Tom Nelson points out these three related items. It seems the “pretty good proxy for climate change” is proxying the wrong message this year.
Overheated Arctic update: Nenana ice was gone by this date in 1940, but still 41 inches thick this year
21-Apr 41.4 Inches
Nenana Ice Classic Breakup dates
20-Apr 1940 1998
The Ice Classic has given them a rare, reliable climate history that has documented to the minute the onset of the annual thaw as it shifted across 91 years. By this measure, spring comes to central Alaska 10 days earlier than in 1960, said geophysicist Martin Jeffries at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks — and that trend is accelerating. “The Nenana Ice Classic is a pretty good proxy for climate change in the 20th century,” Dr. Jeffries said.
=============================================================
* That great phrase coined by Kate at Small Dead Animals
[UPDATE] I hope Anthony won’t bust me for adding a graph of the Nenana breakup dates over time. The error bar (95%CI) shows the error for the Gaussian average.
You can see the changes due to the PDO in the data.
w.
This may turn out to be a good metaphor for how the AGW belief system will go. Right now it still looks thick and solid in spite of all the stresses and strains, but it may already be edging toward a spectacular collapse.
Smokey says: April 22, 2011 at 6:46 pm
“Gneiss:
Satellite temperatures vs CO2.
More satellite temps vs CO2.
Still more satellite temps.
You can apologize to Theo any time.☺”
This is your “ginormous evidence” of global cooling?
The first two data sets seem to be very carefully cherry-picked from 2002 thru 2009. Why ending in 2009? Why 7 or 7.5 year periods? Maybe 2009 was just the date these graphs were made. But why start in 2002?
Well, that is the longest period that shows a steep downward slope. The start of 2002 happened to be an especially warm moment, so a decline after than would not be so surprising. Earlier or later periods show less decline (or, of course, they show increases). Longer periods show less decline — if you take a more typical 10 year period, then the slope up thru 2009 would be upward, not downward. Does anyone think this 2002 date was picked for any reason other than to “highlight the decline”?
Interestingly, the very end of 2010 and into 2011 does actually show a downward 10 year slope (the only time that has happen recently since a single month in 1997 and a ~ 3.5 year stretch in the late 1970’s. Perhaps there really will be a continued downward trend. Maybe the climate has “turned the corner”. The most recent dip below the long-term average offers a tantalizing hint (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/global-temperature-still-headed-down-uah-negative-territory/). That last graph you linked to highlights this latest drop, but then, 1.5 years is WAY to short to show a climate trend.
Do you really consider this as “ginormous evidence” of a switch to global cooling?
(All my calculations above are based on Hadley CRUTv3 data.)
@-P. Solar says:
April 23, 2011 at 4:01 pm
“If you want to show there is minimal slope you pick cherries from 1867 or 1926. If you want maxed out warming trend you pick 1902 or late 50′s as your starting point.
As I pointed out above, the latter choice could be innocently presented as “latter half of 20th century”.
One other thing that seems to come out from this plot is the clear 60y cyclic nature , which is even clearer in this presentation than it is in the original data. If I smooth it , it’s damn near sinusoidal plus linear.
I’ll have to reflect on what that means but it’s interesting.”
It might be wise to see if the ‘near sinusoidal’ signal is altered by the 50yr slope period. There could be ‘beat’ products between the 50yr range and shorter ‘cycles’.
There is also the problem that there are at most two ‘cycles’ of this hypothesised variation present. It may be quasi-periodic, with variations in amplitude and cycle length so that it is much less a sine wave, and more the scatter plot of the period and volume of a (chaotically) dripping tap.
As for any trend in the slopes, there is another justification for dating the warming from the “latter half of 20th century”. First, it is the period for which have good data of the significant factors, temperature, solar output GCR and CO2. Second it is when CO2 levels can be observed to rise significantly above geologically stable levels. Given the physical mechanism that would cause surface warming from such an increase it makes sense to look for that increase in temperature when the change in the hypothesised causative factor is well known.
Just a final aside, the rise in maximum temperatures in Florida is not a clear signal of global warming but probably does have more to do with land use changes. The draining of swamps and improved drainage for agriculture has reduced the surface water content which leads to hotter summers AND colder winters because of the lack of the thermal sink of surface water. As for weather the recent cold winter in Florida is a signal of a cooling trend… it seems to be the first ‘impact’ freeze in Florida since the 1980s, in the first half of the last century there were several more severe events.
http://www.flcitrusmutual.com/industry-issues/weather/freeze_timeline.aspx
Tim Folkerts,
To answer your questions:
Those are charts I had in a folder. They are not charts I made, as you can see [the last one was made by Bill Illis]. They comprise various time frames, so as not to cherry-pick one starting year. Futhermore, they are actual temperatures, whereas your link only shows anomalies.
