Ten years of 'accelerated global warming' ?

Data doesn’t support Obama’s claim

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

During the July 2013 U.S. Senate hearing at which Roger Pielke Jr. and Roy Spencer gave stellar testimony to the visible discomfiture of the climate-extremist witnesses, none of the “Democrat” Senators and none of the people they had chosen to testify before them was at all anxious to defend Mr. Obama’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate.

At a fund-raiser for the “Democratic” Congressional Campaign Committee in Chicago May 29, he had said, “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” He had added, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”

Well, I deny that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago. But I deny it not because I take an aprioristic position opposite to Mr Obama’s aprioristic position, but because science is done by measurement, not by parroting the Party Line. And the measurements do not support the Party Line.

Let me demonstrate. First, what warming does the IPCC anticipate in its upcoming and much-leaked Fifth Assessment Report?

The graph above, adapted from Figs. 11.33ab in the draft report, for which I am an expert reviewer, shows that from 2005-2050 (most of the past ten years fall within that period) the models expect an approximately linear warming of about 0.4 to 1.0 Cº per 30 years (this range is also explicitly stated in paragraph 11.3.6.3). That is equivalent to 1.33 to 3.33 Cº/century, with a mid-range estimate of 2.33 Cº/century.

The IPCC’s models’ mid-range projection implies that around 0.12 Cº of warming should happen over five years, and o.23 Cº over ten years. An eighth to a quarter of a Celsius degree: those are the benchmarks. Previous IPCC reports made broadly similar near-term projections.

What, then, is the consensus among the monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere datasets about whether the climate is warming “faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago”? Or whether it is warming at all?

There are three terrestrial datasets: HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC. There are two satellite datasets: RSS and UAH. To forestall the usual futile allegations of cherry-picking, we shall look at all five of them.

For each dataset, two graphs will be displayed: the most recent 60 months of global temperature anomalies, and the most recent 120 months.

The graph will display the spline-curve of the monthly anomalies in dark blue, with a thicker light-blue trend-line, which is simply the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data. Over short periods, no more complex trend need be determined.

Nor is there any need to allow for seasonality, not only because the graphs analyze data over multiples of 12 months but also because globally the seasons cancel each other out, so that natural variability tends to make any seasonal pattern near-impossible to detect.

Linear regression determines the underlying trend in a dataset over a given period as the slope of the unique straight line through the data that minimizes the sum of the squares of the absolute differences or “residuals” between the data-points corresponding to each time interval in the data and on the trend-line.

The graphs, therefore, give a fair indication of whether global mean temperatures at or near the surface have been rising or falling over the past five or ten years.

Note, however, that – particularly with highly volatile datasets such as the global temperature anomalies – a statistical trend is not a tool for prediction. It indicates only what has happened, not what may or will happen.

And what has happened is, as we shall see, grievously at odds with the Party Line.

We begin with the terrestrial datasets.

GISS, five years:

GISS, ten years:

HadCRUT4, five years:

HadCRUt4, ten years:

NCDC, five years:

NCDC, ten years:

The mean of the anomalies on all three terrestrial datasets, five years:

The mean of the anomalies on all three terrestrial datasets, ten years:

Now for the two satellite datasets. RSS, five years:

RSS, ten years:

UAH, five years:

UAH, ten years:

The mean of the anomalies on the two satellite datasets, five years:

The mean of the anomalies on the two satellite datasets, ten years:

The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets, five years:

The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets, ten years:

The only dataset that shows any warming at all is UAH over ten years. The warming is a not particularly dizzying one twenty-fifth of a Celsius degree over ten years, equivalent to two-fifths of a degree per century.

The RSS satellite dataset, on the other hand, now shows no global warming at all for an impressive 199 months, or 16 years 7 months:

Not much “acceleration” there. Will it reach 200 months? I’ll report next month.

Finally, here is the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index, which compares the projections backcast by the modelers to 2005 and published in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report with the real-world outturn as measured by the two satellite datasets.

