Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org
Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts
*At least April data was my intention. However as of June 8, HadCRUT3 for April is still not up! Could it be because as of the end of March, the slope of 0 lasted 16 years and 1 month and they do not want to add another month or two? What do you think? WoodForTrees (WFT) is up to date however, thank you very much Paul!
The graph above shows a few different things for three data sets where there has been no warming for at least 16 years. WFT only allows one to draw straight lines between two points, however climate does not go in straight lines. Often, temperatures vary in a sinusoidal fashion which cannot yet be shown using WFT. However we can do the next best thing and show what is happening over the first half of the 16 years and what is happening over the last half. As shown, the first half shows a small rise and the last half shows a small decline. Note that neither the rise in the first half nor the drop in the last half is statistically significant. However the lines do suggest that we are just continuing a 60 year sine wave that was started in 1880 according to the following graphic:
Do you agree? What are your views on the question in the title? Do you think we are presently in a pause or in a decline or neither?
In the sections below, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show the period that there has been no warming for various data sets. The second section will show the period that there has been no “significant” warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2013 to date compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record. The appendix illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different format. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 5 months to 16 years and 6 months.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 1 month. (goes to March 31, 2013)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (This goes to May. I realize that Hadcrut3 is not up to date, but on the basis of its present slope and the latest numbers that I do have from the other three sets. I am confident that I can make this prediction.)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to April 30, 2013, or 16 years, 2 months.
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May) RSS is 198/204 or 97% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years. This 97% is real!
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above for what can be shown. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the sloped wiggly line shows how CO2 has increased over this period.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly. It goes from 0.1 C to 0.6 C. A change of 0.5 C over 16 years is about 3.0 C over 100 years. And 3.0 C is about the average of what the IPCC says may be the temperature increase by 2100.
So for this to be the case, the slope for all of the data sets would have to be as steep as the CO2 slope. Hopefully the graphs show that this is totally untenable.
The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming according to their criteria. The numbers below start from January of the year indicated. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the magnitude of the second number is larger than the first number so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out. (To the best of my knowledge, SkS uses the same criteria that Phil Jones uses to determine significance.)
The situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.
The details are below and are based on the SkS site:
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
RSS since August 1989;
UAH since June 1993;
Hadcrut3 since July 1993;
Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
GISS since October 1994 and
NOAA since May 1994.
Section 3
This section shows data about 2013 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and bottom, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:
1. 12ra: This is the final ranking for 2012 on each data set.
2. 12an: Here I give the average anomaly for 2012.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first two letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.
8. sig: This is the whole number of years for which warming is not significant according to the SkS criteria. The additional months are not added here, however for more details, see Section 2.
9. Jan: This is the January, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
10. Feb: This is the February, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
11. Mar: This is the March, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
12. Apr: This is the April, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
13. May: This is the May, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
21. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs by one, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.
22. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. Of course it won’t, but think of it as an update 20 or 25 minutes into a game. Expect wild swings from month to month at the start of the year. As well, expect huge variations between data sets at the start. Due to different base periods, the rank may be more meaningful than the average anomaly.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst2 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. 12ra | 9th | 11th | 9th | 10th | 8th | 9th |
| 2. 12an | 0.161 | 0.192 | 0.448 | 0.405 | 0.342 | 0.56 |
| 3. year | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 |
| 4. ano | 0.419 | 0.55 | 0.547 | 0.548 | 0.451 | 0.66 |
| 5. mon | Ap98 | Ap98 | Ja07 | Fe98 | Au98 | Ja07 |
| 6. ano | 0.66 | 0.857 | 0.829 | 0.756 | 0.555 | 0.93 |
| 7. y/m | 8/5 | 16/6 | 12/6 | 16/1 | 16/2 | 12/4 |
| 8. sig | 19 | 23 | 18 | 19 | 18 | |
| 9. Jan | 0.504 | 0.441 | 0.450 | 0.390 | 0.283 | 0.61 |
| 10.Feb | 0.175 | 0.194 | 0.479 | 0.424 | 0.308 | 0.52 |
| 11.Mar | 0.183 | 0.204 | 0.411 | 0.387 | 0.278 | 0.58 |
| 12.Apr | 0.103 | 0.219 | 0.425 | 0.353 | 0.50 | |
| 13.May | 0.074 | 0.139 | ||||
| 21.ave | 0.208 | 0.239 | 0.440 | 0.401 | 0.306 | 0.553 |
| 22.rnk | 6th | 8th | 11th | 12th | 11th | 10th |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst2 | GISS |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following links, UAH,
For RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2,and GISS.
