Apparently, one of the proudest achievements of the website SkepticalScience is their “Down the Up Escalator” gif animation. They prominently display it in their right sidebar. The intent of the animation is to show that global temperature anomalies can flatten or cool over decadal or shorter periods while warming over the long term.
The first version was created using the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) land surface air temperature dataset. That, of course, made SkepticalScience appear two-faced, because the papers associated with the BEST dataset had not yet appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journals and SkepticalScience downplays any research efforts that haven’t been peer reviewed.
ONE OF THE TRENDS IN THE REVISED ESCALATOR IS MISREPRESENTED
Bogus Escalator
In an effort to distract from their duplicity, SkepticalScience revised and reissued the animation (modified screen cap above), using the average of the GISS LOTI, HADCRUT4, and NCDC land surface air plus sea surface temperature anomaly datasets. If you were to click on the mini “Escalator” animation along the right-hand side of their main page, you’re brought to the updated GISS-, UK Met Office- and NCDC-based Escalator. SkepticalScience describes “The Escalator” animation as (my boldface):
Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through August 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, May ’77 – Dec ’85, Jan ’86 – June ’94, Nov ’94 – Dec ’00, Jan ’01 – Aug ’12.
You’ll note that they’re now calling it “The Escalator”—no longer calling it the “Down the Up Escalator”. Yet each of the steps in their escalator clearly shows a short-term trend that’s flat or cools slightly.
SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.
Actual Linear Trends During Fourth Step of Escalator
How significant is that 0.06 deg C per decade trend? It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880.
GISS LOTI Global Surface Temperature Anomalies Since 1880
The following animation will give you an idea what “The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step. Depending on your browser, you may need to click on the following gif animation.
The Escalator With Actual Linear Trends
A COUPLE OF NOTES
As noted in my WUWT-TV presentation “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”, “The Escalator” is an exercise in cherry-picked start and end dates. Proponents of anthropogenic global warming will incorrectly cite “The Escalator” during my blog discussions of ENSO-related upward shifts in Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific (90S-90N, 80W-180) sea surface temperature anomalies. (In recent years, I typically present that dataset as the “Rest-of-the-World”, because I usually now start with the East Pacific data, which shows no warming over the entire 30-year term of the satellite era.) When the disciples of SkepticalScience link “The Escalator”, they are simply trying to distract from the process-caused shifts. Those natural processes were described in the WUWT-TV presentation and detailed with numerous datasets in my book Who Turned on the Heat?
Rest of the World Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies With Linear Trends
The above graph was presented in the post Does The Sea Surface Temperature Record Support The Hypothesis Of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Proponents of anthropogenic global warming have another, related, inconsequential complaint about my research. They claim the decade-long time periods between the 1986/98/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events are too short for the trends to be significant. Curiously, when SkepticalScience is trying to make a point, they have no trouble presenting a series of decadal trends, and when SkepticalScience is trying to mislead their followers, they have no trouble misrepresenting the trend for a shorter 6-year period. Apparently, linear trends over periods as short as 6 years do have significance. Looks like another example of the double standards of the proponents of anthropogenic global warming.
In the next few days, I’ll present PBS’s sleight of hand about “The Escalator” when they presented it in their Frontline report Climate of Doubt. They were pretty blatant about it.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
HenryP says:
November 27, 2012 at 10:40 pm
… I explain the problem of re-radiation / back radiation in some detail here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
____________________________________
Very nice explanation. Bookmarked. (Oh and happy holidays a bit early)
Gail says
Very nice explanation. Bookmarked. (Oh and happy holidays a bit early)
Henry says
Thanks Gail. I appreciate.
Note that it does contain the chart
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/atmospheric_transmission.png?w=640
that you seem to dislike. I agree with you that it has some inaccuracy but I still think it gives a reasonable explanation of what is back radiated by the atmosphere (on a cloudless day!) and where what it is delayed in going out from earth. Many people don’t seem to realize that without the ozone, HxOx, NxOx and CO2 they would get about 25-30% more radiation on their heads. In fact, without those gases we would probably fry. So these gases both have a GH factor and a cooling factor. And nobody has ever presented a balance sheet……with the right dimensions.