The alarmist crowd loves them their anomalies for some strange reason. But what matters are actual temps. You want anomalies? I’ll give you anomalies:
click1
click2
click3
Anomalies are just variations from the average, or the mean, or whatever metric you’re using. They’re fine for scaring the public, but what really matters are raw temperatures and the long term trend, and whether the 40% rise in CO2 has made that trend line turn upward. Because that is the central alarmist claim [CO2=CAGW].
But that claim is hogwash. CO2 has had no measurable effect on the natural warming trend since the LIA. And the chart-diddling that results from dishonest folks pushing their “unprecedented” global warming scare is the result of using a zero trend line, instead of the natural warming trend line since the LIA.
The claim is made that CO2 is going to cause climate catastrophe [and if it’s not, then there is no reason to throw more money at a non-problem]. But where is the evidence of any global damage from CO2? In fact, there is no such evidence. If we simply look at temperatures on a zero y-axis, which are not divided into tenths and hundreths of a degree [impossible to accurately determine], the normal reaction is ho-hum.
The climate alarmist crowd is getting desperate because the planet is not following their narrative. Nothing unusual is occurring, and CO2 is not having the predicted effect. There is panic among the hogs at the public trough as the public tires of the incessant squesling of the pigs over something they can see is not happening. Just look out the window. In most areas spring has come very late this year. That is scary, because the long term trend is a cooling trend. And cold kills.
That trend seems to be accelerating Yes you are right! A change in the rate of change is an acceleration, it just happens to be negative at the moment.
Smokey,
Anomalies work just as well as actual temperatures for showing trends, so I don’t think that is an issue here.
“Click1”: Again, right after that graph cut off in 2009 there was a big upswing in 2010. While the trend up thru 2009 doesn’t look as extreme, the next year brought the trend upward (and the current year is bringing it back downward a bit).
“click2”: The number of record highs doesn’t tell us much. 1) since there are more stations (as well as more states!) since the start, you would expect more records. 2) since each record high makes it less likely to set a new record (think about it — the first year they collect records, they are guaranteed to set a record high and a record low), you would expect fewer records as time progresses.
“Click3”: this is the temperature anomaly difference between two different two different ways of averaging the data. see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/time-series/index.php?surface=land_ocean®ion=90S.90N&month=1&trend=true&beg_trend_year=1880&end_trend_year=2010&submitted=Submit#time-series
The trend is very definitely upward.
That said, there are lots of other questions you could ask about UHI and different types of thermometers and how to weight the averages. But the graph you show simply tells us that when NOAA changed their method of calculation, it did not make much difference.
“temperatures” and “trends”: could you describe what data sets these are and what areas they cover?
“If we simply look at temperatures on a zero y-axis, which are not divided into tenths and hundreths of a degree [impossible to accurately determine], the normal reaction is ho-hum.”
But sometimes tenths matter. If you looked at your own temperature on a similar scale, the difference between 98.6 and 100.6 would look pretty minuscule too. I’m not saying the earth is more or less sensitive to temperature changes as as a person is, but the biology of both WILL be affected by even minor shifts.
“The climate alarmist crowd is getting desperate…”
There is definitely some truth there. It was much easier to be certain of global warming in 1998 or 2002 than it is now. The fact that we are only holding steady at unusually warm temps rather than warming further puts a dent in the enthusiasm of the pro-AGW crowd. The next few years should prove interesting.
Finally, I am wary of any claims of “natural warming trend”. The surface temperature only changes as a result of energy imbalances. The world doesn’t randomly decide to change temperature. WHY did it warm? How long will this natural trend continue? In some ways this is the ultimate untestable cop-out. Any change could be attributed to “natural climate change” with absolutely no testability.
Tim Folkserts,
You’re right about the record temperatures vs the number of states, etc. So you can replace click2.
And regarding the null hypothesis, if there is no discernible difference whatever between current and past temperatures and trends, then Occam’s Razor tells us to accept the simplest explanation: “One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.”
Adding an extraneous variable such as CO2 is not necessary to explain the observed climate changes. The pre-industrial climate changed much more than today’s very mild, “Goldilocks” climate. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition to this beneficial trace gas has made little or no difference. In either case, urgent action is not only uwarranted, but it would be pointless since China, India, Brazil, and a hundred other countries have zero intention of limiting their CO2 emissions at the expense of economic growth. Fortunately, it doesn’t seem to matter one way or another.
