Proper Cherry Picking

Guest essay by Johannes Herbst

There is a much discussed graph in the blogosphere from ‘Tamino’ (Grant Foster), which aims to prove that there is no delay or pause or decline in global warming.

He states: Twelve of sixteen were hotter than expected even according to the still-warming prediction, and all sixteen were above the no-warming prediction:

clip_image001

Let’s get a larger picture:

ptxt

  • We see the red HADCRUT4 graph, coming downwards a bit from 1960 to 1975, and inclining steeper beyond 2000, with a slight drop of about the last 10 years.
  • We see a blue trend, rising at the alarming rate of 0.4°C within only one decade! This was the time when some scientists started to worry about global warming.
  • We see the green trend, used by the blogger Tamino in the first graphic, rising less than 0.1°C per decade.
  • Below we see the Sunspot Numbers, pulsing in a frequency of about 11 years. Comparing it with the red temperature graph, we see the same pattern of 11 years pulsing. It shows clear evidence that temperature is linked to the sunspot activity.

Tamino started his trend at high sun activity and it stopped at low activity. Therefore the weak increase during 18 years.

Which leads us to the question: How long should a time be for observing climate change? If we look at the sunspot activity and the clear pattern it produces in the temperature graph, the answer is: 11 years or a multiple of it.

Or we can measure from any point of:

·high sun activity to one of the following

·low sun activity to one of the following

·rising sun activity to one of the following

·declining sun activity to one of the following

to eliminate the pattern of sunspot numbers.

Let’s try it out:

ptxt2

The last point of observation of the trend is between 2003 and 2014, about 2008. But even here we can see the trend has changed.

We do not know about the future. An downward trend seems possible, but a sharp rise is predicted from some others, which would destroy our musings so far.

Just being curious: How would the graph look with satellite data? Let’s check RSS.

ptxt3

Really interesting. The top of both graph appears to be at 2003 or 2004. HADCRUT4 shows a 0.05°C decline, RSS a 0.1°C per decade.

A simple way for smoothing a curve

There is a more simple way for averaging patterns (like the influence of sunspots). I added a 132 months average (11 years). This means at every spot of the graph all neighboring data (5.5 years to the left and 5.5 years to the right) are averaged. This also means that the graph will stop 5.5 years from the beginning or the end. And voila, the curve is the same as with our method in the previous post to measure at the same slope of a pattern.

As I said before the top of the curve is about 2003, and our last point of observation of a 11 years pattern is 2008. From 2008 to 2003 is only 5 years. This downtrend, even averaged, is somehow too short for a long time forecast. But anyway, the sharp acceleration of the the 1975-2000 period has stopped and the warming even halted – for the moment.

ptxt4

Note: I gave the running average graph (pale lilac) an offset of 0.2°C to get it out of the mess of all the trend lines.

If Tamino would have smoothed the 11years sun influence of the temperature graph before plotting the trend like done here at WFT, his green trend would be would be the same incline like the blue 33 year trend:

clip_image002

Even smoother

Having learned how to double and triple smooth a curve, I tried it as well on this graph:

clip_image003

We learned from Judith Curry’s Blog that on the top of a single smoothed curve a trough appears. So the dent at 2004 seems to be the center of the 132 month’s smoothed wave. I double smoothed the curve and reached 2004 as well, now eliminating the dent.

Note: Each smoothing cuts away the end of the graph by half of the smoothing span. So with every smoothing the curve gets shorter. But even the not visible data are already included in the visible curve.

According to the data, after removing all the “noise” (especially the 11 year’s sun activity cycle) 2004 was the very top of the 60 years sine wave and we are progressing downwards now for 10 years.

If you are not aware about the 60 years cycle, I just have used HADCRUT4 and smoothed the 11 years sunspot activity, which influences the temperature in a significant way.

clip_image004

We can clearly see the tops and bottoms of the wave at about 1880, 1910, 1940, 1970, and 2000. If this pattern repeats, the we will have 20 more years going down – more or less steep. About ten years of the 30 year down slope are already gone.

One more pattern

There is also a double bump visible at the downward slopes of about 10/10 years up and down. By looking closer you will see a hunch of it even at the upward slope. If we are  now at the beginning of the downward slope – which could last 30 years – we could experience these bumps as well.