E.g. the sun shines 12 hours per day, the earth shines 24 hours per day…..
nobody even figured that ….
but they can “calculate” the results of the warming caused by the CO2…
by putting the horse behind the carriage,
e.g. applying the relationship not realizing cause and effect.
How stupid can you be?
This is almost 2013. I’ve been 3 years at this and we are still having the same old arguments.
Greg House says:
November 27, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Phil., your illustration is not an illustration of an experiment. You said something about experiments, but presented no valid link or clear reference. This looks very much like an act of obfuscation to me.
I take it you didn’t read the reference I gave where the phenomenon of back radiation is clearly described and quantified. The devices described are available commercially and are routinely used in scientific and engineering measurements. That’s a valid link with clear diagrams and descriptions, read it! Here’s an excerpt:
“FINE WIRE THERMOCOUPLES, SHIELDED PYROMETERS AND SUCTION PYROMETERS
The greatest problem with measuring gas temperatures is combatting radiation loss. This cannot be ignored and should always be estimated to make sure the difference is not excessive. There are a number of commonly used methods. The simplest is to reduce the size of the thermocouple. The convective heat transfer coefficient, hc, increases as the size reduces. In the limit you can have a bare, fine wire thermocouple. The metal protective sheath is removed. These can be as small as 50microns in diameter but are VERY fragile and are normally only used in research. In a practical device, fine wire thermocouples are normally not used.
The next simplest method is to surround the probe with a radiation shield:
Fig 1.2 Shielded Thermocouple
The gas is free to pass through the shield and the shield and thermocouple are heated. The thermocouple bead radiates to the shield which is much hotter than the surrounding walls. Thus the radiative loss and hence temperature error is significantly reduced. The shield itself radiates to the walls.
The next level of sophistication is to use a suction pyrometer, fig 1.3. “
HenryP:
At November 28, 2012 at 9:45 am you say
Well, I’ve been 3 decades at this and I am still having the same old arguments.
The problem derives from the AGW-hypothesis replacing climate science. The hypothesis has yet to predict anything correctly and evidence which refutes it continues to increase; e.g.
Missing ‘hot spot’.
Missing ‘Trenberth’s heat’.
Missing “committed warming”.
Cessation of warming since 1997 despite continued exponential increase of atmospheric CO2.
Lack of Antarctic warming.
Growth of Antarctic ice.
etc.
We need to return ‘climate science’ to being science.
There has been no significant advance in the knowledge and understanding of climate behaviour for 3 decades because ‘climate science’ has been replaced by the pseudoscience of a search for something – anything – which would support the AGW-hypothesis. Any evidence in support of the AGW-hypothesis is the Holy Grail of ‘climate science’. Indeed, this is why the ridiculous ‘hockey stick’ was uncritically adopted and proclaimed: it seemed to be the Holy Grail of climate alarmism, but it was merely a fabricated mirage.
A return of ‘climate science to being science requires great reduction to (for a time, stop?) the funding of ‘climate science’. The ‘carpet baggers’ would then leave the subject to those who genuinely want to increase knowledge and understanding of climate and its behaviour.
Richard
HenryP says:
November 28, 2012 at 9:45 am
Gail says
Very nice explanation. Bookmarked. (Oh and happy holidays a bit early)
Henry says
Thanks Gail. I appreciate.
Note that it does contain the chart
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/atmospheric_transmission.png?w=640
that you seem to dislike….
_______________________________
It is not that I dislike the chart, I use it too, because it does a good job of showing the transmission lines for water and CO2. What I do not like is it is used to fool people who are not aware of the other chart showing the relative energy strengths between the sun and earth shine.
richardscourtney says:
November 28, 2012 at 11:40 am
…Well, I’ve been 3 decades at this and I am still having the same old arguments….
____________________________
And that is because ‘The Science’ is a Red Herring, a diversion. It has always been a wealth redistribution scheme. That is using the government to move wealth from the working class to the politically favored. From what I can see the politicians do not give a darn whether they bring their countries economies to their knees or kill their people. And to make it even more stomach turning they and their suck-ups are all the while shouting about saving the world, the poor and ‘Social Justice’
A pox on all of them.