The lower bound of the orange zone is the IPCC’s low-end projection. Warming should be occurring at a minimum of 1.33 Cº/century. The thick bright red line is the IPCC’s mid-range projection: warming should be occurring at 2.33 Cº/century.

The real-world trend, represented by the thick bright blue trend line, shows global temperatures declining since January 2005 at a rate equivalent to almost a quarter of a Celsius degree (half a Fahrenheit degree) per century.

You may think that going to the trouble of producing so many graphs is overkill. Yet when I first spoke up at the U.N. climate conference in Doha and pointed out that there had been no global warming for 16 years the delegates were furious. So were the news media. One reason for their unreason: they simply did not know the facts.

One would have thought that among all the hours of hand-wringing on the air and pages of moaning in print about “global warming”, most of the news media would be faithfully reporting the monthly temperature anomalies. But no. The facts do not fit the Party Line, so they are not reported. They are consigned to the Memory Hole.

As for Mr. Obama’s statement about “acceleration”, he was plain wrong. Instead of the warming equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century global warming that had been “anticipated”, there has really been no change in global temperature at all over the past five or ten years.

Will somebody tell the “President”?

0 0 votes

Article Rating

193 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

izen

July 22, 2013 4:47 am

@-DirkH
“ You mean, a year will in the future have a warmest and a coldest day? ”
No, I mean that record hottest days will continue to outnumber coldest records by a large ratio.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/06/26/warm-temperature-records-dramatically-outpacing-cold-records-in-washington-d-c/

izen

July 22, 2013 5:05 am

@- Richard M
“Gerlach et al in 1991 used around 12 volcanic sources for their estimate. …Are you always this out of date with your information?
No, perhaps you are unaware however of his more recent work? This is from 2011.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

Gail COmbs

July 22, 2013 6:08 am

Michael Moon says:
July 21, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Jai Mitchell,
….: In the industrial world, where I live, where unanswered questions about data result in failures, canceled contracts, and terminations, we must ask [answer?] this question: “How, exactly, is this data traceable back to NIST standards?”….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AMEN! Been there. Done that too.
Try all that waffling in front of an FDA inspector and you will get shut down. (Why did every darn company I work for have me give the plant tour to the inspectors, grumble….)

Mal H

July 22, 2013 6:27 am

Lord Monckton, Thank you for your detailed work.
Particularly the inclusion of the video.
Now I’m confused completely. Heidi is saying, if i understand this correctly, that the long term data is not data to be considered, yet localised effects are data to be considered as signals that the data that is to be considered (whatever that now is) is only considered when it supports a case against the long term data that isn’t to be considered.
Additionally, somewhere, presumably in the deep dark ocean, there is a warming process occurring that appears to have slipped the notice of NOAA since 2006.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html
“The recent changes in ocean temperature run deep. A small amount of cooling was detected at the ocean’s surface, consistent with global measurements of sea-surface temperature. The maximum amount of cooling was at a depth of about 1,300 feet, but substantial cooling was still observed at 2,500 feet, and the cooling appears to extend deeper.”
And..
“Lyman (NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle), said the cause of the recent cooling is not yet clear. Research suggests it may be due to a net loss of heat from the Earth. “Further work will be necessary to solve this cooling mystery,”
On a side note.
Based on the apparent contention that the warmer it gets, the cooler it becomes, I left my refrigerator door open. Sadly, i now have ruined produce and warm beer. Perhaps it was a localised event.

David in London

July 22, 2013 6:55 am

You should do an equivalent one on the sea level next, 7 inches a century compared to Hansen’s 3-6 metres (or whatever he picked this week), within a far more linear field than temperature. The sea level figures are virtually impossible to increase much more under current conditions as the laws of physics and massive rise in temperature which would be required to melt that much in such a short period eliminate such conditions. Hansen invented a new law of physics where they melt logarithmically, hardly anything for 80 years then all in one go, for which he should be committed.
Far more importantly than a world movement to steal money under a false cause, how can all his peers allow such a blatant breach of their precious science to occur as it will only continue to remain on the books, like an unremoved dog present on the carpet, waiting for someone with the balls and qualifications required to point it out. It may be politic to allow it in the short term while it gets lost in the noise, but such a direct challenge to the truth could and should destroy his entire reputation and career as ice melts steadily (as does water evaporate) under Newton’s laws. Any deviation from basics even I managed to handle in school are too obvious even for the climate mafia to slip through the system.

