by Steve Goddard
Tamino has named me “Mr. Cherry” for picking start dates of graphs which are different from the ones he chooses to cherry pick. For instance, he considers 1975 to be the start of “the modern global warming era.”
Living up to his high standards, I declare August 16, 2010 to be the start of “the 2010 La Niña cool down”. Since August 16, UAH channel 5 global temperatures have been dropping at a rate of 1,554 degrees per century.
See below how that plots out.
If the trend continues, the earth will reach absolute zero in about 15 years.
That’s ridiculous, of course.
But the demonstration above is based on a similar logic of picking a start date of 1975 for measuring the global temperature record.
Why pick 1975? It makes the best pie.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s hilarious. Thanks for taking the time to tweak.
OMG… its really worse than we thought…
Looks like the additional CO2 kicked in precisely at time of Pacific and Atlantic oscillation switch. But how the CO2 forcing theory explains, that in mid-80ties the NH was as cold as before 1900? Just look at the oceans or Armagh record.
If this be incorrigible, you have all my incorrigement. I lolled.
Is Tamino’s analysis too complicated for you to understand? Unlike your absurd example, Tamino’s analysis seeks to describe the past in the most parsimonious way, rather than predict the future.
REPLY: ah, the predictable sour cherry from Mr. Telford. Thanks for being consistently humorless. Note the “satire” tag. – Anthony
Tamino has named me “Mr. Cherry”
Don’t take it personally. Tamino isn’t very imaginative. He’s just projecting.
Personally, I would never eat the cherries that you pick, Steve. The are so sour and tart and only good enough for good old fashioned cobbler.
They are so to the point and lacking verbosity or sweetness….they are not good for anything else.
You damn cherrypicker!
Complement. Complement. Complement.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Why pick 1975? It makes the best pie.
But it starts rotting in 1999. Doesn’t taste good now. Kevin Trenberth is searching for the missing flavor.
richard telford says:
August 26, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Tamino’s analysis seeks to describe the past in the most parsimonious way
Please.
The The Great Pacific Climate Shift happened in 1976. Natural warming lasted from then until 1999.
‘parsimonious’….. shya
I pointed out to him that the temperatures jump up at exactly the points when the PDO and AMO each went into their warm phases – he didn’t let that comment get published for some odd reason :).
Next weather baseline: only thermometers with open bottoms and closed tops, situate on no less than a 100 feet of black asphalt on each side will be accepted for recordation. After “Peer Review”.
LOL-tastic! Keep it up, you guys!
Funny, thanks Steve. Btway, what’s the average lag period between SST and tropospheric temperature, 1 or 2 or 3 months? I remember that SST started its plunge sometime in late May. It’s now late August, so 3 months? Thanks.
Tamino makes a compelling case for establishing 1975 as a baseline. You criticize him for focusing on “minor details” with, rather ironically, a “satirical” response of no substance.
” R. Gates says:
August 25, 2010 at 11:52 am
Alexej Buergin says:
August 25, 2010 at 8:25 am
“The world is cooling a bit…”
? Compared to what and duirng what time period? 2010 will be either the #1 or #2
warmest year on instrument record. What data set are you looking at?”
Anthony Watts closed that thread; therefore I add my answer here:
Since I uttered the above comment in connection with an ice extend prediction for September 2011, it can only mean that the summer of 2011 will be cooler than the summer of 2010. The maximum of the El Niño year 2010 was in March, temperature anomalies have been going down slightly since then and should do so during the next months because of La Niña.
As far as I know UAH presentation on the internet is better than RSS, so that is the only data set I refer to (I have a soft spot for GISS and Dr. Hansen, though, namely a big bog). It is disappointing that CRU missed their chance to set a standard, especially for long term trends satellites cannot provide.
Mr Goddard’s cherry sauce tastes oh so sweet. Mr. Telford supplies the lame duck. :0)
Steve
What happens if another date or series of dates are chosen. Albeit the idea of a global temperature based on the data used must be based on some trick?
Like thegoodlocust above, I too caught Tamino out on his own blog, but my post never got published either. It’s so annoying, as the other posters never got to see that I had caught him out on one of his own points. All you can do is walk away – which I did.
Steve.
If you look very closely at the UAH trend since August 16th it is actually dropping at an accelarated pace so we’ll reach absolute zero long before 2025.
It is not so much dropping as plummeting.
It is much, much, worse than we thought.