Henry@richard
You are right of course. We must stop giving grants in this science.
What worries me that people do not realize that we are at the bottom of the cooling curve at the moment and that a lot more cold is still to come. Harvests are already failing in many places due to the extra cold, This drives up the prices of food. I think people are not ready for what is to come even though we did come through it 90 years ago. But 90 years ago there were a lot less people to feed….
We should NOW start grand scale agricultural planting schemes at lower latitudes, eg. Africa, South America to replace the ones in the NH where it gets too cold.
Phil. says November 28, 2012 at 10:28 am …
========================================================
Phil., again, if you mean that something IS experimentally proven, then you should provide a valid link to the experiment. You did not.
I also told you on other threads, where we had a discussion like this one, that multiplying the same thesis did not constitute a proof. In other words, something complex may have some effect on something else, but what exactly causes this effect must be scientifically proven, this is obvious. I also remember me giving an illustration, where my finger “causes” a significant decrease in temperature in my house by pressing the air condition button.
So, you or anyone else can find many examples of changes in temperature, and back radiation is everywhere, BUT, if you want to attribute these changes in temperature to back radiation you need to prove the cause-effect relationship scientifically.
If you do not have any relevant links, you do not even have to admit to, but it would be nice if you could refrain from bringing irrelevant ones.
Gail Combs: Even the Russians are pointing out ‘problems’ with the global temperature data set.
Thanks for pointing me to that. I’m not sure if you’re aware that the IEA is a right-wing economic (not scientific) thinktank run by a former aide to Putin (not to mention, big surprise, a climate skeptic)? Of course, the Russian economy would be dealt quite a blow if the scientific truth of AGW resulted in a push towards renewable energy and away from the status quo (what with its vast reserves of coal and all). That’s just for background. Moving on, it seems to me this whole story has been shown up for what it is. The Had Office didn’t pick the stations, the WMO did. Are you suggesting they knew in advance which ones to pick? The stations were selected based on even geographic distributions. But more pertinently, it turns out that the HadCrut dataset is actually conservative. Rather than picking the stations where we’ve seen the highest warming trends (the Arctic) they’re using stations further south where the heating has been less severe. Consider the following:
“New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming. The study, carried out by ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) with input from the Met Office, performs a new calculation of global temperature rise. This independent analysis is based on information from a wide range of sources. It uses all available surface temperature measurements, together with data from sources such as satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys.The new analysis estimates the warming to be higher than that shown from HadCRUT’s more limited direct observations. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe over this particular period. This provides strong evidence that recent temperature change is at least as large as estimated by HadCRUT. This conclusion is in contrast to a recently released study by the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) think tank based in Moscow. The IEA’s output is consistent with HadCRUT as they both confirm the global warming signal in this region since 1950, which we see in many other variables and has been consistently attributed to human activities.”
(ref http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/12/21/205244/climategate-met-office-hadley-cru-temperature-record-russian-institute-of-economic-analysis/ )
Douglas Hollis says
we’ve seen the highest warming trends (the Arctic)
Henry says
You have the audacity to come back here again after not reacting (and most probably not reading) anything we have told you. You have not provided the balance sheet of each gas in the sky that I asked you about. We are not worried here about a few ppms CO2 in the air. It is poop in the sky for us (more plantfood)
If you had followed the thread, you would have been able to figure out that we are more worried about natural cooling.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
Just to prove to you that the whole idea of the “arctic” or “antarctic” warming more, due to human activities, I can tell you the results that I found for Anchorage, which also lies in the arctic. I have analysed the results of two weather stations there telling me it has cooled there by about as much as 1.5 degree K since 2000. Not frightening enough?
Here is a report from the “frustrated” tomato farmers there.
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NOBODY TELLING THESE POOR FARMERS THERE THAT IT WILL NOT GET ANY WARMER IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THERE ARE ONLY PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO CLEARLY HAVE VESTED INTERESTS IN KEEPING THE “WARMING” LIES ALIVE.
