By Girma Orssengo, PhD
In his Caltech commencement address in 1974, Professor Richard Feynman advised students the following:
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.” [1]
Using the global mean temperature (GMT) data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), in its Fourth Assessment Report of 2007, reported to the world “accelerated warming” of the globe. [2]
Identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is extremely crucial because the IPCC claims this accelerated warming is caused by CO2 emission from human use of fossil fuels. As a result, use of fossil fuels that has protected the naked animal from the freezing winter, sweltering summer, backbreaking drudgery, or in general allowed the naked animal to live life as a human is now being blamed for warming the planet. Most governments have made the extremely bizarre declaration that the CO2 you exhale, plants inhale, and forest fires and volcanoes naturally release is a pollutant, and they are putting a price on it.
The accelerated warming claim by the IPCC is accepted by most of the world’s scientific institutions, governments and media.
In this article, following Feynman’s advice, an alternative interpretation of the same GMT data is provided that throws doubt on the accelerated warming interpretation of the IPCC.
This alternative interpretation was also used to estimate the GMT trend for the next two decades, which shows global cooling from the GMT peak value of about 0.45 deg C for the 2000s to 0.13 deg C by the 2030s.
IPCC’s Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data
The accelerated warming interpretation of the GMT data by the IPCC is shown in Figure 1, and the caption for the graph states:
“Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming.” [2]
IPCC also states:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level” [3]
In this article, an alternative interpretation to IPCC’s for the same GMT data is given. This alternative interpretation demonstrates that the current 30-years warming is just a warming phase of a 60-years cooling and warming cycle. As a result, we should not panic with “widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level” because that is what happens during the warming phase of the globe, and the snow and ice will form again during the cooling phase of the globe in the next two decades.
The conclusion of this article is similar to that made by NASA when science used to be only about the truth:
“…in the early 1970’s, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase.” [4]
Alternative Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data
For the alternative interpretation of the GMT, the same data used by the IPCC from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was used, and it was assumed to be valid.
In an interview by Roger Harrabin of the BBC [5], Professor Phil Jones stated: “Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage”. As a result, the GMT data before 1880 were excluded in this article.
To produce the alternative interpretation of the GMT data, the following points were addressed:
-
Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT peaks?
-
Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT valleys?
-
Do the lines or curves that pass through the GMT peaks and GMT valleys converge, parallel or diverge?
-
How does the slope of the global warming trend line for the whole data compare to the slopes of the lines or curves that pass through the GMT peaks and valleys?
All the above questions are answered in a single graph shown in Figure 2.
In Figure 2, the GMT was at its peak in the 1880s, 1940s and 2000s, and a single straight line (not a curve) passes through these GMT peaks, indicating no acceleration of GMT peak values with increasing years. The line that passes through the GMT peaks is labeled as Upper GMT boundary line.
In Figure 2, a single straight line (not a curve) passes through the GMT valleys, indicating no acceleration of GMT valley values with increasing years. The line that passes through the GMT valleys is labeled as Lower GMT boundary line.
Figure 2 also shows that the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel (not diverging), indicating no change in the GMT swing between the two boundary lines with increasing years. The magnitude of this constant vertical swing is about 0.5 deg C for the last 130 years.
Finally, Figure 2 shows that the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel to the long-term global warming trend line for the whole data from 1880 to 2010, which has a global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade.
The most important observation in this article is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. It was also found that the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position. As a pendulum with a constant swing does not have a “tipping point”, the claim of a climate tipping point is a science fiction, made by those who unfortunately make their living by scare mongering.
Here is a question to climate scientists: In Figure 2, why has the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years?
In Figure 2, although the upper GMT boundary curve is a straight line for the relatively short 130 years data, in a longer time scale, it is part of a very long curve that contains the Little Ice Age, Medieval Climatic Optimum, Holocene Maximum, etc.
Relationship Between Global Mean Temperature Peak And Valley Values
In Figure 2, in order to find the relationship between the 1880s peak and the 1910s valley values, instead of considering the complex path the annual GMT took between the two points, a simplified but equivalent path of an instantaneous global cooling swing of -0.5 deg C followed by a steady warming of 0.06 deg C per decade for 30-years along the lower GMT boundary line was considered. As a result, in the 30-years cooling period from 1880 to 1910, the change in GMT = -0.5 + 0.06 x 3 = -0.32 deg C. Therefore, the GMT valley value for the 1910s may be estimated from the GMT peak value of –0.27 deg C for the 1880s as:
GMT valley value for the 1910s = GMT peak value for the 1880s – 0.32 = -0.27 – 0.32 = -0.59 deg C
This value is shown as (1910, -0.59) in Figure 2.
