I have to chuckle at the battle going on with stick graphs this weekend. Choose your weapon, flat or vertical blade, real data, or proxy data with an arbitrary extension added by the special effects department.
First, Christoper Booker’s flat bladed tool, made of real data from the UK Met office:
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9919121/Look-at-the-graph-to-see-the-evidence-of-global-warming.html
Next we have Joe Romm’s vertical bladed tool, made from proxy data, with the “natural extension to the Marcott et al. graph” (according to Michael Tobis at planet 3.0) added, pulled out of some orifice and spliced on.
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recent-warming-is-amazing-and-atypical-and-poised-to-destroy-stable-climate-that-made-civilization-possible/
Which one would you rather have, young Jedi?
Vince Wilkinson,
“2) The choice of axes on the graph as well for such a short period would make even a large temperature increase look flat.”
Define large.
30 years gives you one single climatic data point. A second 30 year period is required just to give you two data points in which you can now plot a trend, with of course the caveat that you still only have two data points. We have about 33 years of high quality unbiased satellite data. This gives us one climatic data point, with 27 years to go before we get our second.
Greg Goodman says:
March 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm
… I politely asked three times. The world never even got to see the question since Tammy simply binned my posts and refused to answer.”
Grant Foster binned two of my comments on his hack job “OhPleeze” a while back too. He mocked two of Goodridge’s statements about trends, but in his post he failed to even plot a trendline on his graphs. I politely asked him why he didn’t see fit to even plot a trendline, since Goodridge’s two statements were about trends. Like you said, his ‘Open Mind’ got in the way of the fact that his post was not factually correct. His actions show that he isn’t interested in facts or truth, but advancing an agenda. Also shows the sad state of climate science, since he is a publishing climate scientist & is so openly hostile to facts & truth that he censors it from seeing the light of day.
Since neither represent anything physically meaningful (i.e. there is no global temperature), I’ll ignore them both.
Joe Romm, I’ll see your 7-11F rise by 2100 (Oh, and thanks for mixing F and C, chart and your text) and raise you 8-16C 24-26 times between this interglacial and the last one back.
But not in a century, I also raise you in terms of a few years to mere decades.
There were 24-26 Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations between this interglacial, the Holocene, the interglacial in which all of human civilization has occurred, and the last one, the Eemian. D-O oscillations average 1,500 years, and have the same characteristic sawtooth temperature shape that the major ice-age/interglacials do, a sudden, dramatic, reliable, and seemingly unavoidable rise of between 8-10C on average, taking from only a few years to mere decades then a shaky period of warmth (less than interglacial warmth), followed by a steep descent back into ice age conditions. Each D-O oscillation is slightly colder than the previous one through about seven oscillations; then there is an especially long, cold interval, followed by an especially large, abrupt warming up to 16C. During the latter parts of the especially cold intervals, armadas of icebergs are rafted across the North Atlantic (Heinrich events) their passage recorded reliably by the deep ocean sediment cores which capture the telltale signature of these events in dropstones and detritus melted out of them. We know with absolute certainty that these events happen, with evidence of D-O oscillations extending back some 680 million years. We do not know yet precisely what causes them. What we do know is that the past 6 interglacials (dating back to the Mid Pleistocene Transition) have lasted roughly half of a precessional cycle, or 11,500 years, which just happens to be the current age of the Holocene. What we know is that N65 latitude insolation values are very close now to what they were at the close of the Eemian, and already below the close of the Holsteinian (MIS-11).
But.!!!!!!!!! But !!!!!!!!!
“In short, thanks primarily to carbon pollution, the temperature is changing 50 times faster than it did during the time modern civilization and agriculture developed, a time when humans figured out where the climate conditions — and rivers and sea levels — were most suited for living and farming.”
So…… We, meaning us, have already created a post-industrial thermal pulse on the order of 8C, according to Marcott et al 2013, to which you opine:
“We are headed for 7 to 11°F warming this century on our current emissions path — increasing the rate of change 5-fold yet again.”
Uh, math may just not be your thing,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/
just sayin………….
