People send me stuff. Yesterday I got a note suggesting I have a look at what NOAA/NCDC’s “climate at a glance” was showing for trends in the 21st century so far.
I decided to take a look.
Have a look at NOAA’s Time Series calculator
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
It is now displaying a cooling trend commencing in 2001 – 2013. Ā Ensure you are on the Global tab; Annual; 2001;2013;Land and Ocean. Ā Then in the Options Tab click; Display Trend; per century; 2001;2013. Then click plot. Ā These result give you a -0.05 per/century over 13 years.
-0.05 is hardly significant (even though they claim +0.05 of 1 degree over a two month period of May and June this year proves global warming)
I verified that,
…and did my own.
This plot mostly matches what he says, though I prefer doing decadal scale trends on decadal scale data plots:
Fig 1. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013
(IMPORTANT NOTE: NCDC’s link generator on their web page creates a pre-broken link, so if you use the source links I provide from NCDC, be sure to manually set it to Annual from the default Year-to-Date and press plot again, otherwise you’ll end up with an incorrect plot.)
The trend is -0.01C/decade, essentially flat, no statistically significant trend. And if you want to make that a nice tidy package for the 21st century new millenium, the 2000-2013 trend is nearly equally statistically insignificant, and would be flat except for the fact that the year 2000 was a bit cool. It’s the typical problem of trend line sensitivity to endpoints on short data sets.
Fig 2. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2000-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013
But the lack of a trend on the Land Ocean Temperature Index plots isn’t what I find most interesting or significant – the difference between land and ocean is more interesting.
First the oceans in the 21st century:
Fig 3. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/ocean/ytd/12/2000-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013
With only an insignificant +0.01C/decade trend, it seems Trenberth’s missing heat is still missing, and the oceans have stubbornly refused to play out the role that CO2 crunching models have prescribed. I suppose I just can’t get all that excited even though there’s a lot of squawking about the month of June being smashingly record-warm in the oceans:
The record was driven largely by warmer than normal ocean surfaces. Last month saw the highest temperatures on the water for any June on record, and the highest departure from the average for any single month ever. Average global land surface temperatures for June 2014 were also the seventh hottest June ever recorded.
Well, gosh, 2014 isn’t over yet, and we’ve been told time and again that a single month of anomalously low temperature means nothing in the scheme of climate things, and so it must go for a single month of high temperatures.
But, here is what I find most interesting, note the difference in trend from Figure 2 which is land+ocean index (LOTI) and Figure 3 which is just ocean (OTI) below. Have a look at the same period for land (LTI), which has a rate +0.13C/decade or 13 times higher than the ocean index in the same period:
Fig 4. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/ytd/12/2000-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013
This difference between land and ocean trends is quite large, and some divergence would be expected, since the oceans affect the atmosphere above them far more than land as a stabilizing heat sink.
But, it seems in the USA, the Land Temperature Index isn’t cooperating with expectations or even warming at all. It seems the USA has been cooling in the 21st century at a rate of -0.09F/decade (-0.05C/decade):
Fig5. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/00/tavg/ytd/12/2000-2013?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2013
It seems that that oceans aren’t warming, the contiguous USA isn’t warming, but the land surface of the rest of the world has been so far in the 21st century.
Meanwhile, MLO annual data shows carbon dioxide has risen from 369.52 ppm in the year 2000, to 396.48 in 2013, an increase of ~ 7.3%, but we don’t see a corresponding increase in global temperature for the same period perhaps because climate is a non-linear system and/or because we are close to saturation of the logarithmic effect of CO2 induced warming in our atmosphere. Global temperature has been mostly flat. Where’s those posited warming climate feedbacks when we need them?
Now, to alleviate the inevitable screams of not showing the “full picture” of temperature from the overly excitable that comment here under a variety of nom-de-plumes, I offer the entire LOTI plot from NCDC:
Fig 6. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2013
To my eye, I see a natural sine wave, which I’ve traced below on the same graph in solid grey, with extrapolated segments in dashed grey:
Fig 7. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2013Ā plus hand drawn sine wave from the author.
It seems to me that our current “pause” might simply be that we are at the top of that sine wave I see, and that we might actually see some cooling ahead, assuming it isn’t all adjusted away by the next “improvement” from NCDC.
I’ll leave you all to the squabble which will surely follow.
