Josh writes in with a new cartoon.
This is a spoof on the xkcd.com/1321/ cartoon that was doing the Twitter rounds the other day.
First, the XKCD cartoon on global warming:
![cold[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/cold1.png)
Now, here’s Josh’s spoof of it:
Josh writes in with a new cartoon.
This is a spoof on the xkcd.com/1321/ cartoon that was doing the Twitter rounds the other day.
First, the XKCD cartoon on global warming:
Now, here’s Josh’s spoof of it:
When I first saw this, the condescension got to me. So, I downloaded the stats, just like he did. Going back to 1874, # of years with 2 or less below zero lows, 99. # of years with more than 2 below zero lows, 51. So, the colder days were the anomaly. Which was why everyone was talking about the pending ice age in the 80’s.
I stopped reading xkcd when the author enthusiastically endorsed Obama and he starting making these really political comics.
Shame. It used to actually be good.
Abbott says:
“…a sceptic loses the argument …”
And:
“…9 of the warmest 10 years have been since (and including 2002).”
How does your argument explain this?
Rather than claim skeptics have ‘lost’ the argument, sit back and look at this hockey stick. Looks to me like it is the hockey stick crowd that has lost the debate, no?
So, James, how do you explain this? Or this? Or this?
That last Phil Jones chart shows that in the past [when CO2 was low], the planet warmed in steps — at the same rate that it warmed recently. How do you explain the lack of recent accelerated warming? How do you explain the identical warming steps? How do you explain the fact that the promoters of the “carbon” scare lack any testable, measurable scientific evidence showing that X human emissions = Y degrees of warming? Doesn’t it bother you even a little bit that you have no evidence, but only baseless assertions to support your failed conjecture?
Finally, isn’t the most reasonable explanation that the entire “carbon” scare is simply a false alarm, since it was based on a repeatedly falsified conjecture? Or, do you discuss science by asserting that skeptics lost the debate — when it is clear to everyone that you may actually be someone who simply cannot admit that he is flat wrong? Just wondering which it is…
So if you have any scientific evidence proving that human-emitted CO2 is the measurable cause of X degrees of global warming, now would certainly be a good time to post it. Your credibility is at stake, so take your best shot, James.
@ur momisugly bubbagyro says:
February 2, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Of course the CO2 obsessed, if they were practicing science, would seek to falsify their theory. But they are not after science. They are pursuing a holy grail.
Hey, XKCD, show all the data. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=cli_archive
See in particular the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1950s. Numbers a lot like the 2000s-present.The 1970s and early 80s were unusual, and not representative of “the past”.
Number of days per year min temp less than 0 °F.
Days/yr YEAR
1 1874
10 1875
1 1876
1 1877
1 1878
6 1879
4 1880
2 1881
2 1882
5 1883
6 1884
9 1885
10 1886
8 1887
6 1888
1 1889
0 1890
0 1891
2 1892
3 1893
2 1894
6 1895
0 1896
2 1897
0 1898
9 1899
0 1900
5 1901
2 1902
2 1903
2 1904
10 1905
0 1906
0 1907
0 1908
4 1909
1 1910
1 1911
11 1912
0 1913
0 1914
1 1915
3 1916
5 1917
3 1918
2 1919
0 1920
0 1921
0 1922
0 1923
5 1924
1 1925
0 1926
3 1927
3 1928
0 1929
6 1930
0 1931
1 1932
3 1933
2 1934
1 1935
18 1936
0 1937
0 1938
1 1939
11 1940
0 1941
4 1942
5 1943
1 1944
1 1945
0 1946
1 1947
4 1948
1 1949
1 1950
4 1951
0 1952
0 1953
0 1954
2 1955
0 1956
1 1957
2 1958
2 1959
2 1960
4 1961
4 1962
13 1963
1 1964
3 1965
3 1966
1 1967
3 1968
0 1969
5 1970
0 1971
4 1972
2 1973
2 1974
1 1975
4 1976
13 1977
7 1978
8 1979
2 1980
4 1981
10 1982
9 1983
4 1984
3 1985
1 1986
0 1987
1 1988
5 1989
2 1990
0 1991
0 1992
1 1993
4 1994
0 1995
4 1996
6 1997
0 1998
2 1999
0 2000
1 2001
0 2002
0 2003
0 2004
0 2005
0 2006
0 2007
0 2008
2 2009
1 2010
1 2011
0 2012
0 2013
The reason your cartoon falls flat is because it’s based entirely on the Big Lie that warming has stopped. Few dare deny that ENSO is THE source (along with occasional large volcanic eruptions on the down side) of annual/decadal variations in surface temperature. Few dare deny the principle of conservation of energy, either, so you must concede that when surface temperatures are falling, deep ocean waters are warming and vise versa. It is also undeniable that a cooling phase of ENSO has been with us for several years. Science has failed to identify (anti-science attempts notwithstanding) any other forcing remotely capable of accounting for an actual end to warming. In fact, the leading anti-science candidate has often been working in the wrong direction.
