Hide The Decline

By Paul Homewood

In an attempt to downplay the recent halt in global warming, the IPCC have claimed in their Summary for Policymakers that:

As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05  °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 °C per  decade.)

Simply translated, this means that warming has slowed down to just under half what it was before. This message has been quickly picked up by the media, which, of course, was the main intention.

The dreadful Geoffrey Lean comments in the Telegraph:

The IPCC did, however, address a much more substantial sceptical point, that the temperature increase at the Earth’s surface has slowed down since 1998 to about 40 per cent of its average rate since 1951 – something it accepts it didn’t predict. One reason is that 1998, the year invariably chosen by sceptics, was one of the warmest ever.

So, at a stroke, the “pause” has become a “slowdown, but still significant” in the public’s eyes. But look deeper, and you will see this is a piece of devious trickery.

Is 1998 the best place to start?

First, let’s get rid of the 1998 red herring. The implication is that you can only get this “slowdown” by picking 1998 as the start year. The reality is that temperatures have been flat since 2001, which was a neutral ENSO year, and therefore comparable to this year. The Wood For Trees graph below shows this well.

Figure 1

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2013

They could also have mentioned that RSS satellite data actually shows a drop in temperature since 1998, not the small (and statistically insignificant) amount shown by HADCRUT4.

Figure 2

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013

Longer term trends

But much more important than this attempt to deflect attention form the pause, is the way the IPCC have totally misrepresented the longer term trends. Figure 3 shows HADCRUT4 numbers going back to 1941.

Figure 3

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1941/to:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1941/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2013/trend

Spot what they have done? Their base period of 1951-2013, against which they have measured post 1998 trends, includes:-

  1. 28 years of cooling – 1951-79
  2. 22 years of warming – 1979-2001
  3. 12 years of cooling again – 2001-2013

So, in total, during 40 out of the 62 years there has been a cooling trend. They are comparing a statistically insignificant amount of warming since 1998, with three decades of cooling. The result is to make this small trend sound much more significant than it is.

It would surely have been more honest to have compared the post 1998 trend with the 1979-98 period. If they had have done this, of course, most people would realised that the much trumpeted global warming really had stopped for the time being. And, in the IPCC’s eyes, that was not the message they wanted people to hear.

By this dodgy use of statistics and the 1998 red herring, they have also tried to distract attention from the clear fact that temperatures really have flatlined since 2001.

How temporary is the “temporary pause”?

It is commonly argued that a short pause in warming, of a decade or so, is not unexpected, amidst all the natural variability.. Back in 2010, the UK Met Office commented:

Recent Met Office research investigated how often decades with a stable or even negative warming trend appeared in computer-modelled climate change simulations.

Jeff Knight, lead author on the research, says: “We found one in every eight decades has near-zero or negative global temperature trends in simulations. Given that we have seen fairly consistent warming since the 1970s, the odds of one in eight suggest the observed slowdown was due to happen.”

But, if you go back to 1941, you have actually got 50 years of near zero or negative trends, and only 22 years of warming.

So which is the norm, and which is the rarity?

Footnote

It appears that the IPCC’s Thomas Stocker now claims that climatic trends should not be considered in periods of less than 30 years.

I don’t remember the IPCC suggesting that after just a decade of warming, when they wrote their first report.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Don’t get me wrong, my skeptical credentials are above reproach, but the breakdown of the temperature anomaly record into chunks of differing linear trends is a little dishonest if the gaps between linear segments invariably contain discreet upward jumps.

Tom Jones

“I don’t remember the IPCC suggesting that after just a decade of warming, when they wrote their first report.”
I don’t know of any scientific basis for this. Is there one? It seems like pure heuristics.

Thank you, Paul. Clearly some reporters need a kick in the pants to get them investigating properly, as many still have their CAGW blinkers firmly in place.
As the alarmist crowd will now start insisting on a 30 year wait for confirmation, we might be wise to apply that straight back at them (every chance we get), as that first warming “trend” that triggered the first alarmist claim was so short. “You’re right,” we can say, “And that kicks out the warming meme right from the start.”
We’ve got to teach these guys and gals that they can’t have their cake and eat it too.