Similarly, in Figure 2, in order to find the relationship between the 1910s valley and the 1940s peak values, instead of considering the complex path the annual GMT took between the two points, a simplified but equivalent path of an instantaneous global warming swing of +0.5 deg C followed by a steady warming of 0.06 deg C per decade for 30-years along the upper GMT boundary line was considered. As a result, in the 30-years warming period from 1910 to 1940, the change in GMT = 0.5 + 0.06 x 3 = +0.68 deg C. Therefore, the GMT peak value for the 1940s may be estimated from the GMT valley value of –0.59 deg C for the 1910s as:
GMT peak value for the 1940s = GMT valley value for the 1910s + 0.68 = -0.59 + 0.68 = +0.09 deg C
This value is shown as (1940, 0.09) in Figure 2.
Note that the above relationships (decrease in GMT by 0.32 deg C during the global cooling phase and increase by 0.68 deg C during the global warming phase) were established based on the data before mid-20th century, before exponential increase in human emission of CO2. Next, these relationships are used to estimate the GMT peak and valley values after mid-20th century.
GMT valley value for the 1970s = GMT peak value for the 1940s – 0.32 = 0.09 – 0.32 = -0.23 deg C
This value is shown as (1970, -0.23) in Figure 2.
GMT peak value for the 2000s = GMT valley value for the 1970s + 0.68 = -0.23 + 0.68 = +0.45 deg C
This value is shown as (2000, 0.45) in Figure 2.
As shown in Figure 2, there is excellent agreement between the above estimates and the observed GMT peak and valley values. The same relationships were used to estimate GMT peak and valley values before and after mid-20th century, and this shows that there is no evidence of accelerated warming in the GMT data. The challenge to climate science is to explain why the GMT peak and valley values are related by such simple linear relationships.
Further, as the above relationships were valid for the last 130 years, it is reasonable to assume they will also be valid at least for the next 20 years. Therefore, the GMT prediction for the 2030s valley value is as follows:
GMT valley value for the 2030s = GMT peak value for the 2000s – 0.32 = 0.45 – 0.32 = +0.13 deg C
In summary, as shown by the data in Figure 2, the GMT has a cycle that consists of 30 years cooling by 0.32 deg C followed by 30 years warming by 0.68 deg C. The magnitude of the warming is greater than the cooling because the warming of +0.18 deg C (=0.06 deg C/ decade x 3 decade) every 30 years modifies the cyclic cooling and warming swing of 0.5 deg C, by decreasing the magnitude of the cyclic cooling but increasing that of the warming by 0.18 deg C.
Cherry Picking
Anthropogenic global warming advocates always accuse skeptics of cherry picking. A working definition of a cherry picker is one who makes conclusions based on comparison of oranges to apples. Let us see who is the greatest cherry picker.
Regarding the GMT, an example of comparing oranges to oranges is to compare one global warming phase of a given duration with another global warming phase of the same duration.
A valid example of identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is to compare the change in GMT during the recent warming period from 1970 to 2000 with the previous warming period from 1910 to 1940, which are of the same duration. As shown in Figure 2, for both periods the change in GMT is about 0.68 deg C. As a result, there is no acceleration in the recent warming period compared to the previous one.
Another valid example of identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is to compare the change in GMT during the recent cooling-followed-by-warming period from 1940 to 2000 with the previous cooling-followed-by-warming period from 1880 to 1940, which are of the same duration. As shown in Figure 2, for both periods the change in GMT is about 0.36 deg C. As a result, there is no acceleration in the recent cooling-followed-by-warming period compared to the previous one.
In summary, the GMT data for the last 130 years does not show any evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2. This is because the cyclic cooling & warming swing of 0.5 deg C shown in Figure 2 is obviously natural; and the persistent global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade is also natural, because it existed before mid-20th century, before widespread use of fossil fuels, as it is this warming that caused the 1940s GMT peak value to be greater than that of the 1880s by 0.36 deg C (=0.06 deg C/decade x 6 decade). Interestingly, the GMT peak value for the 2000s is also greater than that of the 1940s by the same 0.36 deg C.