The conclusion was clear long before the science rolled in with data on deep ocean heating. The logic is inescapable – the pause in surface temperatures (2.3% of climactic heat content) is very, very likely caused primarily by a slight increase in warming of the oceans (93.4% of climactic heat content) by means of a known mechanism!
Warming of the surface has not occurred in the 21st century. The trend is negative over that time. That is historical fact, not a big lie. To say it’s “stopped” implies a prediction in some contexts but doesn’t invalidate the historical record. Using the term “pause” does not support your assertion of a “big lie” either.
Assuming it’s the PDO to blame, to what extent did the PDO account for the Late 20th Century Warm Period? Wasn’t it rather dishonest to extrapolate the PDO warming period, fit a curve to half a cycle, regress climate sensitivity to CO2 and derive a false non-causal correlation? Wasn’t it dishonest to hide these facts, brutalise and censor “skeptics”?
You simply ignored the content of my comment while repeating what my comment refuted. Surface warming is 2.3%. The oceans are 93.4%. The chief cause of variability in the 2.3% is known to be cyclic ocean phenomena that varies the 93.4% up and down a skosh. Those phenomena are known to be causing surface cooling for several years. The obsession over the 2.3% is nonsensical – unless you are using motivated reasoning.
“Assuming it’s the PDO to blame, . . . ”
It is.
“. . . to what extent did the PDO account for the Late 20th Century Warm Period?”
To the approximate extent that science has determined that it did.
“Wasn’t it rather dishonest to extrapolate the PDO warming period, fit a curve to half a cycle, regress climate sensitivity to CO2 and derive a false non-causal correlation? Wasn’t it dishonest to hide these facts, brutalise and censor “skeptics”?”
Oh, yes; all of that would be dishonest and horrible but none of it is true. It’s simply counterfactual to anyone familiar with the science.
10 years ago when the Warmists were running around screaming that “the science is settled”, ENSO was nowhere to be found in the explanation. Only after the pause did ENSO enter the discussion. I guess now the science is settlered.
Unless more energy is radiated out into space. Small changes in cloudiness are all that is required to explain the variability that we have seen over the past 150 years.
From Kyle on February 2, 2014 at 7:41 pm:
Except the Earth is not a closed system, energy is continuously flowing in and out. If surface temperatures are falling, it can easily be due to an increase in cloud cover reducing the radiative flux available for absorption. When extra clouds are preventing more energy from entering the Earth system, that energy will not be available to mysteriously warm only the deep oceans.
And the deep oceans aren’t warming up anyway. Here, enjoy this Bob Tisdale science-based piece, hopefully you’ll learn something.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/31/open-letter-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
February 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Is that correct, or is that SkepSci tool not working right? Tell me what you think.
I used to use SkS with my monthly reports, but then I was introduced to the one by Nick Stokes at: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D.
It is slightly different and gives times that are a bit shorter, however based on what I read at Lubos Motl’s site as well as Judith Curry’s site, I now believe that Nick’s site is more accurate. Here are the latest values for 5 data sets.
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 October 1996: CI from -0.034 to 1.239
For Hadsst3: Since June 1993: CI from -0.009 to 1.793
For GISS: Since June 1997: CI from -0.004 to 1.276
It’s 17F in St Louis right now. Someone must have let the flame below the thermometer go out.
Having grown up in St Louis and having spent most of my spring, summer and autumn days outside in the ’50s and ’60s – conveniently just before their 1970s start of global warming – I can truthfully say that their cartoon pretty much did nail it – a handful of days each year at or sightly below 0°F. We also had a sh**load of days at or above 100°F. At least several of those were in May and September, though not close to every year.
I also lived in Chicago in the period 1976-1984, and those years were GODAWFUL Siberian years. Since the unbelievably bitter cold of those years abated in 1985 I have thanked my lucky STARS for global warming, no matter what the cause. Fortunately, this year with the return of the bitter cold in Chicago, I have been in central MEXICO!
All I have to say is this: VIVA freaking MEXICO!