Danj

I still can’t get over Michael Mann calling Judith Curry a “serial climate disinformer.” Somehow the words “pots,” “kettle,” and “black” come to mind…

Follow the Money

“But look deeper, and you will see this is a piece of devious trickery.”
Tomorrow the IPCC is set to release the report titled “The Physical Science Basis.” Namely, the report the “summary” is supposed to have summarized. The only reason not to release the two on the same day is the summary does not exactly jibe with the report (an IPCC tradition). So even deeper looks for devious trickery in the summary are likely worthwhile starting tomorrow.

Kev-in-Uk

Tom Jones says:
September 29, 2013 at 3:59 pm
there is no scientific basis for that statement – and the goalposts keep getting moved!

DaveG

Excellent analysis. The IPPC and its hangers on couldn’t be honest if their lives depended on, its their stock and trade!

Latitude

the odds of one in eight suggest the observed slowdown was due to happen…
…still batting zero

Tom Jones says:
September 29, 2013 at 3:59 pm
“I don’t remember the IPCC suggesting that after just a decade of warming, when they wrote their first report.”
I don’t know of any scientific basis for this. Is there one? It seems like pure heuristics.
*
Tom, the alarmists couldn’t wait to launch the fear-mongering. Not one of them suggested waiting ANY number of years – not 15 and certainly not 30. If and when we reach the 30-year mark, they’ll start insisting on 50 years and we all know it. They’ve just doubled up on the 15 years they first claimed to need – just how many times do they have to move the goal post before we say enough is enough? The alarmists have had their way, way too often and for way too long, with WAY too much funding. It’s more than time to draw the line.

Scute

Even WUWT is being shunted onto the back foot in the fight over the term to describe the trend since 2001. The alarmists were calling it a pause or a hiatus a year ago when the Daily Mail broke the story and sceptics weren’t happy with that because it implied knowledge that the rise would continue at some future date.
Then they started calling it a slowdown. That was a plain lie so the sceptics said it’s a pause forgetting that they had ceded part of the semantic terrain. You are now using their term, ‘pause’, a loaded term. You have no certain knowledge that the upward trend will resume in the future.
There is only one word applicable at present. It is a halt.
If the next year of temp data shows enough downturn to show more than the hundredths of a degree we currently see, I think you can progress to ‘downturn’.
But right now, it is not a pause.

Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
When you have an agenda you’re trying to advance you have to be willing to do everything you can to protect it. Especially when it is being revealed to be based on lies, falsehoods, and deception. It is particularly important, and thus vulnerable, when it is affected by power and money.

Latitude

It is a halt….
100% correct

Richard Hill

Anthony, how about a bet on how soon a “new Ice Age” meme will arise?.
Just finished reading “Why the West Rules – for Now” by Ian Morris 2010. Gripping analysis of how history can be linked to archaeology to get the broad sweep. Morris shows how climate influences social development in both Asia and Europe. The response to the warm periods and cool downs are strikingly similar on both sides of Eurasia. It might have been luck that the West got past the Little Ice Age better than the East. But the threat of global cooling is real and our ability to respond to it is a worry. Morris has a chapter on future outlook but doesnt include the new ice age possibility. Maybe we are just a couple of Pinatubos away from a real bad scene.

JJ

“One reason is that 1998, the year invariably chosen by sceptics, was one of the warmest ever.”
Typical strawman. Skeptics don’t make the argument that they declare “invariable”.
First, we don’t start at a point in the past. Our starting point is not 1998, it is 2013. Then we see how far back we can go, and still have a trend so low that it demonstrates the lack of skill of the climate models. If temps were rising as the models had predicted, we would no be able to go back very far.
Second, we don’t end in 1998, either. Most analyses of the model-busting break in trend currently indicate ~17 years of insignificant trend. They end in 1996 or 1997 – the pre-trough or mid-rise rather than the El Nino peak in 1998. This 17 year period is longer than the NASA modelers had previously claimed was the longest period consistent with their predictions. It is as long as the period that Santer et al gave as the starting point for its soon to be continuous goal-post-moving exercise.

Recent Met Office research investigated how often decades with a stable or even negative warming trend appeared in computer-modelled climate change simulations.
Negative warming trend. Otherwise known as a cooling trend outside of the circle of activist climate pseudoscientists.

