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.
The US and portions of Europe cleaned up the air in their cities in the 1970s, but certainly not Asia.
What explains the similar warming from 1910-1940?
Steven G. here is a recipe site for chokecherries- grew up on that jam. My high plains bred mother and my native American granma had many recipes. Chokecherries are very sour and edible only after cooking. Cooking is the operative word for Tamino’s
work here…
http://www.kiowacd.org/Tips_Links/chokecherry_recipes.htm
“If the trend continues, the earth will reach absolute zero in about 15 years.”
AHHHH! Better get those coal fired power plants running a full capacity! All new cars shoud weight a minimum of 5000 lbs and be powered by 6.6 litre eight cyl engines with straight exhause, none of those silly cats. Looking foward to the newly remodled retro Chevy Impala based on the 1973 version or maybe a late 60s Olds 88.
Dave Springer says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:54 am Newsweek
http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Why Pick 1975?
That’s easy. It’s called change point analysis. Standard approach..
Why we’ve discussed it before here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/13/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part-2/
And long ago at CA.
The date isnt “cherry” picked. The data pops out, ONCE you pick your method and parameters.
What is ‘normal’ for the Holocene?
Surely that is what we should be interested in? So average the temperatures (if you must use temperature ) from the first stable temperatures after the climb from the last ice age until now.
Anything else _is_ cherry picking.
Steven Mosher,
Had you not pointed it out, I never would have noticed that there was a change point in 1975. And 1940. And 1910. And 1900.
As you said, we have discussed this before on WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/22/picking-carbonated-cherries-in-1975/
John Hayte says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:18 am
Tamino makes a compelling case for establishing 1975 as a baseline…
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…
are these guys really serious??
tamino is a ridiculous charlatan, just like hansen and mann
I predicted that the 2008 La Nina meant the resumption of ENSO oscillations that were interrupted by the 1998 super El Nino and its aftermath, the twenty-first century high. Sure enough, the 2010 El Nino followed and the next La Nina is now clearly on the way. We should expect these cycles to continue as they have ever since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea. This is the normal way our climate works, with El Ninos alternating with La Ninas in a repeating cycle that takes about four-five years to complete. The interruption caused by the super El Nino was a once-a-century affair and its nearest precedent was probably in 1877. Our super El Nino did not belong to the ENSO system and was probably caused by a storm surge that deposited warm water at the beginning of the equatorial countercurrent near New Guinea. All El Ninos come to us when the equatorial countercurrent deposits warm water on South American shores near the equator. The timing is determined by wave resonance in a giant bowl of water we call the Pacific Ocean.
R Gates said
“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”.
Glad we agree on the criteria. Here are 12 of the oldest and most reliable temperature datasets in the world. Clearly temperatures have been rising throughout instrumental records-since 1660
http://i47.tinypic.com/2zgt4ly.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/125rs3m.jpg
Lots more very old datasets can be found at my site here;
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
I suggest you read Fred Haynies excellent presentation
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.”
Well R Gates, glad we are all in agreement at last.
Tonyb
My cherry pick for 2010 is that it will probably be remembered by sceptics as the year with the one of the greatest declines in global temperature over the 12 month period from Jan 1 to Dec 31.
However, warmists will remember 2010 as being the ‘hottest year on record’ and conveniently forget what happened in the second six months of the year. Warmists will also downplay the impact of El Nino earlier this year, which resulted in an unusual temperature spike of ~0.5 degrees C.
To a warmist, an El Nino temperature spike is normal climate, while a La Nina temperature trough is definitely abnormal and must be ignored.
Undoubtedly, warmists will also overlook the fact that this year’s temperature spike produced a maximum temperature of about 0.1 degrees C less than the big El Nino of 1998.
Is it just me, or when you read Tamino’s acerbic comments on his blog do you see the tall, skinny one in ‘The Big Bang’? Socially dysfunctional, rude, arrogant, never-had-a-friend, instantly-dislikeable. The man in The Big Bang, of course, not Tamino, oh no.
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:07 am
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?
_____
If that is indeed what he quotes, then you’d have to ask him. Personally, the longest data set (that is accurate) is all I care about in understanding climate, and I’d be looking for AGW to accelerate and not stay linear (if some GCM’s are right). Unfortunately, most of us will be old men and women before we know if that is happening…
thought though.
I pick 1977 as the start of the “modern global warming era,” which by the way did not happen. We are told that there was this “late twentieth century warming” in the eighties and nineties which is totally faked. Satellite data show that temperature oscillated, up and down by half a degree, as El Nino was followed by a La Nina five times in twenty years. Real warming did not start until 1998 when a super El Nino arrived. But how is it possible for NASA, the Met Office, and NOAA to show that warming? As I told you, during this period warm El Ninos alternated with cool La Ninas. They left the El Ninos in place and lifted up the bottoms of La Nina valleys in between. This way a horizontal temperature curve became a rising temperature curve and was presented to the world as proof that global warming had started. That was how NASA and the Met Office did it. NOAA was even more outrageous, just jettisoned the La Nina valleys in between the El Nino peaks and simply stayed with the peaks. This kind of temperature manipulation is called scientific fraud. But right in the middle of this period, in 1988, Hansen gets up and testifies to the Senate that global warming has started and that carbon dioxide is the cause. He had over ten television cameras trained on him and that night the whole world knew about anthropogenic global warming.