No, actually, I do have more to say. If anyone wants the kind of weather before the global warming, they are total a**hole idiots. SCREW ‘EM! This year’s winter weather in the Midwest should convince tens of millions of people that global warming is FAR BETTER than global cooling or what they think is global normal.
The climate crisis is when it gets COLD, not warmer.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
February 2, 2014 at 8:17 pm
“And the deep oceans aren’t warming up anyway.”
But it used to be so cold way down there!
Ah Ha! “Around 1970.” Well, that was Richard M. Nixons’s part II administration and in 1970 October 3 … NOAA! Ah Ha was established to settle all the “environmentalism pollutionization claims” and to be (see Wikipedia):
1) A Supplier of Environmental Information Products.
Ah Weather forecasts that are rubbish after 3 hours per day! and Climate projection that are wrong on the very minute, What a record!
2) A Provider of Environmental Stewardship Services.
Ah! Providing the best, i.e. highest cost and highest pay per employee for rudimentary reports that plagiarize published research, even wrong research so long as it fits the “NOAA Way” and satisfies the President’s at the time bloated ego.
3) A Leader in Applied Scientific Research.
Well Well. Leader. Research. Scientific. Big words. NOAA translators need more money and fewer hours to get it right of course since 95% of NOAA employees are not USA citizens! да.
до свидания товарищ
🙂
Thanks, Hoser. This was a fallacious selection bias. Show a range that proves your point and hope no one shows the larger range (or ignore them).
People blah blah blah a whole lot, but almost all the time it’s “my tribe against your tribe,” rather depressingly.
mpaul – “10 years ago when the Warmists were running around screaming that “the science is settled”, ENSO was nowhere to be found in the explanation. Only after the pause did ENSO enter the discussion.”
Another Big Lie. No one familiar with the science – and honest – would make this assertion.
kadaka – “If surface temperatures are falling, it can easily be due to an increase in cloud cover reducing the radiative flux available for absorption.”
Yes, it easily could but according to satellite and other measurements of cloud cover and direct satellite measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation, including the short wave broken down by frequency to quantify the absorption bands of GHG’s, and other proxy measures as well, there has been no such increase in cloud cover. In fact, a recent Australian study finds that, similar to the CLOUD study at CERN, that the warming is causing a reduction in cloudiness that points to a higher, rather than lower sensitivity.
“When extra clouds are preventing more energy from entering the Earth system, that energy will not be available to mysteriously warm only the deep oceans.”
Yes, when extra clouds are doing that, it would, but they’re not. As for the heating of the deep oceans, it is trivially simple. You refer to it as mysterious only as an attempt to discredit the science.
I refer to President Obama’s State of the Union address – Can someone please explain why the most powerful leader in the world, who is determined to halt ‘climate change’, demonstrated his total ignorance of the 17 year pause in global warming (leave alone the fact that there is no evidence IPCC predicted catastrophic man-made global warming)?
From Kyle on February 2, 2014 at 10:02 pm:
You really have no idea what you’re regurgitating, do you? Go read the press release of the Steve Sherwood (University of New South Wales) paper:
Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100
The climate models are not matching reality. Sherwood identified those with the lowest climate sensitivity were not modeling clouds properly. After adjustment, in those climate models the warming caused a reduction in cloudiness and showed a higher sensitivity.
NOWHERE does it say the warming IS CAUSING a reduction in cloudiness IN REALITY. This is all in the models.
As Dr. Roy Spencer has previously shown, the real temperature trends 1979-2012 for both HADCRUT4 and UAH LT are running lower than 87 of the 90 CMIP5 climate models.
90 climate model projections versus reality
Since 97% of the climate models are running hotter than reality, and Sherwood’s “corrections” make the low performers run hotter, what Sherwood’s work does is take the climate models even further from reality.
Now then, since you’re speaking with such great authority and projecting great understanding of your source material, can you point me to where I can find those “…satellite and other measurements of cloud cover and direct satellite measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation, including the short wave broken down by frequency to quantify the absorption bands of GHG’s, and other proxy measures as well…” that you are speaking of, so I can check if they really do say what you said about cloud cover?
@ur momisugly Mervyn on February 3, 2014 at 12:05 am:
We common Americans are suspecting the heavy use of medical marijuana, which he stated was no more harmful than alcohol, which is evidenced when we common Americans are listening to him say even more bizarre flabbergasting things that lead us to frequently exclaim “Is he drunk?”
