Guest essay By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels
Despite what you may think if you reside in the eastern United States, the world as a whole in 2014 has been fairly warm. For the past few months, several temperature-tracking agencies have been hinting that this year may turn out to be the “warmest ever recorded”—for whatever that is worth (keep reading for our evaluation). The hints have been turned up a notch with the latest United Nations climate confab taking place in Lima, Peru through December 12. The mainstream media is happy to popularize these claims (as are government-money-seeking science lobbying groups).
But a closer look shows two things: first, whether or not 2014 will prove to be the record warmest year depends on whom you ask; and second, no matter where the final number for the year ranks in the observations, it will rank among the greatest “busts” of climate model predictions (which collectively expected it to be a lot warmer). The implication of the first is just nothing more than a jostling for press coverage. The implication of the latter is that future climate change appears to be less of a menace than assumed by the president and his pen and phone.
Let’s examine at the various temperature records.
First, a little background. Several different groups compile the global average temperature in near-real time. Each uses slightly different data-handling techniques (such as how to account for missing data) and so each gets a slightly different (but nevertheless very similar) values. Several groups compute the surface temperature, while others calculate the global average temperature in the lower atmosphere (a bit freer from confounding factors like urbanization). All, thus far, only have data for 2014 compiled through October, so the final ranking for 2014, at this point in time, is only a speculation (although a pretty well-founded one).
The three major groups calculating the average surface temperature of the earth (land and ocean combined) all are currently indicating that 2014 will likely nudge out 2010 (by a couple hundredths of a degree Celsius) to become the warmest year in each dataset (which begin in mid-to-late 1800s). This is almost certainly true in the datasets maintained by the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the UK Met Office Hadley Centre. In the record compiled by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the 2014 year-to-date value is in a virtual dead heat with the annual value for 2010, so the final ranking will depend heavily on the how the data come in for November and December. (The other major data compilation, the one developed by the Berkeley Earth group is not updated in real time).
There is one other compilation of the earth’s surface temperature history that has recently been developed by researchers Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way of the University of York. This dataset rose to prominence a year ago, when it showed that if improved (?) methods were used to fill in data-sparse regions of the earth (primarily in the Arctic), the global warming “hiatus” was more of a global warming “slowdown.” In other words, a more informed guess indicated that the Arctic had been warming at a greater rate than was being expressed by the other datasets. This instantly made the Cowtan and Way dataset the darling of folks who wanted to show that global warming was alive and well and not, in fact, in a coma (a careful analysis of the implications of Cowtan and Way’s findings however proved the data not up to that task). So what are the prospects of 2014 being a record warm year in the Cowtan and Way dataset? Slim. 2014 currently trails 2010 by a couple hundredths of a degree Celsius—an amount that will be difficult to make up without an exceptionally warm November and December. Consquently, the briefly favored dataset is now being largely ignored.
It is worth pointing out, that as a result of data and computational uncertainty, none of the surface compilations will 2014 be statistically different from 2010—in other words, it is impossible to say with statistical certainty, that 2014 was (or was not) the all-time warmest year ever recorded.
It is a different story in the lower atmosphere.
There, the two groups compiling the average temperature show that 2014 is nowhere near the warmest (in data which starts in 1979), trailing 1998 by several tenths of a degree Celsius. This difference is so great that it statistically clear that 2014 will not be a record year (it’ll probably fall in the lower half of the top five warmest years in both the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) datasets). The variability of temperatures in the lower atmosphere is more sensitive to the occurrence of El Niño conditions and thus the super El Niño of 1998 set a high temperature mark that will likely stand for many years to come, or at least until another huge El Niño occurs.
Basically, what all this means, is that if you want 2014 to be the “warmest year ever recorded” you can find data to back you up, and if you prefer it not be, well, you can find data to back up that position as well.
In all cases, the former will make headlines.
But these headlines will be misplaced. The real news is that climate models continue to perform incredibly poorly by grossly overestimating the degree to which the earth is warming.
Let’s examine climate model projections for 2014 against the observations from the dataset which has the greatest chance of 2014 as the warmest year—the NOAA dataset.