What happened?
Then we will call Tamino… Mr. Pitt.
Mr. Mosher – I regard it as brilliant that you had prepared the outline and documentation so that when climategate hit you were able to hit the ground running and be first to press with a book on a hot topic.
Anthony has shrewdly seized the Dick Clark position, now, with WUWT = American Bandstand, featuring all the acts – he’s got a good gig that will stay fresh for a long time.
Steve Goddard has a hit series with his Ice Report and frequent satirical sketches.
It seems you’ve chosen the Chubby Checker position- and it’s a fact of life on the celebrity circuit that people don’t wish to ‘Twist Like We Did Last Summer’.
Please turn your talents to something with a future or retire gracefully. It’s fine with me to remember you for an awesome one-hit wonder.
Just sane…
Stevengoddard
What caused the warming from 1910 to 1940?
Despite an increase in aerosols mainly the change in oceans, with solar influencing the amplification. PDO, AMO, AO and NAO become positive like recent decades now and evidence of the jet stream also moving further North during this period. (based on weather observations)
Since the PDO has become recently negative over the past few years the jet stream has also suddenly moved back south again closer to the equator. This behavour is known to increase severe weather events because cooler air is pushed further south and can interact more often with warmer air from the sub-tropics.
Steven Mosher
Not cherry picking? Oh good I’m not cherry picking here either and will show you that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures.
The date ‘1940’ isnt “cherry” picked. The data pops out, ONCE you pick your method and parameters. CO2 increases throughout this period, but only shown since around 1957 on this example.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/normalise/to:1975/offset:0.139/plot/gistemp/from:1940/normalise/to:1975/offset:0.171/plot/esrl-co2/to:1975/normalise
Arno Arrak says:
August 27, 2010 at 11:21 am
Despite the complete lack of evidence for everything you said–I could not agree with you more. Let’s throw the book at all of those fraudsters. However, you forgot to explain how Dr Spencer shot up into outer space (while we we were all sleeping one night) and manipulated his sattelite to show the warming that has occurred in his sattelite data since 1979. What a scam. I am outraged.
MJK
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 9:07 am
What explains the similar warming from 1910-1940?
________________________________________________
Ignore that time frame please.
It’s before 1975, therefore it doesn’t exist and it never happened.
… so many cherries, so little time
harrywr2:
“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”
Firstly, who ever said anything about Alaska? And second, who ever expected that climate response would be linear anyway?
Bill Illis says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:17 am
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.
I wish the 1940-1975 aerosol cooling hypothesis was challenged more robustly. I think it’s nonsense. What’s more I suspect even some of the ‘warmers’ think so too.
Mann & Jones, in a paper published in ~2003, describe the effect of aerosols as “regionally specific”. There is goord reason for this. Most industrial (not volcanic) aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere within a few weeks. Therefore, if aerosols were responsible for mid 20th century cooling (or non warming) there should be a clear pattern of cooling which should be concentrated in the industrialised regions. In the 1945-75 period, this was the NH mid-latitude regions. However the region that experienced the greatest cooling (by far) was the arctic. The GISS zonal temperature record shows the arctic (64N-90N) cooled 4 times more than any other latitude band between 1945 and 1975.
Of course, some aerosols will make their way up to the arctic but what would be the effect?
According to a number of studies the effect of aerosols in the arctic is warming – not cooling. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_haze which includes the following
There are other reasons why the aerosol hypothesis is probably flawed. Not least is the fact that the aerosols would need to – not only suppress warming – but actually reverse an existing warming trend. What evidence is there for the huge impulse of aerosols that would be needed for this to happen – not just in one year but in each subsequent year. Aerosols are not like CO2, i.e. they do not accumulate. They need to be replaced to maintain the forcing.
Add to this Dr. Svalgaard’s recent estimates of sunspot numbers (and past solar activity) and it’s clear that the pattern of 20th century climate cannot be explained.
If this (below) isn’t a definition of “cherry picking” in action, then I don’t know what cherry picking means:
From Tamino
“[Response: Something did happen in 1975. The slope of the global temperature trend changed. That’s just a fact, and comes from proper statistical analysis of the data. And that’s an “objective reason” to choose 1975.”
Am I missing something?
John Finn says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Bill Illis says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:17 am
I wish the 1940-1975 aerosol cooling hypothesis was challenged more robustly. I think it’s nonsense. What’s more I suspect even some of the ‘warmers’ think so too.
———————————————————————————-
Wasn’t that done by the Kuwaiti oil fires that made Carl Sagan stfu and find his secret place, lately occupied by Al Gore?
RW asks “who ever expected that climate response would be linear anyway?”
James Hansen for one.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf