After a one-month pause in the lengthening of the pause, the lengthening pause is lengthening again
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 17 years 10 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for more than half the entire satellite temperature record. Yet the lengthening Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to June 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.
The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.
Yet the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.
The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the RSS and UAH monthly satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
The Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though numerous more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.
Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and zero trend (bright blue).
In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.
On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.
The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event has begun. The usual suspects have said it will be a record-breaker, but, as yet, there is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.
El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.
The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause or even shorten for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015. Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.
Key facts about global temperature
Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from September 1996 to June 2014. That is 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record.
Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction.
Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
Ø In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to only 1.7 Cº per century. Even that is exaggerated.
Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
Ø Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 5 months.
Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
Technical note
Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months September 1996 to May 2014 – more than half the 426-months satellite record.
Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.
The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.
Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.
“Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends”
You rely on the advice of a man who can’t even do statistical analysis using Excel?
Thank you sir.
Do the satellites record the measured regional temperature anomalies? That is, do we know the historic measured Arctic and Antarctic troposphere anomalies since 1979?
The coming el nino will be moderate at best. The models are now catching up on what Joe. B. and Joe D. have been saying for months. Weakish Modoki.
CO2-AGW is near zero,offset by systemic reduction of atmospheric humidity as [CO2] rises.
The reason why will emerge in due course!
The fastest warming rate since 1976 seems to be based on surface instrument temperature, and is probably overstated by more than 50% due to warming biases in the surface instrument records.. GW theory says the lower troposphere should warm faster than the surface. Does no trend in the satellite record then require a negative trend for the surface? If you start your RSS trend in Q4 1997, which doesn’t look much like cherry picking, there seems to be a slightly negative trend for 16.5 years. Murray
The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause.
Well….obviously you are cherry picking by starting from today and working backward……LOL
The computer games will never be right……the games aren’t cooling the past…and warming the present fast enough…and on a daily basis…the entire temp history has changed since they initialized the games
Lovely.
You could say that all the surface data since 1880 to current has been fabricated.There probably has been 0 warming since 1880. Refer to Steven Goddards site.Satellite data just picks up where the fabrication ended and so no warming
There can never be global warming in addition to the heat created by the sun’s rays entering the ocean. “Heat” in the atmosphere cannot pass into the ocean because it is totally blocked by surface tension. If you believe this to be incorrect try heating water through its surface by convection not radiation. A bucket of water and a heat gun will do the trick.
When the sun goes quiet as now the world gets colder because there is no heat in addition to the rays of the sun. The sun’s rays penetrate the ocean’s surface heat in the atmosphere is blocked.
Not to belabor the concept: Could it be the Sun? To make this easy lets call 1960 Solar Cycle [19] -> 100% and use the area under the Sunspot count curves [Summation of value times month] [ or area under UV measurements].
Peak Year Solar Cycle Area under Curve
~1960 [19] 100%
~1970 [20] 50%
~1980 [21] 75%
~1990 [22] 75%
~2001 [23] 50%
~2012 [24] 30%
The Oceans store heat from the Sun. So, is the 2M km2 ice extent anomaly in Antarctica an indication of the heat leaving the Oceans? If so, then the pause is going to extend with temperatures declining [as per reduced Solar activity listed above].
jlurtz – you’re on the right track – my work indicates that temps follow solar closely above a minimum level. Exciting times ahead as secret to solar-driven climate change is revealed!
RMB – couldn’t have said it better myself!
Thanks mate its only taken me 73yrs to figure it out.
If I recall correctly, only 5 years ago even the alarmist were claiming the warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to ‘0.7 C’. I suspect some ‘adjustments’. Or maybe it was from 1850.
Warmistas predict rising temperatures due to rising CO2. CO2 is rising and temperatures are not rising. Theory falsified. Unfortunately too many comfy arses are sitting on cushy chairs.
Could one of you smart guys (or gals) tell me. . . .
Just how much of a temperature bump would there have to be before the warmistas could proclaim that the pause was over and global warming was back with a vengeance?
Thanks!!
RMB Anyone who dives in the Great Lakes can confirm the heating effect of the Sun on bodies of water, as the thermocline deepens and rises with the seasons, with a 2-3 month lag. And it is a substantial change, 70-90 feet in Lake Ontario. Rather like land air temperatures peaking around 3 PM local time.
You are missing the point. The sun’s rays penetrate the surface of the oceans every day and I’m sure the great lakes are no exception. What you can not do on this planet is heat the atmosphere and have that heat transfer by convection through the ocean’s surface. Surface tension stops it. Thats why people like Trenberth can’t find their heat and its a travesty that they can’t.
Radiation penetrates, heat by convection blocked. For this reason no additional can enter the ocean, only the sun’s rays therefore AGW simply does not exist.
RMB said “What you can not do on this planet is heat the atmosphere and have that heat transfer by convection through the ocean’s surface.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection
“Convection can be demonstrated by placing a heat source (e.g. a Bunsen burner) at the side of a glass full of a liquid, and observing the changes in temperature in the glass caused by the warmer fluid moving into cooler areas.”
Now replace the glass with the liquid surface. You’ll see that surface tension is not an effective insulator for convective heat transfer.
A bunsen burner is a flame and a flame radiates heat, you are still missing the point. The heat produced by a heat gun is produced by a coil deep in the gun and no radiation comes from the nozzle. That is the equivalent super heated atmosphere. Now I’m 73 and I can tell when water is heating and when not and believe me that gas does not heat water. Don’t argue try it, you’ll love it.
If you viewed your heat gun with an infrared camera, what would you expect to see?
I cannot heat the water in my bucket using a heat gun have a nice day.
Ben Wilson, there is no pause – get with the program! Or do you want your research grant terminated?
The link is to the NOAA study on cloud forcing along the East Pacific equatorial region and compares fall and spring data.
“Estimates of cloud forcing of surface radiation in the visible and infrared (IR) are presented. In
the IR, cloud forcing strongly correlates with cloud fraction and IR cloud forcing shows
significant seasonal variability. In the solar band, less variability in seasonal cloud forcing was
seen. From the observations, it is determined that clouds in the eastern equatorial Pacific tend to
cool the surface by about 40 Wm-2 in both seasons.
The spring net heat flux is nearly symmetrical about the equator with a maximum (175 Wm-2) at
the equator decreasing to about 100 Wm-2 at 10N and 8S. The equatorial maximum is associated
with lower turbulent fluxes and modestly lower cloudiness at the equator. In the fall, the
maximum net heat flux (180 Wm-2) is at 2S and the minimum (essentially zero) is at 6N. Much of
the fall net heat flux asymmetry is caused by cloud radiative forcing.”
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/hare2753/hare2753.pdf
That’s quite a bit of difference just between Spring and Fall! Now add the atmospheric cloud conditions present under El Nino/La Nina and all the inbetween El Nado’s and La Nada’s!
My preamble is to once again note that El Nino’s deplete our ocean store of heat and we don’t get that heat back! It is lost to the land and atmosphere. The more El Nino’s we have (and the fewer La Nina’s), the more heat we lose!
The BBC radio 4 “science” programme has just repeated the nonsense about the “missing” heat hiding in the ocean, “and it will eventually emerge in the next El Nino” to end this horrible hiatus.
I am having trouble finding the data source used by Viscount Moncton here, although I did find it a month or two ago thanks to a comment. IIRC, it is downloadable from somewhere in http://www.remss.com/
Can someone provide the URL?
AndyL says:
July 3, 2014 at 7:51 am
“Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends”
You rely on the advice of a man who can’t even do statistical analysis using Excel?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m no fan of Jones, but I doubt he was doing statistical analysis in Excel. He was more likely using very high end tools for stats analysis, but these tools are notorious for their weak graphing capability. So what a lot of researchers do is use a high end tool for the analysis, and then suck the results into Excel for a nice pretty graph. I expect it was this last step that Jones needed help with.
“The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.”
Try the 15 years ending 2006: 2.7C/century in the RSS data. And the CET data from the 1690s is useless for this purpose, it was rounded to the nearest 0.5C, used some indoor readings, and data from the Netherlands, as I’ve pointed out at least twice before….
Pretty diagrams. Anyone know who did them?
[See the text from the author. .mod]
NeedleFactory says:
July 3, 2014 at 9:32 am
I am having trouble finding the data source used by Viscount Moncton here
You can either go here:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
Or here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/rss/from:1979
Christopher, thank you for your continuing pounding of this most important drum. I am continually surprised at how few people even today are unaware that the temperatures have gone flat, so your work in this regard is most important and appreciated.
All the best,
w.
thanks for the monthly update Christopher.
Here are the slopes (simple linear regressions), r-square values, and p-value (spearman rank) for the following time frames
last 5 yrs: -0.041x, R2=0.134, p=0.006
last 10 yrs: -0.001x, R2=0.001, p=0.618
last 15 yrs: 0.002x, R2=0.002, p=0.683
last 20 yrs: 0.004x, R2=0.017, p=0.003
since 1998 (el nino) peak: -0.001x, R2=0.002, p=0.550
entire dataset (1979-now): 0.012x, R2=0.351, p<0.001
We can therefore state that RSS' measured global temperatures (anomalies) have :
1) statistically significantly decreased over the past 5 yrs,
2) have statistically neither decreased nor increased (remained flat) over the past 10, and 15 yrs,
3) have statistically significantly increased over the past 20yrs and since 1979
These results are in line with your observation of no-warming over the past 17yrs and 10 months.
Damn Mother Nature. She must be in the pay of “Big Oil”.
Make that 20 years and one month when Hillary is taking the oath after completing the purchase of the office with a record run of $500 billion from speaker events and untold numbers of promises issued.
A few weeks ago over on The Blackboard, JD Ohio asked Zeke Hausfather a question about the width of the climate model confidence intervals, the gist of JD’s question being that how can these data plots of models versus observations tell us anything useful when the confidence intervals of the model outputs are so wide?
A corollary question might be applied to our confidence in the accuracy of the historical temperature record. Does it matter one whit what the historical temperature record indicates if the model confidence intervals are so wide they can cover virtually any reasonably possible temperature trend, up or down, which occurs over periods of up to thirty years?
In response to JD Ohio’s question, Zeke presented a graphical plot which looks like this.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/0214_Fig3_ZH.jpg
Zeke’s response to JD Ohio’s question could be summarized as “The jury is still out on whether or not observed temperatures are outside of model predictions.”
Let’s play a game with Zeke’s plot of model outputs versus temperature observation data to see what kind of communication strategy AGW alarmists might use in claiming that temperature observations are consistent with the climate models, and therefore dangerous global warming has not stopped.
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/GMT/Observations-Versus-Models-Game-Theory-0214_Fig3_ZH-BB_zps782b0982.png~original
The above graphic is a modification of Zeke’s original to extend the model period to 2030. It shows a “what-if scenario” hypothetical trend line of temperature peaks which occur between 1998 and 2030. The trend line of peaks is +0.03 C per decade, and the hypothetical scenario calls for new peaks to occur approximately every four years.
Why choose a trend of temperature peaks for this hypothetical scenario? And why start at 1998?
Fifteen years ago we heard that 1998 was the hottest year on record, and then as time went on, we heard that 2012 was the hottest year on record. Let’s assume that GMT trends somewhat upward between 2014 and 2030. If that’s what actually happens, we will be hearing that “20xx was the hottest year on record” some number of times before 2030 arrives.
According to Zeke’s original plot, 1998 is a peak temperature year and is near the upper boundary of the model confidence interval for that year. A trend of peaks could remain essentially flat for a period of 32 years before touching the lower bound of the model confidence interval in about the year 2030.
In this way, the claim could be made, based on these very wide confidence intervals, that “temperature observations remain consistent with the climate models” even though temperature trends for the peaks — that is to say, “the hottest years on record” according to this hypothetical scenario — were essentially flat for all practical purposes throughout those 32 years.
In response to my post on that Blackboard thread, Jeff Id made some important observations concerning trends of observed temperatures versus point measurements of observed temperatures:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/#comment-130676
My reply followed:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/#comment-130679
What it all boils down to is this: if at any point in the near to mid-term future, a peak temperature year lies anywhere inside the model confidence interval boundaries, alarmists will ignore the actual trends and will claim that global warming continues apace per model predictions.
Good work. I like to see the longer term graph included with the 0.34 degree increase per quarter century as that is the most likely way that alarmists will respond – by pointing out that the longer term, there is 0.34 degree C of warming. Pointing out that this rate of warming is still below the IPCC estimate addresses those criticisms before they start.
About the current development of El Nino, it is not developing like a super El Nino of 1997. It looks more typical – like an average El Nino. Bob Tisdale also questioned whether the El Nino is dying. The Nino temperature anomaly: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/figt5.gif does not yet show any unusual strength. The zonal wind changes are not that large in magnitude. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/figt4.gif
I think you meant either “how many are unaware” or “how few are aware”
Thank you again. I look forward to the updates.
he light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them.
What are those two functionally identical equations?
I await the results of this experiment.
By corollary, are you also saying that if I run a cold bath and leave it for several days, it won’t attain [room] temperature?
The bath will reach room temperature because the heat will pass through the bath itself. The heat will not pass through the surface because of surface tension. If you are surprised how do you think I feel. Its taken 73yrs for me to learn this. One heatgun and one bucket of water try it for yourself.
I think this is the data Viscount Monckton uses:
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt
Christopher, you are teasing the lions here. I have to believe they are pouring over the radiometer calculations to see how they can adjust these. When they do, there will be a major adjustment for…well the last 18 yrs.
Hi all,
Well, Pachamama has been with us skeptics for almost two decades, but this might change in the future, and essentially the thing should be the same: we have no idea of the value of sensitivity, among other crucial factors, because we’re not able to calculate many of them in advance, and therefore Climatology is unable to predict the future of the climate… nothing happens, be humble, exactly the same happens to the Geology (and the Economy, for the matter) and it’s assumed with sportsmanship… 😉
Cheers!
Good work, Squire.
RMB “There can never be global warming in addition to the heat created by the sun’s rays entering the ocean. “Heat” in the atmosphere cannot pass into the ocean because it is totally blocked by surface tension. If you believe this to be incorrect try heating water through its surface by convection not radiation. A bucket of water and a heat gun will do the trick.”
I always tell people who have a bathroom with a bathtub at home to do the following experiment at home:
Materials needed: one bathroom with bathtub, one air thermometer, at least one water-proof thermometer.
1) place the air thermometer in your bathroom and write down the thermometer’s temperature reading
2) fill your bath tub with 100F water, leave the room afterwards, close the door, and wait for 30min.
3) get back into the bathroom, close the door, and read the thermometer’s temperature again.
You will see that the air temperature in the bathroom has gone up substantially (likely from say ~68F to ~80F, depending bathroom size and bathtub size)
4) drain the bath tub, air the bathroom till the air thermometer is back to when we originally started this experiment (~68F in this case)
5) no fill the bathtub with water of around the same temperature as the air in the bathroom (~68F)
6) Turn on the heater in your bathroom (if you don’t have one, use a space heater but be careful with water…), warm the air in the room to 100F (if possible) or at least to as high as you can, and wait for 30min.
7) now measure, using the 2nd (water-proof) thermometer, the surface-water temperature, as well as half-way and at the bottom of the bath tub.
You will see that the surface of the water in the bathtub has only warmed slightly and that no warming has occurred of the water at depth.
It’s a simple way to show people how warming occurs, that the heat-capacity of water is much larger than that of air, and that warm air barely warms water; rather the other way around.
david dohbro says:
July 3, 2014 at 10:00 am
We can therefore state that RSS’ measured global temperatures (anomalies) have :
3) have statistically significantly increased over the past 20yrs
What is your source of information?
This source says:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Since June, 1989, the trend is 0.117 ±0.120 °C/decade (2σ)
And http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D
says since November 1992:
CI from -0.016 to 1.857
Both dates are over 21 years.
@David dohbro says: July 3, 2014 at 11:24 am
Yes, but does that have anything to do with surface tension? I’m sure it doesn’t, as the post you responded to claims.
RACookPE1978 says:
“Do the satellites record the measured regional temperature anomalies? That is, do we know the historic measured Arctic and Antarctic troposphere anomalies since 1979?”
Yes. Look at:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
Rather far to the right you will find 6 columns labeled “NoPol Land Ocean SoPol Land Ocean “, they contain the monthly anomalies for the northern and southern polar areas, total, land only and ocean only respectively. The trend for the southern polar area is incidentally 0.00 degrees.
Struth ! for a while there Christopher, it was looking like you got your paws, on a pause in your pause; but evidently the ticker is working again.
I was trying to see if there was a necessary and sufficient condition for the RSS recent, to automatically extend the pause.
If we assume that prior to the starting date of the pause, the global temperature anomaly (a la RSS), was rising out of the coldrums, then it would seem to me that the recent RSS, only has to fall from last month, and at least one month extension is guaranteed; maybe more.