SO THESE FARMERS WILL KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE, BELIEVING IT WILL GET WARMER NEXT YEAR.
I am saying that this withholding of information of the global cooling is in fact a sin, and now, let it be known to everyone and all here that I think you are a sinner. Can I suggest you go back to see everything that I have said on this thread to try and redeem yourself?
btw. the reason why the Norwegian arctic is still warming, even though it is globally cooling, has different reasons, which I think I have also explained earlier on.
Otherwise follow the discussions here, especially on my analysis of the CET results.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
HenryP, really? Get off your high horse already. I will respond to posts here on my own good time, as and when I find the time. There are multiple mini-subjects under discussion here, as I’m sure you’re aware. So yes, I do have the audacity to post here, sorry that I responded to Gail first and not to yours. The fact that you would resort to calling me a sinner in need of redemption (by whom, you?) is the height of arrogance. But while I’m at it, let’s do talk about your post, why don’t we. Please don’t tell me you have the unique stance that the Arctic is somehow not heating up. I have heard idiotic and completely unfounded statements from the deniers’ camp before, but that one absolutely takes the cake. The temperature data for the Arctic (not an isolated case like Anchorage or whichever two weather stations you have studied) show an incontrovertible rise, way above the global average. Maybe this is why we’ve just seen a record melt in the Arctic? And why we’re seeing vast plumes of methane being spewed out in impressive fashion from underneath the Eastern Siberian seabed, about a hundred of which have been documented to be about 1km in diameter?
Here’s an excerpt from the NOAA (dd Nov 2011): “In 2011, annual near-surface air temperatures over much of the ocean were approximately +1.5 °C greater than the 1981-2010 baseline period and land temperatures were also above their baseline values. This continued a decade-long warm-bias of the Arctic relative to mid-latitudes.”
Re certain localised areas that have shown cooling: “Annual average temperature anomalies over the Arctic continued to be positive (warm) for October 2010 through September 2011 relative to temperatures in the 20th Century. Unusually strong north and south winds in fall and winter resulted in an Arctic-wide pattern of impacts, with warmer than normal temperatures of several °C over Baffin Bay/west Greenland and Bering Strait, and COOLER temperatures over NW Canada and northern Europe.”
Here’s a graph showing the air surface temperature anomalies from the Arctic relative to the 1961-1990 mean.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-atmos/tc-fig1.jpg
As you can see, the Arctic has indeed marginally cooled down since 2009 (and there are reasons for that), but over the longer term there has been nearly consistent warming. In the words of the NOAA, “the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900.” Future projections show only one reality – consistent warming, on a scale faster than anywhere else on the planet.
richardscourtney: “Growth of Antarctic ice.”
Actually, it’s only the sea ice that’s growing. Land ice, however, is busy retreating ever faster. This taken from NASA’s site:
“Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. ”
For a graphical representation of Antarctic Mass Variation since 2002, have a look here:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/416688main_20100108_Climate_1_th228x164.jpg
The expansion of sea ice (despite a warming Southern Ocean) is due to a complex interaction of air circulation patterns (in turn due to stratospheric ozone depletion), and changing ocean circulation (resulting in lower salinity water in the upper layers). Ref Zhang, 2007 and Thompson, 2002.
Douglas Hollis:
re your post at November 30, 2012 at 12:51 pm.
Your knit-picking about the Arctic has no relevance, The IPCC prediction was for accelerated warming (with associated ice loss) in BOTH polar regions. The Antarctic is warming and had record ice this year: i.e. the opposite of the IPCC prediction.
So, the prediction of accelerated polar warming has resulted in being plain wrong (whatever you care to say about the Arctic).
Indeed, no prediction based on the AGW-hypothesis has turned out to be correct; none, zilch, nada.
The AGW-hypothesis is a busted flush. Live with it.