And call
Don’t forget Vince, that in the 1970s scientists were predicting a coming ice age.
Actually, not. Some did. others didnt. “the 1970’s scientists” is not what I would call a very cogent claim. Its a sweeping generalization.
“The whole scare about ‘Global Warming’ which followed in the 80s and 90s was based on just a few years of warming. ”
Actually not. The realization that c02 would cause warming was first postulated in the 1800s before any global temperature series was developed. Second, the “scare” has never been based on the observed warming, the scare is based on the predicted warming given known physics. Third, in the late 80s and early 90s we already had evidence of warming that went back hundreds of years.
“Did you insist that 30 years was “a mathematical essential” then? ”
The necessity of 30 years or more of warming is not dependent on anyones opinion regardless of whether that opinion is consistent or not ( fallacy of hypocrisy ) The 30 years “requirement” is a function of the data. Nothing more. Nothing less.
“But now the warming has stopped for the last 16 years and so 30 years suddenly becomes the minimum acceptable period?”
The warming has not stopped. People who are estimating linear trends in temperature time series need to unfool themselves.
=== Pamela Gray says: March 10, 2013 at 10:40 am I dug and I dug and I dug, like a cat in kitty litter, looking for that graph’s source. Yep. Grey literature. Is that like the same thing as grey water?=== Just add some yeast to the grey water. Helps the septic system to burp. The literature on this is rather murky.
This too, gets a little murky.
As in someone has not rebooted to PDT from PST…….
Nevertheless, assuming this is the case for WUWT and not aware of the time-change status of ThinkProgress, it took from 6:47 PDT to 7:16 PDT, or about 1.5 hours for my post above to post on WUWT.
As of this moment, we, meaning a colleague of mine and I, are standing at nearly 8 hours for a collaborative post to clear Joe’s ThinkProgress website. Which, hasn’t happened, yet……
Which means that if you are indeed a true progressive, you might be 5 times (and counting) faster (meaning slower) than a knuckle-draggin’ skeptical website!
Which, in case you are interested, defines (de minima) the Joe Romm progression of thought.
The Theory of Inverse Reality in real time………..
[Odd. Usually, moderation time is much less than that. Mod]
clipe says:
March 10, 2013 at 2:47 pm
Don’t know what to think about this headline
Rainforests may be more resilient than feared: study
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rainforests-may-be-more-resilient-than-feared-study-20130311-2fuss.html
===
So even the good news is “worse than we feared”. OMG!
William McClenney says:
March 10, 2013 at 6:30 pm
[Odd. Usually, moderation time is much less than that. Mod]
Agreed.
Steven Mosher says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm
CO2 does not cause warming, The 1970’s anthropogenic cooling scam has been documented, the same scientists who were involved in promoting it are now promoting this warming nonsense. The over all impression I’m getting is that climate science is used as political advocacy.
@William Howard McClenney
I’m having problems here too. comments are disappearing for hours, I don’t think it’s WUWT or the mods. there maybe updates taking place somewhere.
Anthony might want to get this sluyts chap to write a guest post. Impressivwe work!
Steven Mosher;
Second, the “scare” has never been based on the observed warming, the scare is based on the predicted warming given known physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bull. The known physics relates to the direct effect of CO2 increases. The scare is due to the assumption of large positive feedback from water vapour which isn’t known physics at all and which data increasingly suggests is an ill founded assumption.
Yes Steven, but the ones who predicted the ice age got the headlines
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Just the same today, some scientists say CO2 will lead to catastrophe, some say not. The ones that say it will get the headlines (and funding).
The global warming scare took root because we had a fraction of a degree warming recovering from the falling temperatures from 1940 to 1970. Without that warming there would have been no scare. It is true that the effect of CO2 was known in the 19th Century, but that is not the issue – there was no scare band-wagon at that time. In fact Arch-Warmist Stephen Schneider said, during his Global Cooling period:
“Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Steven, you say “The 30 years “requirement” is a function of the data”. What requirement is that? Is it something derived from the data? As we both know, 30 years is an arbitrary span of time. A bit too short for my preference; something like one or two centuries is probably necessary to establish whether climate is really changing beyond the level of natural fluctuation.
