Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org
Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts
CAGW refers to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Few people doubt that humans have some influence on climate, however the big debate is whether or not we are causing enough warming to have catastrophic consequences decades from now. The best evidence thus far is that climate goes in numerous different cycles and that whatever influence humans have, is minimal. Certainly, what happened, and what did not happen, in 2013, does not justify any alarm.
The above graph illustrates the change over the past year for the length of the period of no warming for RSS. At the end of 2012, the Pause was for a period of 194 months. By the end of 2013, this Pause had increased by 14 months to 208 months, namely the 12 months in 2013 and an additional 2 months further back in 1996. Of course, Santer’s 17 years was reached when 204 months of no warming was reached in October. For the year 2013, RSS ranks it as the 10th warmest year.
Since warming did not happen in 2013, what about climate change? Let us consider the polar vortex event at the beginning of January that led to the greatest cold in the United States in 20 years. According to RSS, 8 of the Decembers prior to 2013 were warmer than that of 2013. So neither a warm 2013 nor a warm December can be blamed for the polar vortex activity. Extra CO2 could potentially cause some things to happen via the mechanism of an initial warming. But if warming has not been occurring, then there is no way that man-made CO2 can be blamed.
At this time, I would like to address another topic that sometimes comes up. Occasionally, the view is expressed that the anomalies should not be given to more digits than can be justified. So if temperatures are recorded to the nearest 1/10 degree, the anomalies should also be to the nearest 1/10 degree instead of to the nearest 1/1000 degree for example. I do not consider this a big deal and I would like to illustrate it with a sports analogy. Suppose we were to compare three different soccer or hockey teams and decided that the average number of goals per game is one thing to look at. Suppose that over 1000 games, Team A made 520 goals, Team B made 1040 goals and Team C made 1460 goals. The goals per game would be 0.52, 1.04 and 1.46. So Team B scored twice as many as Team A and Team C scored almost three times as many. However a “purist” would say that since we cannot have a hundredth of a goal, but only a whole number of goals, we need to round off all numbers to the nearest whole number. In that case, 0.52 and 1.04 and 1.46 would all get rounded to 1. As a result, the information is useless. In my opinion, the decimal places are certainly something to keep in the backs of our minds, but for me to change all numbers in the table on Section 3 to the nearest 1/10 C would be a waste of time and about as useful as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Furthermore, to average 12 numbers after rounding them could give quite different results, depending on whether more numbers were rounded up or down.
Also, I use UAH version 5.5 since that is what WFT uses. Paul Clark might upgrade WTI to version 5.6 and HadCRUT4 if you drop a tip and a note in his Charity Tip Jar. In version 5.5, 2013 is ranked 7th. However version 5.6 has 2013 ranked 4th. In contrast, RSS for 2013 is ranked 10th. Let us assume that the error bars for each data set is +/- 0.1 C. The value of the anomaly for UAH version 5.6 was 0.236. What would be the range of ranks if we assumed the range in the anomaly at the 95% level was from 0.136 to 0.336? The answer is from 3rd to 10th. Now let us do the same for RSS. The RSS average anomaly for 2013 was 0.218. Numbers from 0.118 to 0.318 gives a rank range of 5th to 14th. If we only used UAH version 5.6 and RSS, it would seem that the “real” rank for the satellite data set is 7th or 8th. Do you agree?
In the six data sets I am analyzing, the ranks for 2013 range from 6th to 10th. This really is nothing for the warmists to celebrate. While it varies slightly between different data sets, a rank of about 8 means that the increase in the period of no warming plods along a month at a time. In order to really make a difference in the rankings and significantly shorten the period of no warming, the new rankings need to be 5 or less.
On the table in Section 3, I give the ranks for the six data sets for 2012 in row 1. As it turns out, the average anomaly for each set for 2013 (row 21) was warmer than for 2012 (row 2). So since 2013 was warmer than 2012 and with the year now being over, each 2012 ranking has been updated making it one higher than stated in earlier posts.
It is possible that some rankings in row 22 could still change as adjustments are made to 2013 data in future months. In particular, GISS is in 7th place by only a difference of 0.002.
In Section 2, I give the times for which there has been no statistically significant warming on 5 of the data sets. At this point, I do not want to get into a discussion about NOAA’s statement that starts with “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more…”. But I merely wish to point out that NOAA and climate science in general feel that being 95% confident whether or not warming is occurring over a certain interval has a certain amount of significance. I have used the program by Nick Stokes available on his moyhu.blogspot.com to come up with those time periods. The time periods with no statistically significant warming varies from 16 years to 21 years on the five data sets. These times vary, but they are generally at least four years longer than the period for a slope of 0. In my last post, there were questions about the 95% significance. Nick Stokes has agreed to address all questions related to this aspect of the analysis.
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 for how long there has been no warming on several data sets. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2013 compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record so far. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. 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 9 years and 3 months to 17 years and 4 months.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since July 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to December)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since July 1997 or 16 years, 6 months. (goes to December)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month. (goes to December)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month. (goes to December)
5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month. (goes to December)
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since October 2004 or 9 years, 3 months. (goes to December using version 5.5)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 4 months (goes to December). So RSS has passed Ben Santer’s 17 years.
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. 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.
The actual numbers are meaningless since all slopes are essentially zero and the position of each line is merely a reflection of the base period from which anomalies are taken for each set. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 17 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on various data sets.
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 Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website moyhu.blogspot.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH: Since January 1996: CI from -0.008 to 2.437
For RSS: Since November 1992: CI from -0.018 to 1.936
For Hadcrut4: Since September 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.316
For Hadsst3: Since June 1993: CI from -0.009 to 1.793
For GISS: Since June 1997: CI from -0.004 to 1.276
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 other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst3, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:
1. 12ra: This is the final new ranking for 2012 on each data set after the 2013 ranking has been accounted for.
2. 12a: 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 three 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.
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, etc.
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 may use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs slightly, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.
22. rnk: This is the final rank for each particular data set for 2013. In cases where two numbers are close, future adjustments may change things. For example GISS could easily end up in 6th from 7th. Due to different base periods, the rank is more meaningful than the average anomaly.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. 12ra | 10th | 12th | 10th | 11th | 10th | 10th |
| 2. 12a | 0.161 | 0.192 | 0.448 | 0.403 | 0.346 | 0.58 |
| 3. year | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 |
| 4. ano | 0.419 | 0.55 | 0.547 | 0.548 | 0.416 | 0.67 |
| 5. mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Feb98 | Jul98 | Jan07 |
| 6. ano | 0.662 | 0.857 | 0.829 | 0.756 | 0.526 | 0.94 |
| 7. y/m | 9/3 | 17/4 | 13/1 | 16/6 | 13/1 | 12/6 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 9. Jan | 0.504 | 0.439 | 0.450 | 0.392 | 0.292 | 0.63 |
| 10.Feb | 0.175 | 0.192 | 0.479 | 0.436 | 0.309 | 0.52 |
| 11.Mar | 0.183 | 0.203 | 0.405 | 0.392 | 0.287 | 0.60 |
| 12.Apr | 0.103 | 0.217 | 0.427 | 0.404 | 0.364 | 0.48 |
| 13.May | 0.077 | 0.138 | 0.498 | 0.480 | 0.382 | 0.57 |
| 14.Jun | 0.269 | 0.291 | 0.457 | 0.431 | 0.314 | 0.61 |
| 15.Jul | 0.118 | 0.221 | 0.520 | 0.483 | 0.479 | 0.53 |
| 16.Aug | 0.122 | 0.166 | 0.528 | 0.496 | 0.483 | 0.61 |
| 17.Sep | 0.294 | 0.256 | 0.532 | 0.517 | 0.457 | 0.74 |
| 18.Oct | 0.227 | 0.207 | 0.478 | 0.446 | 0.391 | 0.61 |
| 19.Nov | 0.111 | 0.131 | 0.593 | 0.576 | 0.424 | 0.78 |
| 20.Dec | 0.177 | 0.158 | 0.489 | 0.475 | 0.352 | 0.60 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 21.ave | 0.197 | 0.218 | 0.486 | 0.461 | 0.376 | 0.61 |
| 22.rnk | 7th | 10th | 8th | 6th | 6th | 7th |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 5.5 was used since that is what WFT used.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.5.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For HadCRUT4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For HadCRUT3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3-gl.dat
For HadSST3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2013 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below:
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January.
Appendix:
In this section, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 4 months. (goes to December) So RSS has passed Ben Santer’s 17 years.
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since November 1992: CI from -0.018 to 1.936.
The RSS average anomaly for 2013 is 0.218. This would rank it in 10th place. 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 is now ranked 12th.
UAH
The slope is flat since October 2004 or 9 years, 3 months. (goes to December using version 5.5)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since January 1996: CI from -0.008 to 2.437.
The UAH average anomaly for 2013 is 0.197. This would rank it 7th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.662. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.161 and it is now ranked 10th.
Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years and 1 month. (goes to December)
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since September 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.316.
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly for 2013 is 0.486. This would rank it 8th. 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 is now ranked 10th.
Hadcrut3
The slope is flat since July 1997 or 16 years, 6 months. (goes to December)
The Hadcrut3 average anomaly for 2013 is 0.461. This would rank it 6th. 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 0.403 and it is now ranked 11th.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years and 1 month. (goes to December).
For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1993: CI from -0.009 to 1.793.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly for 2013 is 0.376. This would rank it 6th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.416. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in July of 1998 when it reached 0.526. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.346 and it is now ranked 10th.
GISS
The slope is flat since July 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to December)
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1997: CI from -0.004 to 1.276.
The GISS average anomaly for 2013 is 0.61. This would rank it as 7th. 2010 was the warmest at 0.67. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.94. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.58 and it is now ranked 10th.
