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:
Let’s get a larger picture:
- 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:
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.
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.
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:
Even smoother
Having learned how to double and triple smooth a curve, I tried it as well on this graph:
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.
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.
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:
Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’
==================================
Johannes Herbst writes at: http://klimawandler.blogspot.de/
Gareth, you can move that little zero/normal line up and down to show anything you want…
The more you filter the more you trim the end of the time series.
The more you trim the end of the time series the less “hiatus” you have to predict future cooling.
Therefore, filtering reduces your ability to predict future temperature trends.
I like Monckton’s hiatus claim of 17 years, 5 months. As this grows so to will scepticism of AGW.
chris y, that’s not what he said he did, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot. As for your questions, he didn’t choose 1980 as a starting point. He choose 1979. The reason he gives is that’s when satellite data begins. That’s a strange reason though as only a couple data sets require satellite measurement. There is no particular reason to use 1979 as the starting point for the rest.
You’re definitely right to ask why he didn’t repeat the analysis for a different data set. Had he done tested a variety of periods, he’d have seen dramatic changes in his results. That would show his methodology is suspect.
Of course, the best question is why did he include 1998’s data in the section he tested for “no warming since 1998”? It’s an especially good question as he responded to a reader:
Read that a couple times. He told a reader he was examining “what would have happened after 1998,” but his post clearly states he was using the period after 1997. That means he’s even contradicting himself.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:21 am
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.
Not to mention that the temperature now is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago while solar activity now is the same as it was back then.
This today from GWPF – thank you Benny and all:
The media aren’t paying much attention, but in recent weeks Europe has decided to run, not walk, as fast as it can away from the economic menace of green energy. Brussels calls this new policy “flexibility.” Right. More like “never mind,” and here’s why: The new German economic minister, Sigmar Gabriel, says green energy mandates have become such an albatross around the neck of industry that they could lead to a “deindustrialization” of Germany. What’s amazing about this story is that so few American politicians get it. President Obama talked in his State of the Union speech about doubling renewable energy output over the coming years. Mr. President, these are exactly the goals the Europeans are abandoning. Why chase the losers?
–Investor’s Business Daily, 5 February 2014
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020514-689033-europe-finds-anti-co2-policies-are-destroying-the-economy.htm
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:38 am
“Not to mention that the temperature now is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago while solar activity now is the same as it was back then.”
This is an incredibly unscientific statement. I expect better from you, Dr. Svalgaard. Your agenda is showing.
David Ball says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:45 am
“Not to mention that the temperature now is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago while solar activity now is the same as it was back then.”
This is an incredibly unscientific statement. I expect better from you, Dr. Svalgaard. Your agenda is showing.
However the statement is true, regardless of what you call it. What can be better than the naked truth?
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:49 am
“However the statement is true, regardless of what you call it. What can be better than the naked truth?”
How about the naked truth that the temperature today is the same or possibly even lower than it has been in the past, presumably with roughly the same Solar input then as now?
RichardLH says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:53 am
How about the naked truth that the temperature today is the same or possibly even lower than it has been in the past, presumably with roughly the same Solar input then as now?
Look at figure 8 of this post and reconsider your question.
Eyeballing trends and data comparisons has been shown to be the most unreliable method of data analysis there is. I have to say it, posts presented at WUWT should have to pass at least a minimum standard related to statistics if statistics are being “**used”. In fact, to put it bluntly, this post most definitely “**used” statistics. Shame on the author.
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:56 am
“Look at figure 8 of this post and reconsider your question.”
Take a step further back to millennia rather than decade and reconsider MY question.
Pamela Gray says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:01 am
“In fact, to put it bluntly, this post most definitely “**used” statistics. Shame on the author.”
I would have said that, on balance, the misuse of statistics by all sides is pretty common. Very few use them correctly. Tamino misuses them, this post (using Tamino’s own methodology) misuses them.
I think that was rather the point of the article.
RichardLH says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:01 am
Take a step further back to millennia rather than decade and reconsider MY question.
Apart from the fact that neither solar activity nor global temperature are not well known millennia back, what little reliable data we have does not support your assertion, see slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
The rate of change in any set of climate data is physically never linear. the data are composites of multiple cycles of varying wave lengths. The longer wave lengths may be approximated as linear with short time data sets, but those long term slopes have very little physical predictive ability. I find that by factoring out annual variations by calculating running two year slopes (monthly data such as three years of January data followed by three years of February data) you can observe a better signiture of climate change. Long term averaging washes out these signitures. The idea is to match these signitures of different data sets to determine the physical significance.
30 minutes after I get home my house is 5 degrees warmer than it was when a minute afterr I turned up the thermostat yet the furnace has not increaced its output.