Dreadnought

July 22, 2013 8:42 am

It really does make me wonder why our political leaders in Europe and the USA persist in trying to feed everyone with this never-ending bull crap about the supposed horrors of ‘catastrophic man-made global warming’, when in fact there hasn’t been any at all (catastrophic warming, that is). They are so dishonest that they can’t just put their hand up and say “OK, we got it wrong – panic over. Let’s continue to watch this space, but in the meantime let’s get back to business as usual”.
I suppose it must come down to the dual problems of vested interests wanting to continue lining their pockets, and the fact that the CAGW hoax has been a very useful ‘Trojan Horse’ for imposing all sorts of restrictions and additional sources of tax revenue (not to mention the UN’s sinister Agenda 21). It’s an absolutely rotten state of affairs when politicians can make things up and spread disinformation with impunity, especially on such as massive scale.
I also wonder whether it will ever end…

HenryP

July 22, 2013 9:45 am

izen says
Raising the possibility of a tectonic contribution to ocean heat content when it is well established from seismic studies it is irrelevant is either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
and also your subsequent post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/21/ten-years-of-accelerated-global-warming/#comment-1368449nd
refers
henry says
clearly the argument here was not about how much CO2 is added by volcanics but how much HEAT is added, into the oceans, mostly …e.g pacific rif, atlantic rif…..all volcanic …
Your attack on the good Lord is not warranted, as clearly he only suggested this as another possible source of heat coming at regular intervals coming from the center of earth…
Now, unless you claim to know exactly how much heat is coming from all external and internal sources of heat (which I think even includes the planets and the moon), I would expect you to make some sort of an apology after making such a blatant accusation.

Colin

July 22, 2013 11:16 am

Looking at the video – Heidi was amazing actually – remind me of the adage ” If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance you baffle them with bulls@ur momisugly$t”. Which she was amazing at trying to do. There were so many weaves and contradictions it was hard to keep up. And it was only 6 minutes worth

jai mitchell

July 22, 2013 11:33 am

LMB,
You said,
Some commenters have suggested that the additional heat supposed to be generated by manmade greenhouse-gas emissions is going into the deep oceans. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently-resolved measurements for enough time to confirm that hypothesis.
I am, as far as I can tell, the only commenter who has asserted this fact. So I will consider my new name to be “some commenter”. Thank you very much.
In response to your declaration quoted above, I provide to you the following papers for your review. I understand that you have absolutely no background in science and that your positions on scientific fact are strictly ideological. However, I will provide this information so that, in the somewhat unlikely event that an observer of this dialogue has the time and scientific capacity to grasp the information provided, he or she will be able to determine for themselves that you are stating blatant falsehoods, based on your non-scientific ideology.
———–
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014013
Predictability of twentieth century sea-level rise from past data
However, in combination, the use of proxy and tide gauge sea-level data up to 1900 AD allows a good prediction of twentieth century sea-level rise, despite this rise being well outside the rates experienced in previous centuries during the calibration period of the model. The 90% confidence range for the linear twentieth century rise predicted by the semi-empirical model is 13–30 cm, whereas the observed interval (using two tide gauge data sets) is 14–26 cm.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrc.20268/abstract
Northern North Atlantic sea-surface height and ocean heat content variability
Altimetric SSH is dominated by an increase of about 14cm in the Labrador and Irminger Seas from 1993 to 2011, while the opposite has occurred over the Gulf Stream region over the same time period. During the altimeter period the observed 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) in the subpolar gyre mirrors the increased SSH by its dominantly positive trend.
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/10/923/2013/osd-10-923-2013.pdf
Monitoring ocean heat content from the current generation of global ocean observing systems
we present an inter-comparison of the three of these global ocean observing systems: the ocean
temperature/salinity network Argo, the gravimeter GRACE and the satellite altimeters.
Their consistency is investigated at global and regional scale during the period 2005–
10 2010 of overlapping time window of re-qualified data.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1770-4
Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
The mean radiative restoration strength over this period for the CMIP5 members examined is 1.16 Wm−2K−1, compared to 2.05 Wm−2K−1 from the observations. This suggests that temperature in these CMIP5 models may be too sensitive to perturbations in radiative forcing, although this depends on the actual magnitude of the anthropogenic aerosol forcing in the modern period. The potential change in the radiative restoration strength over longer timescales is also considered, resulting in a likely (67 %) range of 1.5–2.9 K for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and a 90 % confidence interval of 1.2–5.1 K

