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.
“”” Shub Niggurath says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:53 am
“Tamino”‘s graph has a 300,000 year running average?
I put “Tamino” name in double quotes, because to my ears, it sounds like a girl name, but I am told “Tamino” is a guy.
If you google the term, it comes pre-packaged with words like ‘debunk’, ‘call out’, and the like. “””
Why would you google it; everybody knows that Tamino is the big hero of Mozart’s “Magic Flute” Whenever you get your rear end in the ringer; you just whistle on your Magic Flute; and the fairies come along to rescue you; well maybe it was the Queen of the Night or Osiris; all pure phantasy of course. And his side kick of course was Papageno; who as I recall, was all tarred and feathered; wonder who that could be; maybe Hansen or Phil Jones ?
The aerosol theory comes in the same category as the Ozone Hole cooling Antarctica theory. i.e. : “We don’t have any clue and we can’t blame it on CO2, so let’s blame it on some other evil human activity.”
SteveGoddard:
Your evidence that climate scientists predicted a linear increase in temps is Hansen et al from 1988 where year to year variability is explicitly built into all the models? Care to try again?
Robert Murphy
I always assume that people will actually read the link before commenting. I will try again. Please look at
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Figure 3
Looks pretty darn linear.
And looks nothing like the 1977 PDO shift, which is the topic this particular discussion.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/graphics/temp_dep_49-08_F_sm.jpg
i was always baffled why someone chose “tamino” for an alarmist enviro blog, as the mozart opera was the only use of the name i with which i am familiar.
as a tenor, i now cannot sing “dies bildnis” without *cringe* thinking of our tamino!
Ya know, when I first looked at that second chart I thought to myself, “Hey, wouldn’t it be interesting if the trend line were plotted against integer values instead of tenths on one axis and tens on the other?”
But I’m willing to have my mind changed and having given myself time to reflect before commenting I freely admit I’ve reconsidered my position. After all, that would only result in a really long and nearly flat line; and what’s so exciting about that?
Peter says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:26 am
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.
I won’t – you don’t see people like me in the obituaries.
I lived in Glasgow for a while and got to know a music teacher there who had loads of good musical stories – one follows. Glasgow is well known for its “excellent” pub singers. One guy went up to the resident band in one of the pubs one night and told the band leader that he wanted to sing a song.
“OK – what do you want to sing?”
“I want to sing ‘Life is a Bowl of Cherries.”
“OK – what key do you want?”
“Och – anything somewhere around G will do – but I want it in 5/4 time, not 4/4.”
“5/4? Are you sure?”
“Aye! Of course I’m sure! LIfe is a Bowl of Cherries. In 5/4.”
OK said the band and they started up ‘Life is a Bowl of Cherries’. In 5/4 time. At the appropriate bar after the intro in comes our intrepid Glaswegian singer:
“Life is a bowl of effing cherries…”
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.
No it wasn’t – that was in the 80’s. If the 70’s had been the era of the clean-up, we would not have had the acid rain scare.
Ray says:
August 27, 2010 at 11:38 am
Then we will call Tamino… Mr. Pitt.
He could be the brother of Bradley Pitt – Cessley…
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:57 pm
RW asks “who ever expected that climate response would be linear anyway?”
_____
I tend to think the case can be made that IF AGW is happening, it will definitely not be linear, but again, we won’t know for a few more decades. The next few years are a very interesting time, as the skeptics of a certain brand believe we’re due for a period of cooling from both the shift back to a cool phase in the PDO, plus the current La Nina etc. But suppose we see another record warm year in 2012, 2013, or 2014? What then…a “cooling spiral”?
“I always assume that people will actually read the link before commenting. I will try again.”
I did read it. Hansen predicted that there would be year to year variability (random volcanoes and the like), which is pretty explicit in the paper. Figure 3 in Hansen ’88 clearly shows year to year variability, with pronounced dips and rises. Neither he nor anybody else ever predicted a steady regular increase in air temps from one year to the next. That’s why trying to disprove AGW with a very small sample size is so much nonsense.
Jimmy Haigh
I remember getting off the train in Glasgow as a child. We took our Vauxhall to a petrol station in Stirling and asked directions. No one understood a word the attendant said. We smiled and drove off.
As far as I can see the reasoning for the 1975 date is this:
– How do we know that global warming overtook aerosal cooling in 1975? Because that is when temperatures started to rise.
– How do we know 1975 is the right start date? Because that’s when global warming overtook aerosol cooling.