To see all points since January 2012 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below:
I wish to make a comment about this graph from WFT. It is right up to date. The only reason that both HadCRUT3 and WTI only go to March is because WTI uses 4 data sets, one of which is HadCRUT3, so if HadCRUT3 is not there for April, WTI cannot be there for April as well.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May) RSS is 198/204 or 97% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.239. This would rank 8th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.192 and it came in 11th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Both show all plotted points for RSS since 1990. Then two lines are shown on the first graph. The first upward sloping line is the line from where warming is not significant according to the SkS site criteria. The second straight line shows the point from where the slope is flat.
The second graph shows the above, but in addition, there are two extra lines. These show the upper and lower lines using the SkS site criteria. Note that the lower line is almost horizontal but slopes slightly downward. This indicates that there is a slight chance that cooling has occurred since 1990 according to RSS
UAH
The slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.208. This would rank 6th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.161 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to UAH.
Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April.)
For Hadcrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.440. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.448 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4.
Hadcrut3
The slope is flat since March 1 1997 or 16 years, 1 month (goes to March 31, 2013)
For Hadcrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.401. This would rank 12th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.405 and it came in 10th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut3.
Hadsst2
For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 2 months. (goes to April 30, 2013).
The Hadsst2 average anomaly for the first four months for 2013 is 0.306. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.342 and it came in 8th.
Sorry! The only graph available for Hadsst2 is the following
this.
GISS
The slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.553. This would rank 10th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.56 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to GISS.
Conclusion
Above, various facts have been presented along with sources from where all facts were obtained. Keep in mind that no one is entitled to their own facts. It is only in the interpretation of the facts for which legitimate discussions can take place. After looking at the above facts, do you think that we should spend billions to prevent the claimed catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or do you think we should take a “wait and see” attitude for a few years to be sure that future warming will be as catastrophic as some claim it will be? Keep in mind that even the MET office felt the need to revise its forecasts. Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?
By the way, here is an earlier prediction by the MET office:
“(H)alf of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998.”
When this prediction was made, they had Hadcrut3 and so far, the 1998 mark has not been broken on Hadcrut3. 2013 is not starting well if they want a new record in 2013. Here are some relevant facts today: The sun is extremely quiet; ENSO has been between 0 and -0.5 since the start of the year; it takes at least 3 months for ENSO effects to kick in and the Hadcrut3 average anomaly after March was 0.401 which would rank it in 12th place. Granted, it is only 3 months, but you are not going to set any records starting the race in 12th place after three months. So even if a 1998 type El Nino started to set in tomorrow, it would be at least 4 or 5 months for the maximum ENSO reading to be reached. Then it would take at least 3 more months for the high ENSO to be reflected in Earth’s temperature. How hot would November and December then have to be to set a new record? In my opinion, the odds of setting a new record in 2013 are extremely remote.
@ur momisugly jai.
‘I would estimate that if properly polled, 95% of posters here would agree with the following statement, “socialized government programs intrude on the effectiveness of the free-market system of capitalism and impedes the well being of the population.”’
You may be right about that. Since I am an unrepentant old socialist, though, I feel I can respond to your claim ‘The problem with you folk here is that you are taking an ideological stance that is aligned along political parties.’
Let us suppose that all, and not just some, of the commenters here are swivel-eyed, foam flecked, ravening right-wingers, obsessed with reds under the beds, and full of Thatcherite ambitions to plunge us back into Victorian slums.
Even so, their politics are irrelevant. The big question is
“Are they right?”, for even total loonies can be right about some things.
And that is a question to be answered by facts and scientific reasoning.
‘I do wish that there was more discussion that wasn’t based on falsified arguments’
Please show how the arguments have been falsified. Give the facts and the scientific reasoning for your position, and then see what response you get.
‘and conspiracy theory on this site.’
When you say ‘the very conservative think tanks and propagandists have been paid very well by those interested in maintaining the status quo’, that sounds rather like a conspiracy theory to me.
Blast! I shouldn’t have admitted to being a socialist. Exxon just phoned and said they would stop sending the $57,000 cheques.
@rgbatduke
‘The really funny thing is that there has been no discernible warming from the time that the IPCC succeeded, by dint of Al Gore’s book and movie and an “unprecedented” public relations campaign, in convincing the public that we were certain to warm at a uniform, catastrophic rate for the rest of the century.’
