperature anomaly rose (it doesn’t anymore at the decadic scale), because the surplus heat accumulated in the ocean surface layer. – So if you add some surplus (order of 10^22 just in the solar cycle 22 for example) Joules one solar cycle the Joules you add next cycle add to the previous. That’s why the sea surface temperature anomaly rose when the TSI trends had the upward slopes. Yes, it’s so simple and the rising CO2 atmospheric content has not much to do with it – else than it is mainly the result (due to relatively steep dependence of the CO2 solubility in water on temperature) and not so much the cause of the sea surface warming!

        “I can scale the CO2 data such that it matches this increase.”

        No, you cannot anymore, because while the SST anomaly has downward trend for more than 10 years the CO2 atmospheric content has steep upward trend. There’s no way to reconcile the two now.
        And I predict that it will be not possible at very least next 15 years, because the relatively low solar activity will continue to cause the downward SST anomaly mid-term trend slope at very least until the next solar cycle maximum, moreover many now predict similarly low solar cycle 25 as the current SC24, and if it happens, then there would be not possible to reconcile the two next quarter of century. You’ll see in the next decade more and more clearly, that I was right. -Which will be killing for the CAGW political agenda.

      • tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
        June 10, 2013 at 10:39 am
        “wbrozek says:
        June 10, 2013 at 8:42 am
        They love to talk of all the 10^22 Joules that supposedly have gone into the deep ocean, but when you do the calculations, you find it amounts to a small fraction of a degree that you cannot even detect if you were to go from one pool to the next at the slightly higher temperature.

        Yes.
        If we do simple calculation only the upper 1m of the ocean has more heat content than 10^22 Joules.
        -The weight of the upper 1m of the ocean is
        1,026[surface layer mean sea water density in grams per cubic centimeter] x (3,61132×10^20[ocean area in square meters]) = 3,7×10^20 grams
        and has the heat capacity 4.2 × (3,7×10^20) = 1.5×10^21J.K-1
        so the upper 1m ocean heat content is (1.5×10^21) ×290 K = 4.35×10^23 Joules….”

        Let’s pretend we have a column of water with the top of the column one square meter. Let’s further pretend it is a sunny day at noon on the equator. Let’s pretend the seawater albedo is 0 (all energy is absorbed). Let’s use the solar irradiance in 1964 on average of 1365.7 W/m2. Therefore, using the above trend line the average irradiance in 1994 is 0.437 + 1365.7 = 1366.137 W/m2. This is a 0.032% increase in total irradiance from 1964 to 1994 (using the trend line).

        This is also 1365.7 J/s/m2 for 1964 and 1366.137 J/s/m2 for 1994. This energy is maintaining (for example) a 290 degree K (1964) water temperature (at least at the top of the column). Because of energy balance, the heat received during the day is reradiated at night in 1964 and 1994. (We already heated the water over millions of years and now we are in balance)

        In 1964, if the water temperature is assumed to be 290 degrees K. Therefore in 1994, the water temperature is 290 + 0.27 = 290.27 degrees K.

        Heat capacity of seawater = 3993 J/kg/K
        Weight of one cubic meter of seawater = 1000 kg per cubic meter (kg/m3)
        ( we could use any amount of water we want.)
        At 290 degrees K
        Total heat in one cubic meter of seawater = 3993 * 1000 * 290 = 1.15797 * 10^9 J.
        At 290.27 degrees K
        Total heat in one cubic meter of seawater = 3993 * 1000 * 290.27 = 1.15905 * 10^9 J.
        This is a 0.093% increase.

        Now let’s do this for 1900 to 2000
        Temperature rise = 0.657K
        Irradiance rise = 0.694 W/m2
        Assumed temperature in 1900 = 290 K
        Average irradiance in 1900 = 1365.37 W/m2
        Average heat in 1990 = 1365.37 J/s/m2
        Total heat in one cubic meter of seawater in 1990 = 3993 * 1000 * 290 = 1.15797 * 10^9 J.
        Average irradiance in 2000 = 1366.084 W/m2
        Average heat in 2000 = 1365.37 J/s/m2
        Temperature in 2000 = 290.657 K
        Total heat in one cubic meter of seawater in 2000 = 3993 * 1000 * 290.657 = 1.16059 * 10^9 J.
        Percent increase in solar irradiance from 1900 to 2000 = 0.0523%
        Percent increase in heat in one cubic meter of seawater from 1900 to 2000 = 0.227%

        As an additional sanity check, look at a representative solar cycle where the irradiance changes (max to min) by about (eyeballing) 1.2 W/m2. Looking at the SST data (again eyeballing), the temperature changes over the max to min solar cycle by about 0.1 K. Since the solar irradiance increase for 1900 to 2000 of 0.694 W/m2 is approximately half of a single solar cycle variation of 1.2 W/m2, I would expect the 1900 to 2000 temperature rise to be about half of a single solar cycle variation or 0.05 K. This is an order of magnitude less than the actual temperature rise of 0.657 K.

