Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts:
The comment referred to in the title is the following by Kevin Trenberth regarding heat in the deep oceans:
“The centre of action is the Pacific Ocean but the main places where heat goes deep into the ocean are the Atlantic and Southern Oceans rather than the Pacific,”
The following equation demonstrates how the temperature change of an object relates to the number of joules applied to the object versus the mass and specific heat capacity of the object. The equation is H = mcdt where H is the energy in joules; m is the mass in kilograms; c is the specific heat capacity in joules/(kilogram x C); and dt is the change in temperature in C.
Assume we have a 4.0 kilogram shot put made of iron and a 4.0 gram marble made of the same iron, illustrated by the image above. Now let us assume we apply the same quantity of heat to each. In this case, H will be the same and c will also be the same. The same amount of heat that will raise the temperature of the 4.0 kilogram shot put by 1.0 C, while it will raise the temperature of the 4.0 gram marble by 1000 C.
What would happen in a closed system if just the shot put was raised by 1.0 C and it then touched the marble? Answer: The marble would go up in temperature by 1.0 C and the affect on the shot put would not be measurable.
What would happen in a closed system if just the marble was raised by 1000 C and it then touched the shot put, once equilibrium was reached? Answer: The shot put would go up in temperature by 1.0 C and the marble would go down by 999 C ignoring significant digits for now.
Now we will apply the above equation to Earth’s air. The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^18 kg. We will assume the specific heat capacity of air is 1000 J/(kg C). Now, we will calculate how much heat it would take to raise the temperature of the air by 1.0 C. H = mcdt = 5.1 x 10^18 kg x 1000 J/(kg C) x 1.0 C = 5.1 x 10^21 J.
Now we will apply the above equation to Earth’s oceans. The total mean mass of the oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg. We will assume the specific heat capacity of the oceans is 4000 J/(kg C). Now, we will calculate how much heat it would take to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1.0 C. H = mcdt = 1.4 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/(kg C) x 1.0 C = 5.6 x 10^24 J.
Keeping the ratios simple, we see it takes about 1000 times as much energy to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1.0 C than to raise the temperature of the air by 1.0 C.
What would happen to Earth’s air temperature if we warmed Earth’s oceans 1.0 C? Answer: The air temperature could stay the same (See next paragraph.) or it could go up by 1.0 C at the most.
At the present time, the deep oceans are at about 3 C. Let us just for discussion sake assume it warmed by 0.1 C in 60 years. And let us further assume the average air temperature is 14 C. That would mean the deep oceans need to warm by about 10 C before they start affecting the air temperature. At the rate of 0.1 C in 60 years, it would take 6000 years for the oceans to warm by 10 C.
And what would happen if we were to raise the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere by 10.0 C? Answer: The oceans would act as a huge heat sink and would warm by 0.010 C once equilibrium was reached. Of course, this may takes decades or centuries. However the greater the difference in temperature, the faster the hotter object loses heat.
I am fully aware of the fact that I am making many assumptions here. For example, I am assuming the average human emissions of CO2 over the next 6000 years will the same as for the last 60 years. As a result, rising temperatures in the oceans could accelerate if it were not for the logarithmic affect of additional CO2. This also assumes that there will be enough fossil fuels to last that long.
But regardless of any other unstated assumptions you may find fault with which could push things in either direction, I believe it is clear that my grandchildren (two so far) and the grandchildren of James Hansen will not be negatively affected by heat going into the deep oceans:
“The title of the book, Storms of My Grandchildren, refers to the ferocious and stormy weather events that will occur next generation if fossil fuel use continues in the way it has.”
In the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on some data sets. At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how January of 2015 compares with 2014 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2014 also happens to be the warmest year. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative on at least one calculation. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. Note that WFT has not updated Hadcrut4 since July and it is only Hadcrut4.2 that is shown.
3. For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since February 2009 or an even 6 years. (goes to January using version 5.6 and based on Walter Dnes’ calculation.)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 18 years, 2 months (goes to January).
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.
The actual numbers are meaningless since the two slopes are essentially zero. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 18 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on the two sets.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 14 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
Dr. Ross McKitrick has also commented on these parts and has slightly different numbers for the three data sets that he analyzed. I will also give his times.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH: Since July 1996: CI from -0.019 to 2.225
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 16 years on UAH.)
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.000 to 1.753
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 26 years on RSS.)
For Hadcrut4.3: Since June 1997: CI from -0.015 to 1.132
(Dr. McKitrick said the warming was not significant for 19 years on Hadcrut4.2 going to April. Hadcrut4.3 would be slightly shorter however I do not know what difference it would make to the nearest year.)