Conclusion:
Everything seemed to go wrong for the warmists this year. The temperatures did not go up; a ship got stuck in huge ice in the Antarctic during their summer; north polar ice made a big come back; and climate change happenings were not significantly different from what can be expected. Can anyone point to anything for warmists to hang their hat on, so to speak, in 2013?
As I mentioned in the article, Nick Stokes is available to answer all questions with respect to the meaning of the numbers in Section 2 of this report since it uses his program to come up with the 95% numbers. So take advantage of this opportunity.
Here is my question: From January 1997 to the present, according to GISS, the slope is 0.741 C/century and the confidence limits are 0.125 to 1.356. So in other words, we can be 95% certain that the real slope is positive and somewhere between 0.125 C/century and 1.356 C/century. Right? However the slope for RSS from January 1997 is (negative) -0.127 C/century. Does this mean that we can be 95% certain that either GISS or RSS are out to lunch? Thank you!
Even NOAA’s surface data, which claims 4th hottest ever for 2013, is losing steam quickly. They won’t say that their own data shows the 2004-2013 decade to be only 0.1 degree Celsius warmer than the decade before it, the lowest since 1982 and a trend that’s falling fast.
Marvelous. Thank you.
“GISS
The slope is flat since July 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to December)
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1997: CI from -0.004 to 1.276.”
And this graph from Nate shows that to be true. I mean (pun) just how flat can a line become?
http://snag.gy/hFsMF.jpg
Original ©Nate Drake, enhancement © RLH
“Filter on NON-detrended GISS LOTI data: … I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 year data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method.” Nate Drake
Werner Brozek:
You ask:
No. It is an indication that GISS and RSS are indicating different things.
There is no agreed definition of Global Average Surface Temperature Anomally (GASTA) and each team that provides time series of GASTA adopts a different method to derive it. Indeed, GISS and RSS are clearly measuring different things in different ways because GISS derives its data from weather measurement thermometers and RSS derives its data from from microwave sounding units (MSU) mounted on satellites.
For more explanation of this problem concerning ‘What is GASTA?’ please read Appendix B of this
Parliamentary Submission
Richard
Is there a clear description/reference on how the statistical significance is computed. I am particularly interested in how you decide the effective number of samples, n.
part of the alarmists problem is they are trying to say that the Catastrophic consequences are TODAY, when everyone with a memory greater than a gold fish can see that is not the case. They should have stuck with their original meme. The problem is today is the future they were warning about 25 years ago (Manhattan is still not underwater hansen).
joshuah says:
January 25, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Not only that, but the top 10 years in GISS range from 0.58 to 0.67, which is a difference of 0.09. So if the error bar is 0.1, then we statistically have a 10 way tie for first place. Perhaps it is even larger if we can include numbers as low as 0.47, since 0.47 + 0.1 = 0.67 – 0.1.
“Few people doubt that humans have some influence on climate”
Then count me in that “few”.
I think it is the height of human self regard and sheer folly that anything other than that colossal nuclear energy source in the sky is the beginning and end of that is what we call climate. So much so, that any other influences (especially humanity) are minuscule beyond reason, measurement or any need for expensing a single penny of the public purse.
By all means, keep observing, reporting and predicting weather changes and patterns, but give up on finding the “hidden” cause – it is bloody obvious!
Isn’t that called ‘Cherry Picking’ where for each of 6 datasets you choose a different start point in order to give the result you want (i.e. Slope of zero)?
The more decimal places that are displayed, the less impressed that I am.
Try applying the same method to CET and see how long the period before present without a statistically significant trend is.
The Warmistas can always thank the EPA and Prez Obama for lying about the climate and the need to “address” the issue (like they lie about everything else).
Warmistas like lies–they believe in them, repeat them, and hang their hat on them (figuratively, of course).
I’m waiting for them to outlaw these termperature datasets as being too “dangerous” in the hands of skeptics and counterproductive to “Social Progress”.
You heard it here first.
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
January 25, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Isn’t that called ‘Cherry Picking’ where for each of 6 datasets you choose a different start point in order to give the result you want (i.e. Slope of zero)?
With what I am reporting, I have no choice at all. My final month is December 2013 and the first month is where ever the data lead me. That can be September 1996 or October 2004.
Boy, am I glad to see that the year 2013 added 14 months to the flatlining. I have always maintained that, in theory, this could happen. It is nice to see that it has actually happened.
NotTheAussiePhilM:
Isn’t that called ‘Cherry Picking’ where for each of 6 datasets you choose a different start point in order to give the result you want (i.e. Slope of zero)?
No. Each dataset measures something different, or uses a different algorithim. But all have a common end point (now). Cherry picking would include picking an end point, to get the “best”results.
What one can say, is that ALL datasets show a slope of zero over the latter portion the record.
All records also show an insignificant temperature rise since June 1997.
When you say However a “purist” would say that since we cannot have a hundredth of a goal, but only a whole number of goals, we need to round off all numbers to the nearest whole number. In that case, 0.52 and 1.04 and 1.46 would all get rounded to 1. As a result, the information is useless. it sounds like you have no scientific training in the reporting of uncertainty, which undermines the ethos of this article.
Jim Cripwell says:
January 25, 2014 at 12:38 pm
Boy, am I glad to see that the year 2013 added 14 months to the flatlining. I have always maintained that, in theory, this could happen. It is nice to see that it has actually happened.
That is only because we had no La Nina last year. Should 2014 be a La Nina year, then we could add another 24 months in a 12 month period by going back an additional year. The latest weekly ENSO number is -0.607 so you never know what might happen.
wbrozek on January 25, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Indeed. I’m still not even sure what it means to condense an entire globe to a single number with two decimal points. But if they’re going to treat such numbers as gospel truth and make absolute statements about ‘9 of 10 hottest years since 2000’ etc, I’m going to keep pointing out other (and IMO better) ways to analyze the same numbers to show that they don’t show the trends that they think they show.
Michael D says:
January 25, 2014 at 12:45 pm
it sounds like you have no scientific training in the reporting of uncertainty
Trust me, I know all about significant digits. When adding or subtracting, you round to the lowest decimal place so when adding 2.3 cm + 4.68 cm + 5.789 cm, you do the adding and round to a single decimal place since that is the lowest number of decimal places. But if these numbers were multiplied to find a volume for example, you multiply and round to 2 significant digits since that is the lowest number of significant digits. Right?
But in these cases, they give anomalies like 0.352. I know very well that this is not between 0.35150 and 0.35249. As I said, I treat 0.352 as a +/- 0.1 so the “real” number 95% of the time is assumed to be between 0.252 and 0.452.
cnxtim says: January 25, 2014 at 12:26 pm
“Few people doubt that humans have some influence on climate”
Then count me in that “few”.
I think it is the height of human self regard and sheer folly that anything other than that colossal nuclear energy source in the sky is the beginning and end of that is what we call climate. So much so, that any other influences (especially humanity) are minuscule beyond reason, measurement or any need for expensing a single penny of the public purse.
Come on, what about land use changes such as deforestation, desertification, damning waterways, paving roads and the urban heat island effect, pollution such as black carbon and smog, direct heating such as waste heat and runoff, ice cover changes due to ice breaking and array other methods. Not to say that these are necessarily having detriment effects, but some of them likely have more than a miniscule effect, especially on local climate, which is what most people notice. For example, I would argue that it would be worth spending a few pennys out of someone’s purse to clean up the pollution factory that Asia has become.
By all means, keep observing, reporting and predicting weather changes and patterns, but give up on finding the “hidden” cause – it is bloody obvious!
There are so many more variables involved than just the sun, take a look through the WUWT Potential Climatic Variables Reference Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/research-pages/potential-climatic-variables/
The causes of multitude of variations in Earth’s climate system are not “hidden” per se, we just don’t know to where to find them. Currently our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best and our historical record is laughably brief.
Can anyone point to anything for warmists to hang their hat on, so to speak, in 2013?
They will be sighing with relief that the world is not going to suffer from a runaway greenhouse effect, that we can continue expanding our economies based on fossil fuels including the hundreds of years worth of shale gas, reducing poverty (both fuel and general) Taxes on fuels should come down as will the disfiguring and pointless windmills. We can continue to attempt to develop nuclear fusion reactors and Thorium reactors. The Met Ofice can provide us wit accurate weather forecasts based on reality, not computer models. Finally the billions we are pouring into climate research can be used sensibly instead of funding research conducted by deluded liars!
Anyway that is the way I see it, I don’t think the CAGW crowd will be happy, but to be honest, who cares?
Werner, thank you for a well-written and informative post.
I would disagree with your sports analogy regarding significant figures. When you look at the number of goals a team scores there is no uncertainty. You can express it with an infinite number of 0’s to the right of the decimal and all of those are significant. When you use them to compare goals per game you’re not fudging the numbers at all. That’s not the case with global temperature. By using false precision to rank one year over another as “warmer” you open the door to all kinds of ridiculous press releases that mislead the public and policy makers.
having artificially raised temperatures previously, it becomes ever harder to do the same again and again. especially with Anthony watching all the station output.
I find it rather amusing that the first crop of high school graduates that have been steeped in global warming “science” in every class from social studies to math to history. Who has seen countless nature shows that the last 10 minutes are dedicated to how global warming will kill all of the cute cuddly creatures they just saw. The kids can probably tell you why CO2 is bad and killing everything, but couldn’t solve a simple math problem, or write a semi-coherent thought. These kids who have known nothing but global warming their entire lives, will be the first to graduate high school in a world where the global temperature hasn’t moved a 1/10th of a degree during their entire life times. I will be interested to see the generational backfire when they finally figure out they have been manipulated their entire lives.