Going back further

Unfortunately we have no global temperature records before 1850. But we have one from a single station in Germany. The Hohenpeissenberg in Bavaria, not influenced from ocean winds or towns.

ptxt7

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Temperaturreihe_Hoher_Pei%C3%9Fenberg.PNG

Sure, it’s only one single station, but the measurements were continuously with no pause, and we can get somehow an idea by looking at the whole picture. Not in terms of 100% perfection, but just seeing the trends. The global climate surely had it’s influence here as well.

What we see is a short upward trend of about ten years, a downward slope of 100 years of about 1°C, an upward trend for another 100 years, and about 10 years going slightly down. Looks like an about 200 years wave. We can’t see far at both sides of the curve, but if this Pattern is repeating, this would only mean: We are now on the downward slope.  Possibly for the next hundred years, if there is nothing additional at work.

The article of Greg Goodman about mean smoothers can be read here:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/

==================================

Johannes Herbst writes at: http://klimawandler.blogspot.de/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
M Courtney

So by smoothing a lot you get a tell-signal of a double-bump that indicates a change in trend. From which you conclude we could be in for 100 years of cooling.
It sounds possible but then, so does Tamino.
Surely, it is fairer to say that over the last 17 years there has been no significant temperature trend and, as we don’t know why, anything can happen now. Isn’t that more easily justified?

Rob

Nice graphs. With a Dalton type solar minima surely ahead, things are going to increasingly get interesting.

steveta_uk

Looking at Tamino’s graph, you see a nice 1.2C/century trend.
Why are we panicing?

Espen

Nice! Tamino is smart, but not very wise, a very annoying combination. His idea requires that the global temperature is just random noise around a linear trend. There are good reasons to believe that his idea is overly simple. One way to look at it is presented in this article, but I’d also like to point to Bob Tisdale’s idea that global SST increases in steps after El Niños, i.e. that the released heat is retained in the earth system for quite a while.

Am I missing something, or did Tamino use 1997 instead of 1998 as his breakpoint? That seems a more pertinent form of cherry-picking than anything else.

Willis Eschenbach

Johannes says:

… Below we see the Sunspot Numbers, pulsing in a frequency of about 11 years. Comparing it with the red temperature graph, we see the same pattern of 11 years pulsing. It shows clear evidence that temperature is linked to the sunspot activity.

I’m sorry, Johannes, but your eyes are fooling you badly. The correlation between HadCRUT and sunspots is a pathetic 0.014, with a p-value of 0.54.
In other words, the data you cite clearly shows that there is no correlation between the HadCRUT4 dataset and the sunspot dataset.
Which is no surprise, as many, many people have looked at the sunspots vs HadCRUT4 correlation and found nothing …
So while Tamino may indeed be very wrong … I fear you are as well.
w.

H.R.

“Which leads us to the question: How long should a time be for observing climate change?”
====================
Just my opinion, but when the Vikings’ descendants re-establish the farms of the MWP on Greenland, I’d say the climate has changed.
What is so magical about 30, 60, 90 or one hundred years? Time shouldn’t matter. Climate change should be pronounced when the climate is observed to change.
(But let’s not lose sight of the original issue of CO2 based CAGW, which has morphed into ‘climate change.’)

RichardLH

Try these for a CRTM (c.f. Greg Goodman) 15 year treatment of HadCrut and GISS data.
HadCrut
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif
GISS
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/GISS11575LowpassSG15_zps3d9a93bb.gif
Because of the shortness of the data it is not possible to do a full 15 year pass on the satellite data but a 7.5 year version shows these displays
UAH
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/UAH175LowPass_zps3af20c1b.gif
RSS
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/RSS175Lowpass_zps940b1944.gif
I always use continuous functions, such as Cascaded Triple Running Means and Savitzky-Golay projections rather than Linear Trends as I regard LTs as being
“Linear Trend” = “Tangent to the curve” = “Flat Earth” thinking 🙂

richardscourtney

Johannes Herbst:
Thankyou for your article. However, it seems to provide more shade than light.
The first sentence in your article says

There is a much discussed graph in the blogosphere from ‘Tamino’ (Grant Foster), which aims to prove that there is no delay or pause or decline in global warming.

So,
The issue is whether or not the above graph from the egregious Grant Foster is correct and, if so, what it indicates.
The graph is not correct because the only thing it indicates is that Foster has selected a timescale which supports an agenda. End of.