Wow. It’s hard to believe you can’t really understand the logic behind identifying 1975 as a point at which the climate regime shifted. You don’t even need logic to see that there is an obvious change in global temperature trends. Tamino has demonstrated mathematically that there was a change in global temperature trends in 1975.
You don’t understand what cherry-picking is.
Richard Telford, this link shows the past:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/hope-it-lasts.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html&h=334&w=408&sz=30&tbnid=HjkQNxm7833lyM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlittle%2Bice%2Bage&zoom=1&hl=en&usg=__lHSHSNJwpAXhxKoRyvB4Y6SyNHM=&sa=X&ei=x3F3TPWVFcmKOKGi9KgG&ved=0CDkQ9QEwBg
Modern global warmingdid not commence in the seventees or sixtees or whatever, but it is a natural consequence of the end of the LIA that followed the MWP. Cherry picking is very easy, cherries being such tiny things. Try lifting the MWP, its massive.
I’m sure there’s another organisation that gets it dates mixed up and thinks the universe is only a few thousand years old, then again there nothing like real global warming scientist with there creationism theories, silly billy’s creationism doesn’t fit a model so can’t be true.
Steve,
“Living up to his high standards”
I seriously question this comment.
I didn’t know Tamino had high standards.
So I prefer:
“I have adjusted my high standards to match his low standards”
or
“Living down to his low standards”
Take your pick.
” thegoodlocust says:
August 26, 2010 at 11:33 pm
I pointed out to him that the temperatures jump up at exactly the points when the PDO and AMO each went into their warm phases – he didn’t let that comment get published for some odd reason :).”
Cherry picking comments, is he? 😉
Love it!
But you will be charged with obviously picking a too short time period for an accurate measure of climate change. I suggest a much longer time base. The AGW folks use the 3o year average of weather as a proxy for climate, but it isn’t. It’s just 30 years of weather (as things like the PDO, AMO, AO, etc. can run longer than that and they are known weather processes). So why not re-do this analysis with, oh, the Carboniferous as your start date? And again with the 4.5 Billion year old molten earth as a start point. Then you could see if there is any common trend over those various time periods. After all, with such largely spaced samples you ought to find proof, dare I say it, “robust” proof of ongoing cooling.
I’d even go so far as to speculate that you will find it is ‘accelerating’ and that we have reached a ‘tipping point’…
FWIW, folks regularly get nailed by this kind of thing in stock trading from charts. They see a ‘trend’ in one time frame and project it into another (the future). So if today is “up” tomorrow will be “up” too… Or some folks say if the month is up, then it’s time to get in… or the year, or… But prices, just like temperatures, are prone to stochastic jitter and have a series of cyclicalities built into them (and, I’d assert, with a fractal character to the noise at the different time scales). Because of this, the more successful methods do not ‘trend follow’ so much as they ‘reversal predict’.
I use a combination of both. I trend follow just AFTER a reversal has been predicted and then happened. If you do not expect and accept that trends reverse, you will get cleaned out. IMHO, the same thing is true of ’30 year average weather’ research. They keep crashing on the rocks of 60 year weather cycles. They do a great job of projecting things, right up until they are exactly wrong.
One of the most important bits of market wisdom is “The first loss is the best loss”; meaning that if things reverse on you, cash out now with a small loss – that will be far better than a later larger loss. The ’30 year average weather’ researchers didn’t learn that rule after the ’70s ice age scare, and are repeating it again now that ‘global warming’ has turned back to cooling. The faster they cut their losses and swap positions, the better off they will be. But folks doggedly stick to their ‘trends’ until it’s way too late, then swap just in time to be wrong again…
Basically, for systems with multiple time period cycles in them, you need to be very very careful about any kind of ‘trend’ prediction if you do not have a cyclical view.
For fun, you can blend a half dozen sin waves of different frequencies and get all sorts of ‘natural’ looking patterns in the resultant “data”. Then you can ‘cheery pick’ any ‘trend’ you want by adjusting your time scope. Filtering that correctly is very very hard for most folks to grasp. Add in long time lags and it’s nearly hopeless (look how many folks have trouble getting the shower temperature stable when the water pressure fluctuates.)
http://www.smhi.se/sgn0102/n0205/upps_www.pdf
has a nice chart of temperatures from 1722 in Sweden showing it’s the same now as during the start. Just a dip in the middle. So pick your trend by picking your start time.
even more fun if you use even longer time scales as in
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/
especially in the ice age cycles graphs.