The starting date for this graph is the average birthdate of the undergrads that I am teaching this semester. They tell me that they are horrified to see how much “global warming” they have had to endure during their lives, and are convinced that the “highly correlated” CO2 shown on the graph is definitely the culprit. /sarc
CACA trough feeders measure success based upon funding, conference attendance & media & official adulation, so for them 2013 was another banner year. Objective reality doesn’t matter to them until it can no longer be explained away.
Pachygrapsus says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Thank you! You raise a good point with the infinite number of significant digits. If you are not familiar with Canadian or American football, just skip to the next entry. However a fullback may rush for 59 yards in 7 carries and then they would say the average was 8.4 yards per carry even though all initial entries were written down to the nearest whole yard.
Now as for climate, if one year is higher by 0.1 C, we should probably say something like that the probability is 55 % that the one year was warmer than the other.
Let’s just rename “Polar Vortex” to “Polar Moartex!”
Moar alarmism!
Moar shrill accusations of impiety!
Moar ways to say warming is cleverly hiding and affecting weather from its clever hiding place! Cleverly!
Just The Facts
“damning waterways”
I just went outside with a thermometer, looked out over the Pacific Ocean and said “Damn thee, Pacific Ocean!” No change in temperature.
(A small joke at your expense. Sorry – could not let it go by. It was just there, calling me.)
Another Year, Another Nail in the CAGW Coffin (Now Includes December Data)
is yet another long-winded attempt to try and prove a pre-determined position, rather than looking at the actual data in a balanced way.
There is no doubt that the rate of warming has been slower in the last decade or so than the previous few decades. However, on both the NASA GISS and NOAA data the ten warmest years are all since (and including) 2002, except for 1998.
This flat period cannot be extrapolated to try and “prove” that dangerous climate change will not happen many decades from now.
There were 2 previous flat periods – one from the start of the 1980s and again from the start of the 1990s. They were not as long as the current one, but they did take place and warming resumed subsequently and they can be fairly confidently pinned to known forcing factors.
The length of the current flat period is unusual, but in recent years the neutral or negative ENSO and the quiet Sun are forcing factors consistent with the data we are seeing. Lets wait and see what happens when we get the next El Nino.
As to the conclusions:
“Everything seemed to go wrong for the warmists this year. The temperatures did not go up; a ship got stuck in huge ice in the Antarctic during their summer; north polar ice made a big come back; and climate change happenings were not significantly different from what can be expected. Can anyone point to anything for warmists to hang their hat on, so to speak, in 2013?”
1. Temperatures did go up, very slightly
2. Irrelevant – ships often get stuck in the ice
3. North Polar ice did not “make a big comeback”. Apart for a few days and only just, ice area has been below the mean (1979 – 2008) for 11 straight years and is currently around 800,000 sq km below the mean.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
4. What are “climate change happenings ?”
5. Given that many sceptics have been predicting a new mini-ice age round the corner, where is the cooling trend ?
James Abbott:
re your post at January 25, 2014 at 1:44 pm.
Posting under more than one name is against WUWT rules.
So, I ask if you are you Brad Keyes posting under another name?
If you are not, then I congratulate you because your post gave me as good a laugh as his rants.
Your reference to “ships often get stuck in the ice” was an especially funny Turney of phrase.
Richard
Werner Brozek says:
“Few people doubt that humans have some influence on climate (…)”
Yes, and one can really start to wonder why exactly. Seeing there is (still) no trace of such an influence anywhere … It is just an assumption without a shred of evidence to back it up.
No. The big debate is whether we have any measurable effect at all. You can’t say there is an effect if there is no evidence for it. It’s merely a hypothesis.
wbrozek says: January 25, 2014 at 12:04 pm
“Does this mean that we can be 95% certain that either GISS or RSS are out to lunch? Thank you!”
Werner, the first thing to say is that they are measuring different things – surface vs lower troposphere.
But even if they weren’t – you can test whether the two readings could be from the same population. But it isn’t as simple as saying that one reading is outside the range of the other. If for example, the true value is 0.3 °C/cen, that’s well within the range of both. I’m pretty sure the proper test wouldn’t say that RSS and GISS were inconsistent (it they were measuring the same thing).
There are so many absurdities and uncertainties in the global surface temperature record, that it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. For example, according to one set of figures that NOAA/NCDC continues to publish, every year from 1900 to 1997 has a global surface temperature between 16°C and 16.92°C, whereas according to the January 2014 edition of NASA’s global land-ocean temperature index, the year 2010 is the “hottest” on record, with a global surface temperature of 14.67°C. Both NASA and NOAA/NCDC play fast and loose with global surface temperatures, altering them by a degree or two as and when they see fit. Nothing they publish in this matter has any credibility.
http://gst-fiasco.blogspot.co.uk/
James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Thank you for your comments. I would like to address the following:
This flat period cannot be extrapolated to try and “prove” that dangerous climate change will not happen many decades from now.
The highest rate of warming for a period of 25 or more years since 1880 was 0.18 C/decade. I do not consider this dangerous. Furthermore, temperatures seem to go in 60 year cycles and we are now in a flat or downward trend. As well, the effect of more CO2 is logarithmic so if the last 16 years have been rather flat, why should the future be dangerous?
OK, I’ll explain further. I refer to your fictional illustration:
The goals per game would be 0.52, 1.04 and 1.46. So Team B scored twice as many as Team A and Team C scored almost three times as many. However a “purist” would say that since we cannot have a hundredth of a goal, but only a whole number of goals, we need to round off all numbers to the nearest whole number. >/em>
“Purists” would only round to whole numbers if they are also mathematically illiterate. The significant figures quoted depend on the intended purpose. As a record of what was achieved, the full significant figures should be quoted. As a prediction of what can be expected from those teams in the future, some sort of uncertainty model should be attached. Soccer is such a low-scoring game that I would be tempted to assume a Poisson distribution, in which case the variance of goals scored over the whole 100 game season is equal to the total number of goals scored. A typical uncertainty estimate would be the square root of the variance. Thus Team C can be expected to score 1460 goals in its next 100 games plus or minus 40 (use only one significant figure in an uncertainty of this type). One could correctly say that Team C can be expected to score an average of 1.46 plus or minus 0.04 goals per game next season, so all three digits in 1.46 are significant.
In a single game, Team C can be expected to score 1.46 goals, but the expected uncertainty is (square root of 1.46) = 1.2, When the uncertainty is so large relative to the expected value, it is best to just say “Team C can be expected to score between 0 and 3 goals per game.”
richardscourtney says:
January 25, 2014 at 12:21 pm
Nick Stokes says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Thank you! (I will read Appendix B later.)
richardscourtney says, January 25, 2014 at 12:21 pm:
“Indeed, GISS and RSS are clearly measuring different things in different ways because GISS derives its data from weather measurement thermometers and RSS derives its data from from microwave sounding units (MSU) mounted on satellites.”
Well, there is definitely something going on between what the two satellite teams of UAH and RSS put out also. The discrepancy is quite striking and both cannot be right, if any (and one would assume that they measure basically the same thing):
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/compress:3/plot/uah/from:1997/compress:3/offset:0.03
Something clearly happens in late 2005.
Before that, something happened in 1992:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2005/compress:3/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2005/compress:3/offset:0.06
Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU) says: January 25, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Just The Facts
“damning waterways”
I just went outside with a thermometer, looked out over the Pacific Ocean and said “Damn thee, Pacific Ocean!” No change in temperature.
(A small joke at your expense. Sorry – could not let it go by. It was just there, calling me.)
Very funny, I have images of the neighbors to a newly built reservoir cursing as they shovel out from the Lake Effect snow:
“Lake-effect snows commonly occur across the Great Lakes and other relatively large bodies of water, especially over the northern United States. This type of snowfall occurs when strong, cold advective winds normal to the lakeshore, a long wind fetch and relatively warmer water combine to produce low-topped cumulus/stratocumulus snows on a localized scale. However, on lakes over the southern United States this phenomenon is relatively rare. This paper discusses the prevailing conditions immediately preceding and during a lake-effect snow at the southern end of the Bull Shoals Reservoir in northern Arkansas (Fig. 1) from around 6 to 8 a.m. CST on December 19, 1996. Snowfall amounts from this event measured from one-half to around one inch, so the significance was not in the amount of snow that fell, but rather in the dynamics of how the snow occurred. ”
“The Bull Shoals Reservoir is a rather narrow elongated body of water located in northern Arkansas. The orientation of the reservoir lies along a 290-300 deg radial from the city of Mountain Home (Fig. 1). Since the reservoir resulted from the intentional flooding of a natural valley, there are no terrain obstructions to winds blowing along the radial from the west-northwest. Most of the snow that fell occurred in and around the community of Lakeview.”
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/topics/attach/html/ssd97-21.htm
Damn waterways messing up my climate… 🙂
Kristian:
You quoted from part of my post and ignored the rest.
I wrote
and I linked to an item which explained it.
Had you read Appendix B at my link then you would have understood the problem you question. Here is the link again Parliamentary Submission
Richard
Here’s a simple solution to the discrepancy:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1992/compress:3/plot/uah/from:1992/to:2005.67/compress:3/offset:0.06/plot/uah/from:2005.67/compress:3/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2005.67/compress:3/offset:-0.07/plot/rss/from:2005.67/compress:3/offset:-0.04
Lift the midsection of the UAH timeseries by 0.06 degrees between 1992 and late 2005, only that. And then move the final part of the RSS timeseries (starting in late 2005) up by 0.03 degrees.
Close to perfect match.
