Click for larger image
In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.
Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures — they’re going down, not up.
On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to “a negative PDO” or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs — El Ninos — produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones — La Ninas — produce below average ones.
Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as “solar minimums” magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded — none — and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. “This is no coincidence,” he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.
Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.
Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather — even harvest totals and censuses –confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.
But in order to prove the climate scaremongers’ claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented — a result of human, not natural factors — the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann’s “hockey stick,” in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.
Dr. Loehle’s work helps end this deception.
Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, “It’s practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling,” as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an “almost exact correlation” between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost “no correlation at all with CO2.”
An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, “Man-made global warming is junk science,” explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”
Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a “hoax,” a “fraud” and simply “not credible.”
While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.
For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA’s eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, “variations in global temperatures since 1978 … cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide.”
Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years — the period corresponding to reduced solar activity — all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.
It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn’t any global warming.
(posted on a tip from TCO aka ASDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not so Andy,
This question was covered in an earlier post.
August 2008 LT anom. (UAH) is -0.007C. September is 0.161C, so some temporary warming has already occurred.
Try plotting the data using a 6th order polynomial Excel trendline.
The polynomial, with or without the September data, does not visibly change.
It will take several more months of warmer temperatures to change this trendline significantly, but it should flatten (I hope).
Regarding earlier posts using the words “fraud” etc., with respect to the use of a 6th order polynomial to fit this data: These posts are inappropriate, logically and ethically.
The temperature data is clearly cyclical, as evidenced by temperature and PDO cycles since ~1900 of warming, cooling, warming and recent cooling.
The satellite temperatures have only been in existence since 1979. This covers only the most recent PDO warming phase that started ~1977, and the PDO cooling phase that started recently. Trying to fit a linear trendline onto this cyclical data – now that might be considered “fraud”.
However “fraud” implies intent. Intent could be inferred, for example, by refusal to disclose data, by data files marked “censored”, by failure to disclose the “Divergence Problem” (wherein tree ring data actually shows cooling in the last half of the 20th Century), and by masking this Divergence Problem by grafting recent surface thermometry data onto earlier tree ring data. Fraud could be further inferred by eliminating from the historical record the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Just a random example…
Will the mandatory “you are in the employ of big oil” come next? 😉
-Anthony
Not really, mr Anthony. I couldn’t care less if you were employed by Big Oil, the IPCC, Al Gore, the Devil or God himself.
I only care about the quality of the argument.
If I am not even a scientist, but even so I can tell quite easily the problem, then you are in serious trouble. It’s as if someone in maths’ university made a 2+2=5 kind of error, and called everyone else “dumb” because you’ve just discovered how the masters “got it all wrong”.
You’re only making a fool of yourself, and probably Tamino and others are just having a ROFTL at your expense. Think twice before posting, and if you aren’t sure of what you’re talking about, don’t ever, ever assume it’s the others who got it all wrong.
REPLY: Luis, first you should understand that Tamino et al will laugh and criticize anything I do, so I don’t concern myself with what they think.
Second, this is an article by the National Post, in it’s entirety. The data plot is valid, the trend line has a polynomial trend line with induced error at the end. I agreed it has a problem. It looks like they (at NP) simply took UAH LT data and ran it through Excel to produce that plot. I’ve also posted other newspaper articles where our readers pick it apart for errors. People learn that way, and readers learn a lot here by such discussions.
You want to attribute the polynomial trend line error to me, suggesting that I made a “dumb” 2+2=5 error by posting that graphic. But it was part of the original article. If I had posted the article, with a header comment touting the graph as proving a point, then you might be able to say that.
But I’m quite happy that readers have picked this apart. The results might make for a good follow up post about how graphs can deceive. Will I shield readers in the future from news articles that might be wrong because someone might think badly of me? Absolutely not.
If you want a blog where they don’t allow discussion of anything that points out errors in postings or conclusions, then please by all means leave this blog and become a regular at RC and Tamino. – Anthony
Hello,
I am from Europe and i never posted something before. I am on other forums with climate topics too, I posted the graph from this article there.
I and many other people are discussing there now about that graph…
Because something isn’t right I think.
For example, the dip in temperatures in 1992 isn’t on this, while the dip in temperatures now is on the graph.
What do we have to think about it? Is it completely fake or what could be the reason of the dip now and not before?
Does someone knows where you can make graphs yourself with for example temperature trends between 1979 and 2008?
I found it last year, but i forgot the link. Maybe a self made graph for the same period could tell us more about what is wrong or right in this graph.
(sorry for my bad english)
“I only care about the quality of the argument.”
And what quality was that?
[snip, Anthony can defend himself without you resorting pejorative adjectives. See Mary Hinge below for an example of a properly measured response ~ charles the moderator]
Luis Dias (04:32:08) :
I think you are being very harsh to Anthony. I certainly don’t agree with a lot that Anthony states but I agree with him that all points should be discussed. This blog is very popular with some stirring debates and I for one would like to thank Anthony for his time and choice of posts. Sometimes they annoy the hell out of me but thats what makes this the premier blog it is.
Please treat Anthony with more respect Luis, he really deserves it.
“Anyone seeing a polynomial fit to a time series used as a trend should ask if the extrapolation to the future has any validity at all.”
No one here advocated the trend be carried forward. No one has defended the presentation. This is a typical ad hoc misdirection by mendacious sophists whose motives are as suspect as those producing the trendline.
Dave (06:13:46) :
This is probably the tool you are looking for, from the excellent website Wood For Trees.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot
Yep, that’s the site I was looking for!
Thank’s a lot!
