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.
Both sides cherry pick in pretty much every debate. Nothing to see here, move along.
-Scott
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:09 am
CheshireRed
Which time zone are you thinking?
In keeping with the convenient methods of Tamino, who cares? “Pick a time zone, any time zone…”
” Patrick Davis says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:09 am
heavy snows on the hills, and snow looking to continue into spring.”
Best August snows since 92, they say..
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/heavy-snows-all-the-go-for-spring-20100826-13u63.html?autostart=1
This is all so entertaining. This thread, plus the one on the supposed odd nutrino-radioactive decay effect, indicate exactly why it is essential and desirable to pick the whatever is the longest (and most reliable) data set available, no matter what, if you’re really interested in gaining some true understanding, as opposed to making a case for “your side”. This would be like saying you prefer to pick cherries from all orchards using a blindfold. In the end, you’ll have a large bushel of cherries of a nice average variety, that will indicate the general nature of cherries. Then, while the rest of us are arguing about our cherries, once in a while science is blessed with a Newton or an Einstein who messes up the whole routine and says, “oh, by the way guys, there’s is an orange grove over here.”
hunter says:
August 27, 2010 at 3:06 am
What happened in 1975 that made that the year to start ‘modern global warming’?
Nothing.
Except the convenience of the true believer’s need for a scary graph.
———————————————————————————————————-
Nothing happened that was caused by anthropogenic changes and this was clearly a natural turning point. After 1975 the oceans changed with the natural PDO, AMO, AO and NAO all becoming increasingly positive. The Jet stream during this period moved further North because of this change and these define natural warmer periods of weather. Tamino is just one of the biggest cherry pickers with the team, as they completely ignore this part of climate science.
Yes, picking 1975 as the the point in showing so called anthropogenic influences is cherry picking when it was initially caused by the Great Pacific shift.
Regarding sensitivity of CO2 with climate is it low or high?
1) If it is high, there is no evidence because all the sudden rises in temperature during the period have been caused by natural events. (El Nino etc)
2) If it is low, there is no evidence because temperatures would have risen over the past decade despite an increase in the number of El Ninos. (temperatures have been stable, not counting GIStemp although it it clearly the odd one out)
Therefore whatever influence CO2 has on climate is underlying and natural ocean/solar cycles drive climate. Hence there is no alarm for CAGW because the planet does not demonstrate it. (no hot spot in the tropopshere, no positive feedback and no sensitivity from CO2 detected with climate) = failed theory.
E.M.Smith says:
August 27, 2010 at 1:53 am
Right! You can pick any segment of many different wave-length cycles to get what ever trend you want to support your bias. I have found 13 statistically significant cycles in the Antarctic isotope depletion data. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf. The wave lengths range from around 20 years to around 100,000 years. A plot of these combined cycles show the Roman warm period, MWP, and LIA and that our present long term warming started with the LIA and not the exponentially increased burning of fossil fuels. Tamino doesn’t allow my comments. Nor does Gavin.
No doubt the climate began a major change in 1975.
“The Cooling World” ~Newsweek, April 28, 1975
This was the end of a 30 year cooling period of 0.5 degrees. England had lost 2 weeks of growing season. Biggest tornado outbreak evah. Sudden increased snow cover in North America. 1.3% less sunshine hitting the ground. One sixth of the way to ice age temperatures. Calls for stockpiling food. Discusses covering arctic ice cap with black soot to stop the temperature plunge.
Yeah, thank God the climate started changing in 1975, eh? If it weren’t for global warming we’d all be starving but instead the global population increased by billions. Average lifespans increased. World agricultural reliably grows more than enough food to feed the much larger population as well as or better than in 1975. We even have enough excess capacity to divert billions of tons of corn, sugar cane, and beets into fuel alcohol production.
Cooling is bad. Been there, done that. Warming is good. Been there, done that too.
Life’s a bowl of cherries unless you show up late to the table, then it’s pits. It is humorous to see who doesn’t get satire. Good one Steve G.
“The Cooling World” ~Newsweek, April 28, 1975
Forgot a link to the article text if anyone wants to read it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993807/posts
What kind of cherries do you pick?
BINGo cherries.
R. Gates
If you choose the longest data set (as you recommend) the global trend is 0.65C/century. So why does Hansen quote 0.17-0.20?
You have to feel a little sorry for the warmists like Tamino and his critical thinking deficient worshipers. They know the forth coming La Niña will create an entire new crop of cherries for the skeptics. The previous crop of El Niño ripened cherries was a godsend for them and they have been harvesting them in bountiful quantities. Alas, that crop has been exhausted and they can see the writing on the wall.
The 1975 date is such a joke that I can’t even fathom someone choosing it with a straight face. And, anyone that accepts that kind of nonsense is just admitting they are complete and utter [self-snip]s.