Figure 1 shows the average of 108 different climate model projections of the annual surface temperature of the earth from 1980 through 2014 along with the annual temperature as compiled by NOAA.
Figure 1. Global annual surface temperature anomalies from 1980 to 2014. The average of 108 climate models (red) and observations from NOAA (blue) are anomalies from the 20th century average. In the case of the NOAA observations, the 2014 value is the average of January-October.
For the past 16 straight years, climate models have collectively projected more warming than has been observed.
Over the period 1980-2014, climate models projected the global temperature to rise at a rate of 0.24°C/decade while NOAA observations pegged the rise at 0.14°C/decade, about 40 percent less. Over the last 16 years, the observed rise is nearly 66 percent less than climate model projections. The situation is getting worse, not better. This is the real news, because it means that prospects for overly disruptive climate change are growing slimmer, as are justifications for drastic intervention.
We don’t expect many stories to look any further than their “2014 is the warmest year ever” headlines.
As to the rest of the picture, and the part which holds the deeper and more important implications, well, you’ll have to keep checking back with us here—we’re happy to fill you in!
The Current Wisdom is a series of monthly articles in which Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, from Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, review interesting items on global warming in the scientific literature or of a more technical nature that may not have received the media attention that they deserved, or have been misinterpreted in the popular press.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hilarious – “We have global warming, by at least one hundredth of a degree! See, we were right all along!” 🙂
It has been unusually cold on nearly every continent this year including Africa!!!! The ‘warm’ stuff is all ocean water and that is due to oceans cooling slower than land. But the land masses are definitely showing signs of global cooling and the oceans will catch up with us in less than 20 years if this is a new ‘Maunder minimum’ solar event.
It could be by a millionth of a degree and still not matter at all.
By far most of the people for whom this “information” is being manufactured do not know the first thing about climate… nor do most of those that will dismiss the very same “information”.
Good for popcorn, though.
I just gotta love having a “warming” signal that’s 2 orders of magnitude below the accuracy of most of the instruments collecting the data.
Here is the GISS global temps from 1880 to 2012.
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
Jimbo has nailed it.
Jimbo – thanks.
Auto
I’m pitching this idea for a new tv series to be made in Paris next year. NutFlux, a New Zealand company, is interested.
It’s called “Breaking Mad”. It’s the pitiful adventures of a couple of geezers (Mikey, a tenured nerd at an ancient university, and Johnno, an aspiring cartoonist) who team up to establish a myth lab (which is a math lab used for nefarious purposes). In the myth lab, Mikey and Johnno cook up batches of scary temperature sets to sell to progressives (users) all around the world.
The cooks have developed a special process they call “homogenization”, which is their secret treatment of raw temp sets to make them extra scary.
They have also co-opted a slick distribution network called The MSM, who love the product, because it is 97% pure (according to a self-determined standard from a couple of Mikey & Johnno’s henchpersons).
Anyway this is all going along nicely for many years, but then the raw ingredients start to disappear for about 18 years. This hurts Mikey & Johnno’s business model somewhat. A number of MSM dealers and their customers have to go cold turkey and reluctantly have to resort to consuming the bland, un-scary product. But like dedicated disaster junkies, they wait desperately in anticipation for the raw ingredients to come on stream again so Mikey & Johhno can put the myth lab into top gear and churn out scarier than ever, 97% pure product.
The plot line hasn’t been finalised yet, because I’m in two minds as to whether “homogenization” should be what Mikey & Johnno use from the start, or whether they invent this as a result of the 18-year unavailability of good raw ingredients.
Maybe some readers could help with suggestions . . .
I have had a similar Ide : Stand-up comedian, or give presentations, named something like “The Climate Idiot”.
Since I am not a perfect speaker, I can do the script and hire a Hollywood-star to do the talking/show ?
Eric: Don’t you realize that 0.01 degrees every 4 years mean a full degree over the next 400 years! You see how much climate disruption has been caused by 0.01 degrees, image what they claim will happen with a full degree.
No more need be said: http://spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Newsel,
Thanks for not saying anything. Some of us are busy and find skipping, rather than clicking, links to be an advantage.