Kyle:
You have turned up shortly after the exceptionally egregious troll posting as James Abbott crawled back to his bedroom with no supper. If you can understand what I am writing to tell you then you may avoid the contempt which James Abbott so completely earned.
It is possible to recover from your very bad start on WUWT, and I write to help you by informing you of how you have made yourself a laughing stock and how you can recover from that.
Please stop making the repeated and untrue assertion of a “Big Lie”. It reveals your immaturity and lack of experience. If you want to come here and play with grownups then you need to try to act as a grownup and not as you would in your school playground.
This is a science site.
People like evidence, logic and rational argument. It interests them, it engages them, and it convinces them.
This is a science site.
People do NOT like logical fallacies especially argument by assertion. People laugh at you when, as at February 2, 2014 at 9:49 pm, you assert
Your answer is “It is”? How do you know? Did you swim down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench with a thermometer?
And people don’t like to be insulted by some arrogant twerp who cannot even put a name to what he/she/they writes. For example, in that same post you write
Who ignored what? You don’t say.
Several people answered you, and your comment could be to any of them. They gave you the courtesy of addressing you by the name you used. But you don’t address your respondent by name. That is not nice, Kyle, and your teacher will explain why it is not nice when you are old enough to go to the big school.
So I checked back on the phrase “Assuming it’s the PDO to blame” and found it was Andrew who at February 2, 2014 at 7:59 pm wrote to you
So, Andrew did NOT “ignore the content of [your] comment”. That is a lie, Kyle, and people don’t like being lied to, it insults them.
In reality, your “comment” was an unfounded assertion which Andrew accepted as an “assumption” then asked you to consider its implications. And your response to that request says
But that is YOU ignoring what was put to you and trying to justify it with a blatant lie because anyone who is “familiar with the science” (hint and a warning: I am) knows you are wrong. Importantly, YOU made the untrue assertion which leads to the outcomes Andrew points out, so YOU need to justify it. Again, when you go to the big school your teacher will explain why the burden of providing evidence for YOUR assertion is with YOU. Everybody else only has a duty to question it.
So, I repeat that if you want to come here and play with grownups you need to try to act as a grownup and not as you would in your school playground.
I hope that helps you to make interesting and effective posts in future. At present you have destroyed all your credibility with your first few posts. However, if you heed my advice you have a chance of repairing some of that damage.
Richard
Well the pause is here – or so says Nate Drake PhD!
“Filter on NON-detrended GISS LOTI data: …
I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on
15year data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method.” Nate Drake
http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab357/NarwhaleNate/GISS_LOTI_S-G_Filternot-detrended_zps4a8d8e39.jpg
Notice how nicely flat the line is today. No better proof that the warming has stopped, and by such a fervent supporter of CAGW to boot 🙂
For a more visible version (enhanced points and line)
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/NateAnimated_zps8efd1ce1.gif
P.S. Two questions.
1. Where DID he get that GISS data set from? It does not match any of the sources I can find.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/GISSCompressLowPass_zps370917ca.png
2. Does anyone have R skills necessary to provide source code to reproduce the “5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 ear data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method”?
DS:
Please forgive my missing your post to me last night, but I have seen it now so this is my reply.
At February 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm you begin by saying to me
Yes, James Abbott was trying to do that. But, importantly, that was part of his trying to do something worse. This is the third thread he has tried to destroy. I explain the matter by copying a post I made on Saturday.
Richard
============
richardscourtney says:
February 1, 2014 at 4:32 pm
dbstealey:
Thankyou for your post at February 1, 2014 at 4:13 pm but all of that and much more was explained to James Abbot by several people a week ago.
In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, James Abbot made his first post in that thread here.
As anybody can see, a long series of exchanges with several people then ensued before everyone agreed he was merely trying to be a troll. He was an especially effective troll because – unusually – I was far from the first to recognise that he was trolling.
It ended with my question to him (repeated by me above in this thread) concerning where he thinks the “committed warming” has gone. He was pressed on the matter so went away until he appeared in this thread and raised the same issue!
Hence, my request that he be ignored because he has already started his tricks in this thread as he did in the thread I have linked in this post. Clearly, his intention is to disrupt this thread as he did the previous thread and he has nothing – n.b. nothing – to contribute.
Richard
James Abbott says:
February 2, 2014 at 5:05 pm
“Seems like every time a sceptic loses the argument they blow up.”
Seems like even when ‘Warmists’ prove the trend has stopped, they then ignore their own graphs!
See Nate Drake PhD ‘s graph above.
Kadaka, how do you know the deep oceans are warming up? Can you direct me to actual measured temperature trends?