Your article introduces examination of the timescale selected by Foster with its first three bullet points. And it would have been helpful if you had expanded on those.
But your fourth bullet point introduces a suggestion that global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) relates to solar cycles. And the remainder of your article expands on that. If you had wanted to discuss the degree to which GASTA relates to solar cycles then it would have been helpful if you had written another article which specifically addressed that.
On the basis of WUWT history it can be confidently predicted that this thread will be dominated by proponents of solar influence on climate promoting their case. This is a pity because Foster’s propaganda merits full exposure for being the misleading pseudoscience which it is.
Richard

RichardLH

Tamino’s favourite LOWESS ‘smooth’ is the same as using Savitzky-Golay except that LOWESS is OLS ‘fit’ to short straight lines and Savitzky-Golay is an OLS ‘fit’ to a function (I use 2nd order in the work I have published).
I am banned for posting at Tamino’s because I have a habit of pointing out ‘Emperors New Clothes’ when I see them and he has a hissy fit when I do.

RichardLH

richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:33 am
“This is a pity because Foster’s propaganda merits full exposure for being the misleading pseudoscience which it is.”
I agree. My post in response to this and Tamino is stuck in moderation because it has 4 urls in it so time will….
P.S. I could split my posts into sub-sections to get round the 3 url limit but that is not playing the game fairly with Anthony.

RichardLH

richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:33 am
Reply on its way but now two comments are stuck in moderation – ah well, less Tigger, more Owl.

M Seward

Is that Tamino character serious with his childish attempt at the three card trick? Temperature jumps around every 2 to 3 years and even a 3 year average flattens outmost of the noise. Plot that and you can see what is happening. High school statistics and line fitting a la spreadsheet is just laughable.

RichardLH

M Seward says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:51 am
“High school statistics and line fitting a la spreadsheet is just laughable.”
My take?
“Linear Trend” = “Tangent to the curve” = “Flat Earth” thinking 🙂

Greg Goodman

“I am banned for posting at Tamino’s because I have a habit of pointing out ‘Emperors New Clothes’ when I see them and he has a hissy fit when I do.”
LOL. Grant “Tamino” Foster is so full of himself that he cannot abide anyone contradict or question what he says. That is why he hides behind the safely of own little universe where he has editorial control.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/open-mind-or-cowardly-bigot/

Gareth Phillips

It went up, it stayed up.It has not got statistically warmer for some time, but the patients temperature is still high and the fact that it has not risen any further is neither here nor there. Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol. Is there a prescription for the planet, or is everyone happy to see it stay heated? If so, the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK will have to be accepted as quite normal as well as other climatic changes yet to be seen.

Following up on my previous comment, I’ve confirmed Tamino did use 1997, not 1998, as his breakpoint. I have no explanation for that. What I do have is a quick blog post I wrote examining the issue:
hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/cherry-picking-done-stupidly/
I think there’s more wrong with Tamino’s post than I pointed out, but I’d rather focus on one issue at a time. Primarily, if Tamino wants to test whether or not there has been warming since 1998, he shouldn’t create a test (bad or otherwise) which looks to see if there has been warming since 1997.

M Courtney

Gareth Phillips says at February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am…
But is this fever harmful? Surely it helps growing cycles? And fewer tropical storms are expected as the temperature differential between poles and equator declines?
Ah, but you then say:

If so, the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK will have to be accepted as quite normal as well as other climatic changes yet to be seen.

So it is superstition then.
Last year was dry and cold (then quite hot in a bit called Summer) in the UK. “Other climatic changes” seem to be everything that happens.
If everything is consistent with AGW then AGW has no explanatory power. We can do without that hypothesis.

Greg Goodman

Johannes, glad you found my post on running means and proper choice of filters useful. The 132/99/74 month filter you use makes a good job of removing higher frequencies and leaves a nice clean curve of the longer term variation.
I would have to agree with Willis’ comment that the SSN does not hold up in a simple regression analysis. This was discussed recently and I shows there was a circe 9.1 year cycle that breaks the simple correlation. This is the trouble with trivial analysis like Foster does.
There are many interfering patterns in climate, it is a very complex system. Just doing one linear regression of correlation test is not sufficient to prove or disprove the influence of a single factor unless it overwhelms all others.
Almost all data will have a linear “trend”, so if one avoids any serious analysis of the variability and just the give up by hiding behind a fancy word like “stochastic” the obvious conclusion is “linear trend plus stochastic variability”.
That does not prove anything except one’s lack of ability.

richardscourtney

Gareth Phillips:
Your post at February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am says in total