But the graphs, don’t seem to do either of those things.
So evidently your trend algorithm, is not as simple as that.
But good to know the habit is continuing.
g
Thanks for rubbing it in once again to the warmistas. The time will come that your constant dripping will turn into a tsunami. And the poor(?) warmistas will find that the safe places are already taken by those who were willing and able to read and understand the writing…
Beta Blocker says:
…why start at 1998?
It was Dr Phil Jones who originally used 1997 as the benchmark year to determine if there was global warming or not. In 1999 Jones was asked if there had really been no global warming for two years [“Yes, but only just”]. He added that it would require 15 years of no global warming to say that global warming had indeed stopped.
No doubt Dr Jones regrets that now. Fifteen years probably seemed like a safe bet at the time. Fast forward to 2012, and naturally skeptics reminded Jones of his statement. Now it is 17+ years of no global warming.
So it was über-Warmist Phil Jones himself who said we must begin at 1997. The Warmists do not like it. But just think about the screaming we would be subjected to if global warming had resumed.
AlecM says:
July 3, 2014 at 8:04 am
CO2-AGW is near zero,offset by systemic reduction of atmospheric humidity as [CO2] rises.
The reason why will emerge in due course!
==============
partial pressure gas law. otherwise atmospheric pressure would increase as CO2 is added, due to increase in partial pressure of CO2. Increased air pressure increases the energy required to evaporate water, reducing humidity, which reduces that partial pressure of H2O, maintaining constant atmospheric pressure.
“Willis Eschenbach says:
July 3, 2014 at 9:59 am
Christopher, thank you for your continuing pounding of this most important drum. I am continually surprised at how few people even today are unaware that the temperatures have gone flat, so your work in this regard is most important and appreciated.”
except they havent gone flat.
1. RSS is not temperatures. RSS measures brightness at the sensor. Then a microwave
radiative transfer model is applied to the data to create an estimate of the temperature.
Its not data, its the output of a model.
2. RSS is a complilation of various platforms stitched together by making various adjustments.
Its not raw data, its adjusted and fiddled with. No errors of prediction due to adustment
are propogated in this process of adjustment, fiddling, tweaking.
3. If one chooses to model these “temperatures” with a linear model, one is assuming
that the underlying data generating model is linear. Given this assumption ( which is non
physical) then one can calculate a trend for that model. The trend is for the model, not the data.
4. The trend in the linear model is actually a distribution of values, so you need to look at
the entire distribution.
Bottom line, temperatures, actual temperatures have not gone “flat” they are what they are.
IF, you choose to accept the RSS estimates as “data”, IF you decide to model this data with
a straight line, IF you calculate the trend term for that model, then you can say that the trend
in this model of modelled RSS data has a central value close to zero.
Just to be exact about all the analytical choices one must make and defend.
Ah, those cherries are mightily tasty…
UAH: Trend 1999 – 2014 = +1.5 C / century. So… GW stopped 17 years ago, but resumed a year later?
“Murray says:
July 3, 2014 at 8:06 am
The fastest warming rate since 1976 seems to be based on surface instrument temperature, and is probably overstated by more than 50% due to warming biases in the surface instrument records..”
Well, if the surface record has 50% false warming that would move the global average by 15%
I haven’t read all the comments, so perhaps this has already been raised before.
According to the RSS data, how long was the warming?
Is the duration of the ‘pause’ in warming, approximately as long as the period when there was warming?
What does that tell us about climate sensitivity to CO2?
What does it say about the claims that even if we were to halt CO2 emissions, warming is already locked into the system due to the 1980s ‘high’ levels of CO2 in the atmoshere?
It will all become very interesting should there be some cooling in the coming years.
Steven Mosher says:
July 3, 2014 at 11:56 am
///////////////
And a thermometer does not measure temperature. It measures expansion, or a change in resistence. A themometer, on your argument is a model.
As regards “adjusted and fiddled” we all have our views on this with regard to the land based thermometer record. Throwing stones and greenhouses comes to mind.
There may be issues with the RSS data, such as orbital decay and sensor degradation, but the issues that you seek to raise are weak.
“After a one-month pause in the lengthening of the pause, the lengthening pause is lengthening again”
—
Can someone explain why the pause lengthened again when the graph shows June temperature anomalies higher than May’s? I see no downturn at the end of the graph in figure 1. Instead it goes higher. Is the June downturn too small to show up on the graph?
Steven Mosher:
Your post at July 3, 2014 at 11:56 am is pure sophistry.
Every temperature measurement device uses a model.
For example, a mercury in glass thermometer uses a model of the differential thermal expansion of mercury and glass to indicate temperature.
The RSS temperature measurements use a model of microwave data to indicate temperature.
A mercury in glass thermometer and the RSS method both indicate temperatures.
And while discussing sophistry from you, I remind you of your claim on the other thread that your system makes “predictions” and not “measurements”. It seems you have missed my request for clarification of that.
Richard
MikeUK says:
July 3, 2014 at 9:31 am
//////////////
Subject to what Bob mifght say, El Nions do not return ‘heat’ from the depths of the ocean. My understanding is that it is La Nina which returns ‘heat’ from the depths of the ocean. But the big problem for the warmest is that the deep ocean is cold so when it surfaces, it cools the SST, not warms it (we see SST cooling in La nina conditions).
It does not matter whether the deep ocean is about 2 deg C or about 2.5degC, if the deep ocean returns to the surface, it is always substantially cooler than the surface and hence always cools the surface.
If ‘global warming’ has now found its way to the depths of the deep ocean, the scare is over. The heat has been diluted and disappated and should deep ocean circulation speed up (thereby bring to the surface waters from the deep quicker than usual) thsi will cool the planet since deep ocean waters are always much cooler than surface water.
PS. if the deep ocean is warming it is not warming by 0.5 degC, merely by thousands of a degree. My figures are loose for the purpose of illustration.
Steven Mosher says:
July 3, 2014 at 11:56 am
Thanks, Steven, always good to hear from you. Unfortunately, by that same metric, the Berkeley Earth data is not temperatures either. Instead, many of the stations measure the voltage across a thermistor. Then a resistance-temperature transfer model is applied to the data to create an estimate of the temperature.
And by that definition, a mercury thermometer reading is not data either, because what we are measuring is the expansion of mercury. Then a expansion-temperature transfer model is applied to the data to create an estimate of the temperature.
So by your metric, the Berkeley Earth station data is not data, it’s the output of a model.
And by that definition, you’re right … but so what? Hasn’t stopped you from using it.
And here in the real world, commonly, observational results such as thermometer readings are usually called “data”, despite the fact that (as you correctly point out) they are just model results from an expansion-temperature transfer model.
Yes, and by that metric, the Berkeley Earth data is a complilation of various platforms (buoys, thermistors, thermometers) stitched together by making various adjustments. Its not raw data, its adjusted and fiddled with. No errors of prediction due to adjustment are propogated in this process of adjustment, fiddling, tweaking.
Again … so what? That sure hasn’t stopped you Berkeley Earth guys from calculating linear trends from your results.
So I suppose if I model the change in height of a child, the trend of the height (upwards) is not in the data, it’s in the model?
If by that you mean that the uncertainty is larger at the ends of the dataset, I agree. If not, I don’t understand what you mean.
While those are all valid points, and I find no fault with them, they apply to the Berkeley Earth dataset, from which you and your compatriots have happily provided us with linear trends without bothering with any of these nit-picking objections …
Which makes me think that your objections are not to the method, but to the implications of the results.
All the best,
w.
[ Snip – if you are going to criticize the man, and least have to modicum of integrity to use his name correctly, especially when you hide behind a fake name, otherwise kindly STFU.
You can resubmit your comments once you remove all the juvenile taunts and purposeful misspellings. – Feel free to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony ]
==========================================
Steven Mosher: “…… except they haven’t gone flat.”
==========================================
Steven, if temperatures haven’t gone flat, how un-flat are they?
Lots of folk comment here who claim to know more than I do about the science and statistics. But as an amateur naturalist, I can certainly tell you that throughout my lifetime, the birds, moths, and other animals in UK are responding as we would expect to climate change. Temperature sensitive species are moving higher and further north at a steady rate. New species are coming from the continent to colonise our shores, birds that used to fly south for the winter stay here in increasing numbers. The geese and swans that used to migrate here from Northern Europe to escape the harsh winter are increasingly staying on the continent.
These are observable and measurable FACTS and repeat across the globe, which is why almost no one involved in conservation doubts climate change is occurring.
The article also says “The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.”
Assuming the first statements are true, the conclusion certainly isn’t. From the thirteenth century England was being deforested at a tremendous rate. It reached its lowest level of forested cover around the period you quote. While larger European countries retained more forest or longer, deforestation was probably responsible for a faster climate change than the industrial revolution, but for many of the same reason. – carbon being released into the atmosphere on a large scale. You can’t say ‘it was not our fault’.
What I do believe is that the oscillations between ice ages (large and small or ‘long’ and ‘short’ cycles) and warmer periods have taken place for as long as we can establish. If global warming acts against the cooling period that should be happening around now, it might have some beneficial results as far as some of mankind is concerned. But I wouldn’t count on it.
I know which one i would believe Mosher.
And it wouldn’t be land based thermometers, or the pile of tripe you call GISS.
@Paul Seligman says: July 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Do you expect the natural world to make all the adaptations to a warmer world immediately, or do you expect some lag-time between the climate changes and the adaptations? Your thread leads me to conclude that as soon as the warming stopped (let’s suppose it has stopped), the natural world would be in stasis until the warming restarted?
Paul Seligman:
In your post at July 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm you say
No sensible person doubts that climate change is occurring.
It always has and it always will, everywhere.
However, some who scaremonger about anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) pretend that human activities (e.g. anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions) have discernible effect on global climate. There is no evidence for that; none, zilch, nada.
Richard
More of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s monthly meretricious mallard.
A few observations:
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley says the planet will continue to warm, yet thinks governments should be spending money to protect populations against a cooling planet.
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, of course, prefers RSS because it gives him the optimum “Cerasis Periodum” to perform his Mallard trick, but claims himself that: “..it is possible that over the past couple of decades RSS may be the most accurate of the datasets because it alone correctly represents the relative magnitudes of the Great el Niño, which was severe enough to cause widespread coral bleaching, and of the subsequent el Niños, which were not. I suspect, but have not yet verified, that the other datasets apply self-correcting dampers to their data to reduce the magnitude of sudden anomalies such as that of 1998.”
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley here demonstrates the truth of what he says of himself: I have “absolutely no scientific qualifications.” Roy Spencer: “the main reason why ENSO is stronger in satellite data than in surface data is the due to the heat lost by the surface through evaporation (which cools the surface) is dumped in the middle and upper troposphere by the resulting condensation of that water vapor into precipitation.”
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is comparing apples with oranges when he compares short-term tropospheric temperatures with IPCC graphs. Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley : “We are not talking of either surface temperatures or any particular tropospheric temperatures. We are talking of changes in surface temperatures. Read the definition of climate sensitivity in any IPCC report.”
On a more positive note, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s favorite RSS apparently isn’t going to look like an outlier for much longer. Spencer is going to “adjust” UAH figures: “As we finish up our new Version 6 of the UAH dataset, it looks like our anomalies in the 2nd half of the satellite record will be slightly cooler, somewhat more like the RSS dataset.”
More good news! While the entire Climate Science Community doesn’t “give a central estimate of climate sensitivity – the key quantity in the entire debate about the climate” Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (never backward about coming forward) has done just that, and provided a new Mallard to replace his old dead duck: “Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s” Climate Sensitivity Sophistry. With just one weekends ‘research’ Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s “spectacular” results predict: “That gives my best estimate of expected anthropogenic global warming from now to 2100: three-quarters of a Celsius degree”…. “which may indeed be on the high side” and “is flanked by large error bars.”
The year 2100 seems a reassuringly distant date to pick, but the robustness (or otherwise) of this prediction should be apparent long before then. Now, I’m no mathematician, but to me that prediction looks like an average of about 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature per decade, or 0.01 °C increase in global surface temperature per year. That’s something we can keep tabs on – and Sir Christopher has promised to do this small thing for us, Villagers, if his palm is crossed with silver (see the tail end comments here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/09/sensitivity-schmensitivity/ )
Funny how Americans go weak at the knees around British aristocracy
A simple El Nino explanation:
1) Two or Three years after a Solar Cycle Peak, the Pacific has accumulated enough energy to suddenly raise the Equator water temperatures by a small amount. This is the step function that you see in Bob Tisdale’s graphs.
2) The accumulated energy from the Pacific then slowly moves to the Poles where it is radiated into space.
3) A small Solar Cycle, like [24], does not have enough energy to raise the Pacific water temperature -> the energy [warmth] is transferred to the Poles as fast or faster than it can be accumulated.
4) Expect La Nina conditions for the next 10 years. That is when the next Solar Cycle will start [hopefully].
more soylent green! says:
July 3, 2014 at 2:15 pm
…
I think I get your point and it is clearly correct that there will be a lag while organisms adapt (or head towards extinction). But if a major mechanism is evolution, it occurs much faster in invertebrates than birds or mammals. Fastest in organisms that have many large broods in a year (or reproduce continuously like microbes).
Yet these small animals are, for example, reproducing earlier each year e.g. birds are struggling to adjust their nesting time so that the chicks don’t miss out the ever earlier caterpillar peak hatchings. Seems unlikely that that trend would continue for 17 years after an alleged pause, but I have no scientific basis to tell you what the lag times would/should be.
Paul Seligman says:
July 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm
Paul, thanks for your comment. As much as I enjoy personal accounts, they have a big limitation.
For example, you make the claim (without providing evidence) that e.g. over the last ~ 17 years, birds are “reproducing earlier each year”.
You know how a picture is worth a thousand words? One of the things that I’ve learned in this game is the following:
A fact is worth a thousand anecdotes.
If you have evidence of such changes as you claim, not since 1950 but in the last 17 years, now would be the time to produce them … or else I fear that your contribution, though interesting, is going to be discounted.
For example, you say:
So from that, we see that your implied claim is that the recent winters in Northern Europe haven’t been very harsh … perhaps you should take a look at the actual records.
And a quick search finds e.g. this, from the RSPB:
So instead of these geese being less common as you state, in fact the winter of 2009-2010 showed RECORD NUMBERS of geese.
However, we don’t even know if this is the kind of geese you are talking about … as is usual with anecdotes, it is woefully lacking in details.
You see why one fact is worth a thousand anecdotes?
Best regards,
w.
davidmhoffer says:
If you want nice pretty graphs, GMT, Generic Mapping Tool is the toolset you want to use.
====================================
Paul Seligman says: ” ….. From the thirteenth century England was being deforested at a tremendous rate. It reached its lowest level of forested cover around the period you quote. While larger European countries retained more forest or longer, deforestation was probably responsible for a faster climate change than the industrial revolution, but for many of the same reason. – carbon being released into the atmosphere on a large scale. You can’t say ‘it was not our fault’.
===================================
CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. It is not going to hang around Central England forever once it is released. Same holds for everywhere else on earth.
Can you cite estimates for how much carbon humans were emitting into the atmosphere worldwide in the thirteenth century?
And what is your stated time frame for “the industrial revolution”?
For the time frame you state, how do the estimated emission figures from the thirteenth century compare with the estimated figures for “the industrial revolution” as you define it?
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley says
“The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event has begun. The usual suspects have said it will be a record-breaker, but, as yet, there is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.”
And in saying that torpedoes his own position. If he is happy to use the starting point for his pause in 1997, just prior to a massive El Nino, he cannot complain if a large El Nino develops in the coming months, raising temperatures that then ruins his pause. And if it does, it will not just be “temporary warming”. Clearly without the 1998 El Nino, his graph would not be flat, it would show positive warming. Similarly if a new El Nino produces a positive warming trend over his 1997 to present time frame, using the same analysis, then he has to accept it. Unless of course he then chooses a different time frame to show a flat trend.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley also repeats some lines he has used before:
“The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.”
He chooses one of the coldest decades in England for centuries as a start point. He also then extrapolates from a 40 year period to a century trend to make the warming look very large. Very dodgy.
“Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.”
Yes there has – warming has been 0.6 C in the last 40 years, 1.0 C over the last century (NASA GISS LOTI). And as he well knows it is difficult to pin down any one event to global warming. But in any case, temperature and extreme weather are 2 measures of many. If there has been no global warming, why is sea level rising and why are most of the world’s glaciers retreating ?