Chris @NJSnowFan

I have said this before..
My feeling is Carbon tax schemes will cause a greater threat then sub prime and CDS’s ever did in time. If the global temperatures do decline like I feel they will all hell is going to break lose.
We are all doomed!!!

bit chilly

i agree with scute,it is a halt ,cessation,complete stop of “warming” . though to be fair ,if the room temperature in my sitting room increased or decreased by 0.8c i would not call it warming or cooling ,i would be hard pressed to notice.it certainly cannot be described as a pause,as that implies that at some point in the near future it will resume.
i really look forward to those with far better knowledge than i to really examine the report for errors.there is one obvious one regarding the claim of deep ocean warming in the 2000 m to 3000 m range ,and beyond 3000 m depth,where as far as i know there have been no statistically significant measurements taken. to me,this means the attribution of the heat to the deep oceans is based purely on belief and not physical measurement.

BCbrowser

Just a reminder for some, regarding the global temperature rise (happening since the late 1800s, stepwise or otherwise) and the IPCC report, Richard Lindzen recently said:
” in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. …”
Very few of the so called skeptics deny this small temperature rise during that particular period.

One more thing. Hiding the decline is an addiction with this lot. I tried this before with this same topic (to no avail…which is my expectation again), but we should come up with a list of inconvenient declines they would rather not discuss. I have a few to start with:
• The decline in the rate of warming since 1980
• The decline in the warming since 1998
• The decline in the rate of sea-level rise
• The decline in concern over climate change
• The decline in deaths from extreme weather
• The decline in major hurricanes
• The decline in NH ACE
• The decline in hair count on Mann’s head

wayne

UnfrozenCavemanMD, in those upward gaps I think you may be seeing the signatures of the unnatural upward adjustments (or downward in the distant past). That is, can the entire Earth globally warm that fast to create those curiuos upward gaps in such charts?

Its obvious that the real threat is global cooling – shorter growing seasons, unseasonal frosts, hardship and hunger.
Humans have nothing to fear from a warmer climate, we are one of the most hot climate adapted animals on the planet. In anything except the baking tropical savannahs and jungles of our distant ancestors, we have to wear clothes to protect us from the cold.
Why are we so well adapted to the heat? It goes back to how our ancestors used to hunt. We couldn’t run faster than an antelope, but we could run further than an antelope, in hotter weather, until the antelope ran out of steam and simply lay down and died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

Marcos

when the question is “how long has it been since there has been any statistically significant warming?” its is impossible to cherry pick a start date because the start date is now

Scute

JJ
I had just that problem yesterday in the comments on this BBC article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24308509
I was accused of using a start date ‘around’ a high El Niño event. I had stated ‘1997’ so this guy knew I was avoiding the 1998 peak in order not to cherry-pick. He still went for that knee jerk argument thinking I wouldn’t call him on it. I did.
I even got accused of cherry-picking my end date (your start date), the present, because one day in the distant future the present could be in the middle of a Maunder type minimum!
There are possibly millions reading these articles and many thousands reading the comments. And these guys are doing their best to erode the sum of human knowledge just by turning up to comment and leaving little bomblets all over the shop for me to diffuse.
For anyone who’s interested (and I wouldn’t actually expect anyone to traipse over there and read them) it’s Scute versus Sagacity from comments 25 to 50. Plus a tag partner who fans the flames when Sagacity goes shopping.

Mike Smith

This isn’t a “hide” or a “trick” or a “downplay”.
It’s a deliberate misrepresentation designed to extract money from others.
Also known as fraud!

I don’t remember the IPCC suggesting that after just a decade of warming, when they wrote their first report.
The figure proclaimed (much later) was 17 years and will no doubt become 70 if the cooling trend continues indefinitely.
In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.
And:
Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
From our old friend Ben Santer-punch. Santer, Stocker, and then someone else off the bench to extend it if necessary. Don’t expect them to yield an inch, ever. Thus we shall never stop fighting and exposing this fraud until they are embarrassed to even broach the subject of AGW…likely not in our lifetimes.

Using the AR5 SPM itself, I used its own graphics that I annotated to identify and discus the famous temperature”Pause”:
https://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-spm-the-pause/

Jimbo

What if it cools?

Jimbo

Here is a little trick. If in September 2013 the Arctic sea ice extent was back to the 1979 level the trend would be down. Same for next year too. Warmists are fighting for their tarnished reputations.