It went up, it stayed up.It has not got statistically warmer for some time, but the patients temperature is still high and the fact that it has not risen any further is neither here nor there. Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol. Is there a prescription for the planet, or is everyone happy to see it stay heated? If so, the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK will have to be accepted as quite normal as well as other climatic changes yet to be seen.

emphasis added: RSC
I understand your advertisement for Vi@gra, but I fail to understand the relevance of “the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK”. Such storms are normal and they occur whenever the jet stream comes South. But what has that to do with your use of Vi@gra which you describe?
Also, I can understand how warm weather increases your desire to use Vi@gra, but how is our pleasantly warm planet “pyrexial”?
Richard

Alan the Brit

I am confident that Solar activity dictates global temperatures overall. Even the warmists at the IPCC seem to have claimed that in the distant past but not of course today. I am sure we will maybe one day soon discover how, which I recall a couple of years ago was promoted unacknowledged at a Climate conference in Germany. GCRs plus magnetic field, etc, if memory serves. The Sun does possess 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System, the thought that it has no affect of our planet seems to me ridiculous, even though we as yet do not know how. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence!!! In the past studies have suggested that Solar Activity affects the planet in many ways, & I repeat that I watched a BBC Horizon programme (show) years ago that demonstrated various trends in Human activity corresponding to Solar Activity, but that was when the BBC did science, not voodoo scare stories. We know for instance that it can affect power grids, satellites, communications, etc. The idea that it doesn’t affect Climate seems illogical at best, especially when not so long ago the UK Wet Office acknowledged that it affected weather, but NOT Climate, of course! That too seems ridiculous considering that Climate is made up of weather patterns over a prolonged period of time! I am fairly sure that Solar magnetic activity affects the Earth’s magnetic field & that there is likely some link there with Climate. I have issues with both the Wet Office & the IPCC when they try to pass off the pause in warming by claiming it to be the result of volcanic activity & reduced Solar activity, when they have clearly stated the Sun doesn’t have a significant affect on Climate. They cannot have it both ways! IMHO.

Greg Goodman

A word of caution on Hoeherpissenberg ( german for pissing high mountain 😉 ) , all those HISTALP stations get two warming long term adjustments of about 0.5 K each . Non “homogenised” data is NOT available neither is the adjustment method verifiable.
I’m not saying it’s wrong but it’s yet more data where the long term variability is determined more by the adjustments that are applied, than what the data actually indicated before going through the blender.

RichardLH

Greg Goodman says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:28 am
“Johannes, glad you found my post on running means and proper choice of filters useful. The 132/99/74 month filter you use makes a good job of removing higher frequencies and leaves a nice clean curve of the longer term variation.”
Greg: I have settled on a 15 year ‘corner’ with 180, 149 and 123 as being the parameters to choose.
The particular reason for choosing that roll off point is that it is 1 octave below the 30 years that is considered to be ‘Climate’.
That it then shows a definite ~60 year period in the data is down purely to what the data says is there, not any preconceptions as to what to look for.
P.S. I try to give appropriate reference back to both you and V. Pratt for the 1.2067 inter stage multiplier I now use.

RichardLH
steveta_uk

Gareth Phillips says: February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am

Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol.

When a patient has recovered from hypothermia‎, I don’t think it is normal for doctors to prescribe anything to try an get the temperature down again.
So this analogy only really works if you can define the normal temperature of our planet. Can you?

DirkH

M Courtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:14 am
“Surely, it is fairer to say that over the last 17 years there has been no significant temperature trend and, as we don’t know why, anything can happen now. Isn’t that more easily justified?”
To make a prediction you have to have a model. The IPCC has the GCM’s and they all failed. “need some work”; i.e. need a refurbishment, and at the moment, have a batting score of zero.
Mörner, Scafetta et al have their model, which has been roundly lambasted by this website, but it’s a model, and they have their prediction. One could call it a new model or one could call it a rehash of Landscheidt in which case its score is perfect for the time being. Hope the word Landscheidt doesn’t send this comment to Gehenna.
Then there is the Null hypothesis: Climate is brown noise. So it will keep its spectral composition and perform a random walk according to it. This hypothesis ignores CO2 as well as solar influences. Very unlikely in my opinion. I expect the sun to have an influence.