We agree there is lag time and organisms either adapt or die. But I’m not sure what evolution, that is, a change in a species’ DNA that is passed on to the next generation, has to do with it. I don’t believe you’re saying the geese have have evolved, but perhaps you mean their behavior has evolved? Let’s assume your previous statements are factually correct.
george e. smith says:
July 3, 2014 at 11:40 am
If we assume that prior to the starting date of the pause, the global temperature anomaly (a la RSS), was rising out of the coldrums, then it would seem to me that the recent RSS, only has to fall from last month, and at least one month extension is guaranteed; maybe more.
But the graphs, don’t seem to do either of those things.
So evidently your trend algorithm, is not as simple as that.
Louis says:
July 3, 2014 at 12:23 pm
“After a one-month pause in the lengthening of the pause, the lengthening pause is lengthening again”
—
Can someone explain why the pause lengthened again when the graph shows June temperature anomalies higher than May’s?
You are both making an excellent observation and the same answer could more or less be given for both. For George, it is not whether the anomaly goes up or down that is important, but how the new anomaly compares to the zero line. The zero line is at 0.235. So any value above 0.235 could decrease the time and any value below 0.235 could increase the time of the pause. So it would theoretically have been possible for the new anomaly to have gone down from 0.286 in May to 0.250 in June and the time could have been decreased. But that did not happen due to the value of the slope at the end of May. It was 2.5 x 10^-4 at the end of May. But due to the rise to 0.345 in June, it turns out the slope is still negative, but just a bit less negative at -7.4 x 10^-5.
Now we come to the excellent question by Louis. We are just counting a whole number of months here. The addition was NOT 30 days. I could figure it out exactly, but there is little point to it. But let us for argument sake say the slope last month was negative from August 8. But assume that this month it is negative from August 28. In both of these cases, the slope is negative from September 1 and positive from August 1 according to WFT. But last month went to the end of May and this month goes to the end of June, so a month is added.
Make sense?
“RSS shows no global warming for 17 years 10 months”
Can I propose a new unit of measurement – the Santer
RSS shows no global warming for 1.04 Santers,
So many questions…. but i do know about ornithology. I accept in the space and time available, my statements were anecdotal, but I meet at conferences etc many others who see similar things in their countries etc. These only support the observable fact that currently the earth is warming. I agree it doesn’t tell us the cause or what might happen next. I don;’t have a command of that level of scientific modelling.
@Willis Eschenbach says:July 3, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Geese and swans: between svalbard and Scotland there is open water so really no opportunity for the ones you mention to change their habits and make a shorter journey.. I was thinking of the Bewicks swans and the White-fronted geese that used to come in thousands to Slimbridge in England from Eastern Europe across the European landmass,, but now make shorter journeys ans top e.g. in Holland and other countries that now have less ice and snow in winter.. Continental numbers up, UK numbers down to the hundreds. Known individual birds (ringed/banded etc) proven to be stopping off the other side of the North Sea. Fact not anecdote.
A different story applies to the Greenland white-fronted goose population where the entire population is in severe decline though cause is not established. it could be heavier snow fall affecting breeding and that is entirely consistent with warming where we may expect much more snow in certain areas where it was previously too cold for snow for much of the winter
@more soylent green! says: July 3, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Youa sk “What has evolution to do with it?” Adaptive behaviour may be at the level of the individual especially if living for more than one annual cycle. Or just opportunistic. The Bewick’s swan that stops in Holland or Denmark instead of continuing to England just feels no need to move on because severe winter doesn’t catch up with him or her.
But the time of egg laying in some bird species probably adapts through evolution. The caterpillars on which the chicks depnd may hatch when temperatures reach a certain level for a certain period. The birds’ nesting timing may be triggered more by daylight length, which does not change. But imagine a population where the peak laying period is on day 90 of the year which used to be when the most caterpillars were around. Around this average will be smaller numbers of the same species in similar locations who nest and lay earlier and later. .This statistical ‘distribution’ of laying dates is used by evolution. The birds that are laying earlier start doing much better because year after year they are getting better food supply, more of their young are surviving. The birds that lay at the average time and later, find their chicks starving and fewer surviving. The chicks that survive inherit the tendency to lay earlier, say at day 80. Their numbers increase relative to the later nesters. As such small birds typically only live for 2 years, the population can adapt through inherited characteristics to the change if it doesn’t happen too fast or with too many other adverse factors at the same time. Natural selection aka evolutionary mechanism in action, which could conceivably in time led to speciation..I can’t give yiu mathematical formulae on this, but as a theory that matches what we (ornithologists across Europe) are seeing, does it make sense?
Re: Werner Brozek. I don’t really understand what you mean!? The skepticalscience.com reference you make is from mid-1989 (~25years) till now. However, I only looked at the past 5, 10, 20, since the 1998 peak and all data. Hence, can’t compare those different time frames. I based my conclusion on my analysis only.
The source of my data is obviously the RSS data (ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt)
and the results of my data analysis can be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9fq0vknrqzb1wdc/RSS%20data%20statistics.pdf?m=
On the last page of that document, i included a quick analyzes of the mid-1989 to mid-2014 data you referred too, as well as the statistics. This shows that the skepticalscience.com analyzes is indeed correct. It is interesting to note though that adding going back only an additional 5 years in time, can change the slope so much (past 25 vs pas 20 years). Maybe that’s what you meant!?
There may be some minor limitation with RSS data, but they are more representative of global temperature than land-based data since it includes both the oceans (70%) and land areas (30%) of the planet. As CO2 levels are increasing, more or less in a linear manner, there is nil correlation mathematically speaking, so why do we blame CO2 as a culprit when the proposed carbon taxes will achieve nothing anyhow?
david dohbro says:
July 3, 2014 at 4:14 pm
Re: Werner Brozek. I don’t really understand what you mean!?
This shows that the skepticalscience.com analyzes is indeed correct.
So you agree with skepticalscience.
It says warming is NOT statistically significant for 25 years since 0.117 ±0.120 °C/decade (2σ) since June 1989.
It also says warming is NOT statistically significant for 20 years since 0.039 ±0.160 °C/decade (2σ) since June 1994.
But you said: “ We can therefore state that RSS’ measured global temperatures (anomalies) have :
3) have statistically significantly increased over the past 20yrs”
So you and skepticalscience cannot both be right since you are contradicting it. For RSS, the warming is NOT statistically significant over the last 20 years.
Paul Seligman says (emphasis mine):
July 3, 2014 at 4:03 pm
Again, interesting, but again so far the part in bold is just anecdote, not fact. Here’s a fact, from Migration of the barnacle goose from Svalbard to Scotland:
Contrary to your claim, there’s lots of places for geese to “change their habits and make a shorter journey”.
Facts differ from anecdotes in a simple way. They have actual evidence, such as I’ve posted above, to back them up. Your claim about only open water between Scotland and Svalbard is an anecdote. My map is factual.
Now, on to the white-footed goose. Numbers have indeed been decreasing in Britain. However, there’s a curious part to that.
In general, England and Europe warmed from 1985 – 1999, and then has been generally level or only slightly warming since then.
But the numbers of the decline go the other way. Ready for some more facts about the White Fronted Goose?
Why are those facts rather than anecdotes? Because they are cited and referenced, first to their intermediate source, then to the underlying source.
And why is the trend going the wrong way? Because the drop in goose population per year has been greater from 2000 to 2010 than it was from 1985 to 2000, but temperatures have not been increasing.
My own feeling from reading that link is that we’re looking a variation in a very small population, which could have a lot of causes. This is borne out by looking at the underlying SUKB (State of the UK Birds) source linked to above. It shows the variations in what they call “wintering waterbirds”, a group of 29 different species. Regarding these species, the SUKB 2013 says (emphasis mine:
Note that this is the exact opposite of your claim, which was that warmer winters mean LESS wintering waterbirds.
On page 38 of that reference, there is a list of the population changes for the 29 species that they recognize as “wintering waterbirds”, including the two species you mention above as decreasing in population. And indeed, the SUKB agrees with you that those two species have decreased in population since 1985 to 2010.
However, there are only 7 species which decreased from 1985 to 2000, which is a decrease in the populations of 24% of the wintering waterbird species.
But from 2000-2010, 59% of the wintering waterbird species declined, a much larger fraction of the totals.
Now, the temperature of Europe rose from 1985 to 2000, Since then, however, the temperature of Europe has dropped. Here’s France, for example …
According to your theory, the numbers of British waterbirds should have gone down as the continent warmed from 1985-2000, and they should have gone up as cold weather hit the continent since 2000
But the actual observations of the SUKB beg to differ. It says the exact opposite, that wintering waterbirds go up with warmth and down with cold.
I hope that you’re starting to see the difference between facts and anecdotes …
Now I’m not trying to diss your knowledge of the situation of UK birds, Paul, and I like your enthusiasm. And I’m the first to say that this morning, I couldn’t have told you one single thing about either the White-Fronted Goose or “wintering waterbirds” in England.
However, at this point I know enough to say that your claims are somewhat overblown, and indeed, perhaps even backwards.
Accordingly, I encourage you to do what I do—do your homework before you post, so that you can post facts rather than anecdotes, and avoid having some jerk like me coming along to say no, you’re wrong …
My best to you.
Re: Werner Brozek.
The skepticalscience.com trend analyzer doesn’t provide a p-value for the trend, i.e. slope. It only provides a confidence interval; in this case plotted as a ‘two sigma’ (2σ) confidence interval. What this means is, only, that the actual trend is likely to lie within this region approximately 95% of the time. It doesn’t tell us if the average trend (i.e. slope) is statistically significant different from 0.
The spearman rank (used as a measure of correlation between two two sets of data), however, does provide use with a p-value and if the slope is statistically signficant different from 0.
That said, in the file I provided I confirmed that the slope calculated by skepticalsience.com for the 1989.5 to 2014.5 timeframe is correct AND that it is statistically significant (different from 0).
In summary,
1) confidence intervals are not the same as p-values for statistical trend analyses,
2) skepticalscience.com and my analysis are not contradicting, both are right and confirm eachother
3) the warming IS statistically significant over the last 20 years.
Another, more appropriate I would say, way to determine if a slope is statistically signficant (different from 0) is to do a t-test for the slope (beta) term. However, this type of analysis is rather tedious, but can be done in Excel.
I hope this clarifies and helps!
Paul Seligman says:
July 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm
If global warming acts against the cooling period that should be happening around now, it might have some beneficial results as far as some of mankind is concerned. But I wouldn’t count on it.
=======================================================================
Do you think that mile high ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere would be better for mankind than several degrees of warming?
Paul Seligman says:
July 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm
“”Seems unlikely that that trend would continue for 17 years after an alleged pause,…””
=================================================================
I would think that it would be very likely that the trend would continue until the incentive for the migration reversed itself. The 17+ years of the pause still leaves global temps in an elevated condition.
david dohbro says:
July 3, 2014 at 6:27 pm
Re: Werner Brozek.
You should probably take this up with Nick Stokes as soon as my next article appears since I now use his methods which also show that RSS can indeed have a slope of zero over the past 20 years at the 95% level.
Paul Seligman says:
July 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm
and
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 3, 2014 at 6:19 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks to both of you. I have seen claims like the one Mr Seligman made and responses like the one Mr. Eschenbach made time after time. Like the missing Caribou herd that went to a different location, like the Polar Bears that don’t pay attention to lines on the maps we make, like the Emperor Penguin issue noted here a while back. Undoubtedly there are some shrinking populations. But I have been in the outdoors most of my life, and based on what I see and read, most animals are highly adaptable. Deer are becoming a nuisance where I live, there are too many, as a result there are more cougars, wolves and other predators. Of course, a hard winter will cause havoc, but I see more birds and animals than ever as humans stop hunting larger game. The Canada Goose is a huge nuisance and finds warm places in cities to over-winter and then nest on the sidewalks come spring. Coyotes live in our major cities along with foxes, racoons, skunks and a host of others. The edges of our forest disturbances are rife with life. Humans have large impacts but a lot of life adapts a lot more quickly to what we have done than many scholars realize.
There are lots of references, but lets use a British one. The comments are more interesting than the article:
http://io9.com/5831917/animals-are-adapting-more-rapidly-to-climate-change-than-humans
“La plus la change, la plus la meme chose”.
Re: Werner Brozek. Of course a [trendline] can have a slope of 0 with a 95% confidence interval. Please do not confuse a CI for a P-value. Those are 2 very different things. Basic statistic. For example, what if you use 1 sigma (66% CI) or 3 sigma (99% CI)? The CIs change, but not your P-value of the correlation.
[Remember: Write your technical/statistical replies not only for a fellow statistician, but for the other readers. Avoid jargon-specific abbreviations that others will not recognize.
CI = Confidence Interval .mod]
“””””…..
Werner Brozek says:
July 3, 2014 at 3:44 pm
george e. smith says:
July 3, 2014 at 11:40 am
If we assume that prior to the starting date of the pause, the global temperature anomaly (a la RSS), was rising out of the coldrums, then it would seem to me that the recent RSS, only has to fall from last month, and at least one month extension is guaranteed; maybe more.
But the graphs, don’t seem to do either of those things.
So evidently your trend algorithm, is not as simple as that.
Louis says:
July 3, 2014 at 12:23 pm
“After a one-month pause in the lengthening of the pause, the lengthening pause is lengthening again”
—
Can someone explain why the pause lengthened again when the graph shows June temperature anomalies higher than May’s?
You are both making an excellent observation and the same answer could more or less be given for both. For George, it is not whether the anomaly goes up or down that is important, but how the new anomaly compares to the zero line. …..””””””
Hey Werner. Right now it is not immediately obvious to me; sometimes greyness density gets in the way of cognition.
But thanx for pointing me in a very precisely defined direction (place). I’m sure it will hit me right between the eyes; maybe like 3 AM tomorrow, it will wake me up.
I’ll chew on it, and it will come to me. I knew there must be a simple explanation, because Lord Monckton, is pretty nitpicky in crossing his eyes and dotting his tees, so he doesn’t leave a lot of errors scattered around..
But nice to know the pause is refreshed for another month.
Thanks Werner.
g
It would seem that the good lord really puts a twist in your shorts.
Why is that? (rhetorical)
“””””…..James Abbott says:
July 3, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley says
“The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event has begun. The usual suspects have said it will be a record-breaker, but, as yet, there is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.”
And in saying that torpedoes his own position. If he is happy to use the starting point for his pause in 1997, just prior to a massive El Nino, he cannot complain if a large El Nino develops in the coming months, raising temperatures that then ruins his pause……”””””
Well James, you just don’t seem to understand the algorithm.
Christopher DOES NOT just use that month in 1997 as the start of his pause interval.
The interval by definition, ENDS with the current, most recent number from RSS (in this case).
That is the moving FIXED point; today’s value.
The VARIABLE moving point is the earliest month, for which the trend between then and now, is statistically zero, as calculated by standard stat maths.
Absolutely no mystery to it at all. The START month, is NOT fixed. It is THE variable, chosen by the algorithm.
1) The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.
2) Confirmation bias does not become truth when it is shared.
3) etc.
From Beta blocker.
“””””…..CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. It is not going to hang around Central England forever once it is released. Same holds for everywhere else on earth……”””””
I don’t know why people keep on reciting this false assumption.
Every year, the CO2 abundance at Mauna Loa exhibits a 6 ppm (roughly) peak to peak cyclic variation, rising over about seven months, and falling over the next five months.
But at the North Pole, that cyclic variation is more like 18-20 ppm peak to peak, while at the South Pole, it is about -1 ppm peak to peak (180 degrees out of phase with ML.)
That is NOT my idea of a well mixed situation. The amount of CO2 can obviously change very fast in the atmosphere; 18-20 ppm in 5 months. So it should be able to propagate to the South Pole, if the atmosphere were indeed well mixed. It isn’t well mixed at all, and it doesn’t have any 200 year residence time. It comes and goes just like water vapor, just not as quickly; and the supposed 110 ppm surplus over the 280 ppm ideal equilibrium value, would be gone in less than five years, if the present cause of the slow rise, were to reverse.
Lord Monckton, October 2009:
“If you choose your start-point and your end-points carefully enough you can make it look as though any trend you want is happening.”
Indeed you can:
GISTEMP 1970 – 2013 = 1.7 C / century = Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of 2.5 C.
UAH 1992 – 2013 = 2.0 C / century = ECS of 3.0 C.
UAH 1999 – 2013 = 1.5 C / century = ECS of 2.2 C.
I’m not an “alarmist” or a “warmist” or whatever other terms reserved for me. More of a lukewarmer perhaps. But I do also believe that the paleoclimate data shows that a Climate Sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.0 (as per the IPCC) is certainly not implausible. Just really don’t understand the obsessive need to pick a strong El Nino year as the starting-point, as it proves absolutely nothing. Picking Pinatubo (1992) would be equally wrong.
Would it not be fairer to take a full ENSO (pseudo) cycle into account instead of just the preponderance for La Ninas since 2000? Like perhaps 1970 – 2013? Incidentally, this will land you smack dab in the middle of the IPCC range (2.5 C).