Other_Andy

Jimbo says:
What if it cools?
It is……
Over the past 10,000 years the current Holocene epoch the world has cooled by about 1.0 °C.
The latest ‘blip’ up might last a bit longer but the long term trend is down.

CRS, DrPH

…what is the mechanism for heat to reach the deep ocean? Warm water is less dense than cold water, so it tends to float on top of colder layers, creating the thermocline we experience in freshwater lakes. As winter approaches, our lakes “turn over” when the surface starts to freeze. http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/media/lake-turnover/?ar_a=1
I know that we just found miraculous, previously undiscovered whirlpools in the Atlantic, but really, this is Jules Vergne stuff! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/a-descent-into-the-maelstrom-black-hole-whirlpools-seen-for-the-first-time-in-the-south-atlantic/
Can anyone explain the physics of hiding heat deep in the ocean to me? And, if it is so obvious, why haven’t the climatology folks brought this up in the past & included the phenomenon in their models? My head hurts….

Martin 457

Every time somebody pulls a tree or plant matter from underneath a receding glacier, I giggle.
You mean it was actually this warm along time ago? How did that happen?

SAMURAI

Could someone please post a link to the latest HADCRUT4 anomaly?
From the attached graph, it looks like the latest temperature anomaly is around 0.1C, which I don’t think is correct. I thought the latest HADCRUT4 temperature anomaly was around 0.5C.
Could someone please clarify this?
Thank you.

SAMURAI

Ooops.. I should have written 0.25C for latest HADCRUT4, not 0.1C…

rogerknights

Jimbo says:
September 29, 2013 at 5:31 pm
What if it cools?

Heat up some popcorn!

Martin 457
Latitude

It appears that the IPCC’s Thomas Stocker now claims that climatic trends should not be considered in periods of less than 30 years.
====================
In that case, that would be the entire satellite record….
…and there has been no warming for the majority of the satellite record
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/no-warming-for-the-majority-of-the-satellite-era/

Luke Warmist

A quick observation from a passerby. For years IPCC told us co2 and temp were joined at the hip forever marching upward on that 45 degree incline. Somehow, about 1998 the right side twin (temp) separated and went on his merry way ever so slightly rising, while co2 continued rising like a homesick angel. Now they’re trying to feed me some line about ‘total energy budget’ and ‘deep ocean below 2000m sequestration of heat’. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I recognize what’s in the bowl they’re trying to give me ain’t food.
Regards, T.

Pippen Kool

Why is it that this post reminds me of some video gif thing over at Skeptical Science?

wayne says:

September 29, 2013 at 4:58 pm
UnfrozenCavemanMD, in those upward gaps I think you may be seeing the signatures of the unnatural upward adjustments (or downward in the distant past). That is, can the entire Earth globally warm that fast to create those curiuos upward gaps in such charts?

Wayne, it is simpler than that. The technique of lease-squares piecewise linear regression, done properly, keeps the line segment endpoints together. If the breakpoints are not constrained to be continuous, then the regression is free to calculate each line segment independently. By doing it this way, a skeptic opens himself to the correct criticism that he is obfuscating part of the rise, when it rises in the gaps.
Obviously, a piecewise linear fit will always be closer than a simple linear fit. Accordingly, there are statistical tests for detecting if the improvement in fit is much larger than expected by the additional degrees of freedom. This can be used to motivate the hypothesis that a regime change in the process underlying the data has occurred.

I guess they have to cherry pick the dates with 2/3rds of the time being cooling.

Luke Warmist

Mine Pippen? Geeze-Louise, I’d rather do my own root canals with a Black and Decker than be identified with those goofs.

Ivan

Sippen Kool-Aid says:
September 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Why is it that this post reminds me of some video gif thing over at Skeptical Science?
That’s easy. Because you are one of the enlisted in the army of self-deluded useful idiots that march forth with a smug self-righteousness that belies the ignorance of your advocacy. Thought we covered that. The bigger question is why are you unable to accept that the cooling trends over the last 70+ years have lasted nearly twice as long as the warming trend? See answer to question one. I thought one of your IPCC mouthpieces said a trend should not be considered if less than 30 years (formerly 17 years). Any comment on that?

Pippen Kool says:
“Why is it that this post reminds me of some video gif thing over at Skeptical Science?”
Why? Because things aren’t going your way, that’s why.

gregole

Richard Hill says:
September 29, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Anthony, how about a bet on how soon a “new Ice Age” meme will arise?

