Is Spencer Hiding the Increase? We Report, You Decide
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
One of the great things about the internet is people can post anything they want, no matter how stupid, and lots of people who are incapable of critical thought will simply accept it.
I’m getting emails from people who have read blog postings accusing me of “hiding the increase” in global temperatures when I posted our most recent (Dec. 2009) global temperature update. In addition to the usual monthly temperature anomalies on the graph, for many months I have also been plotting a smoothed version, with a running 13 month average. The purpose of such smoothing is to better reveal longer-term variations, which is how “global warming” is manifested.
But on the latest update, I switched from 13 months to a running 25 month average instead. It is this last change which has led to accusations that I am hiding the increase in global temperatures. Well, here’s a plot with both running averages in addition to the monthly data. I’ll let you decide whether I have been hiding anything:
Note how the new 25-month smoother minimizes the warm 1998 temperature spike, which is the main reason why I switched to the longer averaging time. If anything, this ‘hides the decline’ since 1998…something I feared I would be accused of for sure after I posted the December update.
But just the opposite has happened, with accusations I have hidden the increase. Go figure.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree with Tom. It all depends on where you start/end. You can get the graph to point any way you want. Go from ’93 to ’98, it looks like we’re plunging into the sun. Go from ’98 to ’08, looks like an ice age is coming. Go from ’80 to ’08, no change.
Of course, you have to know how to read charts too. Some people might be worried by these “spikes” in temperature, until you realize we’re basically talking about +/- .7c warmer or colder over the last 30 years.
No, no, no . . . you aren’t supposed to respond to criticism with well reasoned argument, facts and data.
Just call everybody that disagrees with you a moron or an idiot. That’s what the professional climate scientists do.
That’s what it seems. They might not remember that Newtons laws are not perfect, as Einstein theory has proved, or that his theory about nature of light that was made of corpuscles, has also been proved incorrect, or even his alchemy passion…
The amount of global warming is as trivial as the amount of sea level rise.
Man has lived under far warmer and far colder times, though the latter is truly a hardship. Right now, it’s cold outside for the greater part of the N. Hemisphere.
Many of the same people who peddled Ice Age Panic have simply flip-flopped thier theory, and their intent is rather obvious: To instill fear and dread.
Dr. Spencer is simply showing us that the Global Average Temperature is not the burning issue that some exaggerate and distort it to be.
Compare that Global Temp rise/fall to the average diurnal of summer or winter.
It will be a lost puppy in the crowd.
Some warmists claim sattelite data proves we are warming. I can’t get them to tell me which sattelites they used for the past 1,000 years. Can’t change measurement methods and locations and get clean comparisons.
Louis Hissink (12:31:56) :
“. . when you have science in which you cannot easily do in-situ experiments, like climate science, geology, astrophysics, etc, then the methodology becomes one deductive reasoning to “prove” an hypothesis, or theory.”
The natural sciences, unlike physics and chemistry, do indeed rely on deductive reasoning. This is nature os the beast. This because of the time scales involved for the processes involved and the difficulty in obtaining anything close to a reasonable length of accurate data.
The error many make is in assuming that the hypotheses derived from analysis of inadequate data can be validated by the short record of better data we have collecting for the last 20, 30 or 100 years from processes that change on centenial, millenial or longer time frames.
I don’t think you have to change anything.
BUT -if you do want to appeal to everyone and try to make them all happy (nie on impossible I think)- maybe this Ivy League MBA trick will do:
Instead of using BIG numbers use tiny numbers. Instead of saying “13 Month” and “25 Month” averages say “1+” and “2+” yearly averages. (Now I know that sounds like something the NASA management might say, but think about it:-)
me (13:02:20) :
the data shows cooling since 1998
This goes to show the AGW alarmist have no case. If one looks at the longer term trends, the global temperatures have been rising for thousands of years, sometimes at a slower pace, sometimes at a faster pace than the past 100 years. So, where’s the man-made global warming? So all you AGW alarmists either prove it or stop spreading the hoax.
Global Warming is real and it has to be somewhere!
How logical sounds that!
Yeah, if you can’t find Global Warming outside, blame the guy who makes the graphs for hiding it.
How should we ever discuss the subject of Global Warming on a serious basis with people who are so lost?
Roy, could you tell me why you fit a zero order line to the data?
What is the underlying hypothesis that is being tested; that temperature is going to increase 0.0133 degrees per year?
I could understand a plot of DeltaT vs [CO]2, but not deltaT vs year.
What is the hypothesis you are testing with your fit?
My guess is that the data would fit a random walk better than a zero-order fit. Have you tested that?
It is my experience that people lack patience. If they see something happening today, they want to see actions that show results tomorrow. This isn’t the case with climate. We might have 20 or 30 years of warming that is completely normal and natural. And it might take another 10 or 20 years for it to cool back to the “average” again. But people tend to want to see things done that show the results in one election cycle. That is hard to reconcile with a climate cycle that might span 50 to 60 years.
