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
atarsinc:
re your post to me at May 4, 2013 at 4:22 pm.
In my post to which you refer and I here link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/open-letter-to-the-world-meteorological-organization-wmo/#comment-1297241
I made no snide remarks and I called no names.
I told an anonymous troll to clear off.
I don’t like anonymous trolls because they disrupt threads. You may have noticed.
Richard
To be helpful, this is what GISTEMP gives for 2012 relative to the baseline of 1981-2010.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2012&year2=2012&base1=1981&base2=2010&radius=1200&pol=reg
The center of that baseline period was 1995, 17 years ago. So this shows 2012 0.16 degrees warmer than the climate mean taken over the last 30 years centered on 17 years ago. It seems warming is still going on when you look at it this way because 2012 is raising the moving 30-year average, and not by a little.
Wow! So many comments! Can’t answer them all! Anyone who considers me a ‘troll’ should not respond (don’t feed the troll and all that) and I would be possibly spared some silly reactions.
“You haven’t made any authoritative statements. Why would you expect valid points when you offer none.”
authoritative statements? By who?
“Here’s the paragraph in its entirety.
“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.”\\
It is a stupid thing to say. Even within your context it doesn’t sound that you are giving other views any thought.
Btw, I think you are trolling above the line!
@ur momisuglydbstealey
I think they are all wrong! (irony can be kept by those who find it)
@ur momisugly Bob
“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.”
How else should one respond to accusations of being a troll, enlighten me!
@ur momisuglyStreetcred
I don’t know! Why are people reacting to me? Might I have a point?
@ur momisugly k scott denison
“Why? Because Mr. Tisdale wanted to share his opinion with both the WMO and the readers of his blog and WUWT. It’s called “free speech”.”
sure! he can do that and he does. I employ my free speech by saying he is wasting his time!
@ur momisuglyalex
“Full support, Reich!”
Thanks very much!
@ur momisugly Albert
“Oh Dear!, here’s my escalator, the one that John Cook removed from Scomical Science within one minute of it being posted, is it just possible you can see what Cook was so afraid of?”
Bob sees 2 stagnation periods and one rising period. I said half right! Figure it out!
richardscourtney says, “There has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets.”
So according to richardscourtney the claim that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years may not be factual. It may just not be discernible at 95% confidence. Good to see richardscourtney dispel the myth of no global warming.
Let’s see…
Reich.Eschhaus:
“Here’s the paragraph in its entirety.
“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.”\\
It is a stupid thing to say. Even within your context it doesn’t sound that you are giving other views any thought.”
Bob said “Just thought you’d be interested”. He did not say “You should be interested. He did not say “You MUST be interested”. Maybe they were interested. Maybe they were not. Unless you are the official spokesperson of the WMO, stop wasting your time presuming that they need you to defend or represent them to the big, bad, skeptics.
Bob then said “That’s what I see” (indicating HIS point of view) “and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph”. The word “suspect” indicates an intuitive guess, and “many other persons” does not indicate “all” or “every other person” which “many other persons” just might think SOUNDS an awful lot like his OPINION gives plenty of room for “other views”. (For someone whose knickers seemed to knot immediately upon your irrational determination that Bob was being arrogant and assumptive….you might want to consider toning down the arrogance and ass…umptiveness just a tad yourself)
As far as context goes, looking at the chart itself, which was the point upon which Mr. Tisdale’s article revolved, it is completely accurate to state that according to that visual representation, “many other persons” will more than likely “see and take away from the report 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.”
” (irony can be kept by those who find it)”
I find it hilariously ironic that you seem oblivious to the fact that this blog and the reactions you get here JUST MIGHT be indications that “many other persons” see it as a huge waste of YOUR time attempting to declare that Bob Tisdale is using HIS free speech and time in a wasteful manner. Just zips right over your head doesn’t it?
Solomon Green says:
May 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm
I used to think that 1998 was the warmest year to date but the WMO graph shows that it has been beaten twice. Is this generally accepted or has the raw data been “homogenised” to downgrade 1998?
It depends on which data set is used. 1998 is the hottest on the two satellite sets, RSS and UAH, as well as Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2. However 2010 is warmest on GISS and Hadcrut4.
sceptical says:
May 4, 2013 at 8:43 pm
So according to richardscourtney the claim that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years may not be factual. It may just not be discernible at 95% confidence.
On three data sets, there is no warming at all for 16 years or more. As a matter of fact, there is cooling for the last half of the 16 years, although the cooling is not statistically significant. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/to:2004/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004/trend
@ur momisugly richardscourtney May 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm
you are not really answering my questions;
sceptical:
Your daft post at May 4, 2013 at 8:43 pm says in total
What!?
I made a factual statement and I stated the confidence with which we know that fact.