Of course, justifying these corrections will be harder. That would be for the UAH and RSS teams to look into. I fear it won’t happen …
Richard,
Please stop taking everything as a personal attack on you. I am not disagreeing with you at all. I’m just using your statement to illuminate another part of the puzzle. Jeez.
richardscourtney
That is my name. I always post under my own name.
Not sure why ships getting stuck in ice is funny. They do though – as a few minutes research on the web will show you..
wbrozek
You say
“The highest rate of warming for a period of 25 or more years since 1880 was 0.18 C/decade. I do not consider this dangerous. Furthermore, temperatures seem to go in 60 year cycles and we are now in a flat or downward trend. As well, the effect of more CO2 is logarithmic so if the last 16 years have been rather flat, why should the future be dangerous?”
You might not consider it dangerous, sitting here in 2014, but future generations might think otherwise. Even if they can cope with the changes in weather patterns and increased heat, sea level rise will pose huge challenges for them. Maybe you don’t care about future generations.
Anyway, you are selective:
In the last 4 decades, including the current flat period, the warming is about 0.6C (NASA GISS 5 year running mean) so thats 0.15C per decade, not far short of your highest rate.
Provide evidence of your 60 year cycle please. In the last century the only significant cooling period was during WW2. Otherwise its been a pattern of warming and flat spells – no decreases. Your 60 year cycle does not appear to exist within the last century.
You say “the effect of more CO2 is logarithmic”. So what is the function you are using that relates CO2 concentration with temperature please ? Presumably you must know that in order to propose that future rises in CO2 will cause no problems in terms of temperature rise ?
Fact is that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. Without it the planet would be probably be completely frozen. We know that when concentrations were about half current levels during the deepest parts of the ice ages the temperature was as much as 8C lower than now. So you expect us to believe that as we go beyond 400ppm there will be no further significant warming ? Thats quite a claim without the physics to back it up.
Kristian:
re your silly post at January 25, 2014 at 2:28 pm.
I did NOT take your post as a “personal attack”.
I pointed out that you had taken one sentence of my post out of context and ignored its main point.
You may be right that a “correction” between UAH and RSS is needed. But that is NOT what I was saying and I clarified the matter.
Jeez.
Richard
Kristian says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:08 pm
Something clearly happens in late 2005.
You bring up a very interesting point with far reaching implications. Do you recall the latest article on Cowtan and Way:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/03/cowtan-way-and-signs-of-cooling/
“The divergence
Recently in the article written by Steven McIntyre he showed, that the Cowtan and Way hybrid global data start to markedly, one could say “hockeyschtickly”, diverge from the HadCRUT4 global data in about ~2005. He showed it well on this his picture:”
Apparently UAH shows Antarctica warming since 2005 and RSS does not show this. And Cowtan and Way used UAH and not RSS to fill the missing pieces for Hadcrut4. That is how they got the rise as I understand it. Had they used RSS, I do not believe they would have gotten this rise.
Just The Facts says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Thanks for that post. Well put. I can’t understand why people would dispute that humans don’t have an impact. As a multi-generational rancher and an engineer, I have witnessed many examples of what you commented on, and MEASURED it. You can affect local conditions with plantings, land clearing, water … And you can affect local conditions with design of facilities both on, above and below the ground and the effects are all measurable. Build a large hydro dam in a BC valley and watch the huge change in the micro climate. How far does that extend and does it affect the global climate? I don’t know if we can measure that on a global basis, but we can sure measure it locally so we know we have some impact. How much? Don’t know. Small I expect, but I would also bet it is measurable since we can watch forest fire smoke plumes cover a continent. That has an effect. How much? I don’t know, but I am pretty sure there is one.
The UAH record looks pretty flat for the inclusive period 2002 through end 2013. Thanks for putting all these analyses together. Much appreciated.
wbrozek says: January 25, 2014 at 1:59 pm
EPA – Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
James Abbott says: January 25, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Thank you for your comments. I would like to address the following:
This flat period cannot be extrapolated to try and “prove” that dangerous climate change will not happen many decades from now.
The highest rate of warming for a period of 25 or more years since 1880 was 0.18 C/decade. I do not consider this dangerous. Furthermore, temperatures seem to go in 60 year cycles and we are now in a flat or downward trend. As well, the effect of more CO2 is logarithmic so if the last 16 years have been rather flat, why should the future be dangerous?
Right, Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels and;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
and Cumulative Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels grew rapidly in the last few decades;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
In fact the Economist noted in 2013 that “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.'”
Thus, while anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the highest they’ve ever been, and growing rapidly, Earth’s temperature has been in a 9 – 17 year Pause. CO2 does not sit latent until many decades from now. It either has its effect or it doesn’t. In 2007 the IPCC said that “for the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}
Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005.” IPCC AR4 2007
If CO2 does not cause rapid warming now, then it will not cause it “many decades from now”. We don’t have to “‘prove’ that dangerous climate change will not happen many decades from now”, the onus is on you to prove that it will.
Just The Facts says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU) says: January 25, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Very funny, I have images of the neighbors to a newly built reservoir cursing as they shovel out from the Lake Effect snow:
“Lake-effect snows commonly occur across the Great Lakes and other relatively large bodies of water, especially over the northern United States.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I live near the North Saskatchewan River in Alberta and used to live not far from a large power plant on a lake. The lake and open river effect on snow was measured in FEET, not inches. Mind you, when it is 20 to 40 below Celsius, you can watch the snow falling from bluebird skies as you leave the proximity of the lake or river. Interestingly, the deep snow was usually well away from the river and lake as the water vapour rises from the lake, drifts on the wind (even when it is very calm) and falls thousands of feet or miles away from the source.
James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Provide evidence of your 60 year cycle please.
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
So what is the function you are using that relates CO2 concentration with temperature please ? Presumably you must know that in order to propose that future rises in CO2 will cause no problems in terms of temperature rise ? So you expect us to believe that as we go beyond 400ppm there will be no further significant warming ? Thats quite a claim without the physics to back it up.
See the skeptics handbook on page 8.
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf
Maybe you don’t care about future generations.
Where my grand kids live, they just had a polar vortex with -31 C. My grandson, who is 8 years old, has never experienced global warming.
James Abbott:
Thankyou for the clarification you provide to me at January 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm.
OK. I now understand that you were being serious. That makes your original post even funnier.
Anyway, in your post I am answering you say to wbrozek
Clearly, you have not understood the NATURE of the relationship of atmospheric CO2 concentration to global temperature which Werner mentioned. Archibald provides a good explanation of it with graphs here .
This effect is why at present levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration each doubling of the concentration has similar effect. Hence, e.g. the IPCC quotes climate sensitivity in degrees C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
It is claimed that atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from ~280 ppmv to its present ~400 ppmv while global temperature has risen ~0.8°C. Assuming this rise is entirely caused by increased atmospheric CO2 then a rise of ~43% in the concentration has caused ~0.8°C. So, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration to 800 ppmv cannot induce a rise of 2°C. And everybody agrees a rise of less than 2°C would not be harmful and would be net beneficial.
Of course, our understanding of the physics may be mistaken so the estimate is wrong. But if so, then your concerns are based on a misunderstanding.
I hope that helps to assuage your groundless fears “about future generations”.
Richard
James Abbott,
Please clarify on your claim that many skeptics are predicting a new mini ice age. Anybody that has had that position for the past 15 years should get hammered just as badly as those using global climate models to predict a catastrophic rate of temperature increase during that same period.
I believe most skeptics are skeptical of the catastrophic temperature increases, with most acknowledging that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will probably cause some increase in temperature.
My opinion is that the warming so far has been a good thing and anybody that disputes or ignores the key role that CO2 plays in the known law of photosynthesis and tremendous benefits to our biosphere, vegetative health, crop yields and world food production is missing entirely the main effect increasing CO2 is having on our planet.
This huge debate goes on about whether temperatures have flat lined or still increasing slightly, or whether they will start going back up or not and how much they might or might not increase by……while CO2 increases and keeps doing its thing making our world greener and greener, plants growing faster, animals having more food to eat.
Larry Hamlin says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:42 pm
The UAH record looks pretty flat for the inclusive period 2002 through end 2013.
You are right, however the slope is positive at 0.001/year so I do not count it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/uah/from:2002/trend
Just The Facts
The response to CO2 forcing is not linear in time because there are many other forcing agents, feedbacks and natural variability. Hopefully you don’t seriously suggest that temperature should follow the rise in CO2 exactly.
We see other flat periods in the temperature record which I have already referred to – its not a linear trend.
The reason why we should be worried is because we know how the climate system has responded previously when large swings in CO2 concentration have taken place – its been many degrees C colder and many degrees C warmer in the past with corresponding shifts in climate and sea level.
The balance of risk is clearly on the side of caution leading to reducing CO2 emissions. If we reduce them, which we can, then if dangerous climate change was going to happen we avoid it. If it was not going to happen we have made some changes which will have benefits anyway (lower air pollution, greater energy efficiency, less reliance on finite fossil fuels, etc). If we carry on as normal and dangerous climate change does happen we (or future generations) are up a creek.
Given the overwhelming scientific evidence that futher significant warming is highly likely if we carry on as now, then the choice is obvious.
“Suppose we were to compare three different soccer or hockey teams and decided that the average number of goals per game is one thing to look at. Suppose that over 1000 games, Team A made 520 goals, Team B made 1040 goals and Team C made 1460 goals. The goals per game would be 0.52, 1.04 and 1.46. So Team B scored twice as many as Team A and Team C scored almost three times as many. However a “purist” would say that since we cannot have a hundredth of a goal, but only a whole number of goals, we need to round off all numbers to the nearest whole number. In that case, 0.52 and 1.04 and 1.46 would all get rounded to 1…”
This section reveals such a deep ignorance of statistics and scientific measurement and error analysis that the article should be removed from this site. Anthony, please – this just opens the doors for the alarmists to mock your site.