Chip and Patrick, I like the bar-chart model-data comparison graph. Looks good.
what a pity that the scientific wisdom in CATO does not appear to reach the ones who are taking the decisions. Will CATO be able to pull together a positive convincing story about what is really happening? For the moment the ‘deniers’ are in a reactive mode. We can only change the politics if we come with documentation that is convincing enough to put the other side into a defensive mode.
no moderation needed. delete if you deem necessary. merely want to stress that we should change from being reactive to becoming active.
Patrick
Your frustration is palpable…and deservedly so.
My summary of current “climate change” debate:
(1) The vast majority of people delegate studying, understanding and explaining complex things to “experts” – raising a family, earning a living, mowing the grass, etc prevents everybody from being experts in everything.
(2) Evangelical warmest have knowingly and willingly violated this delegation of trust.
(3) People with limited scientific education are slowly understanding this violation of trust. This learning process appears to be accelerating, but 100% of people will never understand the folly of what has happened (e.g.: some people still believe in astrology).
(4) Evangelical warmest are on the defensive in the scientific debate (AKA use of scientific method) – actual data spectacularly fails to match the models…PERIOD…end of story.
Frustration results because the climate debate is not owned or moderated by qualified “experts”. Willfully deceptive “experts” knowingly conduct the discussion as an emotional political campaign in the public forum. This post is a perfect example: the vast majority of people have no meaningful skill-set for determining the appropriate technique for calculating average global temperature.
So what if it is the “warmest”? Lukewarmers certainly believe in temperature rise and that records will be broken. But at a much slower rate than projections indicate.
And there is also the how much is caused by Man.
We have a unit to conveniently measure man’s contribution in single digits… the milliKelvin.
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/11286570/Peru-to-press-charges-over-Greenpeace-Nazca-lines-stunt.html
clipe I understand. I cannot tell you the fury that act of vandalism brings me. I coun’t type anymore
michael
A really stupid cockup by Greenpeace which demonstrates their true nature (stunts and terrorist ‘spectaculars’). He should be flogged through the streets of Lima in sackcloth and ashes.
Shamefui, but unfortunately typical of activists.
It is a great shame that the Russians did not lock up the Greenpeace protestors for far longer, rather than succumbing to political pressure brought by the West.
These people should really be taught what are acceptable bounds of civilised and acceptable protest which must have regard to the rights (property, financial and contractual) of others who are adversely affected by the protest.
The same Greenpeace “An Intelligence Bureau report on foreign-funded NGOs “negatively impacting economic development” in India has called Greenpeace “a threat to national economic security” – See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/ib-report-to-pmo-greenpeace-is-a-threat-to-national-economic-security/#sthash.4FkUAJbD.dpuf
The apology would be much more impressive if Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace sailed to Peru by boat via the CAGW Ice Free Arctic.
Global warming science is propaganda driven and it is a cause for rejoicing for them to have this propaganda coup after so many years of dismal news on the climate front.
They will be dancing in the streets.
All the president’s pens
And all the President’s phones
Couldn’t put global warming together alone.
When you look at thermometers in a Stevenson Screen, it is easy to ascertain it the temperature is an exact degree – or so close to an exact degree that you cannot distinguish any difference.
It is reasonably easy to say that the temperature is near enough exactly half way between two exact degree marks.
It is not so easy to guess that it may be at the levels 0.1, or 0.4, or 0.6 or 0.9 in relation to an exact degree. But 0.2 or 0.3, 0.7 or 0.8?
If Stevenson Screen thermometers are what is relied on, what is the real accuracy of the temperature recording? With the canvas bucket used for sea surface temperatures, I would doubt that past observations were to better than the nearest degree, taking into account the possible length of time between immersing the bucket and reading the temperature – especially if conditions outside suggested it was desirable to get back into the accommodation asap!
Surely the only set of observations that should be relied upon are the NOAA’s 10 years – now about 10.5 year – series referred to a few months ago which showed a slight decrease in the first 10 years for the United States. Not global, but the best series we have for any part of the world and hence a useful indicator for the rest of the world.