In the ClimateGate emails, there are statements confirming these GMT peaks for the 1880s and 1940s:
“Indeed, in the verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all.” [7]
“Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.” [8]
The “accelerated warming” interpretation by the IPCC shown in Figure 1 was based on the comparison of the global warming rate of the recent warming period with the global warming rates of longer periods that consist of this warming period and previous cooling-followed-by-warming periods. As the global warming rate for the current warming period is necessarily always greater than those of all the other longer periods with greater denominators, the IPCC was comparing oranges to apples.
As a result, the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC is the greatest cherry picker.
Unfortunately, the unsubstantiated IPCC’s accelerated warming claim is supported by almost all of the world’s scientific institutions, governments and media.
Shame on the 21st century’s scientific establishment for letting the IPCC and its supporters successfully convince the world of anthropogenic global warming, the biggest scary story of our life time, without any evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2.
What Would Have Indicated Accelerated Warming In The GMT Data?
In Figure 2 a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years.
Fortunately, as the data in Figure 2 shows, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.
However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade.
What Future Observation Will Confirm Anthropogenic Global Warming?
In its Fourth Assessment Report, The Physical Science Basis, the IPCC stated:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.” [9]
A GMT increase in the next two decades of 0.2 deg C per decade as projected by the IPCC, as shown in Figure 3, to a value of about +1.0 deg C by the 2030s, means that the GMT will stop to behave like a stable pendulum, and the magnitude of its swing will start to increase from its constant value of 0.5 deg C for the last 130 years. This also means that the slope of the upper GMT boundary line will increase from its constant value of 0.06 to 0.2 deg C per decade. If this happens, the climate will have shifted and we skeptics should accept anthropogenic global warming.
However, as shown by the data in Figure 2, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.
What the IPCC’s projection of 0.2 deg C per decade warming in the next two decades means is that in a pendulum demonstration by Feynman shown in Figure 4, if he pulls the pendulum away from its vertical neutral position and releases it starting just in front of his body (representing the 1880s GMT peak), the pendulum will return to its initial position in front of his body and reverses its direction and swings away from him, as the GMT did after the 1940s peak. However, when the pendulum approaches him the second time (representing the 2000s GMT peak), its swing will suddenly increase and hit our hero.
That is farfetched. After the two previous peaks of the 1880s and 1940s, the GMT returned to its neutral position and moved towards its lower boundary line before the warming phase restarted. This pattern should repeat after the 2000s GMT peak, because the upper GMT boundary line has never been crossed for long, as shown in Figure 2, for the last 130 years.
What Future Observation Will Disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming?
In the next two decades, if the GMT swings from its current peak towards its neutral position and then reaches the lower GMT boundary line to a value of about +0.13 deg C in the 2030s as shown in Figure 3, the whole world will agree with the late Professor Harold Lewis’s characterization of anthropogenic global warming:
“It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” [11]
In my case, I will replace the word “physicist” with “engineer”.
References
[1] Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman
[2] IPCC: “Accelerated Warming”
[3] IPCC: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
[4] NASA Facts, Global Warming, NF-222
[5] BBC News, Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
[6] An alternative Interpretation of GMT Data (hadcrut3vgl.txt)
[7] Climategate email regarding the 1880s GMT peak
[8] Climategate email regarding the 1940s GMT peak
[9] Projections of Future Changes in Climate in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report
[10] Richard P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces
[11] Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
===============================================================
Girma Orssengo
Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, University of Calicut, Calicut, India
Master of Applied Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Doctor of Philosophy, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
===============================================================
R.Gates
I realize you’re a legend in your own mind. If you can put that aside long enough to actually point out what I wrote you think is wrong and why then I’ll take your criticism seriously. Otherwise, go pound sand, loser.
benfrommo says:
August 20, 2011 at 12:06 pm
That is that the slope of the warming has not changed since 1880. If CO2 is a factor, this slope should have been increasing all along, and it hasn’t
========================================================
Not only increasing Ben….
If CO2 was driving temperatures, every time temperatures were decreased or flat lined….
…..when whatever caused that was over
….temperatures would jump back to the precious trend line, and continue from there
not start a new trend line like nothing had happened
What the temperature chart shows is that even though CO2 has increased…
…CO2 is not driving temperatures
R. Gates says:
August 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“Even with a Maunder type minimum, the earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s. A new “little age age” is quite unlikely.”
No doubt there were plenty of morons staring into their crystal balls during the Medieval Warm Period that it would last forever. They were wrong. What makes you different from them? Certainly not any rigorous data. Your crystal ball have some kind of authenticated track record? ROFLMAO
So, R. Gates… you’re telling us that CO2 increases after temp increases? Who knew?