And if I try it, the linear trend over 1979 – 2008 is still rising. From 2004 to 2008, then it starts declining a little bit. And from 2005, temperatures surely dropped
Dave (06:13:46) :
Does someone knows where you can make graphs yourself with for example temperature trends between 1979 and 2008?
Here is one place
http://www.remss.com/
there are others.
RE:
global average temperature prediction for the next several decades:
based on, and ordered by significance:
(for the next 30 – 3x years)
– PDO
– a negative turning AMO around 2015-2020
– weak Cycle 24 & 25
– movement of Saturn, Jupiter
: cooling
: starting about now, maximal velocity downwards around 2015-2018
: bottom around 2026, minus 1.6° (annual global average, compared to 1995 – 2007 mean)
oops,
I forgot to clarify in my 14:32:24,
I am saying – 1.6° Celsius…
Bob Tisdale: “so why the lecture?”
Sorry, it wasn’t meant to be personal at all; it was for general edification.
Gary Gulrud: “No one here advocated the trend be carried forward. No one has defended the presentation. This is a typical ad hoc misdirection by mendacious sophists whose motives are as suspect as those producing the trendline.”
They drew a graph with an obvious trend at the end. I think the message is implicit but clear. Just like a beer ad with lots of girls has an implicit but carefully (mendaciously?) not stated. A viewer needs a bit of advert-literacy to even realize what is going on. This is probably old news to readers here. A little stats-literacy doesn’t hurt, a little protection against mendacious sophists.
I’ve been censored. Curious. I thought that only tamino or RC were the censoring “perverts”. Funny how freedom is only interesting when is flattering.
REPLY: Luis, I assure you you have not been censored, however, I have had a lot of trouble in the last couple of days with many regulars ending up in the spam filter. In addition we’ve had a huge load of spam post attempts. It is highly likely that your post got deleted with spam. We try to catch all posts that have ended up in spam and move them into the mainstream. We aren’t always perfect. When you have to hand moderate the number of posts and spam attempts that come through a site like this, sometimes we’ll lose a few.
Lately the spam filter has been more sensitive than usual, and some regular posters have posts that have ended up in it. To you to anyone that has made a legitimate post and it disappeared, you have my apology. Unfortunately, in this free hosted version of WordPress, I don’t have much control over the spam filter’s actions. Sometimes all it takes is a word or phrase. Often certain embedded links can trigger it.
Luis. you are welcome to resubmit whatever it was you posted. – Anthony
The beginning:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/03/all-the-curves-that-are-fit-to-print/#comments
Fernando (17:19:59) :
The beginning
No wonder our host kept a low profile on the ‘smoothing/polyfit’ issue 🙂
REPLY: Leif I could post a straight line and people would argue about it. And I didn’t “keep a low profile”, I agreed early on in comments that the trend line was distorted. In some threads I don’t comment at all. The graph went with the Telegraph article. I could have changed it, but then I’d be criticized for that. I’m criticized for comments lost in spam I’m criticized for many things, yet I persist. – Anthony
Excuse me Anthony: I do not want to cause trouble.
Just thought: Possibly related posts: (automatically generated), had forgotten
It was illustrative of the discussion:
Like this:
By Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, UAH
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/P48/
SORRY.
REPLY: No worries, I’m just a little testy tonight. – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard (18:46:48) :
No wonder our host kept a low profile on the ’smoothing/polyfit’ issue 🙂
REPLY: I’m criticized for many things, yet I persist. – Anthony
Perhaps I should have loaded my comment up with a few more smileys…
But I know how you feel. I persist too.
Thanks for you work against false science. I think it might be instructive to plot of summary of the 6th order polynomial fits to the temperature data starting with the first year and add a year at a time. I think how ridiculous it would be to use such curve fits to predict future temperatures. Keep up the good work.
“They drew a graph with an obvious trend at the end. I think the message is implicit but clear.”
You have some trouble reading ““No one here“?
Stats are the least of our protections against sophistry posing as scepticism.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics (with flourishes about ‘boundary conditions’).
[…] and American financial viability. The truth, alas, has proved too inconvenient to ignore. Among non-partisan researchers, there is now little doubt that carbon dioxide makes only an insignificant […]
All this harrumphing over which statistcial method is the proper one for computing the trendline avoids the central question of whether the computerized predictions relied on by the IPCC have accurately predicted the observed temperatures.
They haven’t. At least, that is what I keep reading in the rpess.
Arguing for this or that trend curve presumes that there is an underlying trend to be predicted. But if the actual data is showing natural variation, there may be no single long term trend underlying the data.
If you are going to argue that the one particle in 10 thousand of the atmostphere, which is the CO2 supposedly added by mankind’s activities, is going to control the temperature of the atmosphere to the significant degree that is argued by the manmade climate change enthusiasts, you will need a clear scientific statement of how this happens, and I certainly haven’t heard one.
One particle in ten thousand. That is one penny in a hundred dollars. Have all the other laws relating to gases and thermodynamics been suspended?
Is CO2 magic fairy dust that transforms the climate?
And of course, the estimates of human-contributed CO2 in the atmosphere are not observations, they are guesses. For all we know, the additional CO2 could be coming from the oceans.
If the original hypothesis that we are near the end of an interglacial period is true, it would help us to develop a real method of man-made global warming, and my guess is that it won’t involve CO2.
Is there anywhere that the ACTUAL temps vs the ACTUAL CO2 vs the ACTUAL solar activity vs the ACTUAL time line can be viewed without distortion by pre-spun statistical manipulation? I am so tired of warmers and coolers interpreting data within their own agenda. I’d just like to see the data for myself. I recognize this thread is old but I’m hoping someone is still looking at it.
Sign me ‘Looking for reason in a sea of statistical stupidity’