Trend lines can be equally confusing and one start to finish trend line might actually include several different trends. This is particularly so if the “trend” starts at a low point in a larger cycle and ends near the high point of that cycle … as the trend shown in the temperature graph since 1979 does.
When the data is out there for you to download and programs to read it available in several languages which you may also download, the comment “hide” is an oxymoron. There is always a question of what is the correct climatological time frame to use, but when you can pick your own at your pleasure, hiding is not ab apt word.
Linear trending of data with such large short-term fluctuations can be deceptive too. For example, take a look at the linear trend of the UAH global temperatures in the last nine years:
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/01/uah-satellite-temperature-readings-in-9.html
Even if there is still a slight warming in the past decade, warmers, you lost anyway: It doesn’t correlate with the increasing CO2 level anymore. The AGW hypothesis is garbage. We win, you lose. The fact that you are jumping up and down here shows that you take the UAH temperature product serious. Explain this away:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/satellite-confirms-that-global-temps-continue-decline-trend-a-minus-151f-per-century-rate.html
Thanks Roy for showing the impacts of changing averaging times.
However, using 13 or 25 year averages is likely to add distortion due to the difference from the 11 single or 22 year double solar cycle. This will likely give a progressive phase error as the average includes differing portions of the solar cycle variation. Recommend using 11 or 22 year averaging to eliminate this effect. e.g. See:
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface
temperature change, Nicola ScafettaJournal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007
See also Alexander’s averaging precipitation and river flows in South Africa.
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development, W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse, JOURNAL OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Vol 49 No 2, June 2007, Pages 32–44, Paper 659
Ref – Ron de Haan (13:44:10) :
“How should we ever discuss the subject of Global Warming on a serious basis with people who are so lost?”
________________
Never discuss religion, politics, or things that make people blush. AGW is their religion, politics and and THE thing that makes them blush. When Columbus returned from the New World he brought proof. Forget about “them”. Keep working. Bring proof:-)
Lessons learnt:
1. Post ALL data and analysis so that no one could accuse you of hiding anything. This applies to BOTH warmists and coolists (but has been *more* applicable to warmists, considering how they have been more inclined to.. err.. keep data under lock and key :))
2. This is a highly politicized topic / issue, and readers’ *perception* matter more than actual facts. A little more explanation accompanying the data would help. For example, the longer averaging window (25 months) has the effect of lowering spikes such as the 1998 one, appearing to demonstrate a lesser degree of warming compared to the 13-mth averaging; however it also at the same time has the effect of raising the downward trend in the decade post-1998, hence also appearing to demonstrate a lesser degree of cooling vis-a-vis the 13-mth averaging.
Yes, AGW can be found at your friendly local tarmac, with huge thundering Silver Birds roaring up and down 24/ 7.
Only lately, a lot of airports have been under economic cutbacks, security shutdowns or snowed in.
Global Warming Monitors are icing up, forgotten and lonely.
Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the Airportlings, the outside world never got that warm, and is now growing colder. They just looked out thier window seats to the Earth 30,000 ft. below and assumed all was warm & fuzzy all over.
But, now we know the real story: Airporthrogenic Global Warming never got any further than the end of the runway.
Given all the old and now new concerns over how the land based temperature readings have been acquired and processed, I’m beginning to wonder if we had any global warming (natural + man-made) at all over the past 100+ years. So far it appears any rise is really insignificant anyway since it’s “official” been reported to be around 0.6 C. Most agree this is well within the natural variability over previous centuries and millennia. What if in fact the real temperature increase is more like 0.2 C, or perhaps even negative? In any case, gven these increases/decreases are so small, can’t we say now that there hasn’t been any global warming at all over the past 100 years? If man is in fact causing global warming, we’ll have to wait another 100 years to see proof of it. So, all the AGW alarmists are huffing and puffing at nothing so far. They have no common sense.
“Gerry (13:52:57) : […]”
Okay, so the objectivist individualist says look here, just right from the present the planet will turn into venus on my graph. Fine fine. Then i have another trick question (trick as in “tricking you”):
Why did the mighty GCM’s fail to forecast this? (hindcasting doesn’t count!)
Global Average Temperature (GAT) is the combined result of the deterministic chaos which drives our climate system. In view of this it makes no sense to show a trend line as this has zero information.
It is also pointless to use any period to smooth the data, as this just causes smearing of the rich signal of variation that the real world exhibits. GAT trends can be ‘cherry picked’ at all time-scales to produce the evidence you want to support your personal belief.
Andy Revkin misrepresents Anthony Watts.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/01/andy-revkin-misrepresents-anthony-watts.html
Front page headline in the Australian 18.1.2010 no longer ‘hides the decline’:
“United Nations’ blunder on glaciers exposed”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171
….and the penny drops for the MSM. Thank you The Australian.
I would like to see an 100 year average. I wonder what that would look like?