In answer to SDK, as the head posting records, the fastest supra-decadal warming in the terrestrial record since 1850 was equivalent to 2 K/century, and it occurred during the 33 years 1974-2006. However, one cannot derive climate sensitivities directly from so short (and cherry-picked) a temperature record. The correct cycle to use is the PDO (subject to the warning from Roe, 2009, that it is neither decadal nor an oscillation, though it is in the Pacific). That is an approximately 60-year cycle, with 30 years’ cooling followed by 30 years’ warming. That conveniently takes us back to about 1950, the date from which the IPCC dates Man’s significant influence on climate. The warming rate since then, on the HadCRUT4 dataset favored by the IPCC on the ground that it goes back to 1850, is 0.7 K, equivalent to 1.1 K/century, suggesting a climate sensitivity of about the same order (though for many reasons even 60 years is too short for safety).
What we can say with near-certainty is that the models that are saying climate sensitivity falls on 3 [1.5, 4.5] K per CO2 doubling predicted in 1990 that global warming since then would have occurred by now at exactly twice the rate that has been observed since. That suggests the models are running hot. It also suggests, interestingly, that one must divide climate sensitivity not just by 2 but by at least 3, because the feedback sum must be considerably less than the models had been told to assume. Indeed, the IPCC has reduced the feedback sum from 1.91 W/m2/K in 2007 to 1.5 W/m2/K now, implying on its own basis that climate sensitivity should fall from the 3.2 K in the CMIP5 models to 2.2 K. Yet the IPCC, instead of announcing this fact, has said it will no longer produce a best estimate of climate sensitivity (which was the whole point of its previous reports). And, bizarrely, it has increased both bounds of the model-projected climate-sensitivity interval from [2.0, 4.5] K in the CMIP3 ensemble reported in Box 10.2 of IPCC (2007) to [2.1, 4.7] K now. On the math, there is no justification whatsoever for this increase.
Frankly, the case against the IPCC and its bizarre approach is mounting steadily. On any rational view, no one would do anything about trying to make global warming go away at present. The rational policy would be to wait and see. The significance of the failure of the world to warm for a decade and a half on most measures and two decades on the RSS measure is that, contrary to what we are told, there is no hurry.
In answer to George E. Smith, CO2 is regarded as a “well-mixed gas” because at all latitudes and altitudes its variance is around 5% either side of the mean. Japanese satellite measurements reproduced in Salby’s research show this quite well, and demonstrate that the higher concentrations of CO2 (in the tropics, with a few hot-spots elsewhere) are uncorrelated with the industrial output of CO2. Indeed, the highest CO2 concentation in the world is in the Taklamakan Desert, for reasons I have insufficient knowledge to explain. The latitudinal variation in the amplitude of the seasonal fluctuation from barely detectable at the South Pole to maximal at the North Pole is owing to the hemispherically-asymmetric distribution of the great land masses. The latitudinal variation can be used as a method of calibrating the accuracy of the various stations that monitor atmospheric CO2 concentration, demonstrating that they are well-calibrated and that the increase in CO2 is being correctly measured.
And I should thank George E. Smith for his kindness in explaining for those who have not yet understood it the basis for determining the start-date of the RSS temperature-trend graph, which now long predates the ENSO-driven local maximum in 1998 – though in fairness that very large spike, occurring relatively early in the period of study, does have some influence in prolonging the Pause.
To those who have queried the source of the RSS monthly anomaly data on which Fig. 1 in the head posting is based, I respond that the URL is plainly marked on the graph itself. The algorithm that draws the graphs has been trained to detect whether only a single dataset is being used and, if so, it will automatically display the URL of the location from which it is getting the data.
SDK:
In your post at July 4, 2014 at 12:52 am you say
Really? Then why does your post follow that with this misleading nonsense which has been repudiated multiple times including in this thread.
As example of a correction to your (deliberate?) error I refer you to the post in this thread of george e. smith at July 3, 2014 at 9:55 pm which includes this
And I add to his correction of the disinformation from James Abbott which has now been repeated by you, a falsehood is not converted to a truth by accompaniment of an assertion that its presenter is not a warmunist.
Richard
BobG is quite right that the discrepancy between prediction and reality since 1990 is telling. There has been one-third of a Celsius degree of warming since then, and the prediction was twice that: two-thirds.
SDK says:
July 4, 2014 at 12:52 am
I’m not an “alarmist” or a “warmist” or whatever other terms reserved for me. More of a lukewarmer perhaps. But I do also believe that the paleoclimate data shows that a Climate Sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.0 (as per the IPCC) is certainly not implausible. Just really don’t understand the obsessive need to pick a strong El Nino year as the starting-point, as it proves absolutely nothing. Picking Pinatubo (1992) would be equally wrong.
================================
Unless I am missing something, you’re looking at it the wrong way round. As was pointed out by george e smith in response to a post from James Abbott (July 3, 2014 at 9:55 pm), the start point is NOW and the timescale goes backwards. So there is no cherry-picking involved.
As Viscount M. of B helpfully points out “The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.”
PS To all citizens of the USA, Happy Independence Day!
Aha! Beaten to the punch by the redoubtable Richard S Courtney! (More eloquently too btw.)
F. Ross says:
July 3, 2014 at 9:43 pm
Village Idiot says:
July 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm
“More of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley … etc.”
It would seem that the good lord really puts a twist in your shorts.
Why is that? (rhetorical)
___________________________________
Why does he call himself Village Idiot? (rhethorical)
Looks like a pulse of cold upwelling off the Peru coast, not very el-Nino-like.
Go long on anchovies.
Go short on AGW.
@Willis Eschenbach says:July 3, 2014 at 3:12 pm – I don;t have time to enter into any more discussionhere, but thanks for your comments which were made in a friendly and constructive way and which I’ll take into account ( I *try* to avoid confirmation bias…. except when something is so obviously untrue that it’s a waste of time to consider). It simply isn’t possible to quote all the considerable scientific evidence on bird’s average date of laying eggs in a comment (try Googling ‘Effects of climate change on Birds’ for book of same name summarising various studies), or the many examples of lepidotera responding to warming.
=====================================================
James Abbott says: July 3, 2014 at 3:33 pm ” ……. And in saying that torpedoes his own position. If he [Monckton] is happy to use the starting point for his pause in 1997, just prior to a massive El Nino, he cannot complain if a large El Nino develops in the coming months, raising temperatures that then ruins his pause. And if it does, it will not just be “temporary warming”. Clearly without the 1998 El Nino, his graph would not be flat, it would show positive warming. Similarly if a new El Nino produces a positive warming trend over his 1997 to present time frame, using the same analysis, then he has to accept it. Unless of course he then chooses a different time frame to show a flat trend.”
=====================================================
A question for James Abott: referring to the graph presented below which was generated by Zeke Hausfather in February 2014, are observations of actual temperatures consistent with the estimates of the climate models?
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/0214_Fig3_ZH.jpg
Paul Seligman:
You conclude your post at July 4, 2014 at 4:40 am with
I think you would find it useful to read this WUWT article and the linked paper it discusses. The article begins saying
Richard
The reason the satellite records are staying flat for 17 years is that Nick cannot get Roy to do TOBS adjustments on the data. This will change when Roy retires and the new appointee can adjust the RSS sensor brightness to the right reading. The satellite is obviously wrong as it does not match the GHCN results and as it is the only site different it must have a faulty sensor causing a breakpoint. Zeke can adjust this result and the Nick can add in a TOBS adjustment as well as since the record was faulty the adjusted reading was obviously taken at the wrong time.
For those with no sense of humour please point out that readings are done all round the clock and the temperatures are not at sea surface level from RSS etc but these little difficulties can be ironed out as well. After all as Steven so eloquently put it, no one is using real data for HISTORICAL records, are they?
Hence, in the winter, when one steps out of a warm bath, one should wait a couple of hours before pulling the plug. That way the water’s heat contributes to warming the home rather than going down the drain. Energy is saved.
In answer to Mr Abbott, if the el Nino continues to build it will show a warming trend for a short time, but that will be canceled by the subsequent la Nina, leaving a net zero trend. It is only if a strong enough greenhouse forcing overwhelms the declining solar activity that the trend is likely to rise at all in the medium term.
Good Lord, with regard to your comment on July4, 2014 at 8:21 AM, not necessarily. La Nina’s do not always cancel El Nino’s. They are not the reverse of each other in terms of equal in, equal out. And it is not necessarily true that La Nina’s follow El Nino’s. So it is better to say, “If there is a following La Nina that recharges what was lost and then that is followed by an El Nino that discharges what was absorbed, etc.”
I would suggest that it is better to say the trend likely will not change anytime soon owing to the nature of ordinary least squares and the length of your data string. The OLS statistical trend algorithm is somewhat susceptible to outlying data but is also relatively stable as a metric looking forward. I would hazard a guess that the trend will continue to be near or exactly 0 for the next 6 months to a year. Primarily because of what I know about that particular statistical algorithm.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 4, 2014 at 8:21 am
In answer to Mr Abbott, if the el Nino continues to build it will show a warming trend for a short time, but that will be canceled by the subsequent la Nina, leaving a net zero trend. It is only if a strong enough greenhouse forcing overwhelms the declining solar activity that the trend is likely to rise at all in the medium term.
The current “el Nino” has weakened significantly over the last couple of months. The following La Nina could come sooner than expected.
The explanations for the beginning period of Lord Monckton’s analysis are obviously too confusing for persons who are already taken in by the global warming scam. All that fixed variable and moving fixed start date have clearly done people’s heads in. An easier way to look at it is to ask How long is it since it last snowed? Obviously one would go backwards from the present until you found a snowfall record. Similarly, one goes backwards from now to find the date on which a no statistical warming result is found and it just happens to be 1998.
On another note don’t have a go at poor Village just because of his surname. Somewhere along the line my ancestors obviously fixed reeds as roofing but I haven’t been able to find an example in my family tree. His ancestors may have similarly been way back 🙂
SteveT
If you have in mind the famous Parmesan (sp?) papers on butterfly migration upslope, etc., search for her name in the search box here to find threads that debunk her claims.
Anyone can see the whole satellite record of RSS, HADCRUT, UAH, GISS, etc. data very easily at the wood for trees site. I plotted most of the global datasets from 1979 to present in the following link:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:60/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:60/offset:0.11/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:60/offset:-0.17/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:60/offset:-0.28/plot/wti/from:1979/mean:60/offset:0.12
Monckton’s straight RSS trend line is in blue, while the entire RSS trend line is in green. By also plotting four other datasets, you can plainly see that the recent RSS data is suspect. As Roy Spencer states on his site, “the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit…”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
The entire record paints a completely different picture than just the last 214 months of one suspect dataset.
mogur2013:
Thankyou for providing the plot in your post at July 4, 2014 at 11:50 am which
(a) confirms that RSS does indicate the global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago
and
(b) shows that each of the other major data sets of global average surface temperature (GASTA) also indicates that global warming stopped 15 or more years ago.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Grin. And what exactly about my plot tells you that global warming stopped 15 or more years ago? Plot any other series trend line from 1997 thru 2000 and they all show warming except RSS. I think you may want to try again. In case you want me to do it for you:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:60/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:60/offset:0.11/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:60/offset:-0.17/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:60/offset:-0.28/plot/wti/from:1979/mean:60/offset:0.12/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/offset:0.11/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/offset:-0.17/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/offset:-0.28/plot/wti/from:2000/trend/offset:0.12
mogur2013:
At July 4, 2014 at 2:49 pm you ask me
I answer.
Smirk. My knowledge that climastrology uses 95% confidence limits.
None of your linear trends differ from zero at 95% confidence but those similar trends did differ from zero at 95% confidence over the previous 15 years. Hence, discernible global warming stopped at least 15 years ago.
There can be no rational dispute that global warming stopped: the IPCC calls the stop a “pause” because they hope warming will resume.
Richard
It would be better if the Thermageddonites were to admit that global warming is not occurring at present. On the HadCRUT4 dataset preferred by the IPCC, there has been no warming distinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties for well over 18 years. As a rule of thumb, unless the endpoints of a trend-line are >0.15 K apart, one cannot tell whether there has been any global warming. This value is derivable from the uncertainty values given in the HadCRUT4 dataset.
There has been a query about whether the RSS data are running cool because the satellite on which they depend, NOAA-15, is suffering orbital degradation. I have sent a note to RSS asking what adjustments they make for orbital degradation, which is a routine problem especially with polar LEO satellites.
correction to above post: [Plot any other series trend line from 1997 to present thru 2000 to present and they all show warming except RSS.]
@Monckton of Brenchley
As Roy Spencer said in the link that I posted above, “Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which [b]they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model[/b], which does not quite match reality.” [my emphasis]
@richardscourtney
Now you have to use error confidence limits to justify your claim that warming has halted, even though every single dataset, save RSS, shows a positive trend in the last 15-18 years? Unless you provide sufficient evidence that all datasets are manipulated for a warming bias, then your claim that all positive trend lines equate to no warming is simply self serving.
My grin comment was not a smirk, btw, I simply enjoy a good argument. And wouldn’t your confidence limits just as easily provide a much increased warming trend from the datasets, as well?
I wish that Lord Moncton would mention why RSS TLT (Tropical Lower Troposphere tempreaturers) is a good fit for glogal temperatures. Please be informed that I trust Lord Moncton’s motives. However, as a working man, I would be more inclined to share this with my cohorts if I had some explanation of why RSS TLT truly matters. Please be kind enough to make your answer in a form that common people can understand. Thank you. (I don’t believe in this CAGW nonsense, but you fellows must be more open or you will die on the vine.) PS: I can wait until Lord Moncton makes his next monthly pronouncement. The point is to include the common people in the science.
@ eVince
I wish that Lord Moncton would mention why RSS TLT…. is a good fit for global temperatures…..some explanation of why RSS TLT truly matters”
Me, too. See my comment above. (By the way, make sure you spell the good lord’s name correctly, he and Antony are touchy about that stuff!)
mogur2013:
I am replying to both your posts at July 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm and July 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm.
You say to me
Oh, do try to keep up! Decades ago I provided evidence that all datasets are manipulated for a warming bias, Climategate leaked an email about how my paper concerning this was blocked from publication, and the matter was repeatedly subjected to other cover ups; see thisParliamentary Submission. And please note that the paper had 18 signatories from around the world because the matter was well-known to people who were following such matters back then.
The point is that DISCERNIBLE global warming stopped about 15 years ago according to all data sets. It did. For the previous 15 years there was warming which could be discerned as being more than zero with 95% confidence, and for the most recent 15 years there was not. The global warming stopped.
And you ask
NO!
Your question demonstrates that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Richard
@richardscourtney
I don’t mind an honest disagreement on almost any subject, but I refuse to put up with your snippy condescension. And it simply isn’t my job to be aware of your failed efforts at publication, especially since you seem to think that it somehow bolsters your absurd contention that a dataset that indicates warming and which allows for possibilities that range from no warming to rapid warming should be considered evidence for either extreme.
I am 95% confident that your arrogance is unjustified, since you don’t even seem to understand to the basic scientific principles that 1) similar findings across studies increases the confidence in their means, and certainly does not establish evidence for any conclusion that deviates from that mean. 2) selecting a subrange of an entire dataset that even you admit has a positive overall trend, does not permit the mean of that subset to be ignored in favor of any other possible conclusion, even one that lies within the 95% probability confidence, unless evidence is provided to indicate a bias in that mean, and that bias is in the direction of your presupposition. 3) I discern that you may want to be polite to people with whom you disagree, if you expect anything but disdain in return.
mogur2013:
At July 5, 2014 at 6:00 am you say to me
In that case perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how you think I am supposed to address an anonymous and offensive troll whose every post demonstrates complete ignorance of a subject which he/she/they/it has chosen to pontificate about.
Alternatively, you could reflect on why I have afforded you much more respect than you deserve.
Richard
Two more months and hiatus reaches the age of majority!
“eVince” asks the sort of question which this thread is really for. Why, he asks, is the RSS TLT (“Tropical Lower Troposphere” dataset a respectable measure of global temperature? In fact, TLT stands for “Temperature, Lower Troposphere”, since RSS produces many other types of data from the satellites.
The dataset covers approximately 70 deg. S to 82.5 deg. N: i.e., the overwhelming preponderance of the Earth’s lower troposphere. Because the temperature lapse rate (i.e., the rate at which the temperature becomes cooler with altitude) drops off at a near-linear rate of 6.5 K per km, and because the RSS TLT dataset measures temperature changes rather than absolute temperatures, the fact that the temperature is inferred from an altitude some way above the surface does not materially affect the ability of the dataset to represent changes in surface temperature. Hope this helps. Any questions, please feel free to ask.
mogur2013 says:
July 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Whatever meager positive trend you could find in any of the data sets over the last two decades is much smaller than anything we should be worried about. This is not the global warming they have been looking for.