Some thoughts:
a) I agree with your comments, Anthony, and I agree that the pattern suggests and oscillation
b) I wonder why they left the vertical scale off the graphs? Makes the slope look pretty bad
c) NOAA is suggesting 0.65 deg per century, which seems reasonable. The world has been warming for a few millenia now
d) The graphs suggest pretty steady warming from 1910 to 2000. I wonder how well that meshes with the hypothesis that it is manmade?
e) I too can’t help but think that post-adjustments to the temperature record may have been influential
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
I follow the LOTI every month and found three factors that correlate very accurately with the index. Two since style cures and one log function for CO2.
I’m sure they will “fix it” so that they can call it “a natural sine wave superimposed on a rapidly varying upward anthropogenic trend that will bring us all to our Doom”.
And take away their “adjustments” and the sine wave is even more clearly seen ?
If Big Joe B. is correct , and I believe he is, this winter is going to alter the perceptions of a ton of people….And none too soon….
The NOAA’s web site Climate.gov had such delightfully evil alarmist propaganda that turned a boring trend continuation into hell on Earth that I playfully debunked it via an inforgraphic several years ago, no need for an update, I see:
http://s16.postimg.org/54921k0at/image.jpg
Anthony says:
… then you’ll stick with 2001-2013. The first year of the 21st century was 2001, not 2000.
So far, the 21st century is cooling.
Absolutely fascinating. It is going to be a real pain in the *ss of certain people being shot with their own weapon. Thanks!
As much of the world is developing rapidly and urbanisation is spreading throughout the third world… perhaps this is the UHI effect accelerating the contamination of the datasets?
When did they last interpret the UHI in Africa or Asia?
> And if you want to make that a nice tidy package for the 21st century, the 2000-2013 trend is nearly equally statistically insignificant, and would be flat except for the fact that the year 2000 was a bit cool
Not a problem to those of us who know the century started in 2001! š
REPLY: Well it’s one of those catch-22’s, technically you are right, but many people think it started in 2000 along with the new millenium. There was a Seinfeld episode on that very issue. Even so, I’d get complaints either way I put it.
I view the issue as about as important as the Y2K bug, but to keep the pirates of pedantry happy, I’ll just call it the start of the new millenium. š – Anthony
Michael D says:
July 26, 2014 at 10:09 am
b) I wonder why they left the vertical scale off the graphs? Makes the slope look pretty bad
I think there is a scale, but in whole degrees (note the 1F° on the right). If you rescale it via shift + left mouse click and move, then a 0.1° scale pops up.
Needs some polishing….
2001 is actually a very sensible point to start from, as it was the start of a long ENSO neutral period of about a year, very similar to 2013.
This seems to concur with the idea that El Nino’s build in amplitude, then decrease in amplitude as part of the oceanic store of heat discharge/recharge mechanism piece of ENSO processes.
“These result give you a -0.05 per/century over 13 years.” It depends which month you choose (in the ‘Month’ dropdown following ‘Timescale’). Different months give a ranges of between -0.3Ā°C and +0.3Ā°C change per century.
[snip off topic astrology .mod]
The use of 5th order polynomial trend line rather than the straightline for several thousand years might be more appropriate. Pretty obvious the convenience of the current time selection and the use of a straightline trend.
Then to adjust temperatures “up” in known UBI is ludicrous.
>> Not a problem to those of us who know the century started in 2001! :
Oh no, not this bogey again.
It’s quite simple really … the ‘year’ is like a 4-digit odometer:
* when the 4th digit rolls over, it indicates a new year
* when the 3rd digit changes it is a new decade
* when the 2nd digit changes it is a new century
* when the 1st digit changes it is a new millenium
and that’s that. BY DEFINITION. The alternative perpetuates
the fallacy that counting begins with ‘1’.
Thank you for presenting this.
————
But ā you know who was just in Seattle for a fund raiser and stated that our Washington State fires were a result of climate change. Likely advisers showed the āentire LOTI plotā with the straight line and none involved would know a sine wave from a shoaling wave (or Shinola, for that matter). The issue has be sent to the Ministry of Truth.
[snip off topic astrology .mod]
You are perpetuating the arguments of the warmists. You say:” CO2 has risen from 369ppm in 2000 to 396.48 in 2013, an increase of about 7.3% You go from parts per million to parts per hundred. If you want to express your answer in parts per hundred (%), you should be in parts per hundred throughout. You should have said: ” CO2 has risen from 0.0369% in 2000 to 0.0396% in 2013, an increase of about 0.0025%.”
Jim! Hooohaaa! We teach our math students to translate and calculate in a single chosen unit and then stay in the unit! Stay in the unit!
[snip off topic astrology Neptune and Uranus haven’t anything to do with the content of this post. Stop posting this offtopic nonsense please .mod]
Johan says: July 26, 2014 at 10:35 am
Iām sure they will āfix itā so that they can call it āa natural sine wave superimposed on a rapidly varying upward anthropogenic trend that ā¦.
ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦
It has been fixed already, as the same set of the numerical data clearly shows here
sing it…[lets not .mod]
mods, snip at will. I just couldn’t stop myself.
[snip again off topic Landscheidt, Uranus and all that .mod]
>> Jim Davidson says:
>> You should have said: ā CO2 has risen from 0.0369% in
>> 2000 to 0.0396% in 2013, an increase of about 0.0025%.ā
And JD should have said “an increase of about 0.0027 percentage points”,
not “0.0027 percent”.
GISS also shows a completely flat trend (0.01C)from 2001-2013:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSST_250km_Trnd0112_2001_2013/nmaps.gif
Jim Davidson says:
July 26, 2014 at 11:57 am
396.48 / 369ppm = 1.0744715447154471544715447154472 approximately.
As for “… difference between land and ocean is more interesting …” – but the problem here is that ocean temperature measurements for most of the times where we already had kind of “precise” land-based temperature gauges, are “few and far between” and that comparing these data sets is kind of a stretch (that’s not your fault, we’re making do with what we have in terms of data, but it is a problem for those who are not just skeptical but base far-reaching predictions on such incongruities).
Thought I would snip the rest of this post myself!
(snip. Off topic criticism of moderators)
Warm? Interesting that the Arctic temps based on the chart on your Sea Ice page are showing below normal temps and the Antarctic has been consistently above normal.
Rat’s I meant the Antarctic Sea ICE has been above normal
Rex says:
July 26, 2014 at 11:53 am
>> Not a problem to those of us who know the century started in 2001! :
Oh no, not this bogey again.
===============
Yes, the “Astronomical” numbering people vs. those darned “Gregorians”. Always at each others’ throats, they are!
As someone who was a principle player for a very large aluminum customer in the Pacific North West the Y2K bug was not trivial, finding and correcting things before the Y2K roll-over was an enormous effort, and we were well rewarded for our work. Because of our success the Y2K “bug” effect was minimized by us, and trivialized by an ignorant press. If one weren’t part of the solution it is unlikely one have any notion of the scale of the problem.
Who says astrology has nothing to do with the topic of this post? Bill might have something very important to contribute. Let’s hear what he has to say!
>> Jim Davidson says:
What I meant was this :
Assuming proportions of the same base number,
if 20% of the population were completely bonkers
last year, and 25% of them are completely bonkers
this year, then that is an increase of 5 percentage
points, and an increase of 25 percent.
It may seem a trivial point, but this is just the sort of
thing The Enemy will pounce on.
Why bother with fraudulent temperature curves from NOAA? Figures 5 and 6 are totally fabricated. All of their temperatures from 1979 on that can be compared with satellites are fraudulent and this has been obvious since my 2010 book (What Warming?) came out. Especially annoying is the the segment from 1979 to 1997 that is actually a horizontal straight line – no warming for 18 years – if corrected for the effect of ENSO oscillations. They even had a cute name for it – “Late Twentieth Century Warming” – which does not exist. I put a warning about it in the preface of the book but the same garbage is still regurgitated at us from the same combine of NOAA, GISS and NCDC that cooperate in this fakery. Their cooperation is proven by their own screw-up when a computer operation on all three data-sets unexpectedly left traces of its work on the finished product. These consist of sharp upward spikes at the beginnings of most years that arep[resent in exactly the same locations in all three datasets. I first thought it was noise but their existence in identical locations on all three data-sets is proof of the inter-continental extent of this conspiracy.Twelve of these are easy to spot if you have good resolution. My suggestion: ignore all ground-based temperature fabrications and stay exclusively with satellites from 1979 on.
[thanks for the suggestion but sorry, no. WUWT’s moderation policy is clear on that topic .mod]
but to keep the pirates of pedantry happy
Ha! The Pirates of Penzance!
First verse; all sing along now:
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist,
I’ve information statistical, ignorant and physical,
I know the very temperatures, and I quote the facts hysterical
From bristle cone to cold Yamal, in order categorical;
I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the excel and spread-sheetical,
About binomial theorem I’m teeming with a lot o’ news,
With many scary facts about the rise of the temperatures
I’m very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist.
To Rex. Or it could have been written: ” CO2 has risen from 369 ppm in 2000 to 396.48 ppm in 2013, a relative increase of 7.3%, ( absolute increase of 0.0025%.) Incidentally, I get a kick out of 396.48. By writing the number to the second place after the decimal point the author is saying that his measurement is accurate to one hundredth of one part per million. He may be right. Or we may prefer to believe, ( in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan,) that the .48 is……. “merely the sort of corroborative detail that lends an air of aesthetic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.”