@richard:
And now you’re doing it again. I didn’t address your main point because I didn’t disagree with it. I picked something that I found interesting and used it to make a DIFFERENT point.
Are you always this grumpy?
James Abbott says: January 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Fact is that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Then why isn’t it getting warmer?
James Abbott says: January 25, 2014 at 3:18 pm
The response to CO2 forcing is not linear in time because there are many other forcing agents, feedbacks and natural variability.
What “response”?
Given the overwhelming scientific evidence that futher significant warming is highly likely if we carry on as now, then the choice is obvious.
Please post links to this “overwhelming scientific evidence that futher significant warming is highly likely”.
James Abbott:
Your post at January 25, 2014 at 3:18 pm includes these two statements
and
I shall ignore the several factual errors in those two statements.
Instead, I ask you to consider the logical disconnect between them.
CO2 rise causes high and low temperatures but we know CO2 will provide probably “further significant warming” (whatever you mean by “significant”).
It is that sort of self-refutation which made me wonder if you are Brad Keyes.
Richard
Kristian:
re your post at January 25, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Yeah, whatever.
Richard
wbrozek
Thats your evidence ? the Skeptics Handbook ? Is that a new peer reviewed science publication we have not heard of ?
richardscourtney
You say:
“It is claimed that atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from ~280 ppmv to its present ~400 ppmv while global temperature has risen ~0.8°C. Assuming this rise is entirely caused by increased atmospheric CO2 then a rise of ~43% in the concentration has caused ~0.8°C. So, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration to 800 ppmv cannot induce a rise of 2°C. And everybody agrees a rise of less than 2°C would not be harmful and would be net beneficial.
Its not claimed – we know it to be the case because it can be measured.
Then your maths has gone astray. Its a doubling from the pre-industrial levels that is taken as baseline, not from now. Doubling from pre-industrial is expected to result in warming of 2C or a bit more. Going to 800ppm would likely result in catastrophic warming.
Mike Maguire
“Please clarify on your claim that many skeptics are predicting a new mini ice age”.
Try this
http://www.thegwpf.org/sun-gone-sleep-temperatures-plunge/
James Abbott, please provide us with examples of the “overwhelming scientific evidence” referred to in your statement:
“Given the overwhelming scientific evidence that futher significant warming is highly likely if we carry on as now, then the choice is obvious”.
Climate model output is not data and is not evidence.
richardscourtney
You misunderstand.
Much lower CO2 concentrations (half of the current levels) are associated with the depths of the ice ages of the last few million years when it was as much as 8C colder than now.
Higher CO2 levels are associated with warmer climates of the past.
I would agree that much of the climate debate is about the relationship between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures. It is not nailed down, which is why the IPCC give a range. But to claim there is no link, as some skeptics do, is just daft and amount to attempts to rewrite more than a century of painstaking scientiifc research.
I have no idea who Brad Keyes is, but it aint me.
Nice try James Abbott but your original statement was this:
5. Given that many sceptics have been predicting a new mini-ice age round the corner, where is the cooling trend ?
The source you provided is a very recent prediction, the time frame for his prediction has not come yet. You asked above “where is the cooling trend” so find me the “many skeptics predicting a new mini ice age that was supposed to be happening now defined by your “where is the cooling trend?”
James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Thats your evidence ? the Skeptics Handbook ?
That shows it well. But if you want something more official, see:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm
“It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence.”
James Abbott:
In your post at January 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm you say to me
Firstly, what the Dickens do you mean by “catastrophic warming”.
Secondly, it is only arithmetic, not maths.
And I did it to maximise the possible warming by doubling from the present ~400 ppmv to ~800 ppmv.
But you want me to lower the estimate. OK.
Double the pre-industrial level of ~280 ppmv takes us to 560 ppmv. Let us exagerate it to 600 ppmv.
We are now at ~400 ppmv. So, the doubling you are considering is an exaggerated rise of 200 ppmv.
But 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv (i.e. a rise of 120 ppmv) caused at most 0.8°C.
Forget that the effect is logarithmic because we are trying to exaggerate the possible future temperature rise as much as possible. So, to increase the exaggeration of future warming even more, let us assume the effect is linear.
The rise of 200 ppmv from present level to the exaggerated 600 ppmv gives an exaggerated linear effect rise in temperature of
(0.8/120) * 200 = 1.3°C
That is much less than 2°C.
There is no reason for concern so cool out.
Richard
And yet the CO2 levels are the highest that they have been in centuries as far as we know. Since the magic date of 1950 or so when the “evil industrial west” gave us accelerating CO2 levels (or so many claim) we have not seen runaway temperatures like we were promised. In fact, I am very disappointed in the lack of temperature increase because I would much prefer warmth to freezing cold. The real danger facing the common people is energy poverty caused by government regulations, laws, and taxes driven by deluded climate alarmists like the fellow who lead the team to check out all the “missing ice” down at the south pole where they promptly got stuck in the missing ice.
By the way, I saw the “Ice Bowl” between the Packers and the Cowboys in the 60s (NFL Championship game) and can tell you it was darn cold that day. We may see a return to just such conditions next week for this year’s Super Bowl but all it means is that weather gets colder and gets warmer and colder again while CO2 just keeps going up. Funny that.
Chuck L
You say
“James Abbott, please provide us with examples of the “overwhelming scientific evidence” referred to in your statement:
The IPCC – which brings together the science on this issue from across the world. I appreciate that large parts of the sceptic community reject the IPCC, but thats largely based on prejudging the issue, not reasonable analysis
and “Climate model output is not data and is not evidence.”
I agree. Thats why good observational evidence is so important. The evidence is that the planet has warmed by about 0.6C in 40 years – which is consistent with rising CO2 concentrations. Without the extra CO2 forcing we would likely be seeing gradual cooling.
@James Abbot:
The IPCC produces no science, it only summarizes that which agrees with its preformed conclusion (ignoring that which does not). referencing the IPCC is not providing sourcing, merely parroting a pre-determined conclusion.
James-
How does one gather “overwhelming scientific evidence” of something that hasn’t happened yet?
On the subject of “records in the last decade”, if a value had been increasing and has now reached its peak, is stagnating at that peak prior to dropping in the near future, that’s exactly what you’d expect to see. A pause at the peak will generate “record” values, And that means nothing of significance.
James Abbott:
OK. I am now convinced you are trolling.
At January 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm you disputed my simple estimate of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature.
Before I had replied to that dispute at January 25, 2014 at 4:00 pm you write to me saying
Say what!?
I was in process of discussing the possible MAGNITUDE of the rise with you and you talk about “no link”. Somebody needs to buy you a clue.
And your entire sentence says
Obviously, James Abbott, this science thing is hard for you to understand so allow me to introduce you to the Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
Hey James,
What do you think of this:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094
“In the end, they teased out the carbon dioxide fertilization effect from all other influences and calculated that this could account for an 11 percent increase in global foliage since 1982.”
The debate over how much increasing CO2 contributes towards global temperatures rising is a “hot” one and there is much disagreement with the scientific evidence not clear at all, except that as a greenhouse gas it likely caused at least half of the warming over the last 100 years.
What is settled science however, is the law of photosynthesis. We know that plants use CO2 to make their own food and when you boost the levels of CO2 plants benefit tremendously.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/
What doesn’t make sense is to hang our hats on an unproven theory based on global climate models(since the warming thus far has NOT been catastrophic in the real world) and completely ignore a proven law…….photosynthesis.
The more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the bigger our crops and world food production. Plants/vegetation/trees grow faster, animals have more food. The biosphere booms. Don’t you agree?
wbrozek
You say:
“James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Thats your evidence ? the Skeptics Handbook ?
That shows it well. But if you want something more official, see:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm
“It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence.””
Yes we know that – I asked you for the actual function. As you rely on it in your claim that there will be little or no response to further rises in CO2, please produce it – and then we can do the maths and see if you are right or wrong.
richardscourtney
Shame you could not admit you got it wrong first time but in any case its still wrong as you are ignoring feedback, particularly related to the oceans in terms of thermal inertia and the feedback from CO2 release from warming.
richardscourtney says:
“James Abbott:
OK. I am now convinced you are trolling”
Yes, this seemed obvious from the start. I like it when misinformed warmists provide opportunities for us to show them why they are wrong.
Why is it that warmists can’t back up any of their positions with empirical data and legit science?
Re: Divergence between UAH & RSS
Roy Spencer has already commented on this some time ago. In his blog he writes
It would be somewhat ironic if AGW (not CAGW) sceptics preferred to use data which relied on corrections based on climate models
@Just The Facts
LOL at damning a lake.
As a Cal native I was taken back a bit when I had business in Cleveland once and was shown by someone the “border” of a lake effect snow dump. On one block the snow was 3 inches deep and a few blocks over it was a couple of feet. Thus my life has been absent of yearnings to move to Cleveland.
@NotTheAussiePhilM
I think that you are making a common mistake when wishing to see ‘cherry picking’ in a person’s argument. I have said this many times but I think it bears repeating.
If you set out to determine for how long a period of time the rate of temperature change has remained statistically significant then you must go to the data.
It is only the data that will yield your answer. It’s not possible to ‘cherry pick’ a start date. The start date is the date closest to today that you have reliable data for. Then you work backwards.
At the point at which the data show that your theory starts to fail, i.e. the slope starts to rise rather than remain flat, then that is your end point.
You seem to think that it’s backwards. Not the case. The data can’t lie if you treat them correctly.