        The errors I see in tumetuestumefaisdubien1’s analysis are as follows:

        Trend lines do not cover an integer number of solar cycles which cause an erroneous trend. See my post on June 12, 2013 at 5:05 pm.

        The analysis does not take energy balance into account, as shown by only considering the change in heat and not the total heat delivered. (at the end of the day ;-), the total delivered heat is reradiated into space.) The following quote substantiates this. “The water in the ocean is very well insulated from the space by the atmosphere, so only significant means how the heat directly delivered to it by converting the shortwave solar spectra and stored in the seawater can escape back to the space is by heating the air by both mid-IR radiation and direct heat conduction from the ocean surface water to air.”

        tumetuestumefaisdubien1 sums the delta heat received over 1900 to 2000: “+0.694 x 0.92 (1- water albedo 0.08 = 0.92) = 0.638 W.m-2 got under the sea surface x 3153600000 (x60 seconds x60 minutes x24 hours x365 days x100 years = 3153600000 number of seconds in 100 years)” but does not include the total heat received. If his statement (see 2. above) were true, the total heat received per day would also not escape.

  206. barry says:

    “You are saying, essentially, that maybe (“surely”? “definitely”?) climate sensitivity is low. But we don’t know that either. It could be high or low.”

    ==============================

    Well, barry is wrong once again. Sensitivity is certainly low. Either unmeasurably low, or possibly zero. We don’t know, because whatever it is, it is too small to measure.

    We know that sensitivity cannot be high, because following a 40% rise in CO2, there has been no acceleration in global warming. None. That fact drives a stake into the heart of the CAGW conjecture.

    barry continues: “It would be great if global warming was long, slow and not terribly disruptive, but your analysis, and the best efforts from those arguing similarly, do not persuade me that we can be sure serious impacts will not happen. Is this what you want people to believe?”

    barry neglected to put “natural” before “global warming”, because there are no testable measurements showing that global warming is anything other than a natural recovery from the LIA.

    It does not matter, as barry says, what people ‘want to believe’, and it does not matter what “persuades” barry. What matters is testable, reproducible, empirical evidence of catastrophic AGW — or of ordinary AGW, for that matter. Unfortunately, measurable evidence for AGW is non-existent. Therefore, people like barry are asserting based only on their religious faith. That is not good enough.

    No wonder barry does not want to discuss policy.

  207. Re the California budget “surplus”:

    It’s a surplus in name only, labelled a surplus because the politicians conveniently ignore the state’s future obligations. For example, underfunded pension plans.

    “California, which faced a $26 billion deficit two years ago, expects a surplus of between $1.2 billion and $4.4 billion this year, thanks to a combination of tax increases, budget cuts and an improving economy. But it could be erased if the state were to adequately finance its teachers’ pension fund, which says it will need an additional $4.5 billion a year, much of it from the state, to pay the benefits it promised.”

    (That’s just *one* pension plan.)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/us/surpluses-help-but-fiscal-woes-for-states-go-on.html

  208. Barry at 9:19 am on 6/10 said:

    “Climate models do have flat runs of up to 20 years.”

    The slopes of linear regressions of T are one way of describing trends. Another way is to look for how long one would expect to wait before observing a new high global T if the IPCC models of T are correct; this relates the observed T directly to the models on which the AGW hypothesis are based.

    Gavin Schmidt provided such an estimate in 2008. He summarized the results of 55 model simulations used to produce the T projections in the 2007 IPCC report. http://www.realclimate.org/index/php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

    Based on the spread in T values of the ensemble of simulations, Gavin calculated that one would expect to observe a new T high within 8 years from any given high value, with 95% probability, The likelihood of a new high value of at least 0.1 deg C with 95% probability should occur within 18 years. These values were calculated for the IPCC model simulations over the interval from 1990 to 2030.

    Comparing these projections from the IPCC climate models to the observed Ts, I conclude that all 6 data sets reported here fail to meet the predicted 8-year warming trend. Four data sets (RSS, UAH, HADCRUT3 and SST) record highs in 1998, and thus haven’t set new records for 14 years. The 2 data sets which did set new records in 2010 (HADCRUT4 and GISS) went 12 years before the new highs. Thus by Gavin’s standard, the IPCC climate models appear to have been falsified already at the 95% confidence interval.

    The longer proposal is that global T should increase by at least 0.1 deg C within an interval of 18 years. All 6 climate models show T values in 1998 which have not since been exceeded by as much as 0.1 deg C. Thus if the current flat Ts persist for another 4 years, by Gavin’s estimate the IPCC models will have been invalidated by both criteria.

    I’m staying tuned.

  209. And let’s not forget that the only way the models could succeed is if they actually modeled the climate. They do NOT model the climate, they are model some imagined dream by which CO2 triggers feedbacks of other substances to behave in ways that nature shows they do not behave.

    If the models match the observations, that does not mean they are working, it just means that observations did not prove them wrong. However, if models can’t match observations, then the models are wrong. Somehow, political scientists want skeptics to be on their heels, when the burdon of proof is actually on them.