The region that is most influential has been the warming of Siberia. That’s possibly due to the end of the falsely cold Soviet years, when colder neighborhoods got an increased oil ration.
I firmly believe that derision is the most powerful rhetorical weapon. However, the word does not occur in Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”.
No it isn’t. A 4 digit odometer starts at 0000. Anno domini (or C.E. if you prefer) reckoning starts with year 1. Incidentally, the period immediately prior to that is reckoned B.C. (or B.C.E), and it also starts with year 1.
No. BY DEFINITION, a decade is 10 years. A century is 100 years. A millennium is 1000 years.
As of January 1, 10AD, only 9 years had elapsed in the common era. The second decade started January 1, 11AD. Rinse, repeat.
The 2000s started January 1, 2000, but the 21st century and the new millennium started on January 1, 2001.
Don’t be silly. That counting begins with ‘1’ is not a fallacy. It is a fact. A fact known to most kindergarteners, who are generally capable of determining how many toes they possess. From repeated experiment on friends and family, they correctly conclude that the number of toes on the feet of an anatomically typical human is 10, not 9.
But go ahead and argue for 9. Heck, if you phrase your complaint with enough false confidence and condescension … say something along the lines of “Gray’s Anatomy falsified by stupid counting error!!” … you just might get your comment elevated to a headline post on this site. And there would likely be three or four follow-on posts wherein lots of other people would join you in your assertion that anyone who counts with both of their 1 eyes open will clearly see 9 toes. š
Thus far, the 21st century has been cooling. The current (i.e. 3rd) millennium is cooling. The 2000s have seen statistically insignificant and absolutely inconsequential warming. Drawing that distinction may be criticized as piratically pedantic (ARRRGH!), but if so it cannot (BY DEFINITION) be called fallacious.
š
Anthony, the photographic image at the top of every WUWT page has what I had always interpreted as a sine wave (pale yellow line) showing the smoothed temperature trend, believing that it was intended as such, but I now realise it may just be something orbiting the earth!
The peak to trough of the sine could fit the 88 year Gleisberg cycle.
JJ says :
>> Donāt be silly. That counting begins with ā1ā² is not a fallacy.
>> It is a fact. A fact known to most kindergarteners, who are
>> generally capable of determining how many toes they possess.
>> From repeated experiment on friends and family, they correctly
>> conclude that the number of toes on the feet of an anatomically
>> typical human is 10, not 9.
and zero is when you have no toes at all, not one toe only. Please!
(i.e. you still end up with ten toes, not 9 as is claimed).
An array of 1,000 members runs from 0 to 999. Ask any computer programmer.
You count your millenia as starting with 1AD (derived because those
chappies didn’t know about the number zero). I count mine as
starting a year earlier. A child is not one year old when he or
she is born. etc etc etc etc etc Over and out.
JJ says:
July 26, 2014 at 4:01 pm
I was going to let all this drop, as we seem to have worse distractions in the comment thread. The century (or millennium!) start on a zero year means that the first century was only 99 (999) years long, and that sort of off-by-one bug makes programmers break out in hives and has been the cause of several last minute fixes.
I’m willing to go along with the “decade of the 60s” being 1960-1969, but mainly because Apollo 11 landed in 1969, not 1970. š Well that, and no one ever called the appropriate 10 year period “the 197th decade.”
It’s a pity that “1” was invented before “0.” Probably goes back to some caveman who counted on his fingers. Enough – we’ll be bickering about this for another thousand years.
” Arno Arrak says:
July 26, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Why bother with fraudulent temperature curves from NOAA? Figures 5 and 6 are totally fabricated. All of their temperatures from 1979 on that can be compared with satellites are fraudulent and this has been obvious since my 2010 book (What Warming?) came out. Especially annoying is the the segment from 1979 to 1997 that is actually a horizontal straight line ā no warming for 18 years ā if corrected for the effect of ENSO oscillations.”
Because isn’t if fun seeing them hoist on their own petard?
Using their own data to smack them down is great fun.
I prefer the term “nom de troll”
but thats me.
“As someone who was a principle player for a very large aluminum customer in the Pacific North West the Y2K bug was not trivial…Because of our success the Y2K ābugā effect was minimized by us, and trivialized by an ignorant press. If one werenāt part of the solution it is unlikely one have any notion of the scale of the problem.”
Ditto in the oil industry – a lot of testing and work to ensure nothing bad happened –
Rex says:
July 26, 2014 at 11:53 am
What is the initial setting of your year counting “odometer”? Presumably 0000.