As for James Abbott. When the hypothesis is that Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and specifically the anthropogenic portion of that is the main driver of surface and atmospheric temperature then there must be a pint at which, when looking at the observations, you accept that this is false. Constantly adding new and invisible, unquantifiable forcings to suggest that warming is happening but it remains elusively hidden because of, well, we just don’t know, strikes me as ridiculous. I much prefer that Occam’s razor has the answer.
And I think you will find that most reasonable skeptics take no issue with the absorbtion properties of CO2 in relation to long and short-wave radiation but that we take issue that it has yet to be quantified and possibly might never be and even more that the anthropogenic component has a negligible effect on temperatures. I also think that not too many are predicting ice ages but that we could find some agreement that we have possibly reached the top of a warming phase, similar in scope to the previously well documented ( despite efforts by the team to disappear them from the record ) warming periods in history and that given what we understand about these natural cycles, indications are that temperatures may well be heading downwards for a period of time.
I think what most skeptics will agree upon is that there is not a damned thing that man can do to affect those future temperatures, either up or down. Only time will tell. I’m just saddened that i probably won’t be around when the alarmists finally accept that they were wrong.
slight change to my post above. “statistically significant” should of course read “statistically insignificant,
And I thank our friend richardscourtney for continuing to always say things in a much better way than I am able to convey. And for sticking it out at this late hour for us Brits. I imagine his frustration with the reasoning being thrown his way might cut that short soon. Ah well.
damn, I told you it was late. Please see through my formatting errors. I don’t have the will to fix and repeat.
James Abbott:
I take severe exception to your comment to me at January 25, 2014 at 4:24 pm which says
That is pure trolling at its worst!
I did NOT “get it wrong”. I deliberately exaggerated the effect to demonstrate there is not a problem. Similarly, in the post you pretend to be replying, I deliberately exaggerated the calculation you said you wanted for the same reason.
I preempted your digression about feedbacks in my post to you at January 25, 2014 at 4:17 pm which is here .
Your side-track about “thermal inertia and the feedback from CO2 release from warming” is a real foot-in-your-mouth because it raises the issue of ‘committed warming’. I can give you chapter and verse on that by finding a previous post I made on it.
Suffice it to say that the previous IPCC Report (AR4) said that ‘committed warming’ would induce warming between years 2000 and 2020 at an average rate of 0.2°C per decade. That was an ambitious assertion because the AR4 was published in 2007 and there had been no globalwarming since 2000. There still has not. For that projection to become true global temperature has to rise from now to 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the ‘committed warming’ has disappeared. Can you tell me if it has eloped with Trenberth’s missing heat?
Richard
James Abbot:
I look forward to your answer to my question which is
There is no urgency because I am about to retire as it is now nearing 1 am here. I will respond to your answer in the morning but not before.
Richard
richardscourtney
You say
“Obviously, James Abbott, this science thing is hard for you to understand so allow me to introduce you to the Null Hypothesis.”
I have a science degree.
And you say
“In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature”
But temps have risen so the system is not static. By 0.6C in the past 40 years. Now its true there are many other forcing mechanisms, but the scientific conclusion – by qualified scientists – is that there is a high degree of probability that the observed warming is largely due to the rise in GHGs of which CO2 is the most important in the recent warming. So the NH is of limited help in this debate.
And you say
“The feedbacks in the climate system are negative”
No they are not – what are you talking about ? They can be +ve or -ve depending on what they are. Release of CO2 from warming oceans and reduced albedo in the northern polar regions due to melting ice (accepting that currently the south is not losing ice area) are positive feedbacks that amplify temperature increases.
And you say
“Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent”
So how do you explain the planet being 8C colder when CO2 was half the current level ? As I asked wbrozek, lets see the science that backs that up – you must be able to produce a function between CO2 and T that demonstrates such a relationship, not wishful thinking. The scientific community has worked on this for decades (in fact over a century if you go back to when CO2 was first identified as a GHG) and the functional relationship they derive says that doubling pre-industrial CO2 will produce 2C or more of warming. There were papers published over 30 years ago coming to a similar conclusion.
Another nail in the coffin? Maybe.
The problem here is that the lid of the coffin is more nail than pine now, and you are still no closer to burying it or its festering contents.
Ultimately there is no way forward that involves claiming ManBearPig is not real while claiming ManBearPigglet is.
The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide
Guest post by David Archibald
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
ThinkingScientist says:
January 25, 2014 at 12:21 pm
Is there a clear description/reference on how the statistical significance is computed. I am particularly interested in how you decide the effective number of samples, n.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For land based measurement n=1.
You only take one temperature at one time in one spot. There is no duplication as can be done in a factory, therefore n has to be one because each measurement is unique.
She spins, ducks and runs…
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
January 25, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Isn’t that called ‘Cherry Picking’ where for each of 6 datasets you choose a different start point in order to give the result you want (i.e. Slope of zero)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No
The Warmists picked the falsification criteria we are just counting backward from the present.
1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones
2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link
3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate
So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.
Anyone have silver bullets, garlic and a wooden stake?
zootcadillac says: January 25, 2014 at 4:32 pm
“The data can’t lie if you treat them correctly.”
Well, that means looking at all the data. That’s where the possibility of cherry picking comes in.
Suppose you are tossing a coin to see if it is fair. You toss five times – five heads. On the null hypothesis of fair, the chance is 1/32, or about 3%. So you’d reject. There is a sub-argument about whether you should look at the chance of all the same (H or T) which is 1/16. Even so, close to reject.
But suppose you toss ten times, and the last five are heads. That’s different, because you have more information. You have much less basis for rejecting the null, assuming there was no major bias in the first five.
Warmists still control the White House and its EPA. Facts do not mean anything.
James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 4:54 pm
By 0.6C in the past 40 years.
Take a look at the following. The temperature went up 0.5 C from 1910 to 1950 and 0.7 C over the last 40 years. So how much affect does CO2 have? Could it have catastrophic consequences?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:480/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910
Hi ‘Joe Friday’,
” There are so many more variables involved than just the sun” very true.
you can continue to list a never ending multitude of variables (but please, don’t insult both our intellects by including minute traces of CO2 in the upper atmosphere) SO in the words of Mick Dundee;
” that’s not a variable son, THIS is a variable”.
The rest are absolutely inconsequential whenever;
a sunspot larger than our planet erupts, the earth tilts on its axis, a huge blizzard shuts down an entire country, a monstrous cyclone smashes into land, an earthquake triggers a 200 km wide tsunami or a volcano erupts – AKA? “don’t sweat the small stuff”.
Mankind is really not that influential.
A…
James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 4:54 pm
Please show me, by calculations, exactly what this “reduced albedo” in the Arctic is supposed to do to the planet’s heat balance. The values I find in actual albedo measurements on the actual ice show that, reduced Arctic sea ice area from today’s sea ice extents at time of minimum sea ice in September and October actually cools the planet. Worse, increased Antarctic sea ice at any time of the sea DOES increasingly reflect the sun’s energy and DOES cool the planet. Your concerns are ice-backwards!
B…
James Abbott says:
January 25, 2014 at 4:54 pm
I would remind you that, writing a “paper” thirty years ago does NOTHING to verify a “true” theory, nor does writing a paper thirty years validate a “false” theory. Rather, the FACTS and MEASUREMENTS between a paper written thirty years ago and today establish the veracity of that 30-year-old paper.
And, in the many years between the steadily increasing CO2 levels between 1935 and today have seen:
10 years of steady temperatures (1935-1945)
28 years of decreasing temperatures (1945 – 1965)
10 years of steady temperatures (1965 – 1975)
23 years of increasing temperatures (1975 – 1998)
and
17 years of steady temperatures (1998 – 2013 … And add perhaps 2014 for good measure; but one could go back to 1996, because today is no warmer globally than 1996 …) Papers in error are worthless. Well, no.
Your much-vaunted “papers” are., in fact, worth less than the toilet paper the wood they were printed on could have been used for ..)
Man’s activities do affect climate locally, witness the UHI effect and the effects on precipitation of reforestation. But globally – no way, Jose!
Some scientists are predicting the soon onset of another Little Ace Age, among them Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, who bases his argument on the apparent descent of solar activity into another Maunder Minimum-type low period. While folks may argue about temperature data sets, there is a good deal of anecdotal observational evidence from both hemispheres since 2000 that this descent has already begun, from severe winters and poor summers in the UK to the record expansion of Antarctic ice.
Any argument that 2013 was anywhere among the 50 or so warmest years of the last century is ludicrous, given first-ever May snow in Little Rock, Arkansas , the chill that same month at the Bonn climate conference, the earliest-ever blizzard of October in the US Midwest, the record cold in many places in Australia and New Zealand as well as in the high Arctic and Antarctic.
@Gail
“Anyone have silver bullets, garlic and a wooden stake?”
No, but I have a M18 Claymore with silver shrapnel and a Weedwacker that has been dipped in holy water 😉
The problem here is lack of precision. It would be pink mist time for both ManBearPig and ManBearPigglet as well. Sadly many sceptics think the pigglet is cute….
@Konrad – a Weedwacker that has been dipped in holy water 😉
PLEASE do not tell us how you managed that feat! 😉
@Nick Stokes. I’m not sure I’m over keen on your analogy but I understand what you are saying. However in order to obtain more data in the instance I’m speaking of then we’d have to be able to see into the future.
Sadly we can’t, which is kind of why I ended with “time will tell”.
cnxtim says: January 25, 2014 at 5:32 pm
you can continue to list a never ending multitude of variables (but please, don’t insult both our intellects by including minute traces of CO2 in the upper atmosphere) SO in the words of Mick Dundee;
” that’s not a variable son, THIS is a variable”.
I don’t think that the possibility can be eliminated, I think it might make the top ten list.