In fact, every single data set shows a long term trend of about 0.75 degC/century, and that trend was established long before CO2 could have been having any effect. When you remove that natural trend from the data, you find that the data sets are all declining relative to the long term natural trend.
We are in a relative cooling phase which is inconsistent with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and which appears likely to extend into the late 2030’s. Even a couple more years of relative stasis is going to be devastating to the “cause”. By 2020, you will have a hard time finding anyone who willingly admits to having been taken in by this latest Chicken Little drama.
My thanks to Monckton of Brenchley for his explication, and my apology for having botched his name. I will forward his message to my freinds and other lists. Thank you so much.
They have known about RSS orbital decay issues since 1998.
http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Wentz_Nature_1998_MSU_Orbital_Decay.pdf
Dear Sir Monckton,
..
If there was a dataset that showed 18 years and 4 months of no warming, would you use that data set instead of RSS?
Willis Eschenbach – I have 2 questions for you.
As this thread concerns a record of the Earth’s temperature over time, my questions are off topic in their particulars, but perhaps on topic in general:
1. You recently posted the question of whether anyone could provide any temperature record of any sort that displayed the ~11 year solar cycle. That post seems to be closed to further response, so I respond here. Does this satisfy your quest?:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
The 2 blue graphs display thermosphere density variation over the last 4 solar cycles. The density variation is purported to be the result of temperature variation of the thermosphere caused by the solar EUV flux variation during each solar cycle. Since thermosphere density varies in time with the solar cycle, so must its temperature.
2. Does the annual variation of the Earth-Sun distance show up in any temperature record, or any record linked to temperature?
SR
Ok, I just went back to Willis’ post on the Dalton and Maunder sunspot minima and discovered 2 things.
1. Willis actually asked for a data set supporting a link between climate cooling and sunspot minima, but my response above does address this part of his post:
“Let me digress with a bit of history. I began this solar expedition over a decade ago thinking, along with many others, that as they say, “It’s the sun, stupid!”. I, and many other people, took it as an unquestioned and unexamined “fact” that the small variations of the sun, both the 11-year cycles and the solar minima, had a discernible effect on the temperature. As a result, I spent endless hours investigating things like the barycentric movement of the sun. I went so far as to write a spreadsheet to calculate the barycentric movement for any period of history, and compared those results to the temperatures.
But the more I looked, the less I found. So I started looking at the various papers claiming that the 11-year cycle was visible in various climate datasets … still nothing. To date, I’ve written up and posted the results of my search for the 11-year cycle in global sea levels, the Central England Temperature record, sea surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, global surface temperatures, rainfall amounts, the Armagh Observatory temperatures, the Armagh Observatory daily temperature ranges, river flows, individual tidal stations, solar wind, the 10Beryllium ice core data, and some others I’ve forgotten … nothing.
Not one of them shows any significant 11-year cycle.”
2.That post is still taking responses, so I will copy my response above to that post.
SR
I sent this to a mathematician who took an online MIT course on climate. He replied:
“No global ATMOSPHERIC warning. But the ocean is warming.”
mjg0:
re your post at July 5, 2014 at 9:56 pm.
Global warming has stopped. Please explain the relevance of the opinion held by your anonymous “mathematician”.
Richard
Question: Whereas natural variation has been shown to periodically dampen some climate indicators while accelerating others due to various short term heat redistribution mechanisms in the climate system…
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html
…why is there an emphasis one one climate indicator (surface air temp trend) and an absence of discussion of the others?
For example, during the latest so called global warming ‘pause’:
There was no pause in ice mass declines in the Arctic and Antarctic.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/abstract;jsessionid=5CC63C213C94CF82C29D3519069FF8C7.f03t03
There was no pause in the global ocean heat content trend (0-2000 m)
There was no pause in the total steric component of sea level change (0-2000 m)
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
There was no pause in the arctic sea ice extent
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png
He said that global warming has not stopped, only ATMOSPHERIC global warming. Also, the article stated clearly that warming will resume – at least temporarily – when El Nino occurs.
Also, why did you put mathematician in quotes? He is a professor of mathematics. He did not give me permission to publish his name because he does not wish to engage in public arguments.
mjg0:
Thankyou for the clarification you provide at July 6, 2014 at 10:03 am. It says in total
Thankyou. Please inform your anonymous mathematician that he is mistaken on two counts.
Firstly, global warming is an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA). Surface temperature is not ocean temperature and is not atmospheric temperature although they are related. Therefore, suspected ocean warming is not relevant unless it is exhibited as alteration to surface temperature.
Please note that this is a polite explanation that your anonymous mathematician needs to buy a clue.
Secondly, the cessation of global warming may end with additional warming or with cooling. The suspected El Nino is not materialising.
Richard
“Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth’s climate system. Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
This definition of global warming is more accurate no? Since the effect of the radiative imbalance (root cause), as measured by CERES satellite, is increased heat content, which causes the rise in temperature in key components of the climate system. It allows for short term events that redistribute heat like ENSO and THC, which may periodically dampen or enhance the continual GHG forcing.
mjg0:
At July 6, 2014 at 10:09 am you ask me
I answer.
I put mathematician in quotes because I was quoting a claim that he is a mathematician. And the claim is from an anonymous source about an anonymous person. And you now add that he is not willing to put his name to his words but uses you as his minion to speak for him. Need I say more.
Richard
Thus the cessation of global warming is best determined at least by the cessation of ice mass melt.
katatetorihanzo:
You answer your own question at July 6, 2014 at 10:58 am when you write
As you say “NO”. It most certainly is not a “more accurate” definition.
It is a moving of the goal posts by warmunists who cannot face the reality that global warming has stopped.
Global warming is an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
And that is why so much time, money and effort has been invested in determinations of GASTA by GISS, HadCRU, RSS, UAH, etc.
Richard
“Warmunist” is one of the more humorous ad hominems I’ve heard.
But seriously, it’s simply hard to reconcile global warming cessation with accelerated ice mass loss at both poles.
The effects of global warming don’t appear to be pausing along with the official declaration of the end of global warming. No more so than the Iraq war ended with the posting a banner saying “Mission Accomplished”.
It’s difficult to support an extraordinary claim like GW cessation on a short term temperature plateau especially since we’ve seen such plateaus before in the longer term temp record.
Lets recall that, unlike the ocean, surface air is a medium with low heat capacity. That means relatively moderate short-term heat transfers result in relatively large temp variations.
For example, a surface trend that starts with a strong El Niño (heat transfer from ocean to air) and ends with La Nina (heat transfer from air to ocean) is simply gonna look flattish.
At some point we will need to reconcile our intuition about periodic short term variations with the effect of long term trends.
In the short term we have weather and seasons and a rotating tilted Earth. As a consequence, some part of the earth always experiences more heating than others and heat redistributes in many ways.
For example regional differences in temperature may cause winds that accelerate evaporative surface cooling in some regions (impacting sea extent) while redistributing heat to others. All of this is intuitive and supported by observation. And yet all of this occurs under the steady drumbeat of heat content rise, which is the longer term signal. One reliable indicator is ice mass decline.
If we exaggerate the relevance of short term stochastic variations, we’ll underestimate the impact of the only signal that’s relatively steady in the industrial era: GHG forcing causing radiative imbalance (more incoming solar flux than outgoing IR flux), causing increased climate heat content.
mjg0 says:
I sent this to a mathematician who took an online MIT course on climate.
When questioned, your mysterious mathemetician now becomes a “professor of mathematics.”
Appeals to authority are bad enough. But that is an appeal to an anonymous authority, who just receved a promotion. Well, that convinces me!
[/sarc]
@katatetorihanzo: Thank you for providing those informative links.
Oops. That was a spurious post. I was trying to change my user name from mogur2013 to garyseymour. I signed on to woodpress using a pseudonym since originally I was posting to really weird sites. Anyway, I recently was accused of being an anonymous troll. I am not a troll, I am trying to have an honest discussion of climate change, and I never chose to be anonymous on this site. That was simply a hangover from an earlier signup.
My name is Gary Seymour. I live on Whidbey Island, Washington, in the United States of America. I would give out my land line number, but anyone can google the white pages for that. They also can probably figure out where I live. If you choose to call me, please do it a three in the morning, Pacific Time, so that I don’t answer. Just kidding. Anyway, I am not a troll. I am not anonymous. I will use an avatar of a leaping orca, not because I am green (like Tony Heller), but because I like them.
hanzo says:
…it’s simply hard to reconcile global warming cessation with accelerated ice mass loss at both poles.
When in doubt, empirical evidence trumps all else. Global warming has stopped.
As I have been futiliely trying to tell you, ice mass is a lagging indicator. With the much colder Arctic, second and third year [and older] ice will build up, increasing the ice mass.
But you refuse to learn, because you are riding that grant/gov’t gravy train. When someone’s income depends on him believing in nonsense, then he will belive in nonsense.
Global warming stopped 17+ years ago. Deal with it.
hanzo says:
…it’s simply hard to reconcile global warming cessation with accelerated ice mass loss at both poles.
Response:
…ice mass is a lagging indicator. With the much colder Arctic, second and third year [and older] ice will build up, increasing the ice mass.
I’m trying to understand your alternative explanation for accelerating global ice mass loss. Modify or pick the one that’s most correct from your POV and we’ll discuss which scenario is best supported by observation.
1) Let’s assume that an event or unknown natural forcing is exerting a cooling influence such that the SAT trend plateaus from 2000-2014. Ice mass is a lagging indicator (delayed response) of pre-2000 global warming, therefore, effects of the unknown cooling forcing should be manifest in the future resulting in a colder arctic and global sea ice mass build up after the heat in the pipeline is consumed.
2) Let’s assume that an event or unknown natural forcing is exerting a cooling influence such that the SAT trend plateaus from 2000-2014 and increases winter Antarctic sea ice extent. Ice mass is a lagging indicator (delayed response) of antarctic sea ice extent, therefore, effects of the current Antarctica sea ice extent increase should be manifest in the future resulting in sea Antarctic ice mass build up.
Dbstealey said
“…ice mass is a lagging indicator. With the much colder Arctic, second and third year [and older] ice will build up, increasing the ice mass.”
I think dbstealey was proposing the following:
Some event or unknown natural forcing is exerting a cooling influence such that the SAT trend plateaus from 2000-2014.
Dbstealey asserts that Ice mass is a lagging indicator (delayed response) for something.
Lets assume ice mass lags “antarctic sea ice extent” based on his earlier posts.
Or perhaps the accelerated ice mass loss is due to pre-2000 global warming, before something purportedly shut AGW off.
So ice mass lags something.
In either case, to assume that lost ice mass would increase after a SAT plateau…
“… is like putting a frozen pizza in the oven at 200 ºC, turning the heat down to 180 ºC a few minutes later,
and expecting the pizza to re-freeze because the rate of heating has slowed down. “
katatetorihanzo:
At July 7, 2014 at 6:26 am you say
Yes, I know it is really, really hard for warmunists to accept the reality that global warming stopped because that reality plays havoc with your political objectives so you squirm about “ice mass loss” and other irrelevances.
But you are going to have to come to terms with the reality that global warming stopped nearly two decades ago.
Sorry that I cannot help you to cope with reality however “hard” you find it to be.
Richard
Hanzo, you bring up an important concept, that of energy balance. Earth’s energy balance is a model with a calculated output. It is not directly measured. Even satellites designed for such purposes only sample top of the atmosphere incoming solar insolation and outgoing longwave radiation, which is then used in, and is only a part of, the model to calculate the energy balance. Do you know what the error bars are? It is reasonable to conclude that the real incoming and outgoing processes that results in a plus, minus, or balanced energy budget is naturally very noisy and that the model does not accurately reflect all the natural mechanisms that create that noise or the trends. It is also important to note that the model includes assumptions that are represented by estimates called fudge factors. Models cannot therefor be used to prove that we have the mechanisms right. Why? Because in nature, what we think is causing a certain thing is OUR assumption. And history proves our assumptions have not always been right.
Do you want to edit and re-submit this? Sentences are duplicated and make little sense as written. Also, who are you responding to, and what areas are you claiming have “accelerated” ice mass loss?
The GRACE satellite “data” cannot establish whether Greenland OR Antarctica continental ice mass or rock mass elevations are gaining, losing, or steady, much less whether either mass is “accelerating” in either direction. Your claim is early propaganda from NASA, and the latest basic research papers from GRACE do not support your claim. Greenland ice cap elevations have been increasing, Antarctic sea ice is in a 7 year continuous increase, and Antarctic shelf ice is stable (or increasing in depth) depending on which glacier-fed shelf ice mass is studied. Antarctic continental ice is stable (or increasing) across the East ice cap, and is decreasing only in three glaciers that drain the West ice cap. And, as mentioned, the shortening of those three glaciers can be better explained by an increase in rest ice depth rather than melting glacier toe depth.
So: CO2 levels have continuously increased since 1996.
Every assumption you make above is wrong at any “lagging factor” ….
Satellite air temperatures have been demonstrably stable for now 17 – 10 months.
Antarctic sea ice has been continually increasing for 7 years, and will threaten to block shipping around Cape Horn within 8-12 years if the long term increase continues.
Antarctic sea ice anomalies have setting record high extents beginning in 2007, and set even higher record this past week.
Arctic sea ice extents were declining, though they have increased from record low minimums in 2007 and 2012. Even if they continue declining from today’s levels, more heat energy is lost from the open Arctic ocean between September and March than can be absorbed from what little solar heat energy is available those 7 months of the year.
There is NO “positive arctic feedback” of disaster. We have tested that theory, and the test shows It cannot happen.
RACookPE1978 presents an interesting alternative explanation for GRACE satellite observations of mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica. It’s not ice mass loss, it’s rock mass loss.
If the mass loss were ice, one could do a mass balance with run off water & sea level rise. Assuming ~1500 Gt of Greenland didn’t just disappear, it would be interesting to speculate where did it go? I look forward to the peer reviewed article that describes the evidence supporting this remarkable discovery.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5955/984
“abstract: Mass budget calculations, validated with satellite gravity observations [from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites], enable us to quantify the individual components of recent Greenland mass loss. The total 2000–2008 mass loss of ~1500 gigatons, equivalent to 0.46 millimeters per year of global sea level rise, is equally split between surface processes (runoff and precipitation) and ice dynamics. Without the moderating effects of increased snowfall and refreezing, post-1996 Greenland ice sheet mass losses would have been 100% higher. Since 2006, high summer melt rates have increased Greenland ice sheet mass loss to 273 gigatons per year (0.75 millimeters per year of equivalent sea level rise). The seasonal cycle in surface mass balance fully accounts for detrended GRACE mass variations, confirming insignificant subannual variation in ice sheet discharge.”
katatetorihanzo:
Your posts are on par with those of RMB.
You both refuse to accept physical reality.
Global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago. That is physical reality.
Richard
Richardscourtney said “Your posts are on par with those of RMB.”
Yes, our posts are similar in intent. RMB provides an explanation, Hanzo provides an explanation. The explanation that is most consistent with observations usually inspires the most confidence and is persuasive.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:58 am
Not to mention volcano under West Antarctica ice sheet.
Not to mention…please don’t mention…volcanoes under WAIS don’t generate enoufht heat to explain magnitude of ice melt and run off.
This fact tortures hanzo. Polar ice is growing. This year it shot up.
That means that next year and the year after, ice mass will increase as more second and third year ice accumulates. Even a simple-minded person can understand that.
Ice mass is a lagging indicator. But hanzo will not admit that plain fact, because if he did, then his last, very weak argument would be thoroughly debunked — just like every other argument he tries to make.
hanzo still claims that global warming is continuing! It is hard to convince someone of a fact, if that fact affects that person’s income. hanzo is feeding at the public trough. If he admits what everyone else knows — that global warming stopped many years ago — then he jeopardizes his taxpayer-provided income.
That income is built on the false alarm of the “carbon” scare. But we know that CO2 has no measurable effect on global T at current concentrations. Every empirical measurement shows that to be the case. But when your paycheck depends on perpetuating a lie, then lots of folks will tell tall tales.
I got peer-reviewed documented Gt of ice mass melting. Show me Gt of ice mass increase. Lets compare data.
Onlookers, please note I provide: no ad homs, no conspiracy, no novel ‘physics’, no vagueness. Just citations, data, error bars and plausible explanation.
“In Greenland, the ice mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.
In Antarctica the ice mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.”
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/abstract;jsessionid=5CC63C213C94CF82C29D3519069FF8C7.f03t03
What is it about “lagging” that hanzo cannot understand?
As the graph I posted above shows, Arctic ice has made a massive recovery this year. That empirical evidence contradicts the pal reviewed assertions made.
