Dear WMO:
Thanks for furnishing the lovely graph of global temperature anomalies in your WMO Statement on Status of the Global Climate in 2012. I’ve reproduced it here.
The caption for it reads:
Figure 4. January–December global land and ocean surface temperature anomalies (relative to 1961–1990) for the period 1950–2012; years that started with a moderate or strong La Niña already in place are shown in blue, years that started with a moderate or strong El Niño already in place are shown in red; other years are shown in grey.
If you’re not aware, persons see the following three periods in that graph.
Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.
The graph that you’ve provided as part of your press release is worse. The funky blue shading at the bottom of the 2012 bar will make persons wonder what you’re trying to show with it. One thing is for sure: it draws the eye down. Odd that you should do that when you’re struggling to show global warming.
A question: The WMO recommends that the base years used for anomalies be updated every 10 years. Many organizations, such as NOAA, comply with that recommendation. They now use 1981 to 2010 as the base years for anomalies for many of their datasets. Is there any reason you continue to use 1961-1990, other than to make the temperature anomaly map look warmer? Also, the non-linear color-coded scaling of the contour intervals is very awkward.
Last, earlier this year I prepared an illustrated essay that discusses global warming. It’s titled “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge”. The preview is here [4MB] and the full essay is here [42MB]. It’s easy to read and understand. I thought you might be interested in a copy.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
After you observe a posters behavior for a while and determine that they are a troll ……. just don’t respond to them anymore. Success for a troll is derailing the thread and just bickering with anyone who is on the thread and who is up for it at the moment.
For a troll, distracting from the thread is success, totally hijacking it is ultimate victory.
This thread is a perfect example.
To say it another way, always give people the benefit of the doubt, but just DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!!!
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Bob Tisdale, simply accept that you screwed up with that sentence! Who cares, errors happen, accept it, everyone does it.”
I didn’t make a mistake. I wrote exactly what I meant to write, and as long as you keep pulling that phrase out of context, you’ll keep making a fool of yourself.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “you mean I was making fun of people calling me troll, quite possibly :D”
Let me quote what you wrote that shows how enthusiastic you were about being called a troll. You wrote, “Thanks for the compliment by the way…” and “Thanks again!” in response to my calling you a troll. You can’t spin what’s obvious.
Adios!
Hey a greenshirt.
Thank you, Mr. Tisdale, for so generously sharing your hours and months and YEARS of work with us. Only a master of a subject can teach it well. This non-science major learned a lot. What a great HEART you have to persevere so steadily and continue to the engage the enemies of truth in spite of their ignorantly vacuous and, at times, willfully vicious twisting of your arguments.
[BTW nice ripostes to Mr. or Ms. Troll above, but ignoring them is, indeed, what they hate the most.]
You are a hero, O Robert the Lionhearted!
@ur momisugly Codetech — PRECISELY! Well put. That ol’ “cc:” line is a wonderful communication device….. . “Uh oh, looks like he cc’d all those people who know what the truth is…. ” [sound like a balloon rapidly losing air — NICE ONE, aetheressa, heh, heh].
Thanks, Bob. Whenever I see a temperature series I look back from the end and find find long a stasis period it shows, then I go to around 1975 to see how warming it shows before stasis.
Then I look further back to see the cooling period before the warming, then I match the whole thing to ENSO activity.
Reich.Eschhaus says:
May 3, 2013 at 5:58 pm
===
At a slow burn.
You only talk about yourself, enlighten us.
Sorry, I meant to write “I look back from the end and find how long a stasis period it shows”.
And “then I go to around 1975 to see how much warming it shows before stasis”.
Thanks Bob, another fine post.
I love it when the “authority” are caught breaking their own rules, shows them for what they are.
Seems you have attracted the passions of either a longwinded pedant or a paid by the word troll, after reading its comments through I must confess I lean toward; troll droppings scroll on by; as there has been an absence of content in said trolls offering to date.
@dbstealey
“Reich is a real complainer, isn’t he?”
Reich.Eschhaus says: May 3, 2013 at 4:27
pmIf, after several rounds of negotiations, we could agree on the term “selective complainer” then I agree!
——————————
Serial complainer ! Do you have any good reason why anybody should take any notice of your banal whine ? Suggest that you book in for an optirectomy … rather sooner than later.
No moderation is a disaster.
Jesse G. says:
May 3, 2013 at 9:36 pm
No moderation is a disaster.
==============
But your ability to proclaim it, isn’t ?
Why is WMO organized under UN and who did it and what are the motives?
Has any else noticed while looking at the graph that the range of year to year differences has become considerably smaller over the last 10 years? To my eye there is high year to year variability up to 1987, moderate from then to 2002 and then low from then to now. I have no idea what this means; I wonder if anyone else had any thoughts. Maybe it means a warmer world is more stable world.
More El Niño with more punch. El Chicon and Pinatuba?
Let me get this straight … the WMO doesn’t follow the WMO’s recommendation for displaying global temperature anomaly data? Whoda thunk?
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/fourier-analysis-reveals-six-natural-cycles-no-man-made-effect-predicts-cooling/
?
I think most people would extend the warming period a few years, to ca 2001?
Bruckner8 says:
May 3, 2013 at 4:07 pm
I see “No Warming” then “Warming” then “No Warming But Still Freakin Hot”
and I’m no warmist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excellent point. All these “natural fluctuations” that never seem to “fluctuate” down.
Well, if a “pause” is all you’ve got…it’s all you’ve got. JP
Bob,
Have you done longterm analysis that could show whether or not LaNina/ElNino effects “zero out” over time? In other words, are ENSO effects a radiative forcing, or are they simply a climate oscillation? JP
WordPress got me again. Atarsinc=John Parsons
John Parsons aka atarsinc:
At May 4, 2013 at 12:05 am you say
For the first time on WUWT, you make a good point.
The “pause” is all the warmunists have got. And they said it was impossible.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the “pause” could not happen because of “committed warming” which is an inherent part of the AGW-hypothesis as emulated by climate models.
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there
In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
Richard
The graph has the politically-correct expanded vertical scale to make it look
more scary. Close the scale down to 1 degree/per vertical unit and it looks
totally trivial. One tenth of a degree as the vertical scale for a planetary
measurement is just too precious given all the fudge factors used to arrive
at the numbers.
Does the planet even care for such tiny units?
Betablocker,
why don’t you ignore the dip of Pinatubo?
el chichon?
and maybe the PDO?
or …..
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm
OK. I understand that and what it indicates.
If you cannot afford the new spectacles you require then there are some good charities willing to help.
_____________________
Is that a scientific argument?
Kasuh:
re your question to me at May 4, 2013 at 2:15 am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/open-letter-to-the-world-meteorological-organization-wmo/#comment-1296897
Yes, it is a completely scientific argument.
Empiricism is the foundation of science. An observation is made and a conclusion is drawn from it. Also, good report suggests future work.
I assumed the datum (i.e. what you claimed you saw) was correct. Then I concluded from the datum that your perception was distorted by faulty sight. And on that basis I recommended how you could obtain funds for the needed optical correction.
Of course, as in any scientific assessment, the datum and/or the conclusion may be an error and, in that case, the suggested ‘future work’ may be inappropriate.
Both the datum and the conclusion drawn from it are open to challenge (such is all science). For example, you may not have been truthful in what you said you saw, and if you were truthful then the distortion may have been a result of delusional tendencies. The suggested “future work” would not be the most appropriate in either of these cases.
Richard