Greg Goodman

here is the adjustment applied to the HISTALP series.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=102t6ia&s=8#.UvTJ_aJg8rQ
Inter-decadal variation does not seem much affected but there is a significant century scale warming added to the records.

hunter

What is clear is that the hard core CO2 obsessed are not going to let go of their climate apocalypse. The idea that after a peak you have levels near the peak is lost on the true believers. Even the IPCC is backing off the extreme position on climate sensitivity. But the Tamino’s of the world are having none of that.

hunter

As for the Gareth Phillips position that the temperature of the world has gone up significantly and for a long time, please learn some history. And perhaps consider getting some counseling on how to deal with such dangerous hubris.

Greg Goodman

RichardLH says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:44 am
Thanks for the plots. Interesting that the S-G 75y filter produces a kink in 1940 and almost linear each side.
It’s hard to know what conclusions to draw from such a filter since its frequency response changes _as a function of the data_ . Same for LOWESS.
This is typical econometrics stuff. They just do something, anything, and if it “looks” OK they use it. I can’t imagine a filter without a definable frequency response being taken seriously in engineering or a hard science.

RichardLH

Greg Goodman says:
February 7, 2014 at 4:06 am
“Thanks for the plots. Interesting that the S-G 75y filter produces a kink in 1940 and almost linear each side.
It’s hard to know what conclusions to draw from such a filter since its frequency response changes _as a function of the data_ . Same for LOWESS.”
I am very cautious about any of the OLS ‘fits’ to the data, both LOWESS and S-G. At least S-G is a ‘fit’ to a function, not a line.
The advantage of using a full kernel CTRM as a training fir for the alignment then becomes obvious. You can ‘prove’ that the choice of parameters is good for the overlap period at least and thus is likely to be good for the ‘extension’ as well. Reduces the likelihood of ‘cherry picking’ the ‘fit’.
The 75 year (being only a single mean because of data length) and the S-G of the same are at the very edge of what is possible. The S-G will ‘whip’ around with new data and may well soon ‘flip’ to a downward trend into the future. The guidance for this is that the ‘zero crossing’ point is happening too early for the longer curve still to be rising as estimated currently. Just a few more years of data may well show that to be true :-).

Jared

Tamino proves with a linear line that global warming has not stopped. It proceeds in a linear fashion at a 0.1 degree clip every decade. 86 more year left in the 21st Century so it will be 0.86 degrees warmer in 2100 than it is in present day. Let’s spend trillions to stop that scary 0.86 degrees.

richardscourtney

Jared:
You make a good point in your post at February 7, 2014 at 4:14 am

Tamino proves with a linear line that global warming has not stopped. It proceeds in a linear fashion at a 0.1 degree clip every decade. 86 more year left in the 21st Century so it will be 0.86 degrees warmer in 2100 than it is in present day. Let’s spend trillions to stop that scary 0.86 degrees.

Yes.
If Foster were right that global warming is continuing as he suggests then global warming is not a problem.
I write to emphasise your point because it is so important.
Richard

M Courtney

Dirk H, I expect CO2 and the sun to have an influence… and a lot else beside.
Over the long term the climate seems very stable (well bi-stable cetween ice ages and not).
Over the short term we have weather – not stable.
And over the term of a century or so we have trends that go up and down seemingly at 30 year intervals, perhaps.
So I’m not willing to endorse any model at the moment. None seems to be able to br validated for at least half a century – excepting if the model mimics the past near perfectly without tuning on the past.
That exception seems to be an unproven statement about any climate model, yet.

Tom in Florida (where everthing grows year round)

steveta_uk says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:45 am
Gareth Phillips says: February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am
” Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol.”
When a patient has recovered from hypothermia‎, I don’t think it is normal for doctors to prescribe anything to try an get the temperature down again.
So this analogy only really works if you can define the normal temperature of our planet. Can you?
===========================================================================
My thoughts exactly.

Angech

Brandon, I think Tamino in the comments section after his article almost states that his graph is cherry picked to a 1997 date in the belief that this allows him to claim warming hasn’t paused. When a couple of commentators were allowed to half comment on this he dismissed them with the view that all’s fair in putting skeptics down.
As light relief a few of his regular commentators did not get the joke and were commentating on how wonderful and accurate his presentation was.
At least the comments section was civilised in comparison to the disgraceful mysogynism in the blog section made on Judith Curry in the second of his blogs attacking her view on the Antarctic sea ice which is almost worth a post on WUWT although it would probably be too dangerous legally.

