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.
Er, you think Hansen claimed there would be a linear response? OK… have you heard the phrase “tipping point” used in relation to climate? Do you know who is primarily responsible for popularising this term?
RW
So you acknowledge the monotonic nature of Hansen’s prediction, but have now changed the assault to the shape of the curve.
“If you can’t debate your opponents on substance …. ” LOL
RW,
BTW – it was the originator of this straw man (Robert Murphy) who used the term “linear” – not me.
You guys are a riot. Create a straw man, use imprecise terminology, abandon the straw man, and then blame your poor terminology on me. Brilliant!
CRS, Dr.P.H.
Blasphemers are always judged harshly by the religious.
stevengoddard says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:06 pm
CRS, Dr.P.H.
Blasphemers are always judged harshly by the religious.
——
Heh! Amen to that!
Keep up the good work, Steve, you are really having an impact out there.
R Gates
In resp0nse to one of your earlier posts I said;
August 27, 2010 at 11:03 am
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”.
I responded;
“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.”
Before this post drops off the edge of the world are we agreed that if we use your criteria of the longest and best quality data possible the world has been warming for at least 350 years?
I personally would put the dramatic climate shift referred to elsewhere as dating from 1698 not 1975. What do you think?
Tonyb
“Your argument is completely spurious, but just for fun – here is Hansen’s five year running mean forecast.”
Are you still going to avoid what was *actually* being disputed by RW- harrywr2’s claim that “a slow monotonous rise due to CO2″ was predicted? A year-by-year increase with no dips. That was the point of contention. That’s why the so-called skeptics like to look at absurdly short time frames like 10 years or less, while cherry picking start dates like 1998. Even within a 30 year period with a known strong positive trend (the last 30 for instance) there will be short periods with little rise and even negative growth. All within the overall rising trend. Because in the short term other forcings will cause variability in surface temps from year to year that can overwhelm the strong positive signal, as has been predicted by climate scientists from the get go. As was predicted by Hansen et al ’88 as the graphs provided clearly prove.
BTW, a 5 year running mean is not a year to year forecast. Year to year *none* of the the model runs were monotonic. And scenario’s B and C in that graph of 5 year means are not showing uninterrupted change. – the 90’s are rather flat (with a slight dip for both), as is the decade 2010-2020 (scenario C shows a dip that decade). It’s not *a slow monotonous rise* even with a slightly smoothed presentation. The slope for scenario A is not linear, as it is curving upward and the warming is accelerating. Looking at the year to year model runs right above that (still figure 3) and their clearly non-monotonic nature is obvious. Even scenario A has peaks and valleys.
Robert Murphy,
There’s only one thing wrong with your argument:
Hansen was wrong in his predictions. Every one of them was wrong.
Robert Murphy
I have never made any statement even vaguely along the lines of Hansen predicted a “a year-by-year increase with no dips.”
Your argument is a very transparent straw man. Why are you pursuing it?
Well my guys out here say it’s going to be a normal ( average ) rainy season.
http://www1.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=1421&cat=1
Tonyb says:
“I personally would put the dramatic climate shift referred to elsewhere as dating from 1698 not 1975. What do you think?”
_____
Eh, there’s the rub. Which data set do you use or choose to trust? But more to the point, let’s suppose that you can look at whatever data set you agree on, or better, perhaps a combination of data set for cross-checking (like getting those different cherries from different orchards using a blindfold), and then let’s say that you can agree that temperatures have risen since from some time to some time (your 1698 to 1975 or even the year 1000 to 2010). Then we need to factor out all the known natural cycles and their combinations such as solar, PDO, ENSO, AMO. Once all those are screened out, you see what is left. Is there still a temperature rise? If there is, then by what mechanism do you explain it, if all the KNOWN natural cycles are factored out. Of course, we “warmists” would say that what is left is the signature of AGW, primarily driven by the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s. But then, here is where I may part way with other “warmists” as I think what is left may be smaller than what other warmists might believe, because some natural cycles are still being fully understood, and perhaps the full role of the sun and longer ocean cycles not fully factored in. Still, I am a “warmist” as I do think it more likely than not that there is some AGW going on, and going into the future, if it is going on, it might be even more pronounced (i.e. accelerate) as there is no natural negative feedback to balance AGW. In this vein, humans will need to continue to use their large brains to understand what we are doing, and become as it were, our own negative feedback by mitigating our impact on the systems of the planet.
StevenGoddard:
“I have never made any statement even vaguely along the lines of Hansen predicted a “a year-by-year increase with no dips.””