  210. Judith Curry had a quick look at whether modelling has been broken by observations.:

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/22/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison/

    There are four graphs, one showing current temps outside the envelope, and three with current temps within model projections. All 4 have surface temps within the range (Christy’s includes satellite temps, which are just below the lowest run). The models are based on surface temps. Models may be stretched, but I don’t think they have broken just yet.

    There have been comments upthread that ‘warmists’ keep shifting the goalposts on how much data is needed, but the classic 30 year period has been around for a long time. 2001 IPCC defines climate change thus:

    Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

    Consistent with 2007 IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html

    Goalposts have not been moved, but the shorter-term values given above and elsewhere are speaking to very specific issues, often in order to demonstrate that such short periods are problematic. 20 years, according to the IPCC is a bare minimum, and that has been the position for at least 12 years.

  211. dbstealey says:
    “that global warming is anything other than a natural recovery from the LIA.”

    There we go again. What is this “recovery”? It seems to act as a big deus ex machina that needs no explanation.

  212. Chris Schoneveld,

    An unknown cause was responsible for the LIA. Is that a Deus ex Machina ?

    No, it is a scientific fact without an adequate explanation. That happens often in science, from particle physics to cosmology.

    Following the LIA, the climate began returning to the mean determined by the amount of incoming and exiting energy. Nothing mysterious there.

    What would be mysterious is if the climate did not recover toward its natural balance. The real Deus ex Machina is the idea that CO2 is some kid of magic trace gas that causes runaway global warming.

  213. DIrkran, is the linear trend analysis of global temperature an oversimplistic model? RichardLH, are the global temperatures the sum of periodic signals with fixed periods? Why for example would ENSO have a fixed period?

  214. dbstealey is correct. All it takes for a recovery is regression to the mean. For example, if it was lower solar input to the planet that led to the LIA, then just returning to normal solar input would cause a slow increase over time.

    BTW, I’m still waiting for someone to provide a reference to a model run with over 15 years of flat temps and no volcanic eruption. Bueller … Bueller … Barry?

    Finally, the warming from 1975-2005 cannot be considered to be due to GHGs totally until that time period is corrected for the PDO. We know the 1915-1945 period warming period was also association with the PDO and showed similar warming. You can’t attribute all the latter warming to something that could not have caused the previous warming.

  215. Richard,

    BTW, I’m still waiting for someone to provide a reference to a model run with over 15 years of flat temps and no volcanic eruption.

    You missed it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/#comment-1332054

    And from Barry Elledge’s (no relation) link to RC:

    “Note that even for a 20 year period, there is one realisation that has a negative trend”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index/php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

    It is by no means a common occurence in modeling, and it is certainly valid to be taking interest in the lack of trend for various (but not all) data sets for the last 15 years or so. But it is premature to say the models are broken. If the flat trend continues until the end of the decade, that will be quite unexpected, and a severe blow to models.

    I used the SkS trend plotter to establish the shortest time periods where trends achieve statistical significance (trend greater than uncertainty).

    NOAA: 1996 – 2013 — 0.216 C/decade [+/- 0.191]
    GISS: 1994 – 2013 — 0.131 C/decade [+/- 0.108]
    Had4: 1993 – 2013 — 0.140 C/decade [+/- 0.098]
    UAH: 1993 – 2013 —- 0.171 C/decade [+/- 0.161]
    RSS: 1989 – 2013 —- 0.139 C/decade [+/- 0.126]

    This suggests to me that for the surface temps, at least 20 years should be assessed, and for the satellite temps, 25, owing to the greater variability im those data sets.

    A better test would assess different periods in the long-term record, which is done in this post:

    http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html

    Grumbine makes a strong point.

    “Choose is a key word in doing science. We try to avoid having choices. Choices can be made differently by different people, for different reasons, and not all those reasons will turn out to be good ones. Finding a scientific principle and then looking for how to satisfy that principle is far better.”

    Far better than cite mining.

  216. dbstealey says:
    “What would be mysterious is if the climate did not recover toward its natural balance. ”

    Is there such a thing a natural balance in climate? Climate responds to a multitude of outside factors of which the sun’s activity is one, CO2 another (be it probably very minor) and ocean currents. As Leif Svalgaard argued here so many times, the sun’s effect on the climate fluctuations of the last 500 years is not unequivocal, to put it mildly. What about deep ocean currents that take hundres of years to surface? So the use of the term “recovery” seems to apply we have a clear idea what that recovery entails. So when Akasofu draws a linear upward trend to represent that recovery, he can only do that if he knows the exact cause for such a linear increase and I doubt he has made a sufficiently convincing case for that.

    • Chris Schoneveld says:
      June 11, 2013 at 8:39 am
      “As Leif Svalgaard argued here so many times, the sun’s effect on the climate fluctuations of the last 500 years is not unequivocal, to put it mildly.”