Richard
Henry@Douglas
I have shown you (before) what the global trend is for the past decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
yet you keep on claiming that we are warming…over a longer term…
I told that it is not going to get any warmer because I have also analysed some 650000 daily data of maxima from 47 weather stations going back to 1974
the results are disturbing, to say the least.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
yet you keep on claiming that we are warming…
If you count back 90 years, we are in 1922.
here is the report of the arctic ice back then (from Norway/USA)
(do take the time to read it, it sounds so familiar)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Your quoted arctic graph (related to arctic mean temperature) actually corresponds well with the sine wave which we are in, if you trend up from around 1920. Before that, we really do not have a “global record” to speak of. They could hardly build cars back then, let alone calibrate a thermometer to better than 0.5 degrees C.
But I am ready for a challenge. Show me a calibration certificate of a thermometer from before 1920?
Future projections show only one reality – consistent COOLING, on a scale faster than anywhere else on the planet. By 1945 all that arctic ice reported lost in 1922 was back. By 2035 all that ice that is now “lost” will be also back. Mark my words. The bad winters will only start rolling in from now. You guys have no idea what is going to come.
You remind me of Nero. Can we have some fiddling music in the back round of Skeptical Science when we go and visit there?
Douglas Hollis:
I don’t know how you managed to answer my post at November 30, 2012 at 1:27 pm before I made it. Your answer at November 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm (i.e. 10 minutes before my post) shows you have a talent the IPCC needs: they have yet to make a successful forecast.
Anyway, your cherry-picking of NASA data is more of your usual irrelevance.
Please explain how your claim of “a warming Southern Ocean” equates with your admission of the “expansion of sea ice”.
There has NOT been accelerated polar warming at anything like the rates predicted in the IPCC FAR.
Richard
HenryP: “…we are more worried about natural cooling.”
Well, this is a new one for me. We’ve just come out of by far the warmest decade on record (it also featured the single largest jump in terms of decadal temperature anomalies). 2010 was the hottest year ever, this despite a “perfect storm” of low TSI, a strong La Nina and high aerosol emissions. Come 2012, we saw how, in the US, disaster areas were declared in 1,692 counties across 36 states after one of the most severe droughts in decades, hot on the heels of one of the most scorching and prolonged heat waves (which shattered 15,272 day and night-time records across the US). The combination of heat and drought induced a 45% corn crop failure across the US. And you’re worried about the cold?
Incidentally, a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has found that extreme heatwaves have increased worldwide by a factor of 50 over just the past 30 years. How do you square that with global cooling?
There are at least two additional points that deserve to be made. One is that the raw data of the primary temperature datasets (GISS, HadCRU, NCDC, RSS and UAH) all show continued warming (albeit at a smaller than anticipated rate) since 1998. This is especially apparent when removing the noise of ENSO’s, solar and volcanic activity, etc – the result is a near-linear progression of global temperatures. Have a look here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif
The second point is this – the IPCC 2007 report bears a compelling graph I think every person interested in the topic should see. Climate models were used to simulate the global temperature rise of the last century, taking into account a) all forcings, whether anthropogenic or natural, and b) natural forcings only. The results were overlayed onto the actual historical temperature data, and guess what? Those simulations that rely on natural forcings only (ie IGNORING the manmade forcings such as CO2 emissions, sulphate aerosols, tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes etc) show, from 1960 onwards, a DISTINCT divergence from the observed temperature data, towards the COOLING side. Curiously, the models that DO take the anthopogenic forcings into account indicate a nearly perfect match. What’s more, no combination of natural forcings has been found that could reproduce the historical global temperature record. See here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
Do you understand the implications of this?? It’s tantamount to dusting off a set of fingerprints at a crime scene. You could of course say, with a predictably dismissive air, that the numbers were ‘fudged’. I suppose it’s all part of the ‘conspiracy’. But whatever you do say, I’d appreciate some substance to your claims.
richardscourtney,
I have just pointed you to an actual graph showing accelerated land ice loss in the Antarctic. Please explain why you would call this cherrypicking or irrelevant. Thank you in advance.
Btw, I already explained it (high level) in my previous post. You’re welcome to do more reading on the subject here:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037524.shtml
Short excerpt: “The autumn increase in the Ross Sea sector is primarily a result of stronger cyclonic atmospheric flow over the Amundsen Sea. Model experiments suggest that the trend towards stronger cyclonic circulation is mainly a result of stratospheric ozone depletion, which has strengthened autumn wind speeds around the continent, deepening the Amundsen Sea Low through flow separation around the high coastal orography. However, statistics derived from a climate model control run suggest that the observed sea ice increase might still be within the range of natural climate variability.”