The warming has stopped. In fact the trend for this century is cooling. Short time span I know, but that’s a requirement of the data (not enough of it this century).
Sparks says:
March 10, 2013 at 6:47 pm
@William Howard McClenney
I’m having problems here too. comments are disappearing for hours, I don’t think it’s WUWT or the mods. there maybe updates taking place somewhere.
I think you are correct.
Steven Mosher says: March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm
Don’t forget Vince, that in the 1970s scientists were predicting a coming ice age.
Actually, not. Some did. others didn’t.
97% did.
😉
Steven Mosher says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm
“The warming has not stopped. People who are estimating linear trends in temperature time series need to unfool themselves.”
=====================
Are windmills the answer ?
“Choose your weapon, flat or vertical blade, real data, or proxy data with an arbitrary extension added by the special effects department.”
========================================================
My favorite one is (surprise!) a real thermometer. Not a global one for measuring “earth global temperature”, no, it is a real thermometer for measuring the alleged “back/trapped radiation effect” also known as “greenhouse effect”. A real one is much better than the global one, because the global one must be huge, besides, you do not know where to stick it. A real one is just fine and works perfectly, all the necessary details here: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html.
clipe says:
March 10, 2013 at 2:47 pm
Don’t know what to think about this headline
Rainforests may be more resilient than feared: study
==============================
I do.
Meaningless; just more model macramé…
Steven Mosher says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm
I hope you’re right, Steven. I’d hate to hear your screaming once the temperatures drop off into the next Ice Age.
Personally, I don’t think we’re going to avoid the next one, or even delay it much. So while the earth is warm and warming, I defy your foolish alarmism with celebration.
Viva la CO2!
Oh no. Now Michael Mann is making a fool of himself by sharing Joe Romm’s “scythe” on Facebook.
“Steven Mosher says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm”
Actually yes they were, more were than not. It was all over the media, many documentaries about it, even David Attenborough was a “believer” then.
Anthony Don’t be concerned about the deceptive attempt by Joe Romm to “Frame the debate” against CO2 by using terms such as “Carbon Pollution” or “Dirty Carbon” to rally Joe Public to the cause and unfairly convict CO2 as the “evil planet destroying component”. Ordinary citizens are smarter than the Joe Romm’s and SKS think. Here in Australia Julia Gillard has been very deliberately using both terms with her usual droning emphasis to reinforce her message that the Carbon Tax is necessary to “Fix Climate Change” and all it has done is turn off a generation of voters who are sick of the deception, sick of being treated as dummies, and just praying that she will still be the Labor leader so they can give her a very special Personal message at the polls in September. The words are toxic here and her endless repitition of an obvious political lie has been one of the issues that cause voters to “turn off from climate” and turn off Toxic Julia. I suggest that Joe Romm has the same effect on those who hold science dear to their heart and for Joe Public they have really had enough, they want to be heard too..
Interesting -comment section keeps expanding – I’ll repeat my post, Mods please delete my last.
Anthony Don’t be concerned about the deceptive attempt by Joe Romm to “Frame the debate” against CO2 by using terms such as “Carbon Pollution” or “Dirty Carbon” to rally Joe Public to the cause and unfairly convict CO2 as the “evil planet destroying component”. Ordinary citizens are smarter than the Joe Romm’s and SKS think.
Here in Australia Julia Gillard has been very deliberately using both terms with her usual droning emphasis to reinforce her message that the Carbon Tax is necessary to “Fix Climate Change” and all it has done is turn off a generation of voters who are sick of the deception, sick of being treated as dummies, and just praying that she will still be the Labor leader so they can give her a very special Personal message at the polls in September.
The words are toxic here and her endless repetition of an obvious political lie has been one of the issues that cause voters to “turn off from climate” and turn off Toxic Julia.
I suggest that Joe Romm has the same effect on those who hold science dear to their heart and for Joe Public they have really had enough, they want to be heard too..