As time begins to flow that LSD doesn’t move until one year has elapsed and doesn’t register one until a complete year has elapsed.
Sorry but I’m with JJ and Ric Werme on this.
I’m willing to believe that this millennium started in year 2000 provided that others will stipulate that the first year of the first millennium started with year zero.
And for those that believe the first year of the first millennium started with year zero, please tell us some of the historic events that happened in year zero. Or, how about just one?
” Brock Way says:
July 26, 2014 at 6:11 pm
And for those that believe the first year of the first millennium started with year zero, please tell us some of the historic events that happened in year zero. Or, how about just one?”
All the stores were busy getting ready for the first Christmas shopping season…
It is also possible that the sine wave you are seeing is simply the way NCDC has chosen to manipulate the data. Here is how they have modified past temperature since 2008.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif
What I am wondering is in the last chart where are the “normal” years. I only see about 4 years that look to me that they are really close to the zero abnormality line. It seems to me that abnormalities are normal when it comes to weather.
“Iāll leave you all to the squabble which will surely follow.”
FFS, Anthony. As a six+ year reader and donatee, much repect just flew… Yeah, it’s tough fighting this incessant cr*p but respect your audience.
Regards.
Re Robert of Ottawa says: July 26, 2014 at 3:18 pm
“but to keep the pirates of pedantry happy”
and
Robert of Ottawa says: July 26, 2014 at 3:30 pm
“First verse; all sing along now:”
Let me offer an alternative first verse, and the rest of the verses. Note that “marcot” is a botanical term related to grafting.
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist,
I’ve information computationist and climaticist,
I know the I P C C, and I quote the temps historical
From Glacial to Mannical, in order categorical;
Although I’m really not acquainted well with matters statistical,
My theory is the basis for the equations marcottical,
About the causes and effects I’m teeming with a lot o’ news, (bothered for a rhyme)
With many cheerful facts about the data that I choose to choose.
I’m very good at integral and differential calculus;
But I have no clue about least squares ā I think thatās miraculous:
In short, in matters computationist and climaticist,
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist.
I know our mythic history, Arrheniusā and the Goracleās;
I answer hard inquiries as long as theyāre pal reviewable,
I quote in elegiacs all the schemes and all the climate tricks,
In forecasts I can floor peculiarities hiatus-ics;
I canāt tell undoubted measurements from temperatures Ouija-ous,
I know the croaking chorus from errors of models numerous!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I’ve heard the music’s din of late, (bothered for a rhyme)
And delete all the emails from that infernal nonsense Climategate.
Then I can write a global temp from inverted Tiljander,
Using public funds and grants for which I always pander:
In short, in matters computationist and climaticist,
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist.
In fact, when I know what is meant by “HadCRUT” and “Nature trick”,
When I can tell at sight a regression line from a hockey stick,
When such affairs as lawsuits and surprises I’m more wary at,
And when I know precisely where the ocean heat is hidden at,
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern climatery,
When I know less of ethics than a novice in a nunnery ā
In short, when I’ve a smattering of the science of the clime ā (bothered for a rhyme)
You’ll say a better Climate-Scientist has hidden the decline.
For my climate science knowledge, though I’m plucky and adventury,
Has only fit the curve to the beginning of this century;
But still, in matters computationist and climaticist,
I am the very model of a modern Climate-Scientist.
“The trend is -0.01C/decade, essentially flat, no statistically significant trend.”
A flat trend is not less of a trend than any other trend. So we should speak of a statistically significant flat trend.
The UK Meteorological Office Central England Temperature record dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world. The mean, minimum and maximum datasets are updated monthly.
It seems to be moderately reliable and can be downloaded here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
There was a particularly active solar period from about 1970 onward coinciding well with sunspot cycles 21 – 22 – 23: it lead to a period of comparatively rapid warming and the great Global Warming scare.
Between 1850 and 1999 UKMO CET gained about 0.7Ā°C. But in the last 13 years of since 2000, the CET winter December – March temperatures have shown a significant loss ~ -1.45Ā°C.
This should be seen in the context that the previous millennium 1000 – 2000 AD has been the coolest millennium of our current benign Holocene interglacial. According to the ice core records it was some -1.5Ā°C cooler than its early āclimate optimumā some 8000 years ago.
Rex:
Well… I am a software developer, and have been for almost three decades now. In Pascal (still has a following) an array can start at any number. 1-based arrays are not uncommon there.
As for year 0, I think you should at least make an attempt at editing wikipedia before making your case. The topic is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
Without a year zero, and respecting the cardinal rule that a decade consists of ten years, then indeed, the first decade must include Dec 31st year 10. And the first millennium includes Dec 31st year 1000.