You were responding to RW, who was correcting harrywr2′s claim that “a slow monotonous rise due to CO2″ was predicted by climate models. You later said, “So you acknowledge the monotonic nature of Hansen’s prediction…”. Monotonic means that there would be no dips – if you have oscillations by definition it’s not monotonic, yet Hansen’s models show many dips and rises, for all scenarios. NONE of his annual models for different scenarios were monotonic. Do you even pay attention to what you write, “Steve”?
Smokey:
Hansen’s scenario B fits decently within observed temps (certainly within the error bars). Scenario B is easily the closest match to the actual forcings that happened, so A and C are really not relevant anyway.
R Gates
So when you make a statement;
“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”.
And I directly answer it ;
“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″
You then seem to suddenly stop believing in the desirability of using the ‘longest and most reliable data sets’ even though they precisely fit your criteria as they are the ones actually used by those writing the rules of AGW.
You then inadvertently give the game away be saying;
” Is there still a temperature rise? If there is, then by what mechanism do you explain it, if all the KNOWN natural cycles are factored out.”
We KNOW very little about the climate as yet, and to believe we do is fooling ourselves, easily done, through the use of theoretical mathematical calculations and numerous computer models all seeking-but failing-to prove we know more than we actually do.
Glad to see you’ve admitted to being a ‘warmist’ as previously your stated 25% scepticism appeared to be missing 🙂
best regards
Tonyb
Robert Murphy
Scenario B isn’t close
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/
Even worse, scenario A corresponds more closely to actual increases in emissions.
Excerpt from: R. Gates on August 28, 2010 at 7:58 am
Local climate systems have been affected by humans. Land use issues, soot on glaciers, UHI effects including the mega-city Tokyo which sheds so much heat it generates its own weather patterns, etc. Whether that all adds up to something “global” is an interesting question.
However, no natural negative feedback to balance AGW? Does this mean if you were shown a natural negative feedback that counteracts global warming, you would complain that it doesn’t handle the “special” anthropogenic form of global warming?
Tonyb says:
We KNOW very little about the climate as yet, and to believe we do is fooling ourselves, easily done, through the use of theoretical mathematical calculations and numerous computer models all seeking-but failing-to prove we know more than we actually do.
Glad to see you’ve admitted to being a ‘warmist’ as previously your stated 25% scepticism appeared to be missing 🙂
best regards
Tonyb
_______
A few items for you Tony:
1) What do you consider to actually be the longest and most reliable climate data set and why?
2) I’ve stated many times the reasons for my (25%) skepticism regarding AGW as well as the reasons I’m mostly (75%) convinced that AGW is happening. I’ve stated very specifically what my expectations are for the next few years regarding my main area of focus in AGW right now, which is the Arctic. I’ve stated why I’ve chosen the Arctic as my area of focus. I’ve stated why the solar cycles and the PDO/AMO remain my key areas of interest for my skepticism to AGW. I’ve never hesitated answering any question put to me here. Why do you doubt that I can be both a warmist and a skeptic?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 28, 2010 at 1:16 pm
However, no natural negative feedback to balance AGW? Does this mean if you were shown a natural negative feedback that counteracts global warming, you would complain that it doesn’t handle the “special” anthropogenic form of global warming?
_____
In fact, there are several natural feedbacks that counter global warming, and they act on completely different time scales. Cloud cover, for example, acts immediately to reduce solar insolation, and thereby modulates the temperatures, especially in the tropical areas. On the other end of the scale, an accelerated hyrdological cycle, which occurs when CO2 builds up in the atmosphere and the atmosphere is warm, works to wear down rocks that in turn take the CO2 out of the atmosphere, which in turn cools the atmosphere. Problem with this feedback is that it works over MILLIONS of years.
We also of course know that the oceans absorb much of CO2 and heat that has been anthropogenic in origin. Problem is, the heat seak may be reaching saturation, as the relatively rapid rise in CO2 since the 1700’s may be overwhelming the ability of the natural feedback mechanisms to cope. Human activity (from the persepctive of the longer geological cycle) represent nothing less than a slow but steady CO2 spewing volcano over the past few centuries. Volcanoes tend to overwhelm the natural ability of the ecosystems to cope, and as the human volcano continues to spew out CO2, this eruption seems far from over.
The 25/75 has taken us OT but not off target (I suggest all responders refuse to use his “handle” in future comments (we’ll know about whom were commenting)). The increase of more than 100ppmv Co2 from whenever you want to say it began increasing *should* have *caused* a 6C to 8C increase in global average temperatures. It obviously has not. Only disputed manipulations of the record indicate a current rise of approximately 0.7C in same. The 1930’s have been poorly defended to date, but i think that may be about to change. You stand in warmist quicksand fighting both the sun and the oceans. I hope that shield of CO2 you’re weilding has some substance to it!