The rest are absolutely inconsequential whenever;
a sunspot larger than our planet erupts, the earth tilts on its axis, a huge blizzard shuts down an entire country, a monstrous cyclone smashes into land, an earthquake triggers a 200 km wide tsunami or a volcano erupts – AKA? “don’t sweat the small stuff”.
I would add Comets and Meteors, to your Tilt (Obliquity) I would add Wobble (Axial precession)
and Elliptical Orbits (Eccentricity), i.e., “Over longer time frames changes to Earth’s orbital eccentricity, obliquity (tilt) and precession (wobble), called Croll/Milankovitch cycles”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Polar Vorticity;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/18/introducing-the-new-wuwt-northern-polar-vortex-page-with-explanation-and-observations/
and Aeresols, including smog and black carbon;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon
I am sure there are numerous more that are far from inconsequential.
Mankind is really not that influential.
On a surface level, I disagree. If you look at a dam, like Three Gorges that On completion, the reservoir flooded a total area of 632 square kilometres (244 sq mi) of land, compared to the 1,350 square kilometres (520 sq mi) of reservoir created by the Itaipu Dam.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
Or
“According to the most recent data available, there are 11,194,445 miles (18,015,713 km) of paved roads in the world.”. All of that mostly black ashfault absorbing and radiating heat, and being cleared of snow during the winter. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_miles_of_paved_roads_are_there_in_the_world
Those making the “new mini ice age” claim were not “skeptics” but solar physicists not (I presume) involved in the AGW debate.
The babies are now crying that because you include the 1998 spike, it makes it appear that there is no trend in the following data when there is. We all know that is BS – because we have eyes! Anyway, please start to quote the slope beginning in 2000 just to shut up these cry babies.
After reading his comments, I am beginning to think that James “I have a science degree” Abbott is nuts. His total lack of understanding of the non-effect of “carbon” is risible.
How many times does Abbott need to be asked where the non-existent global warming attributable to CO2 is, before he responds? Ignoring the question will not make it go away.
There is no difference between past global warming prior to the rise in CO2, compared with the current warming. Therefore, CO2 has no measurable effect at all. That is just common sense.
But some folks have their Belief, and common sense doesn’t apply to them.
Adam says:
January 25, 2014 at 7:41 pm
The babies are now crying that because you include the 1998 spike
It turns out that from December 1999 the slope is flat, so it is 14 years and 1 month on RSS. So it would probably be 18 years of no significant warming and this totally ignores the 1998 spike. That is well over the 15 years that NOAA mentions.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999.9/plot/rss/from:1999.9/trend
So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They keep moving the goal……….
But if CO2 rises after temperature rises, all that proves is that a warming ocean emits CO2.
It’s more likely, according to what I’ve read here (some quoting from “papers”) that the lost ice in the north is for only a short portion of the year, and is at such a high latitude (= low angle of incidence), that the amount of reflected sunlight is small, and is less that the amount of heat that is released by water no longer insulated by an icy cap.
They may be “qualified” scientists in the sense that they have the credentials and know the jargon, but there are qualified scientists who disagree. JoNova’s Skeptics’ Handbook lists a score of them, and there are lots more. (E.g., see The D*ni*rs.)
The word “qualified” has a connotation of “unbiased,” which I don’t think applies to the IPCC’s authors and lead authors. They are chosen by its coordinating lead authors, who are chosen by the IPCC, who are chosen by the UNDER originally, and thereafter by themselves. And the manner in which the coordinating lead authors are chosen is the utmost in murkiness, according to Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager …”
Further , those persons who become climate scientists are about as unbiased as those persons who chose to become sociologists. Sociologists enter the profession with the aim of making an impact on society (and of making a career in academia and of preening and flattering themselves about their progressivism); 85% to 90% vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. Climatologists (in the current environment) enter the profession with the aim of making an impact on the climate (and of making a career in academia and of preening and flattering themselves about their progressivism). I suspect that at least 80% vote for the Democratic presidential candidate.
Or, if they have a less activist mentality, they are go-along / get-along types who haven’t really read and considered the skeptics’ case, preferring instead to assume that the rebuttals they’ve read are unanswerable.
The persons qualified to judge their claims are scientists in related disciplines who have no dog in the fight. Two surveys by George Mason U. in the 21st century of scientist-members of the AMS & AGU found that under 40% of them were very worried about AGW. The last survey was six or seven years ago. (I imagine the percentage would be lower today if the survey were done again — as it ought to be.)
OOps–change “UNDER” above to “UN”–Word’s autocorrect expanded it for me.
Gail combs says:
If the Super Bowl gets rescheduled due to cold weather, that’ll be a stick with which we can beat the devil.
rsc;
Thanks for that. Copied and saved, will include attribution if I paste it here and there. 🙂
Nick Stokes, are you able to respond to my question about how the test for statistical significance is performed so I can replicate it? Is it just a Student T test? What do you assume for n? Just the count of samples (eg months) or is their some correction for temporal dependency in the time series?
Thanks!
Nick Stokes says: @ January 25, 2014 at 5:17 pm
zootcadillac says: January 25, 2014 at 4:32 pm
“The data can’t lie if you treat them correctly.”
Well, that means looking at all the data. That’s where the possibility of cherry picking comes in….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And that is just it. The temperature data sets contain ‘cherry picking’ and adjustments.
There is the station dropout problem – GRAPH
Followed by E.M Smith’s “Thermometer Zombie Walk”
E.M. Smith found When the GHCN data set is reduced to the 3000 thermometers with the longest records (cut off at about 64 years worth of data for the station), the “global warming” signal is not present.
And then you get into the adjustments where you run into the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book. and all the other dodging and weaving. Such as Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU reply to Warwick Hughes “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”.
Now where did I put that garlic and steak…. Drat I ate it…
ThinkingScientist says: January 26, 2014 at 12:15 am
“Nick Stokes, are you able to respond to my question about how the test for statistical significance is performed so I can replicate it? Is it just a Student T test? “
I’ve written two blog posts, here and here. The simplest way to replicate is using the R arima function; the format is:
h=arima(T,k,xreg=time(T)/100)
The structure h will contain t-statistics etc .
James Abbot:
I am in a rush because I am fitting this in between duties. But I promised to address your answer to my question this morning so I am giving you a priority.
I remind that you raised the issue of ‘committed warming’ and claimed it poses a future threat. I answered that at January 25, 2014 at 4:41 pm here and concluded by asking you
You have not replied. After all the time trouble and effort several people have taken to answer your many points, but you have run away on the first time a point was put to you WHY?
You did reply to an earlier response I had provided to you. I had explained the Null hypothesis and its significance to assessment of anthropogenic climate change. That explanation is at January 25, 2014 at 4:17 pm and is here. Your reply to that is at January 25, 2014 at 4:54 pm and is here
Your reply to that consists of
(a)
a claim that you “have a science degree”,
(b)
the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority saying “the scientific conclusion – by qualified scientists –“ (which ignores that I am a “qualified scientist” who had given you my conclusion),
(c)
deliberate idiocy which evades my clear statement about net forcings by talking about individual forcings.
(d)
rejection of empirical data about the current climate system on the basis that the system was different in an ice age
and (e)
assertion that there was an ice age when CO2 was lower but ignoring that there was also an ice age when CO2 was much higher.
And you having taken time, trouble and effort to provide all that nonsense,
YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION!
As I said,
Richard
Konrad says, January 25, 2014 at 5:04 pm:
“Ultimately there is no way forward that involves claiming ManBearPig is not real while claiming ManBearPigglet is.”
Truest words of this thread,
Robert Wykoff says: @ January 25, 2014 at 1:12 pm
…. I will be interested to see the generational backfire when they finally figure out they have been manipulated their entire lives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It will be more interesting to see the reaction when they get handed the bill and are told by the likes of Al Gore, Maurice Strong and friends with their mansions and jets and limos that they can not have the life style of their parents. My generation (Baby-boomers) was the last generation to do better than their parents. All the wealth accumulated by the middle class has been siphoned off or is to be siphoned off.
As of today,26 Jan 2014, each US baby is born with a debt of $54,383.85. You can tack on another $3,000 for state debt. If they go to school beyond high school and if they want a decent job they have to, you can add another $29,400 per borrower.
That is a heck of a lot of debt to be carrying when you start out in life. To top it off The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October (2013) Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,”
Think about that for a moment. The US unemployment is ~23% and still rising. The financial assets of the middle class are a house (now devalued) and a retirement account and little else. link The US government has already been floating the idea of confiscating retirement accounts. The Obama administration has just solicited public comment on their proposal to take money from Americans’ private 401(k) retirement accounts and convert it into government-backed annuities. Unlike an IRA any ‘excess’ money in the annuity would revert to the state instead of your heirs when you die. As we saw with Social Security, once the government gets their hands on an asset it then becomes fair game for plundering by politicians.
So what will be left for the middle class to give to the government to pay for the 10% equity in their home? This will hit the elderly the worst because many have been forced into early retirement but have accumulated equity in their homes so are ‘Rich’
I am sure the present generation graduating to no jobs, high debt and bankrupt parents is going to be really really happy about all that debt piled up on them from bailing out AIG (banks) and funding the pie in the sky windmills and solar panel corporations that trash the environment while producing nothing.
Remember they also get stuck with cleaning up the mess in ten to twenty years if not sooner. Someone will get stuck removing all the wind and solar farms and replanting the areas and it will not be the defunct corporations whose owners took the money and ran.
Unfortunately no one can replace the birds driven to extinction.
Is there still place for more nails in that coffin ?
***
Just The Facts says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:20 pm
“The Bull Shoals Reservoir is a rather narrow elongated body of water located in northern Arkansas. The orientation of the reservoir lies along a 290-300 deg radial from the city of Mountain Home (Fig. 1). Since the reservoir resulted from the intentional flooding of a natural valley, there are no terrain obstructions to winds blowing along the radial from the west-northwest. Most of the snow that fell occurred in and around the community of Lakeview.”