For Hadsst3: Since April 1995: CI from -0.006 to 1.710
For GISS: Since August 2000: CI from -0.007 to 1.412
Note that all of the above times, regardless of the source, with the exception of GISS are larger than 15 years which NOAA deemed necessary to “create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.
Section 3
This section shows data about January 2015 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 14ra: This is the final ranking for 2014 on each data set.
2. 14a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2014.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2014 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0. Periods of under a year are not counted and are shown as “0”.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 8. Depending on when the update was last done, the months may be off by one month.
10. McK: These are Dr. Ross McKitrick’s number of years for three of the data sets.
11. Jan: This is the January 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.
12. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2015 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 5 minutes into a game.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.14ra | 3rd | 6th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
| 2.14a | 0.27 | 0.255 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.68 |
| 3.year | 1998 | 1998 | 2014 | 2014 | 2014 |
| 4.ano | 0.42 | 0.55 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.68 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Aug14 | Jan07 |
| 6.ano | 0.663 | 0.857 | 0.835 | 0.644 | 0.93 |
| 7.y/m | 6/0 | 18/2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8.sig | Jul96 | Dec92 | Jun97 | Apr95 | Aug00 |
| 9.sy/m | 18/7 | 22/2 | 17/7 | 19/10 | 14/6 |
| 10.McK | 16 | 26 | 19 | ||
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 11.Jan | 0.351 | 0.367 | 0.686 | 0.440 | 0.75 |
| 12.rnk | 3rd | 3rd | 1st | 2nd | 1st |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 5.6 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.5 however this version was last updated for December 2014 and it looks like it will no longer be given.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.6.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.3.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2014 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that Hadcrut4 is the old version that has been discontinued. WFT does not show Hadcrut4.3 yet. As well, only UAH version 5.5 is shown which stopped in December. WFT does not show version 5.6 yet.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2014. This makes it easy to compare January 2014 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since December, 1996 or 18 years, 2 months. (goes to January)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since December 1992: CI from -0.000 to 1.753.
The RSS anomaly for January 2015 is 0.367. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.255 and it was ranked 6th.
UAH
The slope is flat since February 2009 or an even 6 years according to Walter Dnes. (goes to January using version 5.6)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since July 1996: CI from -0.019 to 2.225. (This is using version 5.6 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH anomaly for January 2015 is 0.351. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.663. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.27 and it was ranked 3rd.
Hadcrut4.3
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1997: CI from -0.015 to 1.132.
The Hadcrut4 anomaly for January 2015 was 0.686. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.835. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.564 and this set a new record.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since April 1995: CI from -0.006 to 1.710.
The Hadsst3 anomaly for January 2015 was 0.440. This would rank 2nd if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 2014 when it reached 0.644. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.479 and this set a new record.
GISS
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since August 2000: CI from -0.007 to 1.412.
The GISS anomaly for January 2015 is 0.75. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.68 and it set a new record.
Conclusion
For all intents and purposes, the deep ocean is an infinite heat sink. And if some of our presumed AGW ends up there, that is good news. Or am I missing something?
About the Author: Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.
Werner
“That would mean the deep oceans need to warm by about 10 C before they start affecting the air temperature.”
The 3 C is average ocean temperature. Heat transfer between ocean and air occurs at sea surface where temperature can range from zero to 30 C seasonally and geographically.
“And what would happen if we were to raise the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere by 10.0 C?”
It’s not physically possible to heat the atmosphere by 10 C without heating the ocean simultaneously. Water absorbs longwave and shortwave IR and light. The atmosphere is largely transparent to light and shortwave IR. The ocean will warm first then transfer the heat to the atmosphere.
I certainly agree there. I was using that as a hypothetical example. However you may recall the meteor that flew over Russia a couple of years ago. Theoretically, we could have a HUGE number in a very short time and it may warm the atmosphere by a larger amount in a short time. But I will admit that is extremely unlikely.
Werner Brozek
March 7, 2015 at 7:41 am .
“However you may recall the meteor that flew over Russia a couple of years ago. Theoretically, we could have a HUGE number in a very short time and it may warm the atmosphere by a larger amount in a short time.”
————-
Yes of course, theoretically we could have a HUGE number in a very short time and a warming of the atmosphere by a large amount in a short time, in such impacts as you describe.
But theoretically the earth system and the atmosphere have evolved for billions of years together, since the moment this planet came to be till now, in a way that if atmosphere fails in it’s duty our planet will not look any different than the Moon.
The atmosphere exist and has evolved to deal with such external and internal impacts, similar to what you consider as above.