      I don’t know about last 500 years, but with all the respect I have for Leif, he – as far as I know – actually never did the needed calculations – which show quite clearly, the TSI rise was ideed the chief cause of the 20th century warming via warming the ocean surface layer. In short: there was TSI level rise in the 20th century of about ~0.35 W per square meter (half of the 0.694 W.m-2 1900-2000 TSI trend in Solanki daily TSI reconstruction) which is consistent with the SSN trends and quite very consistent with the 0.66 K ocean surface temperature anomaly rise when one calculates in absolute numbers how much heat the TSI rise possibly directly added to the ocean’s surface water (~2 x 10^23 Joules) and how much therefore the surface temperature anomaly should rise. The absolute amount of heat added to the sea surface layer by rising TSI via solar shortwave spectra photons extinction is orders of magnitude higher than what possibly a CO2 backradiation itself could contribute and therefore it is quite clear that it was the rising solar activity which chiefly caused the warming in the 20th century, including the warming in the period 1960s-1990s.
      There’s also an independent check, that it indeed weren’t the anthropogenic CO2 emissions which caused the warming: It is officially estimated that only the photosynthesis sequesters 10 times more CO2 than are the current anthropogenic emissions, therefore it is impossible the anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be the cause of the rising level of the atmospheric CO2 and it is more likely the CO2 level rise in the atmosphere is the result, not cause of the surface temperature anomalies (especially the sea surface temperature anomaly) rise – due to strong temperature dependence of the CO2 solubility in water .

  217. dbstealey says:
    “What would be mysterious is if the climate did not recover toward its natural balance. ”

    What is the climate’s ‘natural balance’. I think you mean ‘normal’ balance – you’d argue that all of the swings have been natural, wouldn’t you? So what is this ‘normal balance’? What is the global temperature to which the climate is mysteriously attracted?

  218. As I said, I have no problem agreeeing that there is an oscillation in the data that really does mean somthing about the climate, however the fact that real physical processes can be identified that explain it is much better evidence than a correllation. I am a statistcian and as such I am normally much more easily convinced by physics than I am by statistics, as I know how easy it is to be misled by statistics unless you take the proper steps, such as hypothesis testing (which is deeply flawed, by a useful sanity check nevertheless).

    Well said, actually, and I completely agree. Hypothesis testing has its uses, but the 0.05 cutoff for p-values is arbitrary and meaningless, especially when analyzing large successive sets of data. It leaves open all sorts of possibilities for data dredging (for example) — my favorite example being the xkcd comic “Green Jellybeans Cause Acne”.

    Nevertheless, it is fairly reasonable to doubt the assertion that the science is settled when the rather large collection of GCMs out there produce an absolute spaghetti snarl of future predictions, no two of which agree, and all of which are supposedly based on “physics”, and none of which are in particularly good agreement with the data past/hindcast or present. In a case like this I would argue that while it is true that the current more or less neutral trend in temperature since the 1997/1998 super ENSO does not falsify the hypothesis of CAGW driven by CO_2 concentration, neither is it particularly strong evidence in favor of it. Similarly while the observed 2.5 to 3.5 mm/year rate of SLR observed over the last 30 to 40 years (consistent as both a rate/range and as “acceleration” during a time of supposed hockey stick temperature increases, with features that match those in the natural unforced climate record in the 100 years prior to that for which we have tide gauge data) doesn’t falsify Hansen’s grotesque predictions of 5 meter SLR by the end of the century, but it damn sure doesn’t verify them or make them more plausible.

    Bayesian reasoning isn’t that difficult. Negative evidence reduces the probable truth of a hypothesis (from any former state of prior belief). Positive evidence increases it. It’s that simple. At the moment the lack of positive evidence under circumstances where one expects it is gradually reducing the reasonable assessment of the probable truth of a variety of claims about global warming, especially the more extreme claims. That doesn’t mean that it is false, but it does mean that there is less and less reason to think that it is true or act as if it is true unless and until there is some positive evidence to push a reasonable probability that it is true back up into the action zone.

    rgb

  219. barry says:

    “What is the global temperature to which the climate is mysteriously attracted?”

    Mysterious to barry, but not to the average WUWT reader. The global temperature has increased by ≈0.35º/century for hundreds of years. That natural rise has not accelerated, despite the ≈40% rise in CO2 — proving to all but the most rabid True Believer that CO2 has nothing measurable to do with global warming.

    The planet warms and cools, both above and below its long term naturally rising trend line. But it always reverts to the mean — even following major anomalies such as the LIA. It would be very unusual if temperatures did not recover, or revert to the long term rising trend line.