The water vapour feedback is the vital one for turning modest greenhouse warming into a “catastrophe”, so its the sea surface temperature that really matters. Some trot out the mantra that “warm air holds more moisture”, but evaporation of water does not know or care what the air is doing, all that matters is the water temperature.
Best discussions of water vapour and atmospheric physics I’ve seen are books by Craig Bohren, such as “Clouds in a Glass of Beer”.
Wait a minute. Even the most alarmist data source NOAA has observed climate stabilization during the new millennium? Despite of series of intergovernmental negotiation failures in the IPCC? If so, that’s great! Let’s rejoice the excellent news!
With no global warming and no climate change/disruption observed, even the radical ecofront’s wishes have been granted. And with the humankind continuing business as usual, even the so called SkyDr____s get what they want. Everybody is a winner! Whatever the mankind has been doing during the last couple of decades, it’s working! The AGW project can be closed successfully.
The presidential ukase settling the climate science is a cherry on the cake. Even the climate research has reached the finishing line. It’s not often one can conclude such a thing about any discipline, but here we are. All that generous research funding can now be funneled into something positive and constructive which everyone can look forward to.
@dp : Agreed, but no matter how many times one tries to explain, those who have no idea what went on behind the scenes persist in thinking that, because of the problem was contained through huge effort, Y2K was trivial to start off with, rather than to acknowledge the success of the containing effort… One only gets slammed if systems go wrong… never praised for the effort that went into preventing them from going wrong. Ah well. That’s the nature of the system support game.
Hysteria says:
July 26, 2014 at 5:27 pm
////////////////////////////
That establishes nothing, save that perhaps due diligence was exercised given the hype and hysteria that surrounded that issue.
There were plenty of computer systems/high tech systems where no steps were taken and no problems were encountered.
The balance of evidence points to it being a non issue, and thus much time and expense was wasted. This is post event evidence so has the benefit of hindsight.
Risk management in today’s world, is a different matter, so I undestand why industries that would have been sensitive to litigation had all but no choice but to join the circus crowd. It was therefore a mitigation issue, not an adaption issue.
But cAWG is a wholly different story, it is not a one off, one moment in time catastrophic event which requires as an immediatiet mitigation response, rather than to adapt if and to the extent that real problems arise. If cAGW exists, it will be gradual (over many decades, if not longer) such that a weather eye can always be kept on it, and if adaption is not sufficient, steps to mitigate can then be put in place, but there is no overwhelming need to rush into mitigation now at this juncture.
We can afford to see what happens, over the course of the next decade, and we can afford to see whether ocean temperatures drop, as this article suggests that they will IF the cooling/warming pattern is TRULY part of a cycular wave.
Let us suppose that you are a pupil living in ancient times tasked with learning the wisdom of your masters. Your class is being conducted in the temple, in front of you is the high altar and you are asked to count the number of steps the priest has to climb to reach the level of the altar table.
You are given permission to approach the holy place and you commence your climb counting each step up in level as you ascend. With step 1 you reach level 1, the second step reaches level 2, and so on, until on making step 10 you reach level 10, the level of the altar. You are now asked to descend and on each step down you must call out the number of the level you are standing on. You begin your descent, first down to level 9, then down to level 8. On reaching level 1 you are asked to stop. Your master challenges you to name the number of the level that the next step down will bring you to, which is level of the temple floor.
To answer the question of your master and to reach the temple floor you need to subtract one from one which is zero. The problem is that when you commenced the ascent you neglected to give a number to the level of the temple floor, which is the base level of the start of your climb. The number zero as a counting number is discovered a consequence of subtraction not of addition.
Philip Mulholland:
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the relevance – if any – of your post at July 27, 2014 at 6:44 am.
Richard
Hi Richard
This links back to bikedude says: July 27, 2014 at 12:35 am
and to mjc says: July 26, 2014 at 6:14 pm
and to Brock Way says: July 26, 2014 at 6:11 pm
and to Ric Werme says: July 26, 2014 at 5:06 pm
and to Rex says: July 26, 2014 at 4:49 pm,
etc.
Please keep up. š
P.S. Loved the link to the Pirates of Penzance.
Neil Jordan says:
July 26, 2014 at 9:58 pm
> I know our mythic history, Arrheniusā and the Goracleās;
Finally, a novel use of the tired term “Goracle,” thank you!
[snip switching identities from “Bill Guessford” so you can post stuff about “Uranus” is even less cool than your original attempts .mod]
Or maybe not a sine wave, but instead: UP, Flat, UP, Flat for periods of 30-40 years.