Bucket temperatures are probably not accurate to better than 2 degrees. There is much margin of error, not least caused by the difficulties of scooping up water from the surface as opposed to that say 1 metre below the surface.
The fact is that we have no high quality data, of working length, for temperature whether this be land or sea.
Satellite data has its issue, but these are the most sophisticated and state of art of our measuring devices (which are checked and callibrated against balloon data), and but for the fact that the warmists do not like what they say, one would expect that since 1979 only satellite data would be used.
We are relying on instruments which, for a variety of reasons, are expected to be in error by an average of more than 1C. We are reporting anomalies to 0.1C, which assumes, however inaccurately, that the instruments and their surroundings have not changed in any way that might affect their measurements over time. We then report decadal rates of change to 0.01C, though we know that neither the instrument data nor the anomaly calculations support such precision. We are delusional.
…and the Arctic has record high ‘red’ ice…………
Global warming is the stupidest thing I’ve see in my life time…….
I think that becomes even more ludicrous if you show the daily and annual ranges of temperature change. It not only dwarfs the apparent warming, it completely obscures it.
We need error ranges!
Why don’t you plot the temperature data on the kelvin scale. The increase would look even less significant. However, the temperature change following the LGM would also appear as a barely detectable departure and we all know about the profound changes that have took place since then.
I wonder how they are going to explain the disparity between the GISS and NOAA temp records when USCRN shows all that upward adjustment wrong?
Its baffling how this information is still somewhat hidden and these people are never called on it.
You’re assuming they are going to explain it at all. I expect them to stick their fingers in their ears and sing LALALA.
That downwards slope is getting on for a glaciation by 2100. CAGW may morph into catastrophic global cooling.
To be fair, If the temperatures leapt by 5 degrees c this year, so what ?
It is interesting, but was it caused by humans ?
Speaking of Arctic “red” ice….and then there’s this
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/something-is-very-rotten-in-denmark/
Warming is comforting to me. I still think biblical Hell is ‘hot’ because people of that time and locale could not comprehend a frozen tundra with no shelter.
Thank you for this simply described summary. Very well written and useful too
“In the lower half of the top five warmest years.” Is that 3rd, 4th or 5th, or 4th or 5th? So out of 35 total years, it could still be in the top 10%, right?
Barry,
Please. Get off that nonsense. Look at a graph. This isn’t anywhere near the ‘warmest evah’ year. Where do you get your misinformation?
dbstealey,
How about looking at ALL the RSS data? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/trend
2014 currently tied for 6th:
Year TLTYear TLT
1998 0.55
2010 0.47
2005 0.33
2003 0.32
2002 0.32
2007 0.25
2014 0.25
2001 0.25
2006 0.23
2009 0.22
3rd place in UAH:
Year Globe1998 0.53
2010 0.51
2014 0.38
2005 0.37
2013 0.34
2002 0.33
2009 0.32
2007 0.31
2006 0.29
2003 0.29
2012 0.28
Isn’t it funny that except for 1998 every year in the top 10 is in the 21st century? Yep, CMIP5 is running hot. But to call the temperature record “nonsense” because the models don’t agree with it is rather silly. To make that silly point by selecting only the portion of the data which support your argument is dishonest.
Brandon,
I was all set to reply. But then I got to the part where you called me dishonest, just because I don’t see it like you do. Am I a liar for that?
dbstealey,
Way to double down! [Reviews comment for “seeing things differently is lying” … doesn’t find any such statement. Shrugs.]
Brandon Gates I used Your graf and made another conclusion:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend
oppti,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
Goes down some, goes up more, goes down some, goes up more. Not knowing a thing about the underlying physics involved, a betting man would say, “my money’s on up within the next 10 years”.
Brandon Gates
December 11, 2014 at 12:08 am
///////////////////////////
Your plot gives good insight as to what is going on, and far more relevant to some straight line lenear trend drawn throgh data that is not showing such a linear response.
As your plot confirms, absolutely no (first order) correlation whatsoever with CO2. Something that everyone knows but yet something that the warmists refuse to acknowledge.