That fact is that there has been NO global warming for at least 16 years.
On the basis of that you asert I have dispelled the myth of no global warming.
Clearly,
You are an anonymous troll trying to spread disinformation
or
you are insane
or
you are an insane, anonymous troll trying to spread disinformation.
Richard
maarten:
Your post at May 4, 2013 at 10:49 pm says in total
Say what!?
My post at May 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm quoted your “questions” verbatim then gave a complete answer with explanation of that answer.
This is a link to my post which you egregiously pretend I was evasive
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/open-letter-to-the-world-meteorological-organization-wmo/#comment-1297348
Anybody wanting to see the truth of the matter can click the link and jump to my post.
I object to your untrue and offensive trolling.
Richard
Jim D:
Your post at May 4, 2013 at 4:48 pm is ridiculous.
It is not “helpful”: it is plain daft.
Your post says in total
1.
Discernible global warming stopped 23 years ago according to RSS and at least16 years ago according to all data sets.
2.
Nobody disputes that global warming was happening before 23 years ago.
3.
You are taking average values for a 30 year period centered on 17 years ago.
4.
The early part of that 30 year period was warming and all you are doing is showing that warming existed early in the period.
Similarly, according to your method, and using 14-day averaging, the SS Grauniad is now moving in the Atlantic because it sailed from New York 14 days ago then stopped in Southampton a week ago where it has stayed since.
Richard
Richard M says: “Bob, after chastising me for something I never said…”
Richard, you presented the PDO as if it was the cause of the cooling since the mid-2000s. Also, I wasn’t chastising. I was attempting to clarify the PDO—what it is and what it isn’t.
Richard M says: “Look closely at what you said. First you said there is “no mechanism” and then you said ‘The PDO is an after effect of ENSO …’. That is, you specified a mechanism.”
That’s right. The mechanism is ENSO, not the PDO, so why not include ENSO in your comments, instead of the PDO? Example: El Niño dominant period versus La Niña dominant.
Richard M says: “Since the reason for the changes in ENSO is, as yet, unknown…”
And because the PDO is in part an aftereffect of ENSO, that would mean the reason for the changes in the PDO is also unknown.
Richard M says: “…I will continue to use the PDO as a general index for conditions in the Pacific that lead to changes in global temperatures…”
And you’ll likely find comments trailing yours that are similar to what I wrote on this thread. Keep in mind, Richard, I’m also commenting for those reading the thread who might misinterpret the PDO based on your comment.
Regards
atarsinc says: “I followed the links you provided and found an interesting post entitled ‘Is there a Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing?’”
What I presented in that April 2008 post was one of the things that prompted my ENSO research. I misused the term forcing way back then. ENSO is a natural process, not a forcing.
atarsinc says: “Bob, could you answer the question you posed, ‘Is there a Cumulative ENSO Climate Forcing?’”
Since forcing is incorrect in my title question, I’ll rephrase it: Does ENSO cause long-term variations in global temperature? The answer is yes.
Regards
My thanks Werner Brozek for the info
richardscourtney, as you clearly demonstrated it is incorrect to claim no global warming over the last 16 years. The most that can be said is no discernible warming with other qualifiers. It may have warmed over the last 16 years.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney May 5, 2013 at 2:52 am
“Say what!?
My post at May 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm quoted your “questions” verbatim then gave a complete answer with explanation of that answer.
This is a link to my post which you egregiously pretend I was evasive
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/open-letter-to-the-world-meteorological-organization-wmo/#comment-1297348
Anybody wanting to see the truth of the matter can click the link and jump to my post.”
so far your words:
————————————————————————–
people should do it, click to your link and also read my questions that are just above your posting;
I hold you to answer answer, because YOU did not agree with my earlier statement that the WMO-graph expresses that the world is warming;
why warming? because all hottest 15 years are in the two last decennia, and sea ice is melting at an unprecedented rate; (see richardscourtney May 4, 2013 at 7:17 am)
you should answer, because in my opinion YOU (and Tisdale) are misleading the people when saying ‘ no warming’ while following to your own proposed use of language it should be ‘no warming / no cooling’, which is totally different of course;
even if the car is not accelarating nor decelarating it still can be speeding!
while the climate is not warming / not cooling, it still can….(continuously be forced… maybe?)
even a child can see that we live in a warming world, and that Tisdales remark ‘no warming’ is incorrect, if compared for instance with a 1980 – 2010 base period;
maarten
each year a child thinks he’s as tall as he will ever be, it takes an adult to understand that growth eventually ceases, see May 4, 2013 at 2:13 pm above
it never ceases to amaze me how simplistic true believer warmists are
When I’m looking at a graphic like this one, doing so in a thoroughly casual manner, I’m just looking at the apparent trace of the bars without a whole lot of thinking as to what the individual differences between one bar or another might actually mean. Let’s call this approach “impressionistic interpretation.”