  220. Chris Schoneveld says:
    June 11, 2013 at 8:39 am

    dbstealey says:
    “What would be mysterious is if the climate did not recover toward its natural balance. ”

    Is there such a thing a natural balance in climate? Climate responds to a multitude of outside factors of which the sun’s activity is one, CO2 another (be it probably very minor) and ocean currents. As Leif Svalgaard argued here so many times, the sun’s effect on the climate fluctuations of the last 500 years is not unequivocal, to put it mildly. What about deep ocean currents that take hundres of years to surface? So the use of the term “recovery” seems to apply we have a clear idea what that recovery entails. So when Akasofu draws a linear upward trend to represent that recovery, he can only do that if he knows the exact cause for such a linear increase and I doubt he has made a sufficiently convincing case for that.
    ——————————-

    I don’t know what dbstealey means by “natural balance”, but at least during the Phanerozoic Eon (the past 543 million years or so), Earth’s climate has fluctuated within an average global temperature range of about ten to 25 degrees C, with two possible geologically brief excursions a degree or two higher (per Scotese’s reconstruction):

    http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com/2006/09/comtemplating-scotese-geological.html

    Earth is homeostatic within certain bounds. During the Snowball or Slushball Earth episodes of the preceding Proterozoic Eon, global mean temperature might have hit 0 C, but I don’t know.

    Our planet thus appears (advocates of chaotic climate might disagree) to experience climatic cycles on time scales of every order of magnitude from billions of years to centuries or decades. When the average of weather becomes climate isn’t clear (at least to me), but some argue for thirty years.

    In any case, climate, however defined, is always changing, ie recovering from one trend or another, at different time frames. During the Little Ice Age, Earth (or large regions of it) was recovering from the Medieval Warm Period, ie regressing to the longer-term mean. The MWP was recovery from the Dark Ages (or Migration Age) Cold Period & also on a longer scale the downward trend in temperature from the Holocene Climatic Optimum, ending c. 5000 years ago, & Minoan Warm Period peak, c. 3300 years ago.

    Whether these excursions above or below a trend line are truly cyclic & describe sine waves or not is perhaps debatable. However, if such waves are recoverable from proxy data, it isn’t necessary to be able to say with any degree of certainty what causes them. Of course climatologists & other scientists would like to know & honest seekers are trying to find out. Whatever the causes may be, CO2 concentration is liable to play a minor & supporting role.

    Dr. Akasofu’s recovery trend line is derived empirically, based upon observed temperature data since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850-60. It could also possibly be extended back to the depths of the LIA, c. 1690-1710, perhaps at a different slope. Clearly, the trend prior to elevated CO2 levels after c. 1945 owes primarily if not exclusively to natural causes rather than human activities. The slope appears not to vary for the period 1850-1945 from its inclination in 1945 to present. Cooling was observed (although Hansen tried to obscure this fact) in the 1960s & ’70s before warming in the ’80s & ’90s (sexed up by GISS & other record keepers/adjusters).

    The question for genuine climate scientists now is what caused recent observed warming (of whatever extent). Were the 1980s & ’90s warmer because of man-made GHGs or simply because of an upswing in the natural (quasi sine wave) fluctuation around the rising trend, observed in previous intervals (as suggested by Dr. Akasofu)? If primarily natural (instead of IPCC’s unfounded claim of 90% Man(n)-caused), then arises the more fundamental issue of what are the non-human “forcings”.

    In science it’s OK (in fact a good thing, for starters) to say you don’t know yet, but are working on hypotheses & testing them against reality rather models. It’s less OK to claim on spurious to dubious grounds that the science is “settled”. From 1687 to 1905 the consensus on gravitation was settled, for instance, as was the immobility of the continents before the 1960s. Likewise the immobility of the Earth for long after Copernicus challenged that settled, consensus science.

  221. My main objection to the word “recovery” is that it implies there is somewhere a normal temperature that the climate is supposed to have and that there is a natural tendency to go back to that preferred temperature. Maybe that is indeed the case but It also implies that we know what that prefered temperature is and that we also know the processes that cause the temperatures to deviate from the normal. In other words we then have a full understanding of the natural processes that control climate. And that is not the case by a long shot.

  222. barry states at 7:32 am on June 11:

    “But it is premature to say the models are broken.” He also quotes Gavin Schmidt from the realclimate blogpost I had referenced (at 10:13 pm on June 10 supra). Gavin pointed out that one of the 55 “realizations” of the models used to produce the 2007 IPCC AR4 projection had global T declining for 20 years into the future.

    My point was that by at least one of the two criteria which Gavin proposed in 2007 the subsequent T did not agree with the models. Gavin proposed the 8-year interval for a new high global T of any magnitude, and an 18 year interval for a new high of at least 0.1 deg C. He assessed the probabilities of observing these new highs within these intervals at 95%.

    By the usual scientific criteria for significance, the models used to produce AR4 have been invalidated on the 8-year interval standard. The prospects for the 18-year interval standard aren’t looking so hot (so to speak) at the moment. But another 4 years will tell.

    By the way, the reason Gavin chose the 0.1 deg C level is because a rise of that magnitude should be reflected in all of the data sets.

    Now Gavin calculated the probabilities of a T rise over the stated intervals by evaluating the variance within the whole ensemble of 55 simulations. So the fact that one of the 55 simulations showed declining T for 20 years does not in any way contradict or invalidate Gavin’s estimate: that simulation was used along with the other 54 to create the estimate.

    I tend to like the “new high” method of calculating agreement between models and observations for 2 reasons. One is procedural: Gavin is pro-AGW, he established the standard 5 years ago, and it is least relatively straight-forward to evaluate. Another reason is more fundamental: there is no particular a priori reason to expect global T to vary linearly with time, and fitting a straight line to observations is done because it’s simple.