***
I once witnessed a coal power-plant snow-effect driving past a 2000 MW plant in WV. All the steam from cooling towers & steam vents had frozen, snowed out & covered the local area w/an inch or two of snow under frigid but cloudless conditions.
I can’t help but notice that we went through a similar flat period 1870-1890 for global temperature anomalies and also NH SST
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1870/to:1890/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1870/to:1890/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1870/to:1890/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1870/to:1890/trend
but this was followed by increasing colder global temperatures as the NH and global oceans cooled
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3gl/from:1890/to:1910/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1890/to:1910/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1898/to:1910/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1898/to:1910/trend
To me the answer is in the ocean cycles .
herkimer says:
January 26, 2014 at 6:45 am
I can’t help but notice that we went through a similar flat period 1870-1890 for global temperature anomalies and also NH SST
While we experienced warming and cooling and no change in the past, presumably things are supposed to be different now with all of the CO2 we are putting into the air at all times. However since many things are not different, perhaps CO2 is just not the big driver that many people think it is.
P.S. Thank you to all who have commented so far and to all who will still comment.
James Abbot,
“So how do you explain the planet being 8C colder when CO2 was half the current level ? ”
And how do you explain the late Ordovician glaciation that occurred in the face of rising CO2 levels – or are you not aware of that event?
Nick Stokes: thanks for the links on the statistical significance calculations.
TS
I’d like to add to Michael D’s assertion that you don’t quite understand certainty and significant digits in a calculation.
You said:
” However a “purist” would say that since we cannot have a hundredth of a goal, but only a whole number of goals, we need to round off all numbers to the nearest whole number. In that case, 0.52 and 1.04 and 1.46 would all get rounded to 1. As a result, the information is useless.”
Michael D said:
” it sounds like you have no scientific training in the reporting of uncertainty, which undermines the ethos of this article.”
You said:
” Trust me, I know all about significant digits. When adding or subtracting, you round to the lowest decimal place so when adding 2.3 cm + 4.68 cm + 5.789 cm, you do the adding and round to a single decimal place since that is the lowest number of decimal places. But if these numbers were multiplied to find a volume for example, you multiply and round to 2 significant digits since that is the lowest number of significant digits. Right?
But in these cases, they give anomalies like 0.352. I know very well that this is not between 0.35150 and 0.35249. As I said, I treat 0.352 as a +/- 0.1 so the “real” number 95% of the time is assumed to be between 0.252 and 0.452.”
Michael D resonded by using whole numbers for both games and goals scored to help you begin to get a handle on how you use significant digits to decide when to “round off” and when to not round off.
I would like to add. He is right. Your fictional example is a strawman that in no way can be equated to the MEASUREMENT of temperature and energy in the atmosphere. Let me see if I can help you understand why. When someone scores a goal, How was the scoring of that goal measured? How certain are you that the goal was actually scored? To 1 significant digit? 2? 10? A million? The measurement of whether a goal has been actually scored is 1 with NO degree of uncertainty. So whenever a goal is added to the list of goals scored it is added as 1.0000000000 . . . . . with as many significant digits as necessary to fully count the goal as 100% certain for future calculations. That is not in any way similar to the measurement and recording of a temperature reading. The measurement instrument used to measure temperature HAS uncertainty and this MUST be included in the reporting, storing and subsequent math calculations that are done on that data. Just as soon as you ADD certainty into the caculation by adding digits to the calculation that are “uncertain”, you are fooling yourself and beginning to add the perception of certainty where there is none. Extra significant digits added by calculation can be included, but they have to be included by using the original data along with it’s +/- uncertainty range to illustrate the overall “range” that the final answer could fall within. Uncertainty creeps in when the measurement has uncertainty or the possibility of error. The degree to which we are able to measure uncertainty or error is handled every day by well trained engineers as part of how they process data in the real world. Very, very few measurements are taken that have more than about 4 or 5 significant digits. 1 part in a million is very very hard to resolve with certainty. Especially when normal daily variation of that measurement is greater than 10-20. So for example CO2 concentrations that are reported with 1 PPM resolution are a farce! So too with temp measurement with accuracy greater than +/-.03 degrees C for an expensive platinum RTD. The best a good thermocouple can do is +/- 1 degree C, The best an average thermistor can do is +/- 0.1 degree C.
This is one of the biggest beefs I have about reporting temperature “anomalies”. How certain can anyone be that the difference in temp over a year or a decade is being reported when daily drift of thousands of sensors (none of which have been matched) can be as much as +/- 1 – 2 degrees C, (same with linearity) on a signal that is continuously varying by many degrees daily and even more annually! IMHO the uncertainty in the measurements of temperature vastly exceed the “anomalies” reported, especially as the “anomaly” calculated gets close to zero.
And most important of all. Time averaged (rather than time integrated) measurement of temperature is practically meaningless without simultaneous time integrated measurement of relative humidity, since water vapor in the atmosphere (where the temperature guages are located) actually contains most of the heat energy over the vast majority of the planet.
I would prefer that Werner Brozek avoid terms such as Pause, which carries the implicit assumption that global warming will in fact resume any moment. This is playing into the hands of the alarmists/warmists. Use instead some such term as “the late warming trend”. Thank you.
DonV says:
January 26, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Thank you for your post. As for the goals, you are correct and I admitted it to someone else here:
wbrozek says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:28 pm
I agree I should have picked a measured quantity to illustrate the point.
Climate science seems to follow its own rules in more ways than one. I give the numbers and realize the numbers may be +/-0.1. Do you have any issues with how Nick Stokes comes up with his numbers?
As for the humidity aspect, I agree that is a big one since the biggest increases are in the poles, and in winter, so very cold and dry air can easily get heated a lot. What we have is by no means perfect, but we have to use what we have until improvements are made.
B…b…b…b…but …. Worrrrrrrrrrst drought in CA in 500 yearrrrrrrrrrs! And as everyone knows, droughts are caused by Global warming! /sarc
One thing that does run as a common trait throughout the AGW dogma is the very (un)scientific “clutching at straws” (shades of Monty Python’s ‘Search for the holy grail’ – “it’s a sign!”).
And for those that disagree, humour is a common trait – that’s is why the Motley Fool was the only one at court who dared tell the lord of the manor the painful truth. Tim@68
I think it is rather sweet how the scientifically literate regulars on this site have attempted to engage the trolling James Abbott in an actual (though one sided) discussion. I applaud your patience and good humor.
mpainter says: January 27, 2014 at 9:47 am
I would prefer that Werner Brozek avoid terms such as Pause, which carries the implicit assumption that global warming will in fact resume any moment. This is playing into the hands of the alarmists/warmists. Use instead some such term as “the late warming trend”. Thank you.
I disagree that the Pause “is playing into the hands of the alarmists/warmists”. I think it is one of the effect memes we’ve established to date. Take a look at some excerpts from this recent Mother Jones (aka Warmist Mouthpiece) article, “Global-Warming Denial Hits a 6-Year High”:
“The new study, from the Yale and George Mason University research teams on climate change communication, shows a 7-percentage-point increase in the proportion of Americans who say they do not believe that global warming is happening. And that’s just since the spring of 2013. The number is now 23 percent; back at the start of last year, it was 16 percent.”
“The percentage of Americans who believe global warming is human-caused has also declined, and now stands at 47 percent, a decrease of 7 percent since 2012.”
“According to both Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale and Ed Maibach of George Mason, the leaders of the two research teams, the answer may well lie in the so-called global warming “pause”—the misleading idea that global warming has slowed down or stopped over the the past 15 years or so. This claim was used by climate skeptics, to great effect, in their quest to undermine the release of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report in September 2013—precisely during the time period that is in question in the latest study.
As we have reported before, the notion of a global warming “pause” is, at best, the result of statistical cherry-picking. It relies on starting with a very hot year (1998) and then examining a relatively short time period (say, 15 years), to suggest that global warming has slowed down or stopped during this particular stretch of time. But put these numbers back into a broader context and the overall warming trend remains clear. Moreover, following the IPCC report, new research emerged suggesting that the semblance of a “pause” may be the result of incomplete temperature data due to the lack of adequate weather stations in the Arctic, where the most dramatic global warming is occurring.
Nonetheless, widely publicized “pause” claims may well have shaped public opinion. “Beginning in September, and lasting several months, coincident with the release of the IPCC report, there was considerable media attention to the concept of the ‘global warming pause,'” observes Maibach. “It is possible that this simple—albeit erroneous—idea helped to convince many people who were previously undecided to conclude that the climate really isn’t changing.”
‘Even more likely, however,’ Maibach adds, ‘is that media coverage of the ‘pause’ reinforced the beliefs of people who had previously concluded that global warming is not happening, making them more certain of their beliefs.'”
“Journalists take heed: Your coverage has consequences. All those media outlets who trumpeted the global warming “pause” may now be partly responsible for a documented decrease in Americans’ scientific understanding.”
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-pause-climate-denial-public-opinion
That to me says that the Pause has been successful in informing people that Earth isn’t warming rapidly as has been the narrative for much of the last decade:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/july-dec13/climate1_09-27.html
Most skeptical people are already skeptics, we are now reaching across the aisle and drawing in former believers. Thus a simple sticky lexicon is what we need, and the Pause fits the bill. The next time you find yourself in a conversation with someone who believes in CAGW, but isn’t a hard core supporter, ask them if they’ve heard of The Pause. If not , explain to them that Earth’s temperature hasn’t increased for between 9 – 17 years and recommend they look it up. You may just have created a budding skeptic.