That proves that Al Gore stopped Global Warming and saved us all.
jai mitchell said @ur momisugly June 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Since I was a branch secretary of the Australian Labor Party for several years, and I take it your politicz must be the opposite of mine if your assertion carries any force, that you are some kind of extreme right-wingnut 😉
BTW, Huon Branch of the ALP was notoriously the greenest branch in Australia at the time. And no, I don’t believe a word of your half-baked catastrophe nonsense either.
jai mitchell said @ur momisugly June 9, 2013 at 8:57 pm
Now that’s really funny!
So you are deliberately choosing your start date to find the trend you want: thinking perhaps, that this is equivalent to saying that this is the longest time for which the globe has been cooling?
The slightly negative trends picked out are not statistically significant either. Doesn’t this rate a mention?
The most you could say from this analysis is that it is not possible to say there is a trend.
What happens if you choose the earliest point in time where any trend is statistically significant (95% level) from this data? By my reckoning (using the SkS app), all data sets show warming if as soon as the regression becomes statistically significant.
As to whether the short-term flattish trends continue, that would seem unlikely at the present rate of GHG emissions. The climate sensitivity estimates have a wide range, but they tend to agree that warming must continue. If espousing that climate sensitivity is large is alarmist, then believing it is small from short-term data (and by focussing on a small set of estimates) is pollyanna-ish, to my mind. We don’t know.
Folks, Jai Mitchell has repeatedly quoted temperature rise figures from GCM estimates as “fact”… i.e. Jai Mitchell is an unreasonably persistent troll. Jai Mitchell completely disregards any changes to the southern hemisphere due to its higher percentage of water, which has been demonstrably cooling, as evidenced by the record, or near-record Antarctic ice sheets, yet has the gall to shriek “the oceans are warming” over and over. Jai Mitchell is a troll and should be eliminated from serious discussions from this point forward. I come to this site to learn about and to research the Earth’s coming climate, in order to best protect and provide for my family. Jai’s posts add nothing at all, and merely distract the more-knowledgeable into diverse side arguments which decide nothing and waste precious resources (space and time in these forums). I’m not saying that Jai shouldn’t be allowed to post; just please, from now on, stick to the topics and do not feed the troll! LOL
Things warm from the inside out, and as I noted above, thermal expansion and Archimedes principle work against downward mixing, which is why almost all of the ocean is at a temperature of 4 C! (See the graph linked above). This is the temperature where water attains its maximum density.
Thank you for your excellent comments above! But it appears as if a minor slip up occurred here.
That 4 C only applies to fresh water, not ocean water. See:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/density.html&edu=high
“The density of ocean water continuously increases with decreasing temperature until the water freezes.”
Just came back here to read Jai Mitchell’s evidence for an increase in ocean mixing and the end of stratification as we know it.
I find
jai mitchell says:
June 9, 2013 at 4:03 pm
“I can explain it in a second.”
“cool sea surface temperatures, according to this site, are caused by increased winds pushing warm water across the sea, leaving the cold water (deeper water) behind. This is called mixing.”
That sounds like Jai is a twelve year old.
Listen Jai, go to the wikipedia, read up about stratification, and read about El Nino / La Nina, where they explain the prevailing theory about in which depth the temperature changes happen; you might be surprised that it all happens above the stratified layer;
and please inform yourself that the first 3 m of the ocean contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere, just to put things in prespective.
barry says:
June 9, 2013 at 9:43 pm
you wrote: “As to whether the short-term flattish trends continue, that would seem unlikely at the present rate of GHG emissions. The climate sensitivity estimates have a wide range, but they tend to agree that warming must continue. If espousing that climate sensitivity is large is alarmist, then believing it is small from short-term data (and by focussing on a small set of estimates) is pollyanna-ish, to my mind. We don’t know.”
+++++++++++++++
Your ilk have used models to suggest the trend must continue towards warming. Your ilk said a pause in warming could not happen for 10 then 15 years. So your ilk disagrees with you. You are creating another strawman argument because their argument fell on its face.
Right now, according to your ilk, the impossible is happening. You disagree with them, now after the fact, because the warming, whether significant or not, has stopped and that’s impossible given the state of climate change that you’re siting. People like you cannot be reasoned with. What will it take?
barry says:
June 9, 2013 at 9:43 pm
So you are deliberately choosing your start date to find the trend you want
I did not “choose” any date. The last date is the most recent month for which WFT had data and I had no choice in that. The furthest date in the past was where the slope is very slightly negative. I did not “choose” that date either. I just went where the data took me to find the longest period of no warming.
The slightly negative trends picked out are not statistically significant either. Doesn’t this rate a mention?
It does rate a mention and I did mention it: “As shown, the first half shows a small rise and the last half shows a small decline. Note that neither the rise in the first half nor the drop in the last half is statistically significant.”