Thank you Johannes for your submission and all for your thoughts – a difficult topic with no apparent easy resolution.
Johannes, for historic data you may want to examine CET’s as well as Hohenpeissenberg in Bavaria .
My thoughts below – more questions than answers:
Best to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/14/no-matter-if-its-a-climatic-pause-or-jolt-still-no-warming/#comment-1539945
I agree RichardLH – wait for more data.
All I can see is the gross correlation that has been historically observed between low Sunspots during two significant cold periods – the Maunder and the Dalton,
I expect the Sun is the dominant factor, however, the ~90 year Gleissberg Cycle is in-and-out-of-phase with the ~60 year PDO.
I do expect global cooling in the next few years as stated above.
How much cooling? Not sure but probably significant enough to cause hardship for humanity in Northern climes. Hope to be wrong. Getting old and hate the cold.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/14/no-matter-if-its-a-climatic-pause-or-jolt-still-no-warming/#comment-1539464
Hello again RichardLH,
Maybe you can find something of value in this data:
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/annual.gif
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.
The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner.
Best regards, Allan

Mike M

My favorite “cherry-pick” is: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2000/trend
Two 35 year periods of warming trend and the larger one was the one that occurred when there was roughly 25% less CO2 in the air. (Thank God for those aerosols that instantly came along just when needed or we probably would have been burnt toast by 1980! /sarc)
But seriously, is the above considered “cherry-picking” or merely a statement of the obvious?

Mike M

steveta_uk says: “define the normal temperature”
hunter says: “dangerous hubris.”
And defining “normal” versus “dangerous” hubris is at least as difficult to define as “normal” versus “dangerous” global temperature.

steveta_uk

richardscourtney, you write to emphasize a point make at 4:14 am “because it is so important.”
I made the same point at 1:32 am. Sulk ;(

Gareth Phillips says on February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am
It went up, it stayed up. It has not got statistically warmer for some time, but the patients temperature is still high and the fact that it has not risen any further is neither here nor there. Our planet is still pyrexial.
pyrexial (paɪˈrɛksɪəl) or pyrexic
Definitions
adjective
(pathology, technical term) of or relating to a rise in the temperature of the body which is often a symptom of infection.
_____________
My comments:
The current global warmth is definitely NOT an “infection” Gareth. Humanity is now enjoying a benign and highly desirable Warm Period during which we do much better than cooler periods such as the Little Ice Age, and particularly the time of the Maunder and Dalton Minimums circa 1700 and 1800.
Rather than panicking over the alleged “global warming crisis”, we should be enjoying this brief warm respite and planning for a probable global cooling period that could be mild or severe. Cheap abundant energy is highly desirable – we have that for the moment in North America – but the rest of the world is not so fortunate. They should be exploiting cheap energy sources such as shale gas without further delay or obstruction. If they fail to do so, I suggest there will be a significant increase in excess winter mortality rates, which are already alarmingly high in some countries of Western Europe. Bundle up, good people!
Best to all, Allan

troe

Love it when a stray climate zombie wanders in for rapid dispatching. One of the things that keeps me coming back.

Louis Hooffstetter

H.R. says:
“Climate change should be pronounced when the climate is observed to change”
Absolutely! Using this common sense rule of thumb and historical data we can easily identify some of the most recent episodes of climate change:
• the Roman period (~250 BC – 400 AD), a warming trend
• the Medieval warm period (~950 – 1250 AD), a warming trend
• the Little Ice Age (~1350 – 1850 AD), a cooling trend
• the “Dust Bowl – dirty thirties”, a warming trend
• the period from ~1940 – ~1978, a cooling trend
• the period from ~1978 – ~1997, a warming trend
• the period from ~1997 – present, a flat line
And the lesson here is that CO2 has very little to do with climate change.

richardscourtney

steveta_uk:
At February 7, 2014 at 4:42 am you say to me

I made the same point at 1:32 am. Sulk ;(

Yes, indeed you did.
I apologise that I then missed it. And I thank you for pointing out that I did.
But the fact that I missed it adds emphasis to the need for the important point made by you and Jared to be iterated. So, I again repeat it.
If Foster were right that global warming is continuing as he suggests then global warming is not a problem.
Richard