    “barry” also argues that the flat trends should continue for at least 20 or 25 years before we can conclude that the models are broken. This argument cuts both ways: after all, the GCM models were never verified in any engineering sense before being adopted. Any real verification should be prospective, and that hasn’t been done. So let both sides of the argument relax and wait for the evidence to trickle in over time before making any decisions about the validity of the models, much less decisions about public policy based on those models.

  223. Chris Schoneveld,

    When I wrote that the global temperature “…always reverts to the mean — even following major anomalies such as the LIA,” I should have added: “except when it doesn’t.”

    Looking at a long term graph of global temperatures, we see that the trend remains the same, until something changes it.

    The central argument in the debate is whether or not CO2 has a measurable effect on global temperature. It may. However, there are no testable, verifiable, empirical measurements showing any such effect.

    Without any verifiable measurements, AGW is no more than a conjecture; an opinion. The fact that global warming has stopped for the past decade and a half is a very good reason to doubt that CO2 has much of an effect. And some climatologists [such as Dr Ferenc Miskolczi] argue that CO2 has zero warming effect. The current situation provides support for that view.

  224. barry says:
    June 11, 2013 at 7:32 am

    NOAA: 1996 – 2013 — 0.216 C/decade [+/- 0.191]

    This was the “land” only.

    If you want global:
    since 1994: 0.107 ±0.098 °C/decade (2σ)

  225. Barry Elledge says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:13 pm
    Four data sets (RSS, UAH, HADCRUT3 and SST) record highs in 1998, and thus haven’t set new records for 14 years. The 2 data sets which did set new records in 2010 (HADCRUT4 and GISS) went 12 years before the new highs. 

    Your first sentence is correct, but not the second. Here are the top 4 years in HadCRUT4 and GISS. Note that 1998 is not in second place in either.

    For NEW HadCrut4,

    1 {2010, 0.547},
    2 {2005, 0.539},
    3 {1998, 0.531},
    4 {2003, 0.503},

    GISS
    1. 66 2010
    2. 65 2005
    3. 62 2007
    4. 61 1998
    Ooops! My apologies! I am out of date! Since the last time I checked, not too long ago, 1998 was 4th. It has now slipped to 5th. Here are the latest top 5 now.
    GISS
    1. 66 2010
    2. 66 2005
    3. 62 2007
    4. 62 2002
    5. 61 1998

  226. Barry E,

    By the usual scientific criteria for significance, the models used to produce AR4 have been invalidated on the 8-year interval standard.

    Gavin points out that GISS broke the record within 8 years, and HadCRUt had not – this was his “ambiguous” result within 8 years. His unambiguous result is 4 years out.

    “For instance, while the GISTEMP series has 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998, that is not the case in the HadCRU data. So what we are really interested in is the waiting time to the next unambiguous record i.e. a record that is at least 0.1ºC warmer than the previous one (so that it would be clear in all observational datasets). That is obviously going to take a longer time. [18 years]“

    He also makes this point:

    “Over a twenty year period, you would be on stronger ground in arguing that a negative trend would be outside the 95% confidence limits of the expected trend (the one model run in the above ensemble suggests that would only happen ~2% of the time).”

  227. Just rediscovered some blogposts hiding in my bookmarks that rely on maths to determine minimum periods for getting reliable trends from global temperature data (based on the surface records). Included in the list is one I’ve already linked.

    24 years: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/how-long/

    20 – 30 years: http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html

    30 (or 45) years: http://www.bartonpaullevenson.com/30Years.html

    I would prefer to have included blog posts from ‘skeptical’ bloggers, but I’ve not found any that look for a general principle as above. Does anyone know of such?

    As the subject of short-term trends generates such interest, it would be good to nail down what is a good minimum time period, not just for statistical significance, but to establish a real change in the momentum of climate.

  228. barry says:
    June 11, 2013 at 6:22 pm
    Gavin points out that GISS broke the record within 8 years

    However as my latest numbers above show, 2002 beat 1998 but only by 0.01 C. The largest difference between 1998 and any higher year on either GISS or HadCRUT4 is only 0.05 and I believe I read that any difference of less than 0.1 can be considered a virtual tie. If that is the case, then we cannot be certain that 1998 was beaten by any data set at any time.

  229. Werner, I think the 8-year record-breaker is overinterpreted by others. Gavin seems to dismiss it in favour of a less ambiguous result, which is the 18-year posit.

    There is one wrinkle here though which relates to the uncertainty in the observations. For instance, while the GISTEMP series has 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998, that is not the case in the HadCRU data. So what we are really interested in is the waiting time to the next unambiguous record i.e. a record that is at least 0.1ºC warmer than the previous one (so that it would be clear in all observational datasets).

    There is some ambiguity in his language, but I think he means a 0.1C record breaker in one data set (GISS?) would mean that the other data sets would all then have broken their records, which would seem, superficially, to accord with the behaviour of the various records (see 2010, the highest temp for GISS).