It’s all perfectly circular.
Pull My Finger says:
August 27, 2010 at 9:37 am
“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.”
Since when does a catalytic converter do anything for CO2? They reduce nitrous oxides, CO and HCs in the exhaust by converting them to N2 and O2, CO2 and H2O respecively. But, since CO2 is believed by some to be such a big greenhouse gas, and for H2O it is known to be, it’s the warmers who should demand that catalytic converters are removed.
R Gates
We will only see a chance of a record warm global year (2012-2014) if an El Nino is stronger than 1998. (this would be down to ENSO not CO2, have to be shown by majority of data sources not just GIStemp.)
Braddles
I have demonstrated that the 18 percent change in aerosols over 5 decades is far too small. For example just say the eruption in 1991 caused 0.25c cooling. Only 18 percent of this has occured by background changes since 1975. (0.05c) This occured over 5 decades so we down to 0.01c per decade. This change is far too small to explain rises after and cooling before.
Aerosols only have a global responce when reach the stratosphere. This shows that the cooling ended because the PDO changed negative to postive, with sudden responce that aerosols can only get anywhere even remotely close with a major volcanic eruption which penetrates the stratosphere. What you say is not supported and scientific evidence just doesn’t support the aerosol theory. In 1910 global temperatures also increased and the aerosol theory doen’t explain this either.
Sorry made an error (getting late here)
“This occured over 5 decades so we down to 0.01c per decade. This change is far too small to explain rises after and cooling before.”
should read
” This occurred over nearly 4 decades so we are down to 0.01 per decade. This change is far too small to explain rises after and cooling before.”
Robert Murphy
The straw man grows larger.
“The straw man grows larger.”
Then stop using it. RW asked “who ever expected that climate response would be linear anyway?”, in response to an assertion from harrywr2 that “a slow monotonous rise due to CO2” was predicted. You replied directly by linking to Hansen et al from ’88. The model runs from that paper, in particular figure 3, show marked year to year variability. There is no “slow monotonous rise due to CO2” predicted, by Hansen or anybody. That’s the strawman that gets used by people who don’t want to understand what a trend is and why picking too few years can easily allow natural variation to overwhelm the underlying signal.
Robert Murphy
Your argument is completely spurious, but just for fun – here is Hansen’s five year running mean forecast.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uidj3j98uRY]
Bill Illis
August 27, 2010 at 7:17 am
Thank you Professor Illis.
Matt G
evidently you did’t understand my sarcasm, or the concept of circular reasoning.
Just for reference, this is my high-resolution, ten-line-segment approximation of the NOAA NCDC monthly combined land and sea temperature anomaly index. The initial point, interior break-dates and slopes were optimized by the Microsoft Excel Solver utility after an initial rough manual approximation. The Excel Match() and Offset() functions were used to dynamically select and access the applicable table parameters for each date and value listed in the NCDC source data. All segments were required to have lengths of at least one-year. I selected the number of segments after estimating the apparent number of minor and major inflection points in the data.
This approximation appears to match the data quite well with 0.118 deg C RMS average error (primarily data noise) and a 0.46 deg C peak error spike. At this resolution, the temperature rise pause in the last decade is quite apparent.
Data Source:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
Unofficial, Ten-Line-Segment Approximation of the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Monthly Combined Global Land and Ocean Anomaly Index. Segment Global Temperature Segment Decimal Year Dates Anomalies, deg C Slope Number Start End Length Start End deg C / yr 1 1880.042 1893.112 13.070 -0.117 -0.279 -0.01244 2 1893.112 1899.713 6.601 -0.279 -0.134 0.02210 3 1899.713 1908.579 8.866 -0.134 -0.388 -0.02874 4 1908.579 1944.944 36.365 -0.388 0.164 0.01520 5 1944.944 1947.041 2.097 0.164 -0.080 -0.11632 6 1947.041 1961.125 14.084 -0.080 0.033 0.00799 7 1961.125 1974.534 13.409 0.033 0.016 -0.00127 8 1974.534 1994.042 19.508 0.016 0.325 0.01583 9 1994.042 2003.059 9.017 0.325 0.559 0.02598 10 2003.059 2010.542 7.483 0.559 0.567 0.00113Sorry Braddles, did realise shortly after that this could actually be sarcasm.
Steve, judging by the harsh & sophomoric comments that were launched at you via Tamino’s site, I’d say that you were quite effective!! That crowd just cannot tolerate alternative views & analysis, can they?