Pardon, but not only are you making a skeptic’s point, but you have fallen back to the last rampart of the indefensible; the exclusionary principle.
“And let me add, none of the complaints against this very well written article go towards the heart of the matter, or the assertion that I think is the most damning for warmists.”
I owe the author an apology if the main point of the article was that the past 50 years has seen no acceleration in warming trend that has been ongoing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That’s pretty obvious from a casual glance at the temperature record. The author is FAR from the first person to notice the imprint of the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation on the instrument temperature record for crying out loud. If the main point was pointing out the obvious then I don’t see the point. We already noticed.
If his main point was that the warming trend is natural then I have nothing to apologize for because he did nothing to substantiate that point.
“That is that the slope of the warming has not changed since 1880. If CO2 is a factor, this slope should have been increasing all along, and it hasn’t.”
No it should NOT have been increasing. The growth rate of anthropogenic CO2 emission from fossil fuel happens to match pretty closely the decreasing rate at which CO2 can absorb LWIR. Combine an exponential expansion in CO2 emission with an exponential contraction in its ability to raise surface temperature and you get a linear ramp, which is exactly what we see.
Dave Springer says:
August 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm
R.Gates
I realize you’re a legend in your own mind. If you can put that aside long enough to actually point out what I wrote you think is wrong and why then I’ll take your criticism seriously. Otherwise, go pound sand, loser.
_______
David Springer said:
” A 0.06C/decade rise in temperature due to anthropogenic CO2 is no cause for alarm becaues in order for it to persist anthropogenic CO2 emission must keep increasing exponentially…”
______
Again, you seem to have dodged the issue of hysteresis and longer-term feedbacks. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually don’t understand what these are, but your assertion that it will take continued exponential growth of CO2 emission for warming to persist is utter nonsense. The climate has not yet found a new thermal equalibrium point, so even if humans suddenly stopped adding the vast amounts of CO2 we are, it would be many decades before such a point would be reached. So on the point of requiring “exponential growth” of CO2 to continue for warming to continue, you are unmistakenly, undoubtedly, unreservedly wrong. A big enough error that you could easily pound sand with it.
Luther Wu says:
August 20, 2011 at 2:23 pm
So, R. Gates… you’re telling us that CO2 increases after temp increases? Who knew?
Pardon, but not only are you making a skeptic’s point, but you have fallen back to the last rampart of the indefensible; the exclusionary principle.
_____
Luther,
If you really want to understand the science, then study the science. CO2 reacts to the slight warming brough about by Milankovitch cycles as a positive feedback. There are 2 primary modes for these positive feedback, both involving the oceans. One is outgassing, and the other is the decrease in phytoplankton activity that accompanies a slightly warming world. Both of these lead to positive feedback loops that only accentuate the slight nudge given by Milankovtich cycles. Suggest you read:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=CSIRO_CC_Chapter%202.pdf
For starters…
reply to: Edim says: August 20, 2011 at 7:15 am
Edim, thanks for that video clip! Fun with pendulums – and of course, fun in large part (at least for me) because things like this certainly make one think and are highly relevant to the issue at hand. Not to mention being simple, elegant, real world visual representations of theory that would take a boatload of space to graphically represent in 2D format. :0)
R. Gates says:
August 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“the earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s”
An increase in CO2 from 0.003% to 0.004% of the atmosphere is far different? Really?
Oooooooooooooooooookay.
Your opinion has been duly noted!
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2011 at 1:54 pm
philincalifornia says:
August 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm
______
There are many next “big ones” ahead, covering many different things…to which are you referring?
=========================
Well (disregarding what I believe was a typo), you said little as in “ice age”, so the “big” referred to the next big ice age. Sounds like you’re going to take this one on then ?
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2011 at 8:57 am
Tom in Florida says:
August 20, 2011 at 8:34 am
R. Gates says:
August 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“Even with a Maunder type minimum, the earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s. ”
Thank you for the new Gatesism. I will add it to my growing list.
Now, what is it exactly that you mean by “far different”?
————
Your reply: “40% more CO2, 30% more NO2, 300% more CH4….for starters. All strong GH gases.”
I gotta give you credit, heaping Gatesisms upon Gatesisms is a great way to avoid the question.
Now why don’t you post the actual figures in PPM so that one can actually see if the atmosphere is “far different”. Of course if you do, it will not be “far different”. Nice try.