Yes, in the case as such, there will be expected havoc and disturbance in atmosphere for yearly or decadal scales, but if considering the atmosphere functioning as sufficient enough, then beyond and further than century period the atmosphere would have dealt with the problem and defaulted any extra energy and warming by throwing it out there from where it came from without allowing to accumulate and interfere with the internal earth system.
That I think is what actually we all underestimate when considering the atmosphere and it’s power and basic functioning.
Cheers
I believe that Le Chatelier’s principle applies on many levels. But do not forget that despite this, we have had ice ages.
Werner Brozek
March 7, 2015 at 1:06 pm
Thank you for all of your replies.
Appreciated a lot.
you say:
“I believe that Le Chatelier’s principle applies on many levels. But do not forget that despite this, we have had ice ages. ”
——————–
Yes of course, we have had ice ages, but when considering the numbers and the natural climatic swings, we do not have HUGE numbers in a very short time, but rather SMALL numbers in a very long time…:-)
thank you
cheers
Water is 1,000 times more dense than air. If the meteor hits the ocean, which is 70% of earth’s surface, more heat due to friction and impact will go to the ocean than atmosphere. Earth’s surface receives 1.2 x 10^17 joules of solar energy every second. The Russian meteor released energy equivalent to 500 kilotons of TNT or 2 x 10^15 joules. This is equal to 0.02 second worth of solar energy. The heating effect of meteors is negligible. If a giant meteor stirs up enough dust upon impact on land, it might trigger global cooling from aerosols in the atmosphere.
Thank you! I should have thought of something better if such a thing exists.
Werner Brozek
Its so simple!
Thanks for so clearly summarizing basic thermal physics that I also learned in high school.
Beware the chick crying “The SKY is falling” after a leaf fell on her head!
C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Here is the modern version of “The sky is falling.”
McCarthy said the overall goal was to save the planet from rising sea levels, superstorms, and other climate-change catastrophes.
“Climate change is real. It is happening. It is a threat. Humans are causing the majority of that threat … the impacts are already being felt,” she said. “Climate change is not a religion. It is not a belief system. It’s a science fact. And our challenge is to move forward with the actions we need to protect future generations.”
See:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/head-of-the-epa-can-t-tell-sen-jeff-sessions-if-its-climate-models-are-correct.html
I have not seen much discussion of the fact that the extra solar heat from strong solar cycles was also buried in the ocean from approx 1945 to 1975 since the atmosphere failed to warm at that time also. In spite of Co2 rising rapidly after the post WW2 industrial buildup the cool ocean cycles overcame both solar and Co2 warming effects. As it will when the AMO cool cycle kicks in around 2020 along with the present cool PDO cycle . (currently in a temporary warm spike). When the PDO switched to warm cycle around the late 70’s it released the stored solar energy on top of 30 more years of strong solar cycles. Also cleaner skies from the introduction of the catalytic converter on cars in 1975 and the 80% collapse of the Soviet union industrial sector let the sun in too. Co2 being a minor factor compared to the aerosol pollution reduction. Now we see the buildup of sulfur dioxide again form Asia that could tip the balance to cool even more combined with possible increased volcanic activity. Perhaps Co2 will be considered a blessing someday if the planet cools since food production will suffer. Better models are needed that are not programmed by politicians. So if reducing pollution creates global warming you could say that it was partially man made warming along with a slight Co2 contribution of .2 Watts per sq meter per decade. You can see the extra warming on NASA temp maps around heavily polluted areas like Los Angeles that have since cleaned up a lot thanks to the catalytic converter. The best climate model is Mother nature which has been showing us for many years what affects the climate if people could only see through the politics. Even Prime minister Cameron has been taken in. One of my best friends who I have finally convinced to be a climate skeptic was just invited to have tea with him today so I am anxious to hear how that went.
Keep us posted. In the end, it depends on whose facts and which people he decides to believe. If a seed of doubt is planted, that would be a good start.
Apparently my friend wrote to Cameron about widening the TV debates from one to 3 and was invited to meet with him about it. I have advised him as a new skeptic not to bring up climate change on the air ( he is a part time TV commentator) as he has not put in the thousands of hours that some like myself have. It took years of information to turn him around from being a global warming believer. It is such a hot button issue that one asks for instant abuse and better be prepared. It is a shame that such an important issue is so politicized. The world economy could be affected by the future climate and the funds spent on it that could be in the wrong direction. I hear Europe spends 20% of their trillion Euro budget on it which is hard to believe but might explain some of the struggles there. For every green job some countries lost 4 others. Spain”s unemployment is massive after a huge green expansion. And our government wants to go down the same road. Perhaps we should be building ice breakers and snow plows if Asia keeps up the pollution and sunspots remain low. Not to mention the coming cool ocean cycles of course.