Yes, that is correct – there is no toe 0. Similarly, there is no year 0. It is kind of you to make my point. It will be exciting when you come to understand it.
I have no need to ask a computer programmer. I are one. We programmers recognize that your error is that you are conflating numbering with counting. Those are two different activities. We may number things (assign members to a set of digits for the purpose of identification) using all manner of starting points (and for that matter, sequences). However, when we count things (enumerate members of a set for the purpose of determining how many of them are in the set), we start with 1. If we did not, we would err in our counting. Numbering is labeling. Counting is math. If we want to combine the two so that we may use our labels to count, we start our labeling with 1.
OT, but there’s still ice in the Hudson Bay:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_usa.gif
Because the ago-old story of the calendar year makes a difference to the trend in the 21st century I will make a point not raised by JJ or Rex:
The number 2001 is not a number of years, is the the NAME of a year. The Odometer analogy is not appropriate.
The name of the first year was 1. After the year named 1 came to an end, 1 year had passed the second year named ‘2’ started and when it was completed after 365 days, 2 years had passed.
The year named 2001 began after the completion of 2000 years from the beginning of the calendar. Jan1 2001 was the first day of the 3rd Millennium.
Now that we have that in order, we can truthfully refer to the trend from 1-Jan-2001 to date by looking at the numbers relevant. The result shows an insignificant trend downwards in the presence of a huge increase in net CO2 emissions that result from anthropological activities.
This is the prima facie case that CO2 emissions from human sources are not a major influence of the global temperature, whatever the physics involved are assumed to be.
If the process continues to mimic the 1945-1975 temperatures, this will add credence to the postulation that there is a natural temperature cycle(s) and CO2 has at most a small influence upon it.
Crispin, well put. Birthdays celebrate the end of one year and the beginning of the next year. A burgeoning toddler, on his first birthday celebration is actually beginning his 2nd year of life. He is celebrating his past 1st year of life that is now over and he is already on day one of his second year on Earth. Birthdays celebrate what was.
The problem with fitting a sine curve to the data is that it could be extended backwards as well as forward. Unfortunately doing so would eliminate most of the LIA. No doubt you would therefore say that extrapolating backwards is invalid, but if extending back is wrong why is projecting forwards right?
jimmi_the_dalek:
You ask in your post at July 27, 2014 at 11:28 am which says in total
Please don’t pretend to know what others would say, especially when your red-herring asserts that none would do what some do; for example, Akasofu’s fit can be seen e.g. here.
Richard
JJ says:
July 27, 2014 at 8:39 am
JJ, this was an excellent rebuttal to Rex and others who believe the current calendar convention (which is based on a calculated birth year of Jesus, and thus is correctly designated AD) began with year 0.
I just add 1 (2?) point:
Rex says:
July 26, 2014 at 4:49 pm
“You count your millenia as starting with 1AD … I count mine as
starting a year earlier. ”
Then, Rex, you have chosen to use your own private convention (noted by JJ). To be consistent, you should also call the 1st day of each month “0”, the 2nd day should be called “1”, Etc.
The point of a convention is to reduce confusion in communication. Does yours do that? Even if your convention was actually more internally coherent, it would still need to be universally adopted to be useful.
SR
according to GISS the trend for 2000-2013 was 0.08 C and for 2001-2013 is was 0.01 C. so whenever you decide to start the 21st century, the trend is basically the same
JJ says: July 27, 2014 at 8:39 am
JJ Thanks for a very interesting post.
richardscourtney says: July 27, 2014 at 6:53 am
Richard
To put some context to my comment, my father was a mathematics teacher. His view was that mathematics is the pre-eminent science and that mathematical advances were often made well in advance of any conceivable application for the discovery. In his opinion the discovery of the number zero was pivotal to the development of science. One example he gave of mathematical advancement was the challenge to the assumption that the internal angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees. If we suppose that the internal angles of a triangle can sum to more than 180, then it turns out that we have developed spherical geometry where, for example, a triangle composed of three great circles can have internal angles that sum to 270 degrees (3 right angles).
As a non-mathematician my concern was that mathematicians appear to invent new numbers, whereas he was very clear that mathematicians discover new numbers. We had many interesting discussions about this point. At school my biggest maths concern was the identification of the number e, the base of the natural logarithm. It was my inability to understand how the value of e was derived that caused me the greatest difficulty in trusting the validity of calculus as a mathematical process.
Years later I read of a definition of e that is both rigorous and intellectually satisfying. The natural number e is defined as the point on the X-axis where the space beneath the curve Y=1/X and the X axis, between the lines X=1 and X=e, has an area of 1. It has always been my view that an expert can be identified as the person who is capable of explaining a concept. If they canāt explain it to you then they are not an expert.