Chart time. Let’s look at some temperatures, trends and CO2:
Here’s the long term CET record. Is it time to panic?
And the global temp anomaly since 1910. Panic?
And the surface temps since 1910.
This is the trend over the past decade vs the failed model projections.
Here we have the trend since 2000. Can you spot the runaway global warming?
I can’t.
And here is a chart showing the R^2 disconnect between temperature and CO2.
You will probably accuse me of cherry picking, but I post this chart to show that the ARGO array is in agreement with declining temps.
Next, yearly average temps since 1900.
And here we have the raw temperature data since 1830.
And average annual temperatures since 1895. Should we panic yet?
You are right that the next few years should prove interesting. But based on the complete lack of evidence that CO2 is a problem despite its ≈40% rise, it is reasonable to not only hold off from precipitous action; we should also de-fund most, if not all of the tax-funded grants to ‘study global warming.’ It has been studied to death. It’s time to stop demonizing “carbon” and move on to productive areas of science.
Tim Folkerts says:
April 25, 2011 at 10:11 am
The world doesn’t randomly decide to change temperature. WHY did it warm?
————————————-
Good question Tim. WHY did it warm going into the Roman warm period, and the Medieval warm period ??
I’m pretty sure we can rule out anthropogenic CO2, so the only way to change the null hypothesis was to remove them from the record. Nice try Mikey.
Now we’ve got Trenberth wanting to change the null hypothesis because it’s inconvenient.
Next
“Here’s the long term CET record. Is it time to panic? “
No, here is the long-term record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.png
Your graph compares only two of the centuries. It compares only summer temperatures. It leaves out the last 10 years which, again, are exceptionally warm years.
“And the global temp anomaly since 1910. Panic? “
NO! that is NOT the global temperature anomaly! According to the source it is:
So with no global warming, the average should be 0.000C/month. If the difference was even 0.001 C/month (indistinguishable from 0 on the scale of the graph) for 100 years = 1200 months, global warming would be 1.2 C for the century. This graph seems intentionally designed to mislead.
“And the surface temps since 1910. “
No, that graph specifically says it was “detrended” — ie the trend was mathematically removed. So by definition it will show no trend.
I didn’t look closely at the rest of the graphs, but so far your graphs are 0/3 at showing anything interesting.
I agree that the last ~ decade has not shown a clear trend — in fact is seems to be sloping down in contrast to any CO2 hypothesis. I think it will be fascinating to see how it goes. But you need to find better graphs to support your conclusions.
“Good question Tim. WHY did it warm going into the Roman warm period, and the Medieval warm period ??”
If I knew that, I’d be rich. 🙂
I do know that, whatever may have forced climate changes in the past, the change in CO2 due to human activity is an additional factor. There is a clear theoretical reason why CO2 should influence temperature. So there is at least a plausible hypothesis that the current changes in climate may be different from any past changes.
Is CO2 the biggest factor in recent change? Is it even a small-but-significant factor? Would it be catastrophic even if CO2 continues to drive temperatures higher?
I’ll leave those questions to others, because I don’t have the answers. The fact that it MIGHT be catastrophic is enough reason to continue some funding to explore the question. (Just like the small but real chance of a catastrophic asteroid collision makes it a reasonable investment to watch for asteroids.)
Tim Folkerts,
Reading comprehension, me boy. You need it. When I wrote “…the surface temps since 1910,” that’s exactly what I meant. The graph clearly states that it shows global surface air temperatures. 1 for 1.
And the “monthly global temperature change” means the anomaly. Otherwise, the chart wouldn’t start and end at zero. Surely you can understand that? 2 for 2.
And I’m sorry I wasn’t clear enough for you, but the charts I posted followed my statement that “…it is reasonable to conclude that the addition to this beneficial trace gas [CO2] has made little or no difference.” The charts were linked to support my conclusion, which you have not even begun to refute.
Nitpicking the wording of my post is a diversion intended to distract from that conclusion: there is a complete absence of any measurable, testable evidence or observations showing that CO2 makes any difference in temperature, or causes any global damage. Therefore, the null hypothesis and Occam’s Razor rule: the increase in that minor trace gas can be disregarded for all practical purposes. The only verifiable result of more CO2 is increased agricultural production.
Thus, the scientific method shows that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. The demonization of “carbon” is a baseless and harmful canard perpetuated by two kinds of people: those who financially and/or professionally benefit from perpetrating it, and those whose egos are so heavily invested in the CO2=CAGW belief that they are unable to admit that their arguments have failed due to the lack of either supporting evidence or observations.
Check out the rest of the charts I posted. I have lots more like them. The conclusion will eventually become inescapable to even the most fervent climate alarmist, whether they admit it or not: there is no testable, reproducible, empirical evidence or observations showing that CO2 does what they claim it does. It is simply a minor trace gas that provides an insignificant amount of warming, which is dwarfed by the planet’s natural variability.
I think we may need a panel of judges to score this one. 🙂
“The graph clearly states that it shows global surface air temperatures. 1 for 1.”
The title is “Global Surface Air Temperature (HadCRUT) Detrended for linear fit”
In fact, here is a plot of the original AND de-trended graph — apparently the very source you used.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm
“monthly global temperature change” means the anomaly.
No it means the change from the previous month. The first data point would be
… T(Feb, 1908) – T(Jan, 1908)
not
… T(Jan, 1908) – T(average)
This is from the same anti-AGW source as above.
This is the trend over the past decade vs the failed model projections.
This is the best graph in the lot IMHO (and a couple other graphs show the same basic trend). It shows predictions as well as confidence intervals for the actual data.
As I have said above, the lack of warming during this past decade is a tough bit of evidence to explain. Maybe it is the sun. Maybe it is some other forcing. I’m looking forward to seeing the graphs in 2020 to see what trend develops — is the recent hint of cooling a new trend or a bump in continued warming?
And here is a chart showing the R^2 disconnect between temperature and CO2.
And here is a different chart showing correlation, only this shows a longer time period. This graph suggest a definite correlation, combined with a definite random component.
Again, the recent trend is not following the script, but I don’t think we have enough of a trend downward for temperature to declare the relationship dead.
http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/co2_temp_scatter_regression.png
And here we have the raw temperature data since 1830.
And average annual temperatures since 1895. Should we panic yet?
Interesting graphs. Do you have information about what areas these cover? I see nothing that says who made the graphs or what specific temperatures they are plotting.
I think we are not actually that far apart. I can be a stickler for accuracy, but the data the last decade is far from conclusive. Due to the potential size of the program, I think significant funding is still in order, but panic is not yet called for.
Tim Folkerts:
anomaly |əˈnäməlē|noun ( pl. -lies): 1. Deviation from the trend.
Your monthly “change” above and below trend is the anomaly, no?
Next, you say, “…the lack of warming during this past decade is a tough bit of evidence to explain.”
It’s easy to explain: the sensitivity number is lower than you think it is. If there was a high sensitivity to CO2, then temperature would track CO2 closely. But it doesn’t.
And the graphs you asked about came from this site.
Finally, I think you showed your hand with your last statement: “…I think significant funding is still in order…”
After almost $80 billion thrown at the non-problem of “carbon,” it’s time to call a halt to the wasteful extravagance. Grant money has become the goal, not honest science.
Smokey: simple question is a 3c increase for a doubling of CO2 considered “catastrophic” ?
Specific numbers if you like, for the sake of the argument CO2 was 280ppm pre-industrial a doubling by 2050 would be 560ppm CO2 and we’re currently approaching 400ppm.
The word “catastrophic” seems to leave so much wiggle room, a bit like the tobacco industry claiming that smoking was good for the economy as it got people off the pension quicker
Flat Earth,
First, re: ‘catastrophic.’ I recommend that you go to the source: Kevin “I want to replace the null hypothesis with my own version” Trenberth, Al Gore of your tobacco industry reference, and James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen. They are the ones predicting runaway global warming, 20-meter rises in the sea level, etc. They are the CAGW experts. Ask them.
Next: “simple question is a 3c increase for a doubling of CO2 considered ‘catastrophic’?”
No.
The global temperature has been higher than that, at times when the biosphere teemed with life. Warmth doesn’t kill, but cold does. When the global temperature declined by 5°C or more, mass extinctions occurred.
That is not to say that there wouldn’t be major adjustments necessary if the planet’s temperature rose by 3°C. But human ingenuity can easily handle problems like that – and do it much cheaper than “carbon mitigation.”
Finally, only the UN/IPCC and a few assorted self-serving scaremongers claim that the climate’s temperature sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is a preposterous 3°C. None of them has any credibility. If you want credibility, go to MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen, head of its atmospheric sciences department. Lindzen puts the climate sensitivity number at ≤1°C. I will accept Dr Lindzen’s expertise over a crackpot railroad engineer like Rajendra Pachauri.