Next year and the year after will reflect the additional second and third year growth in ice mass.
Hanzo’s argument is that it doesn’t show an increase right now. That is desperation. What will his excuse be next year?
The fact is that global warming has stopped. It may resume, or not. We don’t know. But since hanzo believes that global warming is continuing, it is clear he is looking for anything he can find to support his belief.
Science is based on skepticism. But there is none exhibited by hanzo.
Dbstealey said “Ice mass is a lagging indicator”
Hanzo asks: ice mass is a lagging indicator of what exactly and what is the magnitude and significance of this lag?
Hanzo is concerned that
1) global ice MASS is declining fast. This requires heat.
2) Warming up the growing area of ice-free arctic ocean in Summer trumps increased area of thinning sea ice in Antarctic winter.
3) Keeping the clathrate gun in its permafrost holster is very important. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate-gun_hypothesis
hanzo says:
… please note I provide: no ad homs, no conspiracy, no novel ‘physics’, no vagueness. Just citations, data, error bars and plausible explanation.
What hanzo neglects to mention is that his link is from 2009, five years ago.
As repeatedly pointed out, Arctic ice rapidly increased this year, after several years of cyclical decline. So naturally a 5 year old paper will show something completely different.
hanzo was cherry-picking old news.
Dbstealey said: “What hanzo neglects to mention is that his link is from 2009, five years ago.”
More recent (2011) http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html#.U7y-ZGt5mSN
“As repeatedly pointed out, Arctic ice rapidly increased this year,”
What are we talking about? Area? Extent?
This graph showing arctic sea ice extent is trending down
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png
This graph showing arctic sea ice mass is trending down
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-terrcryo/gis-fig56-big.jpg
Who did that “peer-review” ?
What were his or her qualifications and methods and decisions and checks and what were their actual calculation results to verify the printed paper was correct?
What were his or her biases and what changes did those “anonymous” so-called “experts” require in the paper before it was accepted for publication five years ago?
What has changed in the last five years?
katatetorihanzo:
Your post at July 8, 2014 at 4:56 pm says in total
Thankyou. I am pleased you and I have found agreement that your posts are bollocks; i.e. they deny physical reality, they ignore all argument and evidence which refutes your daft assertions, and you parrot those daft and untrue assertions again and again and again and …
Richard
Hanzo excuses using old information by posting more old information:
More recent (2011)
He cannot get it through his head that this year Arctic ice has dramatically risen, therefore next year and the year after ice mass will increase. He is simply unteachable. “Lagging” has no meaning for him.
Hanzo also uses extremely emotional language, indicating that he is no scientist:
Keeping the clathrate gun in its permafrost holster is very important.
That is astonishingly unprofessional, something we would expect to see in a comic book. There is ZERO evidence showing that methane calrates are any danger at all. But wild-eyed Chicken Littles like hanzo trot out nonsense like that to support their climate alarmism. He should be ashamed, as he should for posting a ridiculous chart like this.
Hanzo needs to take his silly propaganda where it is appreciated, to one of his thinly-trafficked anti-science blogs. The fact is that global ice is above its 30-year average. Hanzo just cannot admit that fact.
Dbstealey said: “Hanzo also uses extremely emotional language, indicating that he is no scientist:”
Hanzo: Keeping the clathrate gun in its permafrost holster is very important.
My intent is to warn that an anomalously rapid flux of methane into the atmosphere would have severe consequences since methane absorbs much more outgoing long wave radiation than does CO2. Severe is an understatement.
Dbstealey says: “He cannot get it through his head that this year Arctic ice has dramatically risen, therefore next year and the year after ice mass will increase.”
The Arctic sea ice extent continues to trend down and, every summer, more and more dark arctic ocean is absorbing more heat. Whether this heat melts next years ice or ice in the next decade, this situation is not conducive to ice mass increase.
Haven’t we called every short term uptick in arctic sea ice extent after 2007 a recovery only to watch the downward trend continue in 2012? Good luck on the prediction of arctic ice mass increase next year; but a few years is needed to establish an upward trend beyond natural variation.
Hanzo,
You’re scaring yourself. There is no evidence that methane is any kind of problem. It just isn’t.
But some folks like to frighten themselves, thus, vampire movies, etc.
Methane is as much a threat as vampires.
No more, no less.
katatetorihanzo:
Much earlier in this thread (at July 6, 2014 at 10:58 am) you tried to ‘move the goal posts’ by redefining global warming. I rejected that post hoc attempt to escape from the fact that global warming has stopped.
katatetorihanzo:
I sent my post before completing it. Sorry. This is the full post.
I write to ask for an explanation.
Much earlier in this thread (at July 6, 2014 at 10:58 am) you tried to ‘move the goal posts’ by redefining global warming. I rejected that post hoc attempt to escape from the fact that global warming has stopped. My rejection is at July 6, 2014 at 11:10 am and – to save you a need to find it – I copy it to here.
Richard
In light of the failure of your attempt to move the goal posts, all your nonsense about ice has no relevance to the subject at hand which is that
global warming has stopped.
Please explain why you are wasting space in this thread with your irrelevant twaddle about ice.
Richard
“Richardscourtney: In light of the failure of your attempt to move the goal posts, all your nonsense about ice has no relevance to the subject at hand which is that global warming has stopped. Please explain why you are wasting space in this thread with your irrelevant twaddle about ice.”
I expect that when you see inconsistencies or logical gaps in a proposed scientific conclusion, you get skeptical whether that conclusion is true. And you look for additional evidence to corroborate or to disprove.
I get skeptical as well. The accelerating reduction of ice mass at both poles during the relatively stable SURFACE temperatures is such an inconsistency. Any speculation that the effects of heating (ice melting, sea level rising, OHC rising) are lagged (without evidence or magnitude of the lag), is a tacit admission that the declaration of AGW cessation is premature. If I see steam emerging from the tea kettle, I have to check if the burner is still on to be sure the observed steam is the effect of continued heating. However, there has been no pause in the radiative imbalance. So the burner is still on.
Additionally, I get skeptical when there are logical gaps. HADcrut3v from 1900 showed at least thirty-nine 15-year periods where an upward trend was not significant at the 95% confidence interval. Since, 1965 there were eight 15-year periods where global warming had purportedly stopped.
So according to you cessation criterion, global warming keeps on stopping even though temperatures keep on rising. That is a paradox. And it makes me skeptical.
Any projection of 1960-1994 temp data at the 95% prediction interval shows that the 1995-2013 data set is on the upper end of that longer term trend. So it fails that cessation test as well. And it makes me skeptical.
When well documented short-term periodic natural variation like ENSO and aerosols are removed, the upward trend from 1998-2013 is clear. So it fails that cessation test as well. And it makes me skeptical.
When a declaration of AGW cessation is made selectively without OHC trend data (0-2000 m) it makes me skeptical. Heat goes into the oceans and oceans melt ice. Ice melt and thermal expansion cause sea level rise.
Arctic Sea Ice extent declines means less reflective surface means more ocean heating during maximum summer insolation. So you have more heat in the pipeline, making it unlikely that there will be any lagged ice mass increase anytime soon.
Why are we ignoring this feedback in favor of slightly increased reflective surface in Antarctic winter when insolation is at a minimum?
And that make me skeptical that global warming has stopped. You may persuade me otherwise with more specific quantitative data. Saying “arctic ice increase” without magnitude or distinction between extent and mass or even a citation…makes me skeptical.
Hanzo says:
The Arctic sea ice extent continues to trend down…
It now appears that the short term downward trend of the past few years may be broken. Time will tell, and as usual I accept whatever the planet tells me. That is the central difference between us.
I still do not understand your fixation with ice. I think maybe it is because every prediction made by the alarmist crowd has been wrong, so you are desperately hoping that the prediction that Arctic ice will disappear will happen. I doubt it. But if it does, keep in mind that it has happened before, naturally, and it will eventually happen again — naturally. CO2 has nothing to do with it. If it did, the Antarctic would also be losing ice.
Global ice is above its long term average. The polar see-saw provides that as the Arctic loses ice, the Antarctic gains ice. Since the Antarctic has 10x the volume of ice that the Arctic has, global ice is rising. Sorry about your prediction. But look on the bright side: you are still batting a perfect game of 0.000. That kind of perfection is hard to acheive. I’ll bet you couldn’t do it if you tried.
katatetorihanzo says:
July 10, 2014 at 5:58 am
let us address each of these falsehoods one at a time.
Continental ice loss is the only ice loss that can change sea level. 9Sea ice extents change will not change sea level, since the sea ice displaces exactly the weight of water needed to float that new/increased/unchanged/decreased sea ice.) Continental ice (glaciers or ice caps) cannot be “melted by any assumed ocean temperature increase – further, there has been NO measured actual ocean temperature increase to melt the continental ice that is not touching continental ice. There is a theoretical 0.002 degree total ocean temperature change, which cannot not melt additional continental ice not touching the “hotter” ocean water; nor is the permenant Antarctic shelf ice going to be melted by a ocean heat change that small. IF the ocean were heating up due to winds around Antarctica, then the Antarctic actual sea ice would not be freezing at ever-increasing rates. (See below for more details on that issue.)
Not true. Arctic sea ice receives more solar energy than Antarctic sea ice only 5 months of the year. (Arctic sea ice cycles between its maximum at 13 – 14 Mkm^2 at latitude 70-71 north, and is exposed to solar radiation only when the TOA solar insolation is at aits minimum each year. The rest of the year, Antarctic sea ice receives more solar radiation: Antarctic sea ice cycles between a minimum at latitude 68-69 south latitude when the TOA solar insolation is at its maximum (and when the Arctic sea ice is in total blackness), and a maximum up at latitude 58-59 south.
In mid-September, when Arctic sea ice is at its minimum, the Antarctic sea ice edge is exposed to FIVE TIMES as much solar energy per square meter. Even if both arctic losses were to equal antarctic sea ice excesses, the Antarctic sea ice would be reflecting five times more energy to space than could be received by the Arctic ocean waters.
But is even worse than that! The newly-exposed Arctic ocean waters are being hit with that little bit of solar energy in September at a solar elevation angle of 2- 10 degrees. Almost all of what little energy is available is reflected from the water because the ocean’s measured albedo is 0.35 – 0.38 at those angles. At the same time, all those millions of “excess” square kilometers of newly-frozen, very high albedo Antarctic sea ice is being exposed at solar elevation angles of 25 – 40 degrees, and DOES reflect the sun’s energy back into space very ominously. Further cooling the Antarctic ice, land, and ocean very, very well. And the last 30 years, the Antarctic continent HAS BEEN cooling. Up at 80 north, the DMI has measured near-constant decreases in the Arctic air temperatures over the same period of time.
At all seasons of the year, in every month of the year, at every second of every day, the ever-increasing Antarctic sea ice the past 7 years since new record sea ice anomalies were set in 2007, the Antarctic sea ice edge is closer to the equator than the average Arctic sea ice edge. Worse, after mid-August each year, Arctic sea ice losses INCREASE heat loss: due to increased Arctic sea water heat losses when open to the air and wind than if ice-covered. The cherished “myth” of arctic sea ice feedback due to open water heat absorption has been proved wrong after record lows sea ice extents in September 2007 and September 2012. (Now, earlier in the year (in late May, June, July, and early August), more open water does increase heat intake. After mid-August, that simplified truism is no longer true.)
The OPPOSITE happens in the Antarctic ocean waters! The truism (the “myth” of solar energy feedback I alluded to above IS TRUE IN THE ANTARCTIC. More sea ice DOES reflect MORE solar energy because the solar elevation angles ARE HIGHER and the formerly ice-covered ocean’s surface IS NOT capable of absorbing the availble solar energy.
“Slightly greater” ???? The “excess” Antarctic sea ice since May this year has been same size as the entire area of Greenland – and is at latitudes below the middle of Greenland. The “excess” Antarctic sea ice has been 10 – 20% of the total Antarctic sea ice area. you are deluding yourself with statements from NASA propagandists (er, publicists) that are 10 1nad 12 years out of date.
Rather than hypothesize about passages north of Canada and Siberia open for one week each September between the islands up there, worry about Cape Horn at latitude 56 south being closed to all sea traffic for one or two months of the year due to sea ice and ice bergs the size of Manhattan. And that scenario could happen within 8 – 12 years at current rates of Antarctic sea ice increase.
Reflection of solar energy by sea ice is only dependent on area. And that area of Antarctic sea ice increase is setting new record highs in September, new record sea ice anomalies in the months between . You continually confused and conflate assumed ice mass loss (on the continents of Antarctica and the island of Greenland based on GRACE calculations that are old, and that have been rejected as premature by the GRACE team itself, with sea ice AREA measurements that are real and are updated every day. Those continental ice loss assumptions do NOT change the ever-increasing reflected energy from Antarctica, and the increased heat loss in the Arctic between September and march year from the newly-open, newly-exposed Arctic waters.
katatetorihanzo:
Thank you for the answer to my question at July 10, 2014 at 5:58 am. I now understand your problem.
There are no “inconsistencies” between observations of reality and the fact that global warming has stopped.
Of interest are why global warming has stopped and what will follow the existing lack of discernible trend in global temperature.
Your problem is that there is an inconsistency between your belief and reality: you believe human activities will overwhelm nature to cause global warming but in reality global warming has stopped.
Richard
hanzo says:
I get skeptical when there are logical gaps.
No, you don’t. You are [not] the least bit skeptical. You have been shown numerous logical inconsistencies in this thread and elsewhere, but you choose to ignore every one of them that contradicts your belief. You suffer from extreme confirmation bias. You believe there is a black cat under your bed in your dark room. But when you turn on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.
No one argues that there has not been global warming. There has been, although it stopped. But unlike you, skeptics take the default position [the Null Hypothesis] that global warming is natural. If you believe that human activity causes global warming, then you must produce at least some scientific data quantifying the fraction of a degree warming due directly to human-emitted greenhouse gases. You cannot just say, “There has been global warming, ergo, human produced CO2 is the cause.” That is illogical.
Despite numerous requests, no one has ever produced any scientific evidence showing human causation. After 30+ years of looking for such evidence, none has been found. Does that not concern you? Or are you such a true believer in your evidence-free CAGW conjecture that you do not require any evidence at all? If so, that is religion, not science — and your god is forsaking you.
In response to dbstealey, I have some questions. I’ll also try to clarify my specific intent on this thread.
Would you direct me or onlookers to a citation showing evidence for any
lagging ice mass response. I’m curious, what is the lag a response to and how long is the lag?
“No one argues that there has not been global warming. There has been, although it stopped.”
What is a plausible explanation for that which stops for 17 years after rising for >75 years?
Most climatologists attribute temporary plateaus in the temp record to the natural short term variations that obscure the greenhouse gas forcing. For example, Any trend that starts with a strong El Niño and ends in La Niña is gonna look flattish. This doesn’t seem unusual in the temperature record.
“But unlike you, skeptics take the default position [the Null Hypothesis] that global warming is natural.”
When climatologists refer to natural forcings, I am persuaded because they are specific and they measure its magnitude (solar, volcanic aerosols, ENSO). The observation that nature alone DOESNT explain global warming is part of the evidence.
Would you suggest an alternative forcing that is not GHG?
Scientists don’t use null hypothesis to justify scientific inaction. Null hypotheses are either ‘rejected’ or ‘not rejected’ based on evidence not rhetoric. They are never “accepted” defacto.
“If you believe that human activity causes global warming, then you must produce at least some scientific data quantifying the fraction of a degree warming due directly to human-emitted greenhouse gases.”
This has been done but there are uncertainties. Let me cut to the chase then explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7so8GRCWA1k (see graph at t= 50 min)
If you doubling CO2 concentration you get a skewed probability distribution showing a ~3 deg C rise, but the spread is 1.5 to 4 deg. Thus there’s a 5% chance that AGW will be mild and adaptable. There’s a 5% chance of a extinction level event. There’s a 90% chance that we will be severely impacted.
In models, in the absence of excessive GHG forcing, they see a mild cooling trend over many thousands of years.
Let me explain the approach for quantifying the effect of any forcing on temperature by suggesting the perfect experiment. Imagine if we had 10,000 identical non-human inhabited Earth’s to study as a control having the same histories.
We know that there are positive and negative feedbacks in climate dynamics and there are always quantities that are very sensitive to small changes (butterfly effect).
According to Chaos theory (nonlinear dynamics) each Earth experiment would naturally evolve differently yet in total give a finite range of climate indicators.
In the absence of identical Earth’s we must use climate models that are based in physics, have empirical input and are validated by the successful retro-dicting of the past.
The data quantifying the effect of an introduced anthropogenic forcing would be inferred by projecting the known natural forcings into the industrial era without the extra GHG forcing and with extra GHG forcing and do this experiment multiple times. Without extra industrial CO2, we’d be in a slow cooling phase.