For more comments on the history of zero see here and here.
The sine curve is amusing but a 200 year cycle is a bit mischievous.
I prefer Akasofu’s sine curve fit, too. As per Richardscourtney (above)
If you remove the linear trend out of the little Ice Age and sort out the real cyclic pattern …
But then you have to allow for a huge crank up of of current temperatures and a huge drop in the old data Garbage in Garbage out Who knows what the real trend is?
But yes – There is a PAUSE.
“Iāll leave you all to the squabble which will surely follow.”
There’s nothing sure about what the ups and downs will be year-to-year, but seeing as reasonable skeptics eschew Dragon-slayer ‘physics’, we can expect temps to go up over the longer term as long as GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere. How much is what is in question. There’s nothing sure about the sine wave continuing, either. One supposed cycle does not a pattern make.
Iāve been quietly spectating the climate change saga for the past couple weeks. Before then I must admit I was largely unaware and blissfully so. The correlation between the news and scientific claims can be alarming: specifically the connection to the fires in the Northwest Territory, now reported to be the largest in 10,000 years.
An upward trend until recently seems irrefutable, but here the world sits on some plateau. Whether the temperature will continue up or down, Iām finding harder to rationalize, at least through Internet searches. There are times people seem to be pulling from completely different data sets, though each has itās own credibility.
Today, I stumbled on the solar variability line of reasoning fronted by many skeptics. Solar seems to be the strongest case against a significant human signal on temperature, and it has received credence from Russian astrophysicist and NASA alike. http://sppiblog.org/news/russian-scientists-we-could-face-cooling-period-for-200-250-years
In a way, I very much want the sunās influence to be the biggest factor. But Iām not overly optimistic that itās the case, or the ramifications would be any less difficult to deal with considering the burgeoning population.
ā¦Itās and interesting, and sometimes worrisome, time to be alive. Iām sure Iām not the first person born this generation or any of those previous to say so.
We’re used to thinking of blocks of years like decades and centuries as starting with zero. We’re used to thinking of “the Fifties” as starting in 1950, and “the noughties” as starting in 2000. Further, when we speak of a person as being in his twenties, we again think of the period as starting with a zero.
For consistency with that ingrained habit, it would reduce confusion if we adopted the convention that “the 20th century” started in 1900 (on a zero) and that the 2nd century began at the start of the year 100. (Leaving the 1st “century” with only 99 years. So what if it’s a shorty?)
Sine wave? What mechanism do you propose with that period? Do you think you can fit a sine wave to a half-cycle of data? LOL!
Actually the scale is shown at 1 degree Fahrenheight
[Marked in degrees of Fearandhype ? .mod]
You know, I’m just kind of DENSE (Pb)…You see, when I run these calcs for 1996 to 2014, I get.02 degrees C increase per decade for the Ocean temps. When I run it for the land temps I get 0.10 degrees C per decade. AND when I run the COMBINED, I get 0.04 degrees C per decade. However, if I use the 1/7 that the LAND represents of the Earth’s surface, and multiply the 0.02 C/decade by 6/7, and likewise the 0.10 Degrees C by 1/7 (for the ocean metric), and ADD the two I get 0.31 degrees C for the combined value. Whereas the web page gives me 0.40…or about a 30% error in that rather straight forward linear combination.
As I said, I’m dense (Pb)…and maybe I don’t understand this “high level” math. Perhaps instead of my simple linear thinking, I should be looking for the Poles in the complex plot of this data, circle them with a closed boundary (the Bromwhich Contour) and do the complex integral to figure out the residuals and AMAZINGLY I’ll get that 0.40 C…or then again, maybe not.
excellent analysis. Please have a look at my MACD analysis which finds a ~60yr oscillation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/01/if-climate-data-were-a-stock-now-would-be-the-time-to-sell/
1879 to 1911: -0.0076Ā°C/yr, R2=0.18 (stat. sign.)
1911 to 1945: +0.0141Ā°C/yr, R2=0.52 (stat. sign.)
1945 to 1976: -0.0020Ā°C/yr, R2=0.02 (stat. not sign.)
1976 to 2007: +0.0193Ā°C/yr, R2=0.64 (stat. sign.)
This might be a smaller oscillation within a larger (your grey line in Fig 7. suggests a 100-120 yr oscillation).
The ~60yr oscillation has been described extensively elsewhere as (Scafetta 2014, The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system) . Moreover, Scafetta (2014) also describe a ~115yr oscillation. I find this very interesting and well-fitting with the data.