From your plot CO2 does not appear to be a first order driver of temperatures.
richard verney,
That plot didn’t show CO2, so let’s not rush to judgement.
It’s not the dominant driver over interannual and decadal time periods:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSOUpZMWViQkZncEk
Top plot is the average of HADCRUT4, GISTemp, UAH and RSS vs. CO2 with a 20-year lag. Bottom plot is the same, except I throw stratospheric aerosols, solar variability, ENSO, AMO and other GHGs into the regression. AMO alone is accounts for +/- 0.2 °C of variability over its ~60 year cycle. In the end, I come up with 2.4 °C/CO2dbl transient climate response which is in general agreement with published values. If “warmists” are denying anything, it’s not that correlation.
“Isn’t it funny that except for 1998 every year in the top 10 is in the 21st century? ”
First of all, that is a dry humor you have. Second of all, what else would we expect?! The Earth was several tenths of a degree below the Holocene average from 1550-1800 during the Maunder Minimum. Since then the sun has been relatively more active, especially during the 20th century Modern Maximum.
First of all Brandon, anyone using a land based data set on this site will be summarily ignored. This site has covered the errors in measurement, UHI, adjustments, etc. too well for us to take these series seriously. Unless you are going to use UAH or RSS, don’t waste our time.
Jeff in Calgary,
We accept the new climate reference network, but don’t think any conclusions can be drawn from it for another 10 or 20 years. So not ALL surface data sets are bad, just those that show obvious signs of slicing and dicing and torturing the data into a confession of warming.
Robert W Turner,
Thanks.
Being a physical system, we would expect the planet to react in accordance to the sum of input and internal dynamics, net outputs. Conceptually simple, not so much in practice as GCM projections amply attest.
Mmm hmm. This only goes back to 1600, but it shows a nice dip between 1650 and 1700, and a goodly rise from then into the 20th century: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itsi_wls_ann.png
How might we figure out the Sun’s contribution to the observed temperature rise since 1650?
Nice way of presenting the data and something interesting also when looking at the years prior to the 16 straight years.
Just for fun, I counted that for the preceding 19 years, the models predicted less warming than was observed for 14 of these years.
Nice try – the models were in hindcast mode so I would be VERY surprised if they didn’t “model” events that had already occurred 😉
Is raw data (not adjusted for any reason) for the last 30 years on US land based temperature sites that were proven by the site survey project (conducted by this site) to not be subject to urban crawl, poor maintenance, etc. (in other words considered accurate) available so I can see the temperature trend of just those sites? I don’t care if it is only 10 sites. I would just love to see some raw data over a significant amount of time. So much is done here at WUWT it must be available I just can’t find it.
Tom,
Yes, the data for the global surface stations, including all US stations, used by GISS (and CRU) are available here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
The unadjusted datafile is: File:ghcnm.tavg.latest.qcu.tar.gz
The adjusted datafile is:File:ghcnm.tavg.latest.qca.tar.gz
(qcu = quality controlled unadjusted, qca = quality controlled adjusted)
I made the following chart which roughly estimates the net global difference between raw and adjusted since 1880:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaST082SnBJdXpvTVk
The adjustment process adds about 0.5 degrees C. GISS backs out about 0.2 degrees of that in their “brightness index” calculation for growing urban areas.
So, of the 0.4°C of warming, 0.3°C is a result of adjustments. Well done GISS!
The crazy thing is that over and over, we see sites that should be adjusted down due to UHI, or new placement, but they get the same 0.3°C up adjustment as the rest. It really is just gaming the system
Jeff in Calgary,
My plot doesn’t show temperature rise, only differences between raw and adjusted. From 1880-2014, the reported temperature rise is 0.87 °C according to GISS. Without their brightness adjustment for UHI (and whatever else), GISTemp would report 1.07 °C warming. Back out of that the 0.5 °C — which NCDC does, not GISS — and the implied change according to the raw data is 0.57 °C, not 0.4.
My naive expectation was that such adjustments new placement to go both was and net out. Years ago when Anthony first started his surface stations project — one of his most genuinely appreciated constructive efforts in my view — I dug into the data and recall finding not that much net difference. Those analyses are on a backup drive somewhere, and it behooves me to dig them out because my current findings are unpleasantly different from my recollection. Short story long, I share your sentiment that it smells bad.