“You cannot just say, “There has been global warming, ergo, human produced CO2 is the cause.” That is illogical.”
Yes there is supporting evidence based on physics (how radiation interacts with matter), magnitude of industrial emissions, and isotopic evidence. You can see CO2’s signature spectroscopically in space and chemically in the oceans.
“Despite numerous requests, no one has ever produced any scientific evidence showing human causation.”
I can direct you to the multiple lines of evidence and will gladly clarify that which is not intuitive.
“After 30+ years of looking for such evidence, none has been found. Does that not concern you?”
When one hundred authors signed a petition against the theory of Relativity, Einstein replied, “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”
It is the same with climate science. We have a self-consistent set of observations that shows that our atmosphere and oceans are anomalously enriched in C-14 depleted CO2. We have direct evidence of human sources for C-14 depleted CO2 entering the atmosphere and oceans. Now consider:
The discovery of a new forcing or some natural source of C-14 depleted CO2 would invalidate AGW. In fact any inconsistency would at least weaken AGW.
That’s why I’m asking you, a climate contrarian, to suggest what I may have missed. If you write paragraphs about “burden of proof” or ad hominem speculation about Hanzo or non-critically dismiss the evidence that I cite, I will merely note that evidence was not presented. I’ll just invite others to do what you do not.
Give me an evidenced based counter argument…or do not. Global warming stops when all the effects consistent with warming stop. If global warming had indeed suddenly stopped, there needs to be a reason.
richardscourtney says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:43 am
dbstealey says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:58 am
Please review and critique for inconsistencies or errors my longer reply to hanzo above your comments.
RACookPE1978,
I see no errors in your analysis. You are up to speed regarding polar ice; hanzo is not. But true believers do not need facts, they have all they need: belief.
Still, it is good to write rebuttals. We can’t allow any new readers to be influenced by the nonsense hanzo keeps posting. All they need to remember is that skeptics accept whatever Planet Earth is telling us. That is what science demands.
But alarmists refuse to accept the truth. Instead, they keep digging their hole deeper. That isn’t science; that is pseudo-science, and that is why they have lost the debate.
I offer self consistent evidence based explanations and a suggestion that the climate follows the laws of physics and is predictable to a certain extent. No made up physics, no reference to motives, no vagueness
hanzo says:
… Since, 1965 there were eight 15-year periods where global warming had purportedly stopped.
If it were not for strawman arguments, you wouldn’t have much, would you?
No one has ever argued that global warming doesn’t happen. Of course it does. The planet has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA. Naturally. You don’t think it’s natural, but you have no testable, measurable evidence to the contrary. Therefore, CAGW is only you baseless belief.
The evidence indicates that warming is entirely natural. It has remained within well established parameters, and there has been no acceleration — which would be expected if global warming was caused by human CO2 emissions.
Global warming has occurred in step changes since the LIA. Anyone else but hanzo can see that those warming episodes are essentially the same, a fact that debunks his CAGW nonsense.
hanzo says:
I offer self consistent evidence based explanations and a suggestion that the climate follows the laws of physics and is predictable to a certain extent.
Wrong, as always. You have never posted any ‘evidence’. And if you believe that global T is predictable, why was no multi-million dollar GCE [climate model] able to predict the current 17+ year cessation of global warming? None of them could predict… but you think you can?
Predict global T a year from now. Show us your comments are anything more than confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
Next, hanzo copies the skeptics’ example refuting the so-called ‘consensus’:
When one hundred authors signed a petition against the theory of Relativity, Einstein replied, “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”
Not only is there no consensus [and there never was], but that comment is indicative of hanzo’s always moving the goal posts, e.g. when his methane nonsense is refuted, he doesn’t mention it again, he just moves on to something else. Hanzo cannot stick to one issue, because all his issues are based on alarmist predictions, and every prediction made by them has failed. So he takes his shot and runs away. Alarmists are cowards. They are afraid to debate one issue to it’s logical conclusion, because they always lose those debates.
Next, regarding evidence of human effect on global temperature, hanzo asserts:
I can direct you to the multiple lines of evidence…
Then post those “multiple lines of evidence”. Keep in mind that in science, evidence has a specific meaning: raw data, and/or verifiable empirical observations. Evidence is not peer reviewed papers, or computer models. Evidence must be quantifiable [measurable] and testable. So have at it. Post your ‘evidence’ showing the fraction of a degree global warming directly attributable to human CO2 emissions. Remember: measurable, and testable.
Finally, hanzo says:
If you write paragraphs about “burden of proof”…
But that is exactly the onus on hanzo’s alarmist conjecture, which claims that rising anthropogenic CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Skeptics are not making that claim; alarmists are. Therefore, hanzo and his pals have the onus of producing evidence to support their claims. So why haven’t they?
They have not produced evidence for the simple reason that there is no such evidence. CAGW is a baseless assertion. It has never been anything else.
Dbstealey said:
“No one has ever argued that global warming doesn’t happen. Of course it does.”
But it gets confusing when some think its cooling. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
“The planet has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA.”
Yes, but before the LIA was a time of relative steady global mean temperatures for thousands of years according to climate proxy data. Something changed post-LIA and it was coincident with a sharp rise in the concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, which is now the highest in the past 800,000 years.
Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_temperature_record_for_past_1000_years
‘Fits and starts” are explained easily by short-term natural variations superimposed over a continual GHG forcing trend. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4
“The evidence indicates that warming is entirely natural.”
I would need an explanation for the disparity between the 150 year temperature record (rising) and the climate proxy data (steady). In the reconstructions, have we ever seen such a rapid temperature rise? This rise is suspiciously coincident with a sharp rise of C-14 depleted CO2 in the atmosphere and into the oceans during the last century. Sounds unnatural to me.
“It has remained within well established parameters and there has been no acceleration — which would be expected if global warming was caused by human CO2 emissions.”
The graph shows an overall warming trend (1880- 2010) with acceleration (1950-2010). This graph seems inconsistent with the thread’s thesis (post 1998 GW cessation & no acceleration).
hanzo says:
I offer self consistent evidence based explanations and a suggestion that the climate follows the laws of physics and is predictable to a certain extent.
“Wrong, as always. If you believe that global T is predictable, why was no multi-million dollar GCE [climate model] able to predict the current 17+ year cessation of global warming?”
The multi-million dollar GCE most certainly doesn’t predict cessation of global warming as a long term trend. It’s a climate model parameterized with climate data. It doesnt predict the short term natural variations (weather). But the physics is the same and it works. Check out the predictive capability of some computer models with respect to the anomalous trajectory of Hurricane Sandy.
For example: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy#Forecasts
“None of them could predict… ”
They predicted ice mass declines…and it’s happening faster than predicted.
“Predict global T a year from now. Show us your comments are anything more than babbling confirmation bias.”
There are uncertainties, but they are quantifiable as ranges based on statistically significant trends. We may not predict the exact speed when our train leaves the track. But the speed is increasing and it is under our collective control.
“Next, hanzo copies the skeptics’ example refuting the so-called ‘consensus’:”
“When one hundred authors signed a petition against the theory of Relativity, Einstein replied, “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” Not only is there no consensus [and there never was], but that comment is indicative of hanzo’s always moving the goal posts”
I’m not concerned with consensus, since consensus is not a climate parameter. I’m concerned with evidence, for and against.
“e.g. when his methane nonsense is refuted, he doesn’t mention it again”
Einstein’s quote was meant to illustrate that any inconsistent fact could refute or at least modify AGW. Just offer an alternative explanation that is consistent with observations. One lab could do this.
As for methane, I merely have to show that methane absorbs IR radiation to show that it’s a GHG. If one wished to refute radiative imbalance, one would need data for a data-driven discussion.
For example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Methane-ir.png
“he just moves on to something else.”
There are multiple lines of evidence and many ways to explain them. When Hanzo discusses issues with those who assert that the Earth is a flat disk accelerating ‘upwards’ at 9.8 m/s^2, I was informed that the disk is a null hypothesis to the spherical Earth ‘consensus’ hoax. So, as an intellectual exercise, I asked them to explain certain inconsistencies and it was explained to me that the burden of proof is on me, not them. When I present photographic evidence of sphericity, I am nick-named ’roundist’ and, after all, photos can be manipulated. So Hanzo moves on to something else in the search of a persuasive argument.
” Hanzo cannot stick to one issue because all hanzo’s issues are based on alarmist predictions, and every prediction made by them has failed. So he takes his shot and runs away. Alarmists are cowards. They are afraid to debate one issue to it’s logical conclusion, because they always lose those debates.”
You attribute too much to Hanzo. These are ad hominem arguments are they not? I am irrelevant, but I have some questions:
The prospect of ice mass being lagging indicators and speculation about rock mass movements confounding ice mass declines, and the putative heat insulating effect of surface tension have been the most interesting, but I can’t seem to coax folks to elaborate with evidence. Can you elaborate?
Since there is a full spectrum of AGW contrarian assertions, may I infer from your posts that CO2 (from any source) is incapable to create a radiative imbalance resulting in an increase of climate heat content?
It is accepted that global warming has occurred from 1850 to 1997, but no evidence is offered supporting a natural cause that is consistent with the observed warming rate. Can you provide this?
No explanation from contrarian sources is forthcoming to explain the purported sudden cessation of GW. Any speculation? Anyone?
RMB says:
I cannot heat the water in my bucket using a heat gun have a nice day.
That probably makes sense in your world…
hanzo says:
…before the LIA was a time of relative steady global mean temperatures for thousands of years according to climate proxy data.
Wrong, as usual. No one has ever argued that global warming doesn’t happen. Of course it does. Before the worldwide MWP, there were successive warming episodes, and they were warmer still. CO2 was low. This is just natural variability, like we see now.
…CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, which is now the highest in the past 800,000 years.
CO2 is entirely beneficial. No global harm has ever been identified due to the rise in CO2, therefore it is ‘harmless’. Also, “800,000 years” sounds scary, but in fact the rise has been from 3 parts in ten thousand, to only 4 parts in ten thousand.
Next:
…have we ever seen such a rapid temperature rise?
What “rapid rise“?
Next, hanzo improbably claims:
I’m concerned with evidence, for and against.
As I have stated repeatedly and correctly: there is NO scientific evidence showing any “fingerprint of AGW”. No such evidence exists. Only preconceived beliefs supported by confirmation bias make you believe thatanything being observed today is other than natural climate variability. Everything we see now has been seen before, and to greater extremes. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening.
And of course we have seen more rapid rises in T, even within the past 15K years. Global T has fluctuated by TENS of whole degrees, within about a decade. Your assumptions are simply incorrect.
Next, enough with “ice mass declines”. All of your links for that assumption are several years old, at least. This year has added an enormous amount of Arctic ice mass. Next year that will be second year ice. The year after, third year ice. The ice mass is rising. You deceptively use old data that does not reflect that. Next:
…no evidence is offered supporting a natural cause that is consistent with the observed warming rate. Can you provide this?
The explanation has been provided repeatedly; you just will not listen:
Your mind has been colonized by the CAGW scare. You are fixated on it, and so you look for ‘evidence’ to confirm your bias. Nothing presented by skeptics will have any effect, because your belief is based on emotion, not on science. I only refute your “carbon” nonsense for the benefit of new readers, who may not be up to speed on the facts. There is no scientific evidence supporting the catastropic AGW false alarm. It is only a religion; nothing more or less.
Dbstealey said
“Before the worldwide MWP, there were successive warming episodes, and they were warmer still.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
When I look at this graph of temperatures for the last 2K years, the global mean rises (MWP) and falls (LIA) and then shoots up during the industrial era. So it appears that the last century was anomalous with respect to the rate of temperature rise. It’s the rate increase, not the magnitude that is anomalous.
To determine whether this contemporary temperature spike is usual or unusual, It would be useful to see if there were an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans. That observation would be inconsistent with AGW and such information would be a powerful refutation. Is such data available to you?
“No global harm has ever been identified due to the rise in CO2, therefore it is harmless.”
Would coral bleaching, due to diminishing ocean pH, constitute a source of concern? We are dealing with a parameter that may impact the base of the oceanic food chain. Furthermore, are all plants equally beneficial to human agriculture including weed species? It is the rate of change outside of our customary ranges that should elicit concern.
“Also, “800,000 years sounds scary, but in fact the rise has been from 3 parts in ten thousand, to only 4 parts in ten thousand.”
The % change is a better measure for the magnitude of any anomalous change than the absolute difference. I can express my weight gain in metric tons and give myself an erroneously optimistic impression.
Context matters. The solubility of oxygen in water is about 8 ppm, yet it is enough to support global fish respiration. Considering the proportion of 400 ppm of CO2 dispersed in a massive atmosphere, are we are not talking about Gigatons? Is this is not enough to support global photosynthesis and to drive CO2 into a heating ocean? There’s a lot of forests living off such an apparent infinitesimal measure.
A 25% increase in CO2 is also enough to change the radiative balance, since CO2 is not 100% transparent to a century’s worth of outgoing IR radiation. To help your intuition distinguish between ‘small’ and ‘large’ impacts, I propose a little experiment. Add the equivalent of 400 ppm of dark blue food coloring (large extinction coefficient) to an appropriate volume of water. If you can discern a visual change of darkened tint, then you may imagine the disproportional effect of an apparent small amount of substance on absorbance of electromagnetic radiation.
“As I have stated repeatedly and correctly: there is NO scientific evidence showing any “fingerprint of AGW”.
The following are all scientific evidence of AGW:
1) IR spectra at top and bottom of atmosphere plainly shows the absorbances of GHG causing the radiative imbalance and features CO2 and water vapor.
2) The CO2 isotopic trend (C14-depletion) is consistent with that derived from combustion of fossil fuels.
3) the magnitude of known natural forcings have been measured and found insufficient to account for the magnitude of the temperature rise.
4) The radiative imbalance has been directly measured by satellite (CERES).
5) The increase in OHC mirrors the radiative imbalance.
6) An observed cooling trend in stratosphere and heating trend in troposphere is consistent with effect GHG forcing and rules out solar forcing
7) The magnitude of industrial emissions are more than enough to account for the atmospheric CO2
“And of course we have seen more rapid rises in T, even within the past 15K years.” “Global T has fluctuated by TENS of whole degrees, within about a decade. Your assumptions are simply incorrect.
I would be quite interested in your evidence showing a natural forcing capable of a heat flux that is equivalent to setting off multiple nuclear bombs. That’s what a decadal global mean change of +0.2 deg C would mean. If you take a look at the ‘y and x-axes’ of some long term temperature proxys: Heres 800,000 year EPICA (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg). Here’s 12,000 years of Holocene (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png). You’ll note that the fluctuations do not change so fast over decadal timeframes. Certainly not TENS of degrees.
A powerful refutation of AGW would be to show such a rapid T rise and CO2 going into the oceans. Show me and make me eat my hat.
“Net, enough with “ice mass declines”. All of your links for that assumption are several years old, at least. This year has added an enormous amount of Arctic ice mass. Neext year that will be second year ice. The year after, third year ice. The ice mass is rising. You decptively use old data that does not reflect that.”
I offered 2011 quantitative data showing accelerating rate of loss over the decade using state of the art equipment. This is hardly dated info. it’s now July 2014. It would be so easy to refute this data by showing the purported new “enormous amount of Arctic ice mass” that offset the decadal ice loss in over 3 short years. We can compare the mass loss and gain and you can make me eat my hat.
…no evidence is offered supporting a natural cause that is consistent with the observed warming rate. Can you provide this?
I guess not. But I do look forward to Prof Richard Lindzen’s peer reviewed paper discussing the inconsistences in AGW. Please provide a link when he writes it. The quote provided in your post contains speculation about psychological phenomena such as “world hysterics”, scientific illiteracy and political ideology. The parts of his discourse related to climatology contains qualitative generalizations of magnitude without regard to rate and maximizes doubt while minimizing explanation. I’m sure that a professor would not like to characterize climate dynamics as random or magic or as a phenomenon that is largely polemical. Show me physics. Show me numbers. I prefer to see quantitative data to support the qualitative claims.
[snip . . . you can do better . . mod]
hanzo,
That Wikipedia graph is fabricated nonsense. This chart is based on peer reviewed research, based on actual data. It directly contradicts Wikipedia. But since you thrive on confirmation bias, naturally you would gravitate toward Wikipedia’s alarmist nonsense.
Here is another chart that puts things in perspective. We are currently at the cooler end of the Holocene. The planet has been much warmer in the past, when CO2 was very low. How do you explain that?
You say:
… it appears that the last century was anomalous with respect to the rate of temperature rise. It’s the rate increase, not the magnitude that is anomalous.
Wrong, as always. You say:
Your assumptions are simply incorrect…. You’ll note that the fluctuations do not change so fast over decadal timeframes. Certainly not TENS of degrees.