Exactly. Crises of our times and all. The grandchildren, climate refugees, mass extinctions. Man-Made of course.
And thanks Paul – excellent analysis as ever. Now a question.
Say for the sake of argument, we – Earth, are presently, today, at 0 degrees anomaly. How much colder would temperatures comprising said anomaly need to fall for the ice to again encroach upon us from the poles and the wonderful interglacial we currently enjoy, end? A range of temperatures is fine.
I have heard, and I cannot recall where, that it is something like 8 degrees F. Does this sound about right?
So if so, if in 2100 it’s 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 degrees to ending the interglacial instead of 8; what is the problem, precisely?
Not meant as a thread-jack; but if indeed these are the ranges of numbers, then take a look at the recorded anomalies. Up, down, and indifferent, they are measured in fractions of a degree per half-decade without rhyme, reason or definitive direction. Plot them with the Y-Scale at our 8 degree limit to an ice-age and you see their insignificance. Ending our current, quite pleasant interglacial, will be painful. We may not survive. This minute warming is all good; the extra CO2, all good. http://www.co2science.org/video/gope2.php
Clearly, despite 20+ years of blabbering clap-trap shouted through media megaphones from the likes of Trenberth, Mann, Hansen, et al concerning Man-Made Global warming catastrophe, there is a conspicuous lack of anything like a crises from the minute warming assigned entirely and arbitrarily to Mankind and our production of CO2.

Bill Illis

It appears that much of the media did not appreciate the report not addressing the decline/temperature hiatus.
It is almost like their “spidey sense of something is wrong here” has finally kicked in much like the feeling that got most of us into this debate in the first place. Those of us who were always science geeks but didn’t like how evidence was being ignored in favor of exaggeration and settled science decrees.
The latest report could be the beginning of the end. But then, old climate scientists are likely to be much like old soldiers. They don’t die, they just slowly fade away.

John Mason

Clearly, as we look at the temp graphs and if was accept them as factual, any marginal effect the steady rise in atmospheric C02 has had on climate is complete background noise to the actual drivers of climate. How someone can see a C02 signal or think of it as the ‘planet’s thermostat’ can’t see the forest for the trees.
And if warmists see this blog post and think we don’t see the warming trend, we do and it started a couple of hundred years ago as we came out of the LIA and we have little to do with it nor little we can do about it whether nature drives the temps up or as we swing back down to the return of the ice age.

RACookPE1978

CRS, DrPH says:
September 29, 2013 at 5:40 pm

…what is the mechanism for heat to reach the deep ocean? Warm water is less dense than cold water, so it tends to float on top of colder layers, creating the thermocline we experience in freshwater lakes. …
I know that we just found miraculous, previously undiscovered whirlpools in the Atlantic, but really, this is Jules Vergne stuff! …
Can anyone explain the physics of hiding heat deep in the ocean to me?