The most you could say from this analysis is that it is not possible to say there is a trend.
The following 7 data sets show a small, but insignificant negative trend since January, 2005: UAH, RSS, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT3, Hadsst2, GISS and NOAA. I now have a question for you that I do not know the answer to: Does the fact that all 7 have a negative trend since January 2005 increase the probability that we really did have cooling since then?
Regarding your other question about the 95%, I really do not like that distinction. I prefer to think of the straight line sections that have a 50% chance of going either up or down. For some reason, climate science and NOAA seem to think the 95% number is important.
As to whether the short-term flattish trends continue, that would seem unlikely at the present rate of GHG emissions. The climate sensitivity estimates have a wide range, but they tend to agree that warming must continue.
However the ocean cycles and the sun and negative feedbacks could nullify the effects of more CO2.
Mario,
I don’t know who my ‘ilk’ are meant to be. I don’t feel I belong to any particular club in this debate.
Climate scientists rely on physics, not models, to posit that an enhanced greenhouse should warm the Earth. It is a notion shared by the reputable climate scientists and Anthony watts, who rightly forbids at this site the unphysical proposition to the contrary.
The mid-range model ensembles include runs that have flat trends for 10, 15 and 20 years. Where do this ‘ilk’ say that a pause could not happen?
What strawman? That the greenhouse effect is real?
This is why I love this site. People of different stripes are allowed to express their views. Alarmists, sceptic, none are snipped unless totally abusive. Even trolls like jai(oneworldnet in disguise) are allowed. Compare to the warmists sites. There is only one problem…nice guys finish last,and the warmists are not nice guys. Food for thought.
barry said @ur momisugly June 9, 2013 at 10:51 pm
I think you have that back asswards Barry. The enhanced greenhouse effect relies upon a posited, not measured, increase in specific humidity. AFAICT, specific humidity has been declining over the last thirty years, or so. The greenhouse effect is physical; the enhanced greenhouse effect is unphysical.
Looking for the furthest date for a negative trend does not indicate that cooling has happened if that trend is mathematically non-significant.
Not when the uncertainty is so much greater than the trend. And the data sets are correlated: surface sets have overlapping station data, and the satellites are measuring the same data.
If you are going to posit no warming due to lack of statistical significance, then the same must apply to cooling or there is a double standard.
If you think positing a result and then tracing data to back to the most recent point is valid, what do you think of my argument of tracing back the data to a point where statistical significance is reached? Aren’t results with statistical significance more meaningful than those without?
barry said @ur momisugly June 10, 2013 at 12:00 am
In statistics the term significant does not mean important or meaningful. Given sufficient data, a statistically significant result may be very small in magnitude.
Given that Hansen’s original paper was based on an interval of 10 years’ warming, then any period of 10 years or greater should be sufficient to weigh against “Hansenist” claims.
jai mitchell says: June 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm
It seems that you, yourself, are promoting a conspiracy theory: the belief that evil corporations are trying to destroy all life on earth.
A curious idea, but surprisingly prevalent amongst those who believe the world is ending. But I do wonder why you think 95% fewer consumers surviving on earth is deemed profitable by the world-wreckers. It isn’t particularly coherent.
Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the corrupt corporate interests aren’t interested in a world fit for man at all because they are actually giant lizards!
Yes, of course, that makes a lot more sense than your post.
Lets say there was a country where unemployemnt had risen from 2 million to 5 million over 10 years. The government falls and the new government implements policies which reduce the unemployement to 3.5 million. So is unemployment rising? or falling? The good thing about such stats is that like some odd schools at sports day, everyone can win or get a prize, you just pick your own criteria or time frame. Personally with the example above I would say unemployment was falling, but if were spinning the argument I would say that unemployment remained 1.5 million higher than it was 10 years ago so theoreticaqlly the trend is still up. To my eyes as a non-scientist but one with a reasonable grasp of research methodology is what is happening when the climate trend is discussed.
@Ian W June 9, 2013 at 4:16 pm
“It is foolish to create a linear ‘projection’ based on the outputs of a chaotic system. Is it any more logical to carry out a Fourier transform on the outputs of a chaotic system?”
I think that in time the latter could be productive. Maybe. Maybe not.