Forget the bogus 3°C per doubling, it has no basis in reality. It’s sole purpose is to scare money out of taxpayers. And Prof Lindzen’s view has a lot of company; he’s right in the middle of the rational estimates: Dr Miskolczi puts the sensitivity number at zero; Drs Idso put it at 0.37; Dr Spencer puts it at 0.46; Dr Schwartz puts it at 1.1, and Dr Chylek puts it at 1.4. Only the IPCC’s paid alarmists say it’s a preposterous 3°C [they used to say 6°, but they were laughed out of the room, so they backed and filled. They’re still wrong].
Smokey,
“Your monthly “change” above and below trend is the anomaly, no?”
No, it is not the anomaly. Look at the two equations.
They plotted:
T(Feb, 1908) – T(Jan, 1908), T(Mar, 1908) – T(Feb, 1908) …
The anomaly would be
T(Jan, 1908) – T(average), T(Feb, 1908) – T(average)
The first is what was plotted. The second is the anomaly as it is usually defined.
“It’s easy to explain: the sensitivity number is lower than you think it is. If there was a high sensitivity to CO2, then temperature would track CO2 closely. But it doesn’t.”
Touche. The sensitivity does seem to be much lower than the high estimates that were thrown around a decade ago.
And you may call this grasping at straws, but there is one other explanation. The climate could be fairly sensitive to CO2 AND fairly sensitive to something else. For example, everything else being equal, CO2 could lead to 2C per doubling. By itself, this would have predicted a considerably bigger increase in temperature this decade. However, a change in the sun or cosmic rays this decade could have an affect (the sun HAS been unusually quiet much of this past decade).
Occam’s razor is not particularly kind to adding an arbitrary extra factor like this. But Occam’s razor is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast law. Besides, we KNOW that there are factors beside CO2 concentration, since CO2 was presumably not the driving factor behind MWP & LIA and any number of other slight variations in the past.
Your comment about human ability to adapt is certainly apropos. I’m sure humanity will survive even a relatively large change in climate. The more difficult question is how to balance various costs and benefits of different courses of action.
And yes, I think “significant” spending (but not necessarily at current levels) is warranted. Science tends to be a good investment. Whatever is found, it will give us more knowledge about our world and our future. Maybe we will instead find the REAL causes of global warming 😉
Smokey, since you answer NO to 3c being catastrophic then you are building up a strawman argument, just a simple fraudulent argument. What would your definition of “catastrophic” warming be maybe more like 10c – 20c ?
Taking away the word “catastrophic” for a moment what warming do you expect to see from a doubling of CO2 and why. I believe the current best estimate is 3.5c
Flat Earth,
You asked, I answered. How does that make my answer “fraudulent”? And I’ve already recommended that you go to the source for a definition of “catastrophic.” Keep in mind that there is zero evidence of any catastrophe occurring, even after a quite substantial 40% rise in CO2. Gore, Hansen and their ilk have been consistently wrong in their CAGW predictions. Doesn’t that tell you something?
Finally, you ask: “…what warming do you expect to see from a doubling of CO2 and why.”
I expect around a 1°C warming. Why? Because I think Prof Richard Lindzen knows more about the subject than you, me, and the entire IPCC… doubled and squared. His highly educated assessment is that 2xCO2=1°C. And so far, observations have falsified the IPCC’s models.
And you incorrectly believe that “…the current best estimate is 3.5c”. You are being spoon-fed preposterous numbers that have no basis in reality. If temperature was that sensitive to changes in CO2, then current temperatures would closely track the rise in CO2. But they don’t. Furthermore, rises in CO2 follow temperature rises. What part of cause and effect confuses you? ΔCO2 is a function of ΔT.
I’m not going to go over all this basic science again, you can begin getting up to speed by reading the WUWT archives. Start with a search for “CO2”.
Flat Earth says:
April 25, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Smokey, since you answer NO to 3c being catastrophic then you are building up a strawman argument, just a simple fraudulent argument.
Please define exactly what (you so apparently so firmly believe) will be “catastrophic” about a 3 degree rise?
There are nothing but benefits from a 1 deg, 2 deg, or 3 degree rise in global temperatures AND global CO2 levels.
Ice just went out. May 4th 5:24 pm local time.
124 days is just within your 95% CI.
Doesn’t seem like anything special about this year.