Philip Peake
Even though Phil Jones said the data before 1880 is uncertain, you want it to be included. Okay, here it is.
http://bit.ly/qVOW9E
This clearly will not change the conclusions of the article.
At least it is satisfying that we are not arguing about what the data says in the last 100 years.
Philip, your criticism would have been valid if Phil Jones had not said the data before 1880 is uncertain.
philincalifornia says:
August 19, 2011 at 6:59 pm
“If only they’d tortured the data into admitting temperature was flatlining for 50 years, THEN they could have claimed an acceleration.”
As a lawyer friend of mine is fond of saying, the problem with torture is that it can induce the prisoner not only to sing, but also to compose.
Dave Springer says:
August 20, 2011 at 5:39 am
“While it’s not proven that anthropogenic CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution has caused a 0.06/decade rise in surface temperature the physics involved do indeed predict it. It follows quite nicely the predicted 1C rise per doubling of CO2.”
Case in point. The “physics” give you a model. Parameterization of that model is what gives you numerical predictions. And, the parameters can be tuned to give you whatever answer you want.
Smokey says:
August 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm
“There are other differences, too.”
May be NSFW!
paulhan says:
August 20, 2011 at 6:07 am
“What I don’t think would be in dispute is this ~30year warm/~30 year cool “cycle”. I think if we could identify what underlies that, it would be a major advance to our knowledge. There is no apparent driver of it, the closest correlation with it is ocean cycles, but what drives them? Is it yet another homeostatic mechanism (like Willis’s thunderstorms, or melting sea ice), and if so, what is the trigger?”
Random forcing exciting a particular resonant system mode is sufficient. Lack of a known source is not sufficient to negate the hypothesis, and such dynamics are hardly rare or unusual. To negate the hypothesis, it is necessary to show that no such source can or does exist. Good luck on that!
Dave Springer says:
August 20, 2011 at 6:17 am
” A 0.06C/decade [LINEAR] rise in temperature during that time would be 60C.”
Fixed that for you. Who you think is arguing such a phenomenon, I have no idea.
“Simple physics of rising CO2 in isolation predicts a surface temperature increase of about 1C per doubling. There is no credible argument to the contrary… Without positive feedback from water vapor there is no cause for alarm from rising CO2.”
And, NEGATIVE feedback from other sources would establish a credible argument to the contrary.
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2011 at 8:06 am
“David Springer,
The 3C rise from a doubling of CO2 is hardly “urban legend”, except of course among skeptics. There are many fast and slow feedbacks in addition to water vapor that are part of this.“
And, those additional feedbacks are poorly quantified (not really, but even non-skeptics acknowledge this at least) thus transforming your categorical imperative of 3C warming into nebulous speculation.
Tom in Florida says:
“Now, what is it exactly that you mean by ‘far different’?”
It’s typical alarmist exaggeration. The atmosphere has changed maybe by one part in ten-thousand. To Gates, that’s “far different.” To sane folks, it’s practically identical. To the biosphere, it’s all good.
@ur momisugly Dave Springer:
Dave, as I read it the main point of the article is that the past 130 years or so (the relatively reliable record) has shown no acceleration of warming. As you say, many of us have noticed this and it is blindingly obvious if you look at the data in graphical form.
But the article presents that in a slightly different way, which might help to make it clear to some who haven’t seen it – whether because they haven’t looked or because they’ve taken the orthodoxy’s scary statements about accelerated this-that-and-the-other on face value.
One of the hallmarks of a good teacher is their ability to present the same concept in a multitude of ways, every presentation increasing the chance of any given individual “getting it”. When people have that “get it” moment is when they actually start to understand rather than accepting as rote learning. As a group, that’s what the sceptical community do rather well, helped by the wide ranging backgrounds they come from!
Compare and contrast with the orthodoxy’s methods of vilifying, scaring and threatening as a means of persuading people to “accept” and refusal to grant air-time to anyone other than official, certifiable, Climate Scientists or their Slebrity apostles.
As for whether or not the 0.06 deg / decade is natural, I agree that the article doesn’t really present anything to support that. However, that figure is (I believe??) within what even the orthodoxy accept would be possible from nature and is certainly well below what they claim is the incontrovertible signal of anthropogenic involvement.
steven mosher
Your graph: http://bit.ly/nGReJV
Here is the equivalent graph containing the whole data from 1850.
http://bit.ly/nimJnK
The above graph shows the selection of the starting year does not change the conclusions of the article: the global warming rate of the upper GMT trend line is equal to the global warming rate for the trend line for the data from 1880 to 2010.