Let’s recognize that Bob Tisdale has done a lot of excellent work, and I think that his contributions to climate science have as much value, if not more value, than anything the doctrinaire climate scientists have produced.
But regardless of how finely we attempt to interpret the trace of temperature over the last 150 years of the instrumental record, the earth has been generally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, with localized accelerations and plateaus along the way,
Most probably, the earth will continue to warm in this same pattern until at some point in the future, the general warming trend we have experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age will stop, and then temperatures will head generally in the other direction — also with localized accelerations and plateaus along the way.
This has happened any number of times in the earth’s history, and will likely occur again.
When viewed from that kind of perspective, factors such as rising CO2 levels, the effects of Pinatubo, el chichon, the PDO, ENSO, etc. etc. etc. — whatever else anybody wants to toss in there — will just be localized influences that may or may not have any lasting impact on the generally rising or generally falling temperature trend, whatever trend it happens to be this century.
sceptical and maarten:
I am answering both your posts at May 5, 2013 at 5:16 and May 5, 2013 at 5:28 am, respectively.
I do this because I don’t want onlookers to think I could not answer but I cannot be bothered to put much effort into answering such unmitigated bollocks.
sceptical,
Few statements can be made with absolute certainty.
An example of such a rare absolute certainty is the statement that you are an egregious, anonymous troll whose only purpose in posting is to disrupt the thread.
However, such absolute certainties are very, very rarely obtainable.
For example, the statement saying,
“The Moon is not made of green trees”
is not an absolute certainty because it may be made of green cheese but coated in rock.
However, all the evidence we have is that the Moon is not made of green cheese but is made of rock.
All the evidence we have is that global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.
And the certainty on that is as good as the evidence for global warming prior to the global warming having stopped.
GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED. LIVE WITH IT.
maarten,
I take extreme umbrage at your outrageous, offensive and insulting statement that says
How dare you!?
My “language” is that of science and it is so carefully stated that the the other troll who posts as ‘sceptical’ is trying to claim it can be understood to be the opposite of what it says.
I gave a full reply to you saying
That is the language of science. In plain language it means
GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED. LIVE WITH IT.
Richard
Global warming has continued. Bob’s chart above makes this clear. His “no warming” period can be further divided into 3 sections, the latest of which from 2008 on clearly shows warming.
Friends:
The egregious troll posting as sceptical writes at May 5, 2013 at 10:02 am saying
Actually, GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED AT LEAST 16 YEARS AGO.
However, using the same kind of nonsense used by the troll I can outdo him/her/them/it.
Global warming is occurring at an amazing pace.
The globe warmed 1deg.C over the past month. This is more than the total rise of 0.8 deg.C since 1950 shown in “Bob’s chart”.
Furthermore, the globe will warm by another 1 deg.C over the next two months.
Unfortunately we cannot look forward to the great benefits of 2deg.C of global warming because global cooling will set in and global temperature will plummet by nearly 4 deg.C before next January.
If anybody does not know why this rapid global warming and global cooling is certain then this link gives a short and clear explanation
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/
In reality, and in the terms indicated by “bob’s chart”,
There has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets.
Richard
Bob Tisdale,
Hate to sound like a broken record, but I really do appreciate you taking the time to follow through with commenter dialogues.
I also appreciate that you acknowledged that the Title of that post was not correct. Without that acknowledgement, a person without your comprehensive knowledge of ENSO would be at a loss to understand your premise.
I look forward to see where your research takes you.
Best Wishes, JP
sceptical says:
May 5, 2013 at 10:02 am
Global warming has continued. Bob’s chart above makes this clear. His “no warming” period can be further divided into 3 sections, the latest of which from 2008 on clearly shows warming.
This is true, and it is so because there was a strong La Nina in 2008, and until we get an equally strong La Nina in the future, it could be possible to show warming since 2008 for a while. However the error bars for such a short period are huge!!
For RSS since 2008: 0.235 ±1.277 °C/decade (2σ)
richardscourtney says:
May 5, 2013 at 10:32 am
There has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets.
Note that your comment regarding 2008 does not negate Richard’s comment above.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
you must be mad to write this: “I take extreme umbrage at your outrageous, offensive and insulting statement that says….” (calling people ‘trolls’ and than getting of your mind when your posts are qualified as ‘misleading’……)
well, thank you for the ‘discussion’ so far;
I sincerely wish you guidance by God to come out of the dark cave you must be living in…
I sincerely feel sorry for you, but I give up discussing with you;
Goodluck;
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
[snip . . this is not adding anything to the thread. It can be seen as trolling so please stop . . mod]