J Martin

July 22, 2013 1:26 pm

Leif said <blockquote"Clairvoyance beats science every time…"
Alarmingly prescient of you !
You might be more right than you know.

J Martin

July 22, 2013 1:30 pm

Dear God… When you get round to buying me that Mercedes Benz can you also provide WordPress with preview. Thankyou.
Leif said

“Clairvoyance beats science every time…”

Alarmingly prescient of you !
You might be more right than you know.

Eliza

July 22, 2013 3:34 pm

Well they are predicting 2C tonight in Central South America (Tropics-subtropics) as I have said many times on this site, I believe that the highly significant constant increase in antarctica ice extent and thickness may begin to affect the reach of polar air into the southern latitudes if it happens to be directed in the right direction making it go farther north than usual. For example see here
http://wxmaps.org/pix/sa.00hr.html
Temperature humidity and wind direction graph) The 0C isobar 600mb is currently reaching 20 degrees south latitude. Of course it could all be a coincidence!

izen

July 23, 2013 1:51 am

@- henry says
“clearly the argument here was not about how much CO2 is added by volcanics but how much HEAT is added, into the oceans, mostly …e.g pacific rif, atlantic rif…..all volcanic …”
There is an obvious link between the amount of CO2 coming from tectonic sources and the amount of heat coming from the same sources. The known limits on one put close constraints on the other.
“Your attack on the good Lord is not warranted, as clearly he only suggested this as another possible source of heat coming at regular intervals coming from the center of earth…”
My attack was not only warranted, but a good deal more benign than the facts would justify.
The knowledge that tectonic heat from the core reaching the surface is insignificant in this context has been known for many decades. Extensive research measuring the amount of thermal energy that diffuses through the crust have been undertaken and other measurements made of how much energy is transferred to the ocean at hot-spots like thermal vents.
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/globalhydro.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v334/n6183/abs/334604a0.html
This is not ‘controversial’ climate science, it is basic geophysics developed long ago at least in part by the oil and gas extraction industry.
http://www.tdi-bi.com/our_publications/ogj-hf-july02/marine-heatflow.htm
That the ‘good Lord’ can claim that this is a factor that should or needs to be considered is either the product of gross ignorance of the basic facts, or malicious deception.
I will be generous and presume it is ignorance.
“I would expect you to make some sort of an apology after making such a blatant accusation.”
The person pointing out the mistake or misleading statement of another is not the person who needs to make the apology.
The person who committed the error is the one who should apologise and correct their misinformation.
But given the lack of past apologies or corrections for many egregious statements from the ‘good Lord’ I wont be holding my breath.