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.35/mean:12/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.26/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/offset:-0.10/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah/mean:12/from:1979

    A strong el Nino year should determine this. We’re due for one in the next few years, and as said above, we have 4 years to go to see how Gavin’s analysis pans out. At the same time, it seems clear to me that the extended flat trend is unusual, if not impossible under a warming scenario, and worthy of current interest. I think it has been overinterpreted is all.

  230. wbrozek at 3:39 pm on 6/11 points out that 2 of 6 data sets (HADCRUT4 and GISS) recorded new high T values before 2010, thereby salvaging the 8-year time interval for new high T values according to Gavin Schmidt’s analysis of the AR4 climate models.

    So, Werner … thanks for scuzzing up the face of the Truth with new data. The story was a lot simpler before.

    The GISS data first. Many people including me are mystified by the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, with its spooky simultaneous-action-at-a-distance implication. But GISS may be even spookier, because it implies action-on-the-past. Notably, the year 2002 heated up miraculously more than a decade after it was over. I don’t know how this can be accomplished physically, but it seems to pose deep philosophical challenges for time-series evaluations: if T is undead and is constantly stirring in its grave, how can we conclude anything about the restless past? In fact, were we to evaluate Gavin’s postulate in 2008 using GISS, we would conclude it had been violated (1998 to 2007 is 9 years). But now in 2013, his postulate is miraculously intact. The New Old Data are as tedious as the New Old Christine.

    As for HADCRUT4, it shows a new high T in 2005 by a whopping 0.008 deg C.

    How do we deal with this discrepancy among data sets? The original goal of the AR4 projections was to show probable actual future Ts; the projections were not supposed to emulate any particular data set. Therefore the most honest basis for evaluation should be an average of them all.

    On that basis the interval of greater than 8 years without a new high T was surpassed, and the interval of 18 years without a new high of at least 0.1 deg C is still in play.

  231. barry says:
    June 11, 2013 at 8:31 pm
    a record that is at least 0.1ºC warmer than the previous one (so that it would be clear in all observational data sets)

    So he seems to want every data set to exceed their 1998 mark by at least 0.1 C within 18 years is how I interpret it. That seemed extremely remote for HadCRUT3 with its huge gap between first and second. (Here are the top 11. Note the position of 2007 which is in 11th place, yet GISS has it above 1998!!)

    1 {1998, 0.548},
    2 {2005, 0.482},
    3 {2010, 0.478},
    4 {2003, 0.475},
    5 {2002, 0.465},
    6 {2004, 0.447},
    7 {2009, 0.443},
    8 {2006, 0.425},
    9 {2001, 0.408},
    10 2012 0.406
    11 {2007, 0.402}

    Then there was speculation that HadCRUT3 would be discontinued. I have no clue. I just know the April anomaly is still not up. Furthermore, Hadsst2 was used for HadCRUT3 so that could go too if HadCRUT3 goes. Of course they cannot very well beat their 1998 mark if they are no longer kept up.

  232. Barry Elledge says:
    June 11, 2013 at 8:57 pm
    Therefore the most honest basis for evaluation should be an average of them all.

    If that includes GISS, then I do not agree. Here is why. GISS had 2007 above 1998 by 0.01, however HadCRUT3 had 2007 lower than 1998 by 0.146. That gives a net difference of 0.156. Presumably this is because the polar regions are warming faster and GISS accounts for this better. Also, we are talking about the north polar region and not the south since it is in the north where some extra warming is occurring. (I do not deny some extra warming in the north.) Let us assume we are talking about north of latitude 82.5 degrees which is where RSS can “see”. The area north of latitude 82.5 is 1/230 of the whole area of the earth. So if an area that is 1/230 of the total made the overall temperature go up by 0.156 C, then that area must have been 0.156 x 230 = 36 C warmer in 2007 that 1998!

  233. barry says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:44 pm
    2001 IPCC defines climate change thus:

    Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer).
    +++++++++++++++++++
    If you read more than this one sentence, the IPCC does not define climate change as you suggest. After all, they are all about climate and have produced thousands of pages of fodder. They define climate change as something that would be pretty stable without Anthropogenic forcing. Did you know that?

  234. So he seems to want every data set to exceed their 1998 mark by at least 0.1 C within 18 years is how I interpret it.

    Sounds likely. The language is a little ambiguos, though.

    Barry E,

    …if T is undead and is constantly stirring in its grave, how can we conclude anything about the restless past?

    The data for all stations do not arrive simultaneously, many are recovered after a few years. There may be other processes that attempt to refine the record (I don’t know). As the adjustments are minimal – hundredths of a degree – then the significance of this in terms of the ‘clear record-breaker’ is not terribly much.

    Mario,

    how does IPCC define climate change – in terms of periodicity, which is the point addressing the conjecture in the top post – if not as I quoted them on it?

    They define climate change as something that would be pretty stable without Anthropogenic forcing.

    A glance at their paleoclimate section (ice ages, for example), shows how wrong this is.