The main thing I push back against is your contention that all stations get the same upward adjustment. Where is that information coming from?
I have a real problem with that argument for a number of reasons. Both the raw and adjusted data are publicly accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and the know-how to suck it into their own data processing and analysis software — which I’ve done for myself. The software which performs the adjustments is also freely available as source code and can be compiled and executed by anyone who knows how to do that. Which I do, I just haven’t gotten up the gumption yet. It’s on the list. Conspirators are not that transparent, by definition. That’s strike one swinging against the gaming the system argument.
Assuming a conspiracy exists, I have a difficult time (to put it mildly) understanding why the temperature data aren’t synchronized more closely to GCM output … or vice versa. It seems to me that if the goal were political domination by taking away our fossil fuels by trumping up AGW would be a far easier sell if models and observations more closely matched. Too good a match smells wrong, yes? But why not a much better one? Strike two swinging against gaming the system.
Conversely, it could be not everyone is in on the rigged game, and our hypothetical conspirators have to work within the constraints of honest brokers. So they fudge where they can all the while appearing to be as objective as possible by releasing data just wrong enough to look real, but cooked just enough to be convincing to those who count most. The question now becomes, just what is it that they control and what can they reasonably get away with? Probably not temperature records since instrumental observations lend themselves to independent verification. Proxy reconstructions? Not as easy, but it’s difficult to imagine in this scenario that all the paleo guys are in on the game. So we’re down to GCMs and related models again. But those are also open source and can be downloaded, compiled, executed and reviewed independently as well.
So it’s difficult to imagine even a semi-conspiracy that’s plausibly effective. Think the BEST project, etc. Called third strike against the system gaming hypothesis. The managers are vehemently arguing this call to little avail, which makes sense because there’s no plate umpire in sight, and the benches have only just begun to clear. Bit of a mess if you ask me.
“In a dead Heat” “dead” being the operative adjective. Alarm over a number so far inside instrumental error as to be…..meaningless. Yet, there they are, screaming “hottest” as if the oceans were boiling. As if, in the 150-year temperature record, global history was being shattered. What a shifty lot of horse-hockey.
Mis-use of the word ever in climate science is a sure sign of weakness.
Only marginally related –
Take a look at the PIOMAS graph. Notice building mass over last 2 years. PIOMAS was the volume model used in the “Hiroshima Bomb” counters that alarmists loved trotting out. Do those counters run negative now?
The graph is on the sea ice page. or here http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Charlie Johnson,
I LOL every time I see that ridiculous PIOMAS graph. It has no connection to reality.
Hey dbstealey..
…
Give us a graph over the past 30 years for Arctic ice iextent if you think you have a better one.
Why? From today’s arctic sea ice extents, losing more arctic sea ice only increases the cooling trend now evident. At the latitude of the edge of the arctic sea ice, too little solar energy is present for too few hours a day to make up for increased evaporation, increased radiation losses, increased convection and conduction losses.
For the past years, arctic sea ice has increased, and Antarctic sea ice – which DOES REFLECT ever more solar energy from the earth every day of the year – has been increasing since 1992. And has set a new record high of 2.06 million sq km’s in June. An “excess” sea ice area equal to the size of Greenland.
Arctic sea ice? has stayed within 2 std deviations of the normal all year.
D. Socrates says:
Give us a graph over the past 30 years…
Hey D. Socrates,
I’ve posted literally dozens of graphs, which you have completely ignored, along with all my questions and other folks’ questions.
That makes you a troll, no?
[Snip. Strike one. ~mod.]
You haven’t posted a graph for the past 30 years of Arctic ice extent.
dbstealey please read clipe post above and web reference. It seems the greens vandalized the Nazca lines in Peru, animals.
michael
Show me your graph Mr. RACookPE1978
For the last 30 years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
(Since 1979. A little more than 30 years, but good enough?)
RACookPE1978,
Isn’t it interesting that D. Socrates cherry-picks only the Arctic? The issue is global warming, and global ice cover is above it’s 30-year average [the red line].