Monckton of Brenchley

July 23, 2013 2:01 am

Izen says I was wrong to point out that the activity of the thousands of subsea volcanoes and volcanic vents is not monitored. Only a few such volcanoes have been studied. Izen suggests that measurements of seismic activity are a respectable proxy. Perhaps, or perhaps not. Nor can one be confident that the contribution of subsea volcanic variability to deep-ocean temperature change is negligible in comparison with that from the atmosphere, particularly when the relative densities of the two media and the distance of the benthic layers from the atmosphere are taken into account.
He goes on to challenge my statement that “The problem with the IPCC’s model-based approach is that the models – like all models – are less interested in homeostasis than in change, so they inadequately represent the former.” He says that homeostasis is “Victorian” and is “abstract conceptual nonsense”. The online etymology dictionary says the word was coined in 1926. Queen Victoria died in 1901. The concept has a clear meaning in science: it is the tendency of an object to remain in a steady state under certain conditions or within a certain interval notwithstanding an influence acting upon it that might otherwise have been expected to change it.
Numerous objects – for instance, the elasticity of a spring, acceleration in a viscous medium, the phase-changes of water at various temperatures) exhibit homeostasis. I did not say homeostasis was the cause of the very small changes in atmospheric temperature over the last few tens of thousands of years, as Izen seems to assume. I said it was a consequence of the fact that the two boundaries of the atmosphere – outer space above us and the ocean below – are an infinite and a near-infinite heat-sink respectively, which helping to keep the atmospheric temperature within a narrow interval.
Jai Mitchell, in a characteristically nasty comment that ignores the ancient logical principle that attacks upon the man rather than his argument are illogical and, therefore, unscientific, imagines (incorrectly) that I. like him, have no background in science. If he had a proper background in science he would have avoided the logical fallacy of deploying an ad-hominem argument.
Could someone with no background in science program a computer to take the satellite and terrestrial data from five sources in different formats, import them, display very clear graphs from each or all or any subset of them and write a subroutine to calculate the least-squares linear-regression trends and the determination coefficients? Let us have no more of this childish ad-hominem nonsense: it is an intellectually inadequate as well as factually inaccurate contribution to the debate. One understands that the failure of the world to warm as ordered is an embarrassment and that those who had confidently but erroneously predicted extreme temperature increases are feeling more than a little foolish at the moment, but, even allowing for that, more civility and humility would surely now be sensible.
Jai Mitchell disagrees with my statement that “Some commenters have suggested that the additional heat supposed to be generated by manmade greenhouse-gas emissions is going into the deep oceans. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently-resolved measurements for enough time to confirm that hypothesis.” He cites five papers. However, not one of these demonstrates that the measurements are sufficiently resolved to obtain an accurate picture of the change in ocean heat content. Some of them try to determine the change in ocean heat content indirectly by reference to supposedly rising sea level. But according to the Envisat satellite the sea level in its eight years of operation rose at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches per century: scarcely overwhelming evidence of sea-level rise, whether or not it was caused by thermosteric expansion of the benthic layers of the ocean.
One of the besetting sins of the climate-extremist movement is its propensity to attempt to obtain results on the basis of manifestly inadequate data. The ARGO bathythermograph measurements, for instance, present results to a precision of 1/1000 K. My science background has taught me that to claim a precision beyond what is appropriate casts doubt upon the reliability of the calculation. There is no way just 3500 buoys deployed in the vast oceans can determine global mean benthic temperature changes to that precision, or to any precision that might truly demonstrate that there is any “missing heat” and that it is hiding in the deep oceans.
Indeed, any attempt to model the climate to a sufficient precision to determine climate sensitivity is doomed to failure by the fact that the climate object is not only complex and non-linear but also, mathematically speaking, chaotic. Its evolution cannot be accurately projected because we have manifestly inadequate data not only on its initial state at some chosen starting point but also because we have manifestly inadequate knowledge of the existence and relative strengths of the influences acting upon it over time.
Scientifically, then, the correct approach is to wait and see. And that, whether the climate extremists like it or not, is what the world’s governments are now going to do. Even Australia has now announced the abandonment of the absurd carbon tax. The climate scare is over, and no amount of ad-hominem screeching from any troll will either alter that fact or delay for a single instant the dismantling of the farcical regime of totalitarian control that had been erected in the specious name of Saving The Planet.