Europe is now patching the economic problem with money printing that failed to reach main street here and mostly benefited the upper echelons. Nobody seems to learn from history. Apparently the Fed here could have sent every family a check for $50,000 to every family instead of printing trillions of dollars. Not that I would advocate that much stimulus. A much smaller amount might have done the trick to boost the economy but I am on to economics now, another favorite subject.
Thank you. I assume no debates are against Lord Monckton on global warming.
I don’t think Cameron would ever dare to debate Lord Monckton and who knows if Cameron really believes in the Co2 scare. So many politicians are pandering to the warming believers to retain their vote and sometimes have no choice if they want to win elections. Until people are directly affected by the carbon tax like in Australia they will not wake up. Even people like Mitt Romney and Gov Christie have apparently caved in to the pressure. Meanwhile 40,000 people died in the cold weather this year in England and many more in Europe perhaps because they cannot afford the expensive energy costs on a limited pension. It is a choice of food or heat. Bjorn Lomberg has said that 15 million people have died in Europe this way in the last 12 years or so but this is hard to believe?
I can believe it. On the order of 10 million people die in Europe per year, so why not 15 million out of around 120 million killed by the Carbonari?
Catherine, I would be surprised if anyone checks for a response more than 24 hours after the initial comment.
[The mods recommend using the person’s full name – but exactly as it is written in their user_id, since it is hard to know how a person will search for replies to their comments. here, for example, you used Catherine, not Catherine Ronconi
.mod]
There is some blatant misuse of statistics here. If the 95% confidence levels over a certain period are e.g. -0.000 to 1.753, this does not mean it is 95% certain that no warming has occurred during that period. If anything, these numbers show that it is very likely that warming has occurred. So basically this post is refuting the argument that there has been ‘no warming for 18 years’. The numbers here show there has been!
The numbers you quote are for RSS. And they prove that there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT warming since December 1992. That is over 22 years of not enough warming that the climate people have determined is necessary to be sure that warming has actually taken place considering all uncertainties in measurement. If you are not happy with this 95% number, then you need to take it up with Phil Jones.
As for RSS again, with the February numbers, the slope is slightly negative since December 1996 which is 18 years and 3 months of NO WARMING at all.
RSS is the only dataset that shows no warming trend since 1997, all others (Berkely, NOAA, HADCRUT4 etc.) do show a warming trend. So your capitalized ‘NO WARMING’ is not so obvious as you make it
If anything the numbers in the article above actually show that the statistical evidence for warming is a lot stronger than for stabilization, let alone cooling..
Oh and on top of that, ocean water measurements show definite warming over the same period. So all in all the claim that there has been NO WARMING for one or two decades is just not supported by measurements.
I did find it rather odd that you quoted the RSS number since you are correct that only RSS shows no warming since 1997.
But of the other 4, only GISS has no statistically significant warming for less than 15 years.
Here is what was said in a different document:
PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
As for the ocean, even if we agree the whole ocean warmed by 0.1 C in 60 years, it is no big deal. That was the whole point of my article.
Aran,
Global warming has stopped. You don’t need error bars to see that [and note that this is not satellite data; if we use RSS, it’s even worse for the alarmist clique].
dbstealey,
There is a vast amount of observational evidence that disagrees with your claim. Surface temperatures are warming at a slower pace and heat uptake in the oceans has increased unabatedly.
Aran,
So, I provided verifiable, testable observations, and you provide… your assertion.
Give it up, pal. Obsevations trump baseless assertions every time.
Global warming has stopped, and all your self-serving assertions mean nothing. Go argue with the IPCC, they agree with scientific skeptics on this one.
dbstealey, I greatly appreciate your input, however WFT has been extremely lax in making changes so only Hadcrut4.2 is given which stopped in July. As well, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 are no longer being given, so their declining slopes are no longer true as they have not been updated. Even UAH, version 5.6 is not shown, but only 5.5 is shown and that stopped in December.
Unfortunately, only RSS is still valid to show a pause or decline on WFT, depending on your time period.
Walter Dnes wrote to WFT about this but to no avail so far.
I just picked those numbers as one example. Could have picked any.
Note that the article is relatively old (2008) and as for the quote, they say exactly the same. Zero trends are ruled out at 95% confidence level. I.e. the NO WARMING claim is not supported.
You have this wrong. See row 9 from the table. Four out of the five data sets are above 15 years indicating we cannot be sure enough there is no warming at all for the required time period to validate the models. So 4 out of 5 do support the no warming claim.
And yes, 2008 is old. And the goal posts have been moved. As a result, Santer talks about 17 years for certain things now.