  235. barry says:
    June 11, 2013 at 11:51 pm
    Mario,
    how does IPCC define climate change – in terms of periodicity, which is the point addressing the conjecture in the top post – if not as I quoted them on it?

    They define climate change as something that would be pretty stable without Anthropogenic forcing.

    A glance at their paleoclimate section (ice ages, for example), shows how wrong this is.
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    Barry I referenced their Summary for Policy Makers. There, they do not speak of what we all know that climate changes. They point to Anthropegenic causes, without which, the climate would be pretty stable over the period where they we/ I am talking about (in their summary for policy makers.) I’m sure you believe that the IPCC are credible Barry. You are taking what I said, and twisting it to somehow distract from the truth. That is, they use the most extreme models to make their summary stick it to us. No one would make policy on models which don’t show catastrophic warming, so your pointing to the one that shows nothing catastrophic and saying they had it covered is dishonest Barry. Their I fixed it for you, again.

  236. Mario,

    You are taking what I said, and twisting it to somehow distract from the truth.

    You said:

    If you read more than this one sentence, the IPCC does not define climate change as you suggest.

    How have I twisted what you said? Do you now wish to limit the IPCC documents to the SPM? Then I will quote from there.

    The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report describes progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change…

    Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system….

    The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}…

    Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR, particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12th to 14th, 17th and 19th centuries…

    The reference 6.4 in the SPM points to the sections on ice age changes.

    Starting with the ice ages that have come and gone in regular cycles for the past nearly three million years, there is strong evidence that these are linked to regular variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles….

    Your assertion:

    They define climate change as something that would be pretty stable without Anthropogenic forcing.

    is indefensible. If you had said that (1) IPCC have a strong focus on anthropogenic climate change, or that (2) they attribute most of the warming of the last 50 years to anthropogenic CO2, that would have been more accurate.

  237. Barry says:

    “How have I twisted what you said? Do you now wish to limit the IPCC documents to the SPM? Then I will quote from there.”

    It’s simple Barry: I made a true statement about the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. You twisted what I said by pointing to some “other document” that was not in the Summary for Policy Makers. You then transcended into telling me that what I said was untrue. It was and is not untrue.

    If you cannot understand, I can no longer tutor you. If you want to make a claim about what I’ve said, you need to be honest, or be called out. If you have a point, make it. If you don’t have enough respect to be truthful, you can continue blathering on.

    There I fixed it for you again. Apology anticipated.

    counting 1…2….3….?

  238. Barry: pardon the following metaphors… By the way, you’re on a sinking ship, so I do not expect you to be reasonable. You’ve thrown out all sorts of conjecture to distract during this argument. You did not like the truth that I stated, so you chose to go to battle instead of understand what I’d written.

    IPCC states that man caused almost all of the warming in the 20th Century and that man will continue to warm the planet. There is and has never been any factual evidence of that –none. You’ve stood with those claims and now as everyone can see that you were misled and that you misled others, you go down fighting. You seem educated enough to be capable of taking a deep breath, reading a little bit and trying to understand what went wrong with your hypothesis. I suggest you open your mind and grow. You’ll be welcomed with open arms by the folks who know better.

    The longer you stick with your ilk, the worse it will get. You’ll grow to be an angry old person wondering why nature through you a curve ball.

  239. barry says:
    June 11, 2013 at 7:32 am
    Richard,

    BTW, I’m still waiting for someone to provide a reference to a model run with over 15 years of flat temps and no volcanic eruption.

    You missed it.

    Well, I checked your reference and the only periods with long flat periods were cherry picked situations going from a high value to a low value (like going from an El Niño to a La Niña. They were clearly not a true period of non-increasing temperatures. Admittedly, some skeptics had been using this method to claim non-warming at the time of that paper. I guess I should have added non-cherry picking to my criteria.

    Now, things have changed. We can see non-warming from ENSO neutral to ENSO neutral periods. In fact 1996 was slightly negative at the start of the current 16.5 year period of no warming.

    So, your examples are without merit. Try again.

  240. Some argue that climate is too chaotic to detect genuine cycles or even pseudocycles with any real meaning. Too many variables must be summed to produce lower troposphere temperatures, which in any case can’t be easily averaged or measured.

    That said, if for the sake of argument, you try to fit curves to the admittedly inadequate estimates of average global near-surface temperature, then ~half of the 50 to 70-year PDO cycle works fairly well, starting from c. 1850 as the end of the LIA:

    1998-2013: Flat to Cooling (& counting)
    1977-1998: Warming
    1945-1977: Cooling (with rising CO2)
    1915-1945: Warming
    1880-1915: Cooling
    1850-1880: Warming

    http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/CO2_past-century.pdf

    You can quibble about start & end dates. For instance in at least one data set, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. And of course the climate books have been cooked (the real but fictitious “global warming”), so that no one really knows anymore what the surface record, such as it is, should show. But even with these caveats, the pseudo-sinusoidal cyclical trends within the secular warming during recovery from the LIA look robust.

Comments are closed.