RichardLH

Greg Goodman:
The reason for how I came to try and use a Savitzky-Golay ‘fit’ as an extension to the CTRM (which I much prefer as an invariant summary of the data to date) can be found on the Nature ‘Missing Heat’ thread where Nate Drake PhD had another hissy fit very similar to those that Tamino throws when I used the 15 year CTRM to demonstrate a ~60 year cycle to the data.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
Nate is fully confinced that Means, Running, Cascaded or otherwise are NOT, VERY DEFINITELY NOT, FIR filters of any form or practice what so ever! A lovely ‘anti-science’ position to be in.
How far out on a limb can one get before sawing it off behind yourself?
He’s been strangely quite since then. I would pop over to the Bunny Hutch and try and find him but I am not very welcome there either for some reason. Something to do with facts and Antarctic Sea Ice.

chris y

Brandon Shollenberger says on February 7, 2014 at 3:18 am
“Following up on my previous comment, I’ve confirmed Tamino did use 1997, not 1998, as his breakpoint. I have no explanation for that.”
I think Tamino split the data into two equal halves. With data from 1980 – 2013 being 34 years, that puts the middle at 1997.
Other questions include:
-why choose 1980 as a starting point;
-why not repeat the same analysis with the data set 1998 – 2013;
-why not repeat the same analysis for other 34 year periods in the surface temperature record;

RichardLH

Allan M.R. MacRae says:
February 7, 2014 at 4:27 am
“I agree RichardLH – wait for more data.”
The impatience of the Internet Age 🙂
“Hello again RichardLH, Maybe you can find something of value in this data:”
I have looked at the solar data and cannot find, as yet, a reasonable correlation between the ~60 year cycle in the temperature data and the solar figures (or orbital as well).
There are Nicola Scafetta’s papers of course but I find that they lack a definitive mechanism to transfer Solar or Orbital into something that would provide a direct temperature modulator here on Earth. I wait for someone to show me a methodology that does.

Alright, I’ve decided I was right to think Tamino’s methodology is nonsensical. I just updated my post:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/cherry-picking-done-stupidly/
To show how arbitrary decisions about what data to use causes massively different results. To demonstrate, I created a graph as legitimate as Tamino’s with his own methodology. It’s bogus, but I challenge anyone to show it is inherently less valid than Tamino’s.
http://hiizuru.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/tamino_mock.png?w=600&h=267

rgbatduke

It went up, it stayed up.It has not got statistically warmer for some time, but the patients temperature is still high and the fact that it has not risen any further is neither here nor there. Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol. Is there a prescription for the planet, or is everyone happy to see it stay heated? If so, the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK will have to be accepted as quite normal as well as other climatic changes yet to be seen.
Dear Gareth,
The patient, as it were, fell through the ice and became seriously hypothermic, decending to the lowest temperature in 8 or 9 thousand years. Fortunately, it managed to drag itself out of the water and wrap itself in a blanket and warm up a bit. Sadly, night fell, and it got very chilled again although of course not as badly as when it fell through the ice. Fortunately the next day was sunny and the patient has been slowly warming up and at this point is almost at a normal temperature.
If you want to play the silly metaphor game, I’m there. But let’s start your metaphor fairly, just before the LIA (falling through the ice) and continuing it into the Dalton minimum (clearly visible on the one long term graph of temperature above, night falling while still damp with icewater). Since the Dalton minimum, the “patient” has been warming back up. To normal? To fevered? It is quite literally impossible to tell — what’s “normal”? We couldn’t predict the fall through the ice and cannot explain it today. We cannot predict or explain one single bit of the patient’s record. We look at the warming trend post the Dalton minimum and wring our hands and say “this is our fault” in spite of the fact that we really, truly, do not know this.
Now, a good physician takes the FULL history of the patient, do they not? Also, before they conclude that a patient has a fever, they have to figure out what temperature is normal. For humans that is comparatively easy, but you still don’t measure temperature with an oral thermometer right after they finish a glass of hot tea or cold beer, and you recognize that if they’ve been taking aspirin the reading won’t reflect what is really happening. For a planet? We haven’t a clue what is normal — and the models we’ve built to predict its “normal” evolution in time do not work.
rgb

RichardLH

Brandon Shollenberger says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:21 am
“Alright, I’ve decided I was right to think Tamino’s methodology is nonsensical. I just updated my post:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/cherry-picking-done-stupidly/
Cross post from your thread.
Actually a very reasonable ‘cherry pick’ would be to take the average of the last ‘n’ years as the cut point. That way you get to draw the blue line right down the centre of the later years. I mean, how much fairer could you be than that 🙂