Of course you will get warming starting in 1975. That is the start of the upswing in temperatures on the AMO cycle. Duh!
paulw: August 27, 2010 at 4:53 am
It should be http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/mister-cherry/ where Steve debates with Tamino in detail.
Thanks, paulw — I got a real chuckle from Didactylos | August 13, 2010 at 5:05 pm:
Goddard warbled: “Anyway, if Mann’s hockey stick was accurate, it wouldn’t make any difference what start date I chose.”
That’s the most braindead thing I’ve read all day. Since Mann’s temperature reconstruction is well supported, we can stipulate the main conclusion is true: modern temperatures are very anomalous compared to historical temperatures.
And that was only four days before http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/17/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/ popped up. I wonder if he’s turned cherry-red with embarrassment yet…
1970 to 1975 is the date they are using for the beginning of global warming because that is the timeline of when GHG forcing started to overtake the cooling of Aerosols forcing. It is also the time when we started to get serious about cleaning-up the air and sulfate emissions.
It is a certain explanation among others that could be used. It also infers that 1850 to 1970 was a “cool climate period”, cooler than it would have been normally because Aerosols were dragging us down and there were some volcanoes. It also requires some “new negative forcing” that we haven’t identified yet for the recent decade of flat temperatures because the Aerosols are going down and there is no volcanic effects and the oceans are not taking up the heat content that would be expected in this scenario. It also requires some actual Aerosol estimates over time rather than a fitting the Aerosol guesstimates to match the temperature cycles (and not matching those cycles very well in doing so). It also provides no explanation for the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period hence the need to suppress these events.
Explanations should work better than this in my mind and cherry-picking often leads one to a poor explanation. I always go back as far as possible.
Scott says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:10 am
Both sides cherry pick in pretty much every debate. Nothing to see here, move along.
You are missing the point.
It is the Warmists who need to do the cherry picking to “prove” their Alarmist conjecture. Without that, we are left with the null hypothesis, which is that what we’re seeing is simply the result of a natural warmup from the LIA, and 30-year alternating cycles overlaid. Skeptics/Climate Realists don’t need to cherry pick. All we need to do is point out their cherry-picking to show that their Alarmist conjecture is flawed. With regard to CAGW/CC, you are right, there really is “nothing to see”, though in addition to being experts at cherry picking, they are also very handy with their smoke and mirror act.
R. Gates: August 27, 2010 at 6:40 am
In the end, you’ll have a large bushel of cherries of a nice average variety, that will indicate the general nature of cherries. Then, while the rest of us are arguing about our cherries, once in a while science is blessed with a Newton or an Einstein who messes up the whole routine and says, “oh, by the way guys, there’s is an orange grove over here.”
It’s a real blessing if we want to have marmalade on our toast as a change of pace from cherry preserves.
Picky, picky, picky…
RW says:
August 27, 2010 at 1:07 am
“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.”
Yeah…the mean temperature in Alaska rose 5 degrees in a single year. Doesn’t correlate very nicely with a slow monotonous rise due to CO2. It does make for nice ‘the arctic is on fire’ graphs though. Funny how all the warming in Alaska occurred in a single year.
I declare 1979 to be the year God created the Arctic Ocean.
Cherry picking aside, whether sweet or sour, since we can walk faster than the growing ice advances us into the next glacial, I suggest we begin planning how to stop it. Even a Little Ice Age is too much for me. Perhaps technology will offer us an answer; readers of this blog are knowledgeable — lasers, clean nukes, even old fashioned dynamite? Tow the chunks/bergs to the tropics while we give up some land to tall ice — Siberia, No Canada, e.g. Woops, perhaps the plates will tip over. More imagination please. Why dont the warmists get over themselves and get to work on the real problem. And if co2 gives us even a little warming, then we better begin releasing a lot more (fossil fuels, anyone?) as the oceans stop outgassing.
In the same vein, Eureka, California, will be in an Ice Age soon. Very soon!
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/eureka-ca-headed-for-ice-age-in-67.html
And of course, 1975 and the years immediately following had cold winters. This led to what I refer to as the Abilene Effect.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-warming-from-co2.html
It’s quite scary, really. If things continue at their current rate, we shall all be dead by the year 2200 – every one of us.
“Stu says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:38 am”
Thanks. But it was links to “record cold” in Melbourne, rather than lots of snow in the hills I was after. I don’t expect to ever find one on record cold in Melbourne in the Aussie MSM.
While global aerosols have declined since the 1970’s the total amount over this period is only ~18 percent of just one volcanic eruption increase from Pinatubo in 1991. The change in aerosols over the period is small and long lasting, yet the global temperature increases short and sudden. The decline over the past decade with no temperature change also highlights how small this change indeed is. Therefore not mainly down to aerosols, but natural changes mentioned previously.
For example
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/171624main_aerosol_dim_2sm.jpg
18 percent of temperature change from this volcanoe over the past 5 decades is just too small to explain the non-warming period earlier and now. Therefore the PDO switch during the time explains most of the temperature changes.