Douglas Hollis says:
November 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Hmmmn.
So the expansion of Antarctic sea ice to record levels between latitude 61 and 62 south reflects more sunlight and reduces evaporation from the southern ocean surface, thus yielding more cooling – an accelerated cooling force that you blame (somehow) on hotter waters around the Antarctic sea ice.
But the reduction of Arctic sea ice at the same time in mid-September at the same equinox increases evaporative cooling from the Arctic, and since the sun is less 8 degrees above the horizon at that time, does NOT result in any increased absorption of heat energy from the sun.
Net?
Less ice in the Arctic at the equinox at 82 north latitude? -> More global cooling.
More ice in the Antarctic at the equinox at 61 degrees latitude? Even more cooling! .
Douglas Hollis,
You are the captive of false propaganda. The truth is that Antarctic ice cover has been increasing.
Current Antarctic sea ice is greater than normal. You only believe that alarmist nonsense because you are emotionally ruled by the “carbon” scare.
Instead of being a sucker for alarmist lies, try to think objectively.
The entire catastrophic AGW scare is based on the beliefs of credulous fools. Don’t be one of them. Think for yourself.
Douglas Hollis says:….
__________________________________________
Doug, has it ever occurred to you that Canada, Russia and China are not on the CAGW bandwagon, not because they are “right wing” but because they are far enough north that a cooling climate is very dangerous for them and they know it?
If we are headed into a cooling cycle, whether it is a Bond Event or a Maunder Minimum it will drastically effect food production especially in these northern countries. Warming is a molehill compared to the devastation caused by cooling.
The cycles continue into the Holocene.
This is what we are seeing in the Arctic.
ChiefIO (E. M. Smith) has done a lot of looking into Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) oscillations/Bond events and what happen to human civilization. I hope like heck he is wrong but if he is not we are in for a really rough time especially if politicians succeed in shutting down coal without replacing it with (Thorium) Nuclear.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/8-2-kiloyear-event-and-you/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/8-2-kiloyear-event-and-you/
Douglas Hollis:
At November 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm you ask
Yes, I do: it is bollocks.
The agreement is fudged by adjusting the assumed ‘aerosol forcing’ to create the agreement.
You need to look at Figure 9.1. of the IPCC AR4 at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
It is titled
Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) well-mixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).
The big red blob in (c) and (f) is the so-called ‘hot spot’. It shows that the models predict that in the tropics the warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases “ is between 2 and 3 times the rate at the surface.
Only plot (c) for ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ and (f) for ‘the sum of all forcings’ show the ‘hot spot’. And the reason (f) shows it is because the effect of ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is so great that it overwhelms the effects of all the other forcings.
The modelled period is for 1890 to 1999 but the increase to ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is greatest near the end of the period. Hence, radiosonde data from weather balloons (from 1958) and MSU data from satellites (from 1979) should show the ‘hot spot’ more clearly than the plot if the model is correct. And please note the severity of the ‘hot spot’: it is a factor of between 2 and 3 times the warming at altitude as is observed at the surface. This should be very clearly observed in both the radiosonde and the satellite data. It is not seen in either data set.
In other words, either there has been no global warming from ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ or there has been no global warming of the kind modeled and reported by the IPCC AR4.
That effectively destroys all projections of global warming according to the models. The models do not project warming of the past so they can’t project warming of the future.
Richard
Did you all notice the “unusual” cold weather sweeping Russia. I don’t think the world is prepared for what is coming in the next ten years. Anyway I did my best.
Letter to Time Magazine (again)
Bryan Walsh continues to stir false alarm, this time claiming that “as the globe continues to warm”,
… “there is no way just how much man-made climate change might have amplified Sandy”.
Time Magazine (Dec. 3 2012)
Can I just point out again to him and your readers that there has not been any global warming in over 15 years now?