When calculating the trend line the start and ends must correspond to similar position in the cycle. Peak to peak (1880s to 2000s), or valley-to-valley. Otherwise, the trend value will be incorrect.
R Gates:
At August 20, 2011 at 9:31 am you say to me:
“Then Richard, please explain past interglacials, as the forcing from the minuscule changes in Milankovtich insolation are not enough in and of themselves.”
Oh! So you admit you were spouting nonsense and want to change the subject. Fine. It is a significant improvement that you have started to admit that the posts you provide here are nonsense.
The explanation you demand of me is simple. The Milankovitch Cycle changed the state of the chaotic climate system and so the system switched to its other main strange attractor. Greenhouse gases played no part in this.
Indeed, greenhouse gas concentrations have been tens of times higher than now during ice ages so clearly they play no significant part in the transition from glacial to interglacial state..
Richard
Bart says:
“May be NSFW!”
I have to agree… if you work in downtown Tehran for an Islamic ayatollah.☹
Dave Springer says:
August 20, 2011 at 6:17 am
“Nonsense. The modern interglacial began some 10,000 years ago. A 0.06C/decade rise in temperature during that time would be 60C. In fact the total rise is about 6C…”
——————————————————————————
Bad on my part…. a mistake i wont live down for a while… LOL…
my point was simply that the ebb and flow of a sign wave will zero every 180 and 360 degrees. if the zero line is actually on a positive slope, in this case a 0.006 Deg C slope, the actual long term trend over thousands of years will be warming with internal highs and lows. the time span is of great importance.
To all who are suspicious of why I excluded the data from 1850 to 1880 in Figure 2, please replace that figure with the following, which starts from 1850
http://bit.ly/qVOW9E
This graph shows the starting year does not change any of the results discussed in the article.
[Change noted. Robt]
Edit note: “GMT will stop to behave ” GMT will stop behaving
_______
The pendulum predicts a repeat of the ’70s and ’80s in the ’30s and ’40s. The AGW ‘trend’ predicts more of ’98 or hotter. The GCR hypothesis suggests/predicts fairly severe cooling.
Markers have been placed. Let’s wait and see which is closest.
———————————————————————————————————————-
To all who are suspicious of why I excluded the data from 1850 to 1880 in Figure 2, please replace that figure with the following, which starts from 1850
http://bit.ly/qGcD9M
This graph shows the starting year does not change any of the results discussed in the article.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Tom in Florida says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:08 pm
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2011 at 8:57 am
Tom in Florida says:
August 20, 2011 at 8:34 am
R. Gates says:
August 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“Even with a Maunder type minimum, the earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s. ”
Thank you for the new Gatesism. I will add it to my growing list.
Now, what is it exactly that you mean by “far different”?
————
Your reply: “40% more CO2, 30% more NO2, 300% more CH4….for starters. All strong GH gases.”
I gotta give you credit, heaping Gatesisms upon Gatesisms is a great way to avoid the question.
Now why don’t you post the actual figures in PPM so that one can actually see if the atmosphere is “far different”. Of course if you do, it will not be “far different”. Nice try.
_____
I understand that skeptics want to downplay the effects from CO2 by trying a paint it is “merely” a trace gas, as though the raw ppm take away the actual effects we get from greenhouse gases. It is actually quite amazing they are so potent for being such a small overall part of the atmosphere…but we all should be quite glad for that potency…up to a point.
Smokey says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Tom in Florida says:
“Now, what is it exactly that you mean by ‘far different’?”
It’s typical alarmist exaggeration. The atmosphere has changed maybe by one part in ten-thousand. To Gates, that’s “far different.” To sane folks, it’s practically identical. To the biosphere, it’s all good.
____
More non-science from Smokey…or is that non-sense. Earth 2011 does not equal Earth 1600. If you haven’t the background to understand the significant differences in atmosphere, oceans, biosphere, etc. then only many long hours actually reading some science books can help you.
R. Gates says: “Earth 2011 does not equal Earth 1600.”
================================================
and thank goodness……..1600 was the Little Ice Age and the climate has been getting a little warmer ever since………..
“From 1400 into the 19th century, there were 24 winters in which the Thames was recorded to have frozen over at London; 1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635, 1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740,, 1776, 1788, 1795, and 1814”