Well, uhm, er, ahhhhhh. No. Nobody can explain it. At least in terms of physics or heat transfer or thermodynamics.
Several above have noted that sea water and sea water heat capacity are some 1200 times that of air at atmospheric pressure. Being that the seawater-air interface IS at atmospheric conditions, 1.0 degree warming of the air could, at most, with 100% transfer efficiency between air and water, transfer enough heat energy to warm an equivalent amount of water by 1/1200 of one degree C. So, the warmer air – if it were to stay in contact with the water and not rise up higher into the atmosphere, could warm water somewhat.
One, no two, no three or four more questions immediately follow:
One. Why did the solar heat coming to earth from 1890 through 1998 warm only the land? Sea water did NOT follow the late 20th century warming found by Hansen’s NASA-GISS and HADCRU much-changed land-based records. However, after 1998, we are to believe that the same solar energy is NOW warming not the surface of the seawater – which it is not warming – but the deep sea. Further, we know from above that such warming would not be the surface air’s (potential) 1/2 of one degree C increase they claim is man-caused (or 1/4 of one degree if 1/2 of the potential increase is natural warming), but rather 1/2 x 1/1200 of that one degree.
Two. Could the solar energy NOT heating the air the past 17 years be heating the water instead? No. No ARGO buoy measurements show a comparable surface (1 -2000 meter) warming trend the past 17 years.
Three. But then what happens if the 18 years of missing heat did go unmeasured and unaccountably to the bottom of the ocean ? That 1/2 of 1/1200 of one degree might come back from the deep ocean and warm the surface water again – in a few hundred or thousand years – but at most it could only warm the air by transferring back NOT the original heat energy of 1/12 of one degree, but the difference between 1/2 of one degree x 1/1200 of that original x whatever fraction is not lost to the sea bottom x the heat losses between future ocean surface and the air. And that surface air might be warmer or colder by tens of degrees depending on the summer or winter and the actual rising location.
Four. The first 50 years of the past century could NOT be due to man’s CO2 influence: there simply was too little CO2 released to account for the rise in air temperature from 1890 through 1940. No deep water temperature was measured – it might have been present, but no mechanism nor cause nor symptom has been proposed for why the deep water increased in temperature, where that increase was, or how great the increase was.
Yet when CO2 DID begin increasing from 1945-50 through 1975, air temperatures dropped while CO2 increased measurably. Regional air particle pollution did increase locally (Pittsburgh, Los Angelos, London were notable) but did not increase worldwide during this period. Again, no deep water temperature changes were measured nor proposed by any theory of any kind: Granted, deep water temperatures were not widely measured – it might have been present, but no mechanism nor cause nor symptom has been proposed for why the deep water increased in temperature, where that increase was, or how great the increase was between 1945 and 1975.
Worse, if the far smaller CO2 increase from 1890 through 1945 DID cause a decline in air temperatures from 1890 though 1915, then an increase in air temperature from 1915 through 1945, then why does today’s 18 year far larger increase in CO2 NOT cause any increase in air temperature from 1996 through 2013 when worldwide measured air temperatures were steady, if not declining?
If an measurable increase in man-released CO2 DID cause an increase in air temperature from 1975 through 1998, then why did that increase in CO2 NOT cause an increase in sea water deep ocean temperatures at that time? Shallow water ocean temperatures did NOT increase in the 23 year period between 1975 and 1998, nor did they measurably increase in earlier 1918 – 1945 air temperature-increase-without-CO2-increase.
The IPCC needs to propose a specific, credible, measured method for the surface water for the 23 years between 1975 and 1998 to stay at the same temperature, while the global air temperatures slightly increased during that same period, while the deep ocean temperatures did NOT increase 1/2 x 1/1200 of one degree, while the DMI 80 north Arctic ocean air temperatures stayed the same every summer since 1959. At least they do not need to account for several years of record-setting high Antarctic sea ice levels – there were no satellites to measure Arctic or Antarctic sea ice levels!
Next, the IPCC needs to propose a specific, credible, measured method for the surface water for the 17 years since 1998 to stay at the same temperature, while the global air temperatures slightly decrease during that same 17 year period, while the deep ocean temperatures (supposedly) increased 1/2 x 1/1200 of one degree, while the DMI 80 north Arctic ocean air temperatures stay the same every summer since 1959. And, at the same time they need to account for several years of record-setting high Antarctic sea ice levels!

Luke Warmist

Ivan says:
September 29, 2013 at 7:30 pm
Isn’t this interesting:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
…..bottom line it’s a simple amplitude stretch. From .425 to .485 is nothing I’ll wet my pants over. One can create a 45 degree angle at will with any graphing software.
…anyway I’d love to stay and chat, but I get up at 3:30am, and my little bed is calling me.
Regards, T.

Tilo Reber

I played some games a couple of years back where I took the 98 El Niño global temp data and I filled in the years after that with a temp constant, just to see how much effect it would have on the trend. Then I did the same thing with the 2 year La Niña that followed immediately after. I ran the same constant forward to the same point and back to the beginning of 98. That La Niña was much shallower that the 98 El Niño. But it lasted much longer. Then when I compared the effect on the trend of the two I found that the negative caused by El Niño was almost exactly matched by the positive of the La Niña. In other words, starting in 1998, the effect of the first two ENSO events basically cancel each other out in regards to their overall effect on the trend. That conclusion has been verified by the fact that other people ran ENSO corrected versions of the data, and the ENSO corrected data trend came out to be virtually identical to the uncorrectd trend. One of the people that ran an ENSO corrected version was Gavin Schmidt.
So when you hear warmers complain about a cherry picked starting point, it is simply a red herring.