I’ve been harping on the former for quite some time. I’ve just recently seen people picking up on this and shaking their heads, and I am happy to see it. Linear regressions that are straight-line outputs are the simplest and easiest for Show and Tell, such as for speaking down to policymakers. I understand that. If it is too complicated, like a curve, they are going to lose non-scientists, and that is the last thing they want to do. But to use it when talking to other scientists, I can’t believe that the other scientists would ever accept it. I am not aware of sinusoidal or other oscillating curve fits as outputs, but if they exist, I am in favor of THAT sort of best fit curve for climate type chaotic systems. That doesn’t mean I am right, but straight line output/fit is absurd. No one in their right mind would accept that as valid for any lengthy period. The R values alone should tell everyone it is tells them nothing.
Steve Garcia
Jai Mitchell is not a troll, he is merely posting his view of climate change, that’s healthy. If you start accusing people of being trolls on the basis that they have different views you will end up like Skep Science where very little debate or alternate views are ever allowed and that would be a disaster for for this site. Some of what I he says I endorse, some of it I don’t, but lets encourage debate and not condemn so easilly.
There was some criticism on another thread (kadaka (KD Knoebel)) of my extrapolation of the CET (going back a year or two, now updated) showing an immediate downturn.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
In order to clarify the method used, I have added the Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s graph quoted above, which does employ the same principle.
I used 3 principal components to create multi-decadal variability, enabling me to produce more detailed future trends, this time in the CET, but it is worth noting that the instrumental record for global temperature has similar trend.
Garethman says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:32 am
Normally I would agree with you. But he lost the plot when he claimed that “I do wish that there was more discussion that wasn’t based on falsified arguments and conspiracy theory on this site.”
It’s the conspiracy theory part that’s the problem.
You can’t debate with someone who genuinely believes that everyone who disagrees with them is paid to disagree with them and wouldn’t diagree with them if it weren’t for the conspiracy.
Therefore, if you who disagree with him you are a hypocrite.
That’s not debate. That’s just taunting.
About a year ago I made a fit to HADCRUT3 data which included a logarithmic dependence on CO2 forcing, and sinusoidal signals at 60 years, 11 and 9 years. The logarithmic dependence assumes a linear climate response to CO2 forcing (DS = 5.3LnC/C0). I used the Mauna Loa CO2 data extrapolated backwards to 1750. I got a good fit with a strong 60 year signal – see graph here
I then extrapolated this fit forwards in time assuming 2 different emissions scenarios from IPCC. – A1B and B1. The result is shown here
If we take the more reasonable B1B scenario then we find.
o Temperatures remain flat until 2030.
o Thereafter occurs another warming period of ~0.5C ending in 2070.
o Then another flat period lasting until 2100.
o Total global warming from pre-industrial times to 2100 is then ~ 1.7C
So assuming that warming is only caused by CO2 and no action whatsoever was taken to curb emissions – nothing catastrophic happens !
Well, you can’t say I wasn’t sincerely attempting to help out.
However, jai, you have lost whatever respect I was willing to give you. It might take you a long time to regain it, if you care to.
You ignore rgbatduke’s comments at your intellectual peril. That man has more knowledge in his pinky than you and I combined may ever have. The fact that he even responded directly to your statement should be something of a badge of honor. But you wouldn’t know that, right? Because you’re new.
But the bottom line is this: I don’t take any scientific stance based on my politics. None. I follow what I see with my own eyes. I demand evidence. I won’t take someone’s word for it when they have shifty eyes while hiding the process. That’s why I don’t buy the AGW alarmists claims. Luckily, it appears that most people smart enough to think the same way also reject leftist beliefs.
By the way, you’ll never know what a delicious irony it is to read your claims about conspiracy theories, while in the next sentence mouthing off against the tobacco industry. Too, too funny.
barry says:
June 9, 2013 at 10:51 pm
The mid-range model ensembles include runs that have flat trends for 10, 15 and 20 years. Where do this ‘ilk’ say that a pause could not happen?
That does not seem to jibe with what NOAA thinks. The exact quote from pg 23 is:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
barry says:
June 10, 2013 at 12:00 am
If you think positing a result and then tracing data to back to the most recent point is valid, what do you think of my argument of tracing back the data to a point where statistical significance is reached? Aren’t results with statistical significance more meaningful than those without?
The reason I am mentioning this here as well is that yes, your “argument of tracing back the data to a point where statistical significance is reached” is very valid. The only issue is that when you do this, you reach a time of greater than 15 years and according to NOAA, the models show a “discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.
Looking for the furthest date for a negative trend does not indicate that cooling has happened if that trend is mathematically non-significant.
If you are referring to my flat lines with a slope of perhaps 5 x 10^-6, I do not even consider those as showing cooling, but rather as showing no slope. But the lines with a slope of 5 x 10^-3 show a slight cooling which is not significant.