In fact, the trend over the past 10 years has been negative, i.e. global cooling:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
According to my own analysis of 47 weather stations, this global cooling will continue:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
and indeed it is this global cooling that is generally causing more rain, more snow and cooler weather, globally, on average.
(Remember also that when water vapor in the atmosphere cools more, you get more clouds and more precipitation, at certain places).
As the farmers in Anchorage have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
the cooling is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests.
And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. The cooling will last until 2030-2040. See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
The sad story is, that as we enter 2013, and where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling,
for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!),
and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!),
the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists,
e.g. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.
Henry: “Can I just point out again to him and your readers that there has not been any global warming in over 15 years now? In fact, the trend over the past 10 years has been negative, i.e. global cooling…”
Nice fantasy you’re living in. Take the average global temperature measurements for the years 1990-1999, then compare that to those for 2000-2009. What do you find? A negative trend? I think not. As has been conceded before on this thread, the temperatures have not started cooling, but instead the rate of warming has been less than expected. There’s a difference, and I’ll call you on your dishonesty, if no one else will.
1998 is a great starting point for denialists, a real anomaly having seen the most potent El Nino of the century. When you filter out the effect hereof, you’ll see that 5-6 of the following years got as hot as 1998 or even hotter, without El Nino’s of nearly the same potency to amplify it. Interesting, no?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif
Now there were two El Nino’s of moderate strength (2002 and 2009) and three weak ones (2004 and 2006). But nothing nearly like 1998. We’ve also had La Nina’s, and some really strong ones too…curiously, though, each successive La Nina year has seen higher global temperatures. For a handy visual of the ENSO intensities since 1950, see here:
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Clearly it’s premature to speculate about a ‘cooling’ Earth. But by all means, continue to grab onto those straws. All the scientists are wrong, it’s all a conspiracy, they fudged the numbers, etc. History, I believe, will judge the contrarians harshly.
Douglas Hollis says
Nice fantasy you’re living in. Take the average global temperature measurements for the years 1990-1999, then compare that to those for 2000-2009. What do you find? A negative trend? I think not. As has been conceded before on this thread, the temperatures have not started cooling, but instead the rate of warming has been less than expected. There’s a difference, and I’ll call you on your dishonesty, if no one else will.
Henry says
the minimum amount of years to compare should include at least one completed solar cycle, i.e. ca. 12 years.
But I have done all that, as I was initially more interested in the ratio between maxima, means and minima. This proved to me that warming in the past was natural. (maxima pushing up means, and not minima pushing up means)
To prove my honesty, if you are interested, I can provide you with my tables as reported here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/
(all results of 47 weather stations analysed)
to quote from the above report:
We note from my 3 tables below that Maxima, Means and Minima have all turned negative (from warming to cooling) between 12 and 22 years ago. The change in signal is best observed in that of the Maxima where we can see a gradual decline of the maximum temperatures from +0.036 degrees C per annum (over the last 38 years) to -0.016 (when taken over the last 12 years).
If we plot the global measurements for the change in Maxima, Means and Minima against the relevant time periods, it can be shown that the best fit for each of the curves is given by a polynominal of the 2nd order (parabolic fit).
Namely, for maxima it is
y= -0.00006 X2+ 0.00480X -0.06393
r²= 0.997
Update
I have added a few more stations, (including Washington DC) which ramped up my r²= 0.998
The speed of warming/cooling for maxima now is 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).
If you understand anything at all of statistics you would not call me dishonest.
RSS and Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 all show a negative trend from 2002, a fall of ca. 0.1 degree C. My own dataset shows we fell almost 0.2 degrees C since 2000.
Hopefully the polynomial quoted above, even though it has unbelievable high correlation, is still incorrect. Let us hope it is rather this sine wave:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
which seems very likely, if I look at the results from Anchorage ( shown a bit below the global sine wave in blog quoted above).
We are cooling. And my tables say the speed of this cooling is at its highest rate, just about now. We will like drop now by as much as maxima are dropping because earth’s energy stores are depleted now. We changed sign in 1995. We will drop 8 x 0.035 = ca. 0.3 degrees C globally by 2020. Mark my words.
The world is not ready for it, because there are still too many people like you.