That is merely an assertion, and I can prove that it is false: Only about 11K years ago, global T fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within only a decade or two. Compare that to our current “Goldilocks” climate. But of course you will not compare the two, because your mind is made up. You only look for things that confirm your True Belief. You say:
A powerful refutation of AGW would be to show such a rapid T rise… Show me and make me eat my hat.
Would you like salt and pepper with that?
Next, you throw out terms as if they are confirmed. They are not. Coral bleaching has been shown to be a cyclical event unrelated to temperature or pH. And the Monerey Bay aquarium’s intake pipe, from far out in the ocean, shows no change in pH levels. The “pH” scare is on a par with the “carbon” scare. Your misdirection about weeds vs agricultural crops fails as well. The red line shows agricultural productivity as a direct result of the addition of harmless, beneficial CO2. Is there nothing you will not misrepresent in your ongoing confirmation bias?
Next, you say:
Considering the proportion of 400 ppm of CO2 dispersed in a massive atmosphere, are we are not talking about Gigatons?
Since “gigatons” sounds scary, naturally that term would appeal to you. In fact, CO2 has risen from only about 3 parts in ten thousand, to only 4 parts in ten thousand, over 150 years. That is nothing. CO2 is a tiny trace gas, essential to all life on earth. More CO2 is better. The biosphere is starved of CO2.
Next, you assert:
The following are all scientific evidence of AGW…
In fact, none of those are scientific “evidence”. I keep trying to teach you, but you will not listen: scientific “evidence” consists of raw data, and verifiable empirical observations that show the fraction of a degree of global temperature change directly attributed to human CO2 emissions. None of your examoples shows anything that can be considered a “fingerprint of AGW”. If you could show that, you would be the first to do so, and you would be on the short list for the Nobel prize. Instead, you are simply feeding your confirmation bias with random examples. I cannot penetrate your closed mind, but for the benefit of any others reading: there is NO scientific evidence showing any “fingerprint of AGW”. No such evidence has ever been produced. If it had been, the debate would be over.
Next, you say:
I would be quite interested in your evidence showing a natural forcing capable of a heat flux that is equivalent to setting off multiple nuclear bombs.
Enough with the ‘nuclear bombs’ emotion. This is a science site, it isn’t your “Pseudoskeptical Pseudoscience” blog. A hydrogen bomb analogy is simply an emotional scare tactic, and it is nonsense. Regarding your ice mass claim, you say:
I offered 2011 quantitative data…
You refuse to listen: I explained that this year, 2014, Arctic ice has had a massive recovery. That will become second year ice next year, and the year after it will be 3rd year ice, raising the ice mass. You are fixatted on the natural decline in ice cover for the past few years. Wake up! That was then, and this is now. “you can make me eat my hat. “ I hope you have some extra hats in your closet. [Also, see #9.]
Finally, regarding Prof Richard Lindzen, you say:
Show me physics. Show me numbers.
I will do better than that. Here is the Professor’s CV. He has authored twenty dozen peer reviewed papers. Clearly, Prof Lindzen has forgotten more climatology than you will ever learn. But if you want plenty of numbers and data, have at it. It’s all there. However, I am sure none of it will penetrate your alarmist confirmation bias. CAGW is your religion, which is far stronger than rational thought. As i wrote above:
Your mind has been colonized by the CAGW scare. You are fixated on it, and so you look for ‘evidence’ to confirm your bias. Nothing presented by skeptics will have any effect, because your belief is based on emotion, not on science. I only refute your “carbon” nonsense for the benefit of new readers, who may not be up to speed on the facts. There is no scientific evidence supporting the catastropic AGW false alarm. It is only a religion; nothing more or less.
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
“That Wikipedia graph is fabricated nonsense.”
Dbstealey dismisses the 2000 year temp reconstructions summarized in Wikipedia despite the original references provided in Wikipedia. It shows that the last century was anomalous with respect to rate of temperature rise going back 2000 years and is inconsistent with the assertion that fluctuations have been seen to the extent of “TENS of degrees.” Note that the total variation (y-axis) is < 2 deg C
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
"This chart is based on peer reviewed research, based on actual data. It directly contradicts Wikipedia."
The chart Dbstealey provided attempted to depict the 10000 yr Greenland ice core record by Prof RB Alley http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
But Note that the years (x-axis) are not evenly spaced for some reason. The graph appears to have been inexplicably modified by David Lappi. Note also that the total variation (y-axis) is 4 deg C, not "TENS of degrees."
The authentic version is shown below and starts from 1904 and goes back 10000 years. That's the real version that's been peer reviewed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/7294063@N03/4994240435/
The following version starts from 2000 and goes back 3500 years showing that the human industrial era is anomalous wrt rate of temp increase and magnitude going back 3500 years.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?u=http%3a%2f%2fdiggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com%2f2010%2f12%2f3500years.png&ehk=LEZpnhxIWJCxPpmrdmW3jg&w=320&h=214&c=7&rs=1&p=0&pid=1.7
Recall the two ways to heat the planet. Increase insolation (incoming solar radiation flux) and/or decrease outgoing IR radiation via GHG. Now let's go back 450,000 years to show that any natural rapid heat up was consistent with increased insolation (Milankowich cycles) with CO2/H2O/ methane feedback. The CO2 came from the oceans back then.
The contemporary heat up is due to CO2 forcing and the CO2 is going into the oceans.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
"Here is another chart that puts things in perspective. We are currently at the cooler end of the Holocene. The planet has been much warmer in the past, when CO2 was very low. How do you explain that?"
See above: Milankowich and GHG feedback
In the past other forcings (orbital, solar) or cessation of aerosol forcing initiated global warming, usually magnified with CO2 / H2O feedback. Now it's CO2 forcing and H2O feedback.
"That is merely an assertion, and I can prove that it is false: Only about 11K years ago, global T fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within only a decade or two."
See above to recall that the climate doesn't vary by "TENS of degrees"
"Compare that to our current “Goldilocks” climate."
Dbstealey posts the bar graph below to apparently show that one can adjust the scale of the y-axis from 0 to 130 deg C to give the impression of no temperature variation. Consider that one cannot say that global warming has "stopped" in 1997 if one refuses to admit warming had happened previously 1850-1996 http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
Transparently manipulated graphs, dismissal of evidence without discussion, assertions without citation, ad hominem speculations, a purportedly enormous 2014 arctic mass recovery with no numbers to substantiate this claim and Lindzen's CV and appeal to authority, instead of a simple relevant citation.
This makes me skeptical.
Hanzo says:
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
Which I did. From the citation—> [“Ice core records show in less than a decade there was a sudden warming of around 15 degrees Celcius (27ºF) of the annual mean temperature.”] Global T went up by tens of degrees within a decade. That makes the current gradual rise routine, and typical of the natural step changes since the LIA.
Next, Beer’s Law states that the ocean absorbed CO2 when T declined. Unless hanzo doesn’t believe in physics, I have shown exactly what I was challenged to show, and I am now looking forward to hanzo eating his hat. That was the deal, unless hanzo is going to reneg — which I fully expect, as no alarmist yet has engaged in honest debate. They are always backing and filling, and moving the goal posts, and prevaricating. But maybe I am wrong about hanzo. We’ll see about that.
Next, no graphs were manipulated as hanzo falsely claims. Their provenance is there to be checked. The graph showing tens of degrees T fluctuation was from the Alley et al. 1993 peer reviewed paper. Hanzo needs to argue with Dr. Alley if he doesn’t like the graphs. But he won’t, because he knows the answer he will get contradicts his wild-eyed religious beliefs.
Hanzo says:
…one cannot say that global warming has “stopped” in 1997…
One certainly can say that global warming has stopped, because that is an indisputable fact. Only someone who is incurably afflicted with cognitive dissonance could deny that fact. Look at the title of this article, and the numerous charts proving that global warming stopped. Hanzo is living in a dream world. He says:
This makes me skeptical.
Very amusing. Hanzo is about as skeptical as one of Mrs. Keech’s Seekers, waiting for the flying saucer to appear. He has no concept of scientific skepticism. He is fixated on the ridiculous notion that runaway global warming is in process, when every climate metric shows that to be false.
I have only one request of hanzo: when he eats his hat, put it on YouTube, OK? Thanx.
Beers law relates the light absorbance of a substance with its concentration. The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
“Which I did. Global T went both up and down by tens of degrees within about a decade. Beer’s Law states that the ocean absorbed CO2 when T declined. Unless hanzo doesn’t believe in physics, I have shown exactly what I was challenged to show, and I am waiting for hanzo to eat his hat.”
My intent was to contrast conditions leading to abrupt warming today with conditions leading to abrupt warming in the past. As far back as 10,000 years BP, of the very few relatively sharp T rises (~ 0.5 deg/century), none occurred when CO2 was simultaneously entering the oceans. But that’s what’s happening now. That is consistent with CO2 forcing, not feedback. Dbstealey found an abrupt cooling event (Younger Dryas), probably due to the disruption of the THC from a prior warming event. I’m not certain what this disproves?
“The planet could descend into another great Ice Age, and glaciers could cover Chicago a mile deep again”
Indeed it can, and for reasons associated with AGW. Any strong short term natural or unnatural perturbation (GHG flux, disruption of ocean circulation due to influx of fresh water from melting ice) will destabilize the climate. These days humans are the culprit because of the large influx of industrial GHG. It causes heating which melts ice. The infusion of fresh water into circulation systems driven by salinity can have severe consequences. Our prudent path away from this climate uncertainty is to transition to existing alternative ways of generating electricity.
“but hanzo would still be parroting his catastrophic AGW, runaway global warming nonsense.”
If we double the CO2 concentration in the 21 century, there’s a 5% chance that initial impacts may be mild, then the impacts will grow in magnitude. There’s a 90% chance that the impact will be a severe economic nuisance. There’s a 5% chance that humans may become extinct.
“No graphs were manipulated, their provenance is there to be checked. That is sheer desperation. The graph showing tens of degrees T fluctuation was from the Alley et al. 1993 peer reviewed paper.”
A temperature graph whose y-axis scale is adjusted from 0 deg to past the boiling point of water shows an apparent straight horizontal line. Its a useless tool to discern T variations. I’m not sure why David Lappin altered the x-axis of the Greenland ice core data. But the y-axis doesn’t show tens of degree fluctuations. It doesn’t take a lot of degrees to make the planet devoid of life. The Younger Dryas was quite an abrupt regional cooling however, but even this event had an explainable cause.
I think Dbstealey’s speculations about religious beliefs and cognitive dissonance is not germane to the paleoclimate data and the lessons we can derive from it. So I can’t comment on them.
hanzo says:
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a fast temp rise (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
The challenge was met. And of course, CO2 goes into the oceans. It also outgases, depending on the partial pressure, so the second part of hanzo’s challenge is a given. At any one time and depending on location, CO2 is either entering or leaving the oceans. I have shown exactly what I was challenged to show, and I am waiting for hanzo to eat his hat. He never will, though, for the reasons given.
Next, hanzo says:
As far back as 10,000 years BP…
Convenient, eh? My link showed 11,000 ybp, so naturally hanzo gives a cutoff of 10,000 ybp.
Next, hanzo preposterously asserts that human acvtivity can cause another Ice Age…
…for reasons associated with AGW.
That is beyond ridiculous. First, the alarmists said “runaway global warming”. Then it was “climate change”. And now, it’s “human emissions can cause an Ice Age”. Got all the bases covered, don’t you? Constantly moving the goal posts lets you do that. But it is not honestl. When your ‘explanation’ covers every possibility, it is a nonsense explanation.
hanzo says:
These days humans are the culprit…
“These days”? hanzo is sounding more and more the fool. The “culprit”?? There is no testable, measurable scientific evidence showing any global harm due to human CO2 emissions. None at all. The only evidence we can measure shows that human emissions are greening the planet. The biosphere is blooming due to the added CO2. Only the deranged mind of a lunatic would label humans the “culprit”. Human activity is greening the planet. There is no measurable harm, therefore the added CO2 is “harmless”.
Next, hanzo asserts:
Any strong short term natural or unnatural perturbation (GHG flux, disruption of ocean circulation due to influx of fresh water from melting ice) will destabilize the climate.
Not “may”; hanzo asserts “will” destabilize the climate. But there is zero evidence of that happening. It is a baseless assertion made by a religious eco-nut, who feeds off the taxpaying public. In order to generate more funding, hanzo [I really doubt that moniker] attempts to scare the public. Too bad for ‘hanzo’: the public is coming around to the view of scientific skeptics. Read the comments under any national publication running a global warming article. Skeptics outnumber alarmists by about 10 – 1.
Next, hanzo says:
There’s a 90% chance that the impact will be a severe economic nuisance. There’s a 5% chance that humans may become extinct.
From a rise in CO2 of one or two parts per 10,000?? As if. That is just another lunatic assertion. The planet has been ≈10º warmer in the past — during times when the biosphere thrived with life and diversity. Warm is life; cold kills.
Finally hanzo says:
I think Dbstealey’s speculations about religious beliefs and cognitive dissonance is not germane…
It is specifically germane to hanzo’s nonsense. How else to explain it? This will show folks what we’re dealing with:
hanzo is a religious global warming fanatic. He uses a thin veneer of easily debunked pseudo-science to cover up his religious beliefs. Nothing he posts survives the mildest scrutiny. Fortunately, the world is marginalizing people like ‘hanzo’. That is entirely a good thing. We certainly do not need crazies influencing policy. They have done too much damage already.
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a FAST TEMP RISE (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?u=http%3a%2f%2fdiggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com%2f2010%2f12%2f3500years.png&ehk=LEZpnhxIWJCxPpmrdmW3jg&w=320&h=214&c=7&rs=1&p=0&pid=1.7
Although Dbstealey posted about an anomalous rapid temperature DECLINE (Younger Dryas stadial), it inspired me to review all the rapid warming events over the last paleo temp and CO2 record over the last 420,000 years (EPICA, Vostok).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
While I didn’t see any fast warming without ocean CO2 out gassing, I did note that fast warming episodes are extremely rare (about 6) going back 420,000 years
This following graph gives a nice long term perspective.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
The take home lesson is that the current rapid temperature rise is anomalous because its 1) very rare and 2) all of the known natural forcings in the past are not occurring now. That’s why it’s anomalous. The CO2 is not coming from the oceans this time. We are artificially recreating an atmospheric GHG composition that was associated with low ice cover and high sea levels. Yes, we are now inadvertently terraforming the planet.
http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Announcements/gslprojection
Science has now given us an early warming allowing us time to prepare our coastal infrastructure. Because the climate has not yet reached equilibrium, there is a certain amount of damage done with respect to sea level. Let’s at least adapt to that.
“Hanzo” says:
The challenge for Dbstealey was to provide an example of natural variability showing a FAST TEMP RISE (>0.5 deg C) within a century while CO2 is going INTO the oceans.
Which I showed, repeatedly. That indicates that ‘hanzo’ is not only a welcher who will not eat his hat as repeatedly promised. After posting a peer reviewed chart showing that global T has fluctuated by TENS of degrees in a decade, I expected hanzo to ignore like he usually does when set straight, and moveon. Instead, he is digging his hole deeper.
Next, the first two charts posted are far too large a time scale to see decadal fluctuations, so it is meaningless here [“While I didn’t see any fast warming…”]. You cannot see one single decade in either chart.
And: I did note that fast warming episodes are extremely rare…
Therefore, fast warming happens. Sorry about your argument, you just deconstructed it yourself. Fast global warming happens. Naturally. Just like now.
The next chart that ‘hanzo’ posted shows clearly that the planet has usually been warmer than it is now. Another own-goal. The charts I post support my argument. Hanzo’s don’t support his argument, they are just noise.
Next, hanzo wrongly asserts:
…the current rapid temperature rise is anomalous because its 1) very rare…
It is rare but it happens. Naturally. Just like it is happening now — naturally. [See Occam’s Razor and the climate Null Hypothesis.]
2) all of the known natural forcings in the past are not occurring now.
How could you possibly know that? That is just one more of your baseless assertions. It is based on confirmation bias, and as such that argument fails. It is self-serving nonsense.
Finally:
Science has now given us an early warming allowing us time to prepare our coastal infrastructure.
That is no different than Chicken Little clucking about the sky falling.
Because the climate has not yet reached equilibrium, there is a certain amount of damage done with respect to sea level.
1) The climate is never in equilibrium [cf: Lindzen]. And:
2) The sea level is naturally rising at the same rate it has since the LIA. There is no acceleration, as was incessantly predicted by the alarmist cult. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening.
Not one argument that ‘hanzo’ has made here holds water. They all fail the common sense test, which is to be expected when one’s belief is based on runaway global warming and climate catastrophe predictions. This sockpuppet’s arguments are based on confirmation bias, not on science. That is why they fail.