Good luck,
Ralph Dwyer
Damn! That should have been “wielding”.
Re: R. Gates on August 28, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Strange, I would have thought an accelerated hydrological cycle, or should it be said one working at an increased rate, would occur with a warmer globe, period. Apparently the water molecules need to sense increased CO2 concentrations before they agree to comply with the physical laws regarding evaporation and condensation.
Yes, the weathering of rocks can take a long time. However that does not apply, and not just due to the time frame. You have (again) implied an increased CO2 -> warming link, when global warming was specified which can come from many different sources.
Following that link, you have compared anthropogenic CO2 emissions to “…a slow but steady CO2 spewing volcano over the past few centuries.” You also stated “Volcanoes tend to overwhelm the natural ability of the ecosystems to cope…” Yet warmist-approved literature states that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are vastly greater than the volcanic emissions, 130 times greater going by the highest estimate of volcanic CO2 emissions. Thus shouldn’t those anthropogenic CO2 emissions have overwhelmed those ecosystems some time ago?
Now we look at the oceans, which contain around 50 times the carbon by mass as the atmosphere. Water tends to readily absorb CO2. Which leads us to see the talk about rocks weathering was meaningless to begin with, as now we are dealing with CO2 in an aqueous solution which will quickly react with the CO2-buffering compounds in the water which are readily acquired from the many oceanic deposits of said compounds. Now you did mention about your worry that the “heat seak” (sink?) may be reaching saturation, which is meaningless as the oceans can continue to absorb heat and anyway the Ocean Heat Content has been dropping lately. Which leads us back to your link as by your wording the issue you worry about is the ability of the oceans to absorb the excessive anthropogenic CO2 emissions may be reaching saturation.
As has been discussed here before, many times, the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, thus it will take a lot more CO2 before we see great temperature increases. The ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 has also been discussed, and it is immense. Thus your “worry” boils down to the geologically-instantaneous CO2 increases, as in the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are generated so rapidly they will exceed the rate at which the oceans can absorb them, which will lead to ecosystem destabilization, as in something catastrophic will happen.
I talked about natural negative feedbacks to global warming, I got a bunch of stuff intimately tied to your increased CO2 -> warming link. It is automatic among (C)AGW proponents that the CO2 increases are anthropogenic. Thus when all is said and done, you have said there is something “special” about anthropogenic global warming that sets it apart from “normal” global warming, namely it being due to the increased CO2 -> warming link when the speed of the CO2 increases is considered.
Gee bud, you should have just cut to the chase and saved some electrons. Think of the children!
As to natural negative feedbacks that counter global warming, as I had originally mentioned, you did bring up cloud cover, saying it “…acts immediately to reduce solar insolation…” Thus it is a natural negative feedback which counters global warming, that does work within the time frame of the anthropogenic global warming as attributed to anthropogenic CO2 increases, which reasonable people would conclude should also work against the “special” anthropogenic global warming as well.
Thus, reasonable people would conclude, you yourself have stated the existence of a “natural negative feedback to balance AGW.” Of course, there shall be the quibbling that it alone is not enough to really “balance” AGW, other natural negative feedbacks are required. For which you have stated there are many natural negative feedbacks that counter global warming, the question being if they act against the “special” anthropogenic global warming as well.
Offhand, I think you need to make a stronger case as to what really makes anthropogenic global warming so different.
R. Gates: August 28, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Problem is, the heat seak may be reaching saturation, as the relatively rapid rise in CO2 since the 1700′s may be overwhelming the ability of the natural feedback mechanisms to cope.
Got any empirical evidence to show that *anything* has happened which permanently overwhelmed the Earth’s natural feedback mechanisms?
Human activity (from the persepctive of the longer geological cycle) represent nothing less than a slow but steady CO2 spewing volcano over the past few centuries.
In comparison with natural sources of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, it’s more like a seeping garden hose dripping into Lake Huron.
Volcanoes tend to overwhelm the natural ability of the ecosystems to cope…
Then why are we still here? You speak of ecosystems as if they were static, rather than dynamic.
R Gates
I think you missed the smiley in my comments.
As for the best, longest and most reliable data sets there are many although we do have a tendancy to adjust the past so everything needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and correlated if possible with complementary data.
I think temp data sets are pretty good until we get to a modern era where we can’t seem to leave them alone.
Tonyb
RE: Main Article: “For instance, he considers 1975 to be the start of ‘the modern global warming era.’ “
It is still far too early to call, but the temperature rise halt in 2003 may signal the beginning of a modern cooling period.