I think LSvalgaard’s statement is true, but meaningless — and perhaps even open to ridicule, like the White House’s global warming chart? Yes, we seem to be in some kind of solar minimum (again), but what was the sun “doing” during the 100-year interim? Thank goodness the temperature is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago (if the altered data are to be believed).
Thanks for all your responses. In summary the two main points that seem to be a theme are:
A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and,
B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual.
It would be interesting to see your assessments of patients with various pathological conditions. I wonder if the opinions would be, ‘don’t worry, this used to be really common in the Middle ages or this is not really a problem, it’s just the body acting in a different way, and may even be beneficial’. While these things are not really the same thing, I’m using the human body as a metaphor,and homeostasis is an issue with both, and in each if that suddenly and rapidly changes leading to negative symptomology, they are both causes for concern. We can of course ignore them, but we can also admit that there is something going on and we can work to meet the challenge or even modify the downside of any impacts.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:21 am
Just wondering. If a phenomenon only had effect on an outcome at certain threshold values, high spot count or low spot count and the outcome could vary randomly in between, would correlation coefficient and p-value really give any information?
Dr Svalgaard,
it started drizzling a little yesterday. Only lasted a short time and the grass in my garden dried off after an hour.
Today, it started to rain heavily and the grass was soaked through. Eventually, the heavy rain turned back to drizzle leaving me perplexed – why is my grass still so wet an hour after todays drizzle stopped?
I’m willing to occasionally read Tamino’s quotes and look at his cherry-pickings, but I won’t visit his site again if I can help it. Been there.
Going back further.
Swedish weather SMHI has a reconstruction of temeperatures from Anders Celsius town Uppsala starting 1722-.
http://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.2848!image/temp_ar_uppsala_2012.png_gen/derivatives/fullSizeImage/temp_ar_uppsala_2012.png
Gareth,
There is always “something going on”. If you want to advocate sensible preparation, we can agree. If you want to chase AGW unicorns using my money, I will pass.
lsvalgaard says:
“Not to mention that the temperature now is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago while solar activity now is the same as it was back then.”
Doesn’t that statement rather forget the AR1 nature of the temperature record?
Global mean temperature is a clumsy proxy for part of the energy content of the Earth but it remains an energy term. SSN presumably is a proxy for a power quantity. That would suggest it should be compared to rate of change of temperature or more likely a less simplistic function, dependant on how quickly the climate system is reckoned to react to such a change.
One thing is sure , if you compare power to energy you are unlikely to see a convincing direct correlation.
I’m not arguing that there is a strong SSN signal here, just noting the irrelevance of the quoted comment.
If this was Tim Yeo posting I would accept it as ignorance. I’m surprised to see such a comment from a solar physicist.
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:11 am
“Apart from the fact that neither solar activity nor global temperature are not well known millennia back, what little reliable data we have does not support your assertion, see slide 20”
Indeed I think that slide makes my point rather well. The Global temperature figure is at least as high or higher as of today and the TSI is at or around that of today as well.
Therefore TSI and temperature are not well directly correlated. Temps can be higher or lower from the same TSI figure. Do you dispute that?
Gareth Phillips:
At February 7, 2014 at 7:16 am you say
Whatever the merits of your analogy, there certainly is “something going on” and we certainly “can work to meet the challenge or even modify the downside of any impacts”.
The “something going on is that “eco-loons have placed an imaginary “environment” at higher priority than reality and the needs of people.
The people of the Somerset Levels have learned this the hard way. Today I listened to the radio and heard a woman who lost her home and its contents to the floods this very morning as the waters continue to inundate her village.
The Somerset Levels are a much, much better analogue of the “something going on” than your “using the human body as a metaphor”. A bird sanctuary was declared to be more important than the necessary water maintenance of the Somerset Levels. The complaints of the people living on the Levels were ignored and they were forced to watch as the rivers inexorably silted up so the Levels returned to their natural state. Many square miles have flooded including the loss of many homes and farms while all the wildlife in the area has drowned: so much for care for the environment.
And “we can work to meet the challenge or even modify the downside of any impacts” by rejecting the insanities promoted by ‘environmentalists’.
We need to oppose real pollution because that improves everything. But we need to completely reject the insanity of ‘environmentalism’ which is killing people and damaging the environment. There is NO discernible AGW, there never has been, and it is becoming clear that it is unlikely there ever will be. Constraints on energy use are a crime against humanity. Expensive energy sources such as wind and solar are crimes against the poor. And these crimes damage the environment, too. We need to oppose all these crimes.
We can do these things, Gareth Phillips, and we can make the world a better place by doing them. But we need the courage to fight ‘environmentalism’. Do you have the necessary courage, Gareth Phillips?
Richard