HenryP

July 23, 2013 7:34 am

izen says
( I am just quoting one of his letters to nature that he quoted to me)
The circulation of seawater through newly formed ocean crust at mid-ocean ridge spreading centres is important in the oceanic heat and chemical budgets. The heat transfer in submarine hydrothermal systems accounts for ˜25% of the total global heat loss1. The transfer of mass resulting from basaltic alteration affects the geochemistry of seawater2 and is responsible for the formation of ore deposits on and beneath the seafloor3. Various geophysical techniques have been employed in efforts to determine the heat output from hydrothermal vent fields4–9; however, the magnitudes of the heat and chemical fluxes through these systems remain uncertain. Here we introduce a geochemical approach for estimating the flux from a vent field based on radon (222Rn) measurements in the overlying effluent plume. This method was applied successfully in September 1986 during a 23-day expedition to an active vent field on the 170-km Endeavour segment of the Juan de Fuca Ridge (Fig. la). We estimate the heat flux from this site to be l–5×l09 W.)
henry says
25% is not a lot?
“….remain uncertain”?
how many places exist on earth that add heat to the atmosphere?
(remember that most volcanic activity on earth takes places underneath the ocean floors)
what planet do you live on?

HenryP

July 23, 2013 8:00 am

lord Monckton of Brenchley says
Scientifically, then, the correct approach is to wait and see.
henry says
there was a time that I would probably agree with you on that but not anymore.
The truth is that all current results show that global cooling will continue, especially when you look at things from 2002 (which includes one full solar cycle)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
Those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the global cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever.
I have now finished my own investigations into all of this
namely
1 I took a random sample of weather stations that had daily data
2 I made sure the sample was globally representative (most data sets aren’t)
a) balanced by latitude (longitude does not matter)
b) balanced 70/30 in or at sea/ inland
c) all continents included (unfortunately I could not get reliable daily data going back 38 years from Antarctica,
so there always is this question mark about that, knowing that you never can get a “perfect” sample)
d) I made a special provision for months with missing data (i.e. not to put in a long term average, as usual in stats, but to average the results of that month in the year preceding and following )
e) I did not look only at means (average daily temp.) like all other data sets, but also at maxima and minima…
3) I determined at all stations the average change in temp. per annum from the average temperature recorded,
over the period indicated.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
4) the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures),
clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every other period I looked//…
5) I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps, versus time,
ended up with y=0.0018x -0.0314, with r2=0.96
At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish:
I was at least 95% sure (max) temperatures were falling
6) On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me
y= -0.000049×2 + 0.004267x – 0.056745
r2=0.995
That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the trajectory of somebody throwing a ball…
7) projection on the above parabolic fit backward, (10 years?) showed a curve:
happening around 40 years ago,
8) ergo: the final curve must be a sine wave fit, with another curve happening, somewhere on the bottom…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
the means table confirms that there is a bit of lag between maxima and means but even with means I can make parabolic fit with 95% confidence.
Altogether, that means that we are cooling. Unfortunately, global cooling is not “good”.
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of warming, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that [latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind. According to my calculations, this will start around 2019 or 2020.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left (2013 – 88 = 1925).
if you will argue with me on my results that we did not see anything catastrophic happening around 1972, when we also had a standstill, in the speed of warming, I would agree with that but remember this was at the height of warming causing more natural clouds and moisture. Now we are approaching the bottom, and there simply will be a lot less moist air going around…..
WHAT MUST WE DO?
1) We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!),

HenryP

July 23, 2013 10:30 am

I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of warming, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that [latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place,
henry says
for those that expect everything to be technically correct,
that should perhaps read (since we are cooling…)
“I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of COOLING, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference AGAIN at that [latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place,…”

« Previous 1 … 6 7 8

wpDiscuz

Related Posts

U.S. Gas and Renewables Help Buffer Power Consumers From War Costs

Can “The Silent Majority” and Media Intervention Drag Climate Action Back onto the Global Agenda?

United Nations Launches New IPCC for Artificial Intelligence, Bernie Sanders Issues Dire Warnings

How Did Last Month’s (UK) Rainfall Compare With 1929?