Hey Mr Socrates,
There is nothing happening in the Arctic (temperature-wise) that hasn’t happened before, most recently in the 30’s and early 40’s before human CO2 emissions could have been a significant factor.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif
Interesting he (David Socrates) cannot control his temper. Frustration levels must be maxing out.
michael
Funny how the CO2 increase from 1850 (end of little ice age) to 1996 from 280 ppm to 362 ppm (82 ppm increase) coincided with a temperature increase of 1.3 F.
Then the additional increase in CO2 1996-2014 has been 37 ppm, or 45% more than the 1850-1996 amount, but temperature has not increased at all since 1996?
Why has CO2 lost its mojo since 1996?
Tom Sullivan,
You sure you want to cherry pick 1996? 1998 was a lot hotter. ΔT1996-2014 = 0.41 °C, ΔT1998-2014 = 0.04 °C according to HADCRUT4.
That’s some wonky math right there. The back of napkin value for total greenhouse effect is 150 W/m^2. With CO2 today at 398.43 ppmv, it provides about 32.03 W/m^2, or ~20% of the effect. [1] Plug 287.40 ppmv for 1850 into that, and the total greenhouse effect then was 148.25 W/m^2. For 1998 we have 366.50 ppmv, 149.55 W/m^2.
From 1850-1998 the net increase in forcing attributable to CO2 by this (very rough) estimate is 0.9%. From 1998-2014 that works out to an increase of 0.3%. Total for 1850-2014 is 1.2%.
You are effectively complaining that your stove lost its mojo because yesterday it boiled your tea water in 5 minutes whereas today it has failed to set the kettle whistling at a 0.3% higher burner setting … but only for a tenth of the time previously given.
—————————————
[1] 5.35 * ln(398.43) = 32.03
Yes, I want to include 1998, which was merely a spike from the Super El Nino. I use 1996 as the starting year because the average warming since then is zero. A period of 18+ years without warming is significant, in the statistical sense.
Teakettles aside, an increase of 45% more CO2 since 1996, above the CO2 which theoretically caused (or triggered through H2O) 1.3 F of warming, should have produced more warming, if the global warming CO2-H2O theory were correct. To my way of thinking a 45% increase with no warming proves the null hypothesis. Global warming theory is dead.
Tom Sullivan,
Well …. ENSO is cyclical isn’t it? Stands to reason if El Nino Grande can cause a spike upward, La Nina Pequena could do the reverse. And ENSO isn’t the only ocean/atmosphere coupling on the block. Think AMO for starters, it explains a good deal of the runup between 1980 and 2000 as well as much of the flat/slightly declining trend from 1940-1980.
Here’s a stat for you: there are a bazillion statistical significance tests, plus or minus a few zillion. Myself, I like to start with simple standard deviations and use my eyeballs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSOUpZMWViQkZncEk
The purple envelope is the 1-sigma standard deviation of the residual of a simple regression of CO2 vs. temperature. The lower plot shows a “hindcast” (the yellow dashed line) which is a slightly more complete model that factors in aerosols from volcanic eruptions and industrial activity, AMO, PDO, ENSO, and other GHGs like water vapor, methane and N2O. You can see that it doesn’t do so well prior to 1985, but it pretty much nails the most recent hiatus decades. It’s almost as if observational data are able to explain what’s going on here.
Your way of thinking leaves out a few important details. CO2 only accounts for 20% of the net estimated greenhouse effect, so you’re talking 45% of 20%. Besides, your 45% figure is bogus because that’s comparing the CO2 increase from 1850-1996 to the increase from 1996-2014 when the proper comparison is percentage change of total predicted forcing. I’ve already run through the calculations based on the actual theory from literature, not some make-believe arm-waving strawman of a non-theory. I suggest you read up on what it is you think you’re falsifying before declaring anything dead.
“Ever” is a mighty long time.
“Forever” is longer still. Even so, there’s something else; the afterworld.
The graph alone tells us there were significant baseline changes done to the model coding, that stuck, in 92ish.
I wonder why? I assume that is documented……