One thing is very clear. The models are running way too hot. There is no catastrophic warming.
No. What the numbers in row 9 mean represent are the time periods over which there has been a 95% confidence interval that included 0 as a trend. As your numbers show, all these confidence intervals range from minus a very small value, say -0.010 to something like 1.5. This basically means that it is 95% certain that the trend is within those boundaries. Because almost the entire confidence interval is positive this still means that a warming trend is very likely. No longer 95% but something like 94.9%. This is something entirely different from supporting the no warming claim. With these intervals, no warming is still way less likely than some warming.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
“B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
What you say is very reasonable, but as Phil Jones says above, statistical significance has a certain meaning in climate science. I did not make the rules.
Think of a class test with 100 questions where the teacher decides you need a 50% to pass. If you get 49%, you fail.
Now if you think getting a -0.001 is cutting it too fine, something along the lines of getting 49.9% on a test and rounding it to 50%, that is another matter. But with these statistics, adding a month to a -0.001 month would make the negative number larger, so little is changed.
Note that Dr. McKitrick has slightly different times than Nick Stokes. The reasons why are above my head.
Keep in mind that only the satellites show “no warming” for more than a year. But all show no “no statistically-significant global warming” for over 14 years.
Aran,
Werner is correct.
Werner, your post basically reiterates my claim. Saying there is no statistically significant warming is something completely different from supporting no warming.
Again, all these numbers say is that the no warming claim cannot be definitely excluded. Nevertheless the numbers do show that a warming trend is much more likely than no warming.
If I make a claim that I cannot be certain the sun will rise tomorrow, this is not the same as a claim in support of the sun not rising tomorrow, it just leaves the option open. This is basically the same. We cannot be 95% certain there has been a warming trend, but that does not make a no warming trend a likely option. The numbers leave the no warming option open, but only extremely marginally.
dbstealey,
No he is not.
@ur momisugly Werner and dbstealy, you are applying a common misuse of statistics: proof of the null hypothesis.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics#Proof_of_the_null_hypothesis
Here’s the description:
“In a statistical test, the null hypothesis (H_0) is considered valid until enough data proves it wrong. Then H_0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H_A) is considered to be proven as correct. By chance this can happen, although H_0 is true, with a probability denoted alpha, the significance level. This can be compared to the judicial process, where the accused is considered innocent (H_0) until proven guilty (H_A) beyond reasonable doubt (alpha).
But if data does not give us enough proof to reject that H_0, this does not automatically prove that H_0 is correct. If, for example, a tobacco producer wishes to demonstrate that its products are safe, it can easily conduct a test with a small sample of smokers versus a small sample of non-smokers. It is unlikely that any of them will develop lung cancer (and even if they do, the difference between the groups has to be very big in order to reject H_0). Therefore it is likely—even when smoking is dangerous—that our test will not reject H_0. If H_0 is accepted, it does not automatically follow that smoking is proven harmless. The test has insufficient power to reject H_0, so the test is useless and the value of the “proof” of H_0 is also null.”
I.e. there not being enough evidence for warming (H_A) does not give any credibility to no warming (H_0).
Werner, you are correct again.
You’ve identified the reason that the temperature record is divided into tenths and hundredths of a degree, instead of showing a larger, more reasonable x-axis.
The error bars in those charts normally exceed a few hundredths of a degree — and tenths of a degree, for that matter. Aside from the problem of “adjusting” past temperatures [almost always showing scarier warming], there is the problem of trying to convince the public that a tiny, natural fluctuation represents man-made global warming.
That is plainly dishonest. “No statistically-significant global warming” means exactly what it says: There has been NO global warming. Period.
Next, satellites provide the most accurate temperature record we have, because they effectively take a snapshot of the entire globe [almost all of it, anyway], while other temp records are limited to land only, and similar problems.
If there was unambiguous global warming, scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] would alter their views to take new facts into account. That is the difference between skeptics, and climate alarmists: the alarmists try to make reality bend to their models, instead of vice-versa.
Pretty soon it will be twenty years with no global warming. What excuses will the alarmist crowd fabricate to explain that? If they were as honest as skeptics, they would simply admit that their original premise was wrong, and try to understand why. But scientific veracity is not in them as a group. Too much easy money has corrupted too many of them, I think.
Do you mean besides moving the goal posts?
I read that 15 years of no warming is very rare, but now that we have had that, there is a 25% chance it could go to 20 years. That actually does make some sense! It is hard to get 15 heads in a row, but once you have that, it is much easier to get 5 more heads in a row. And once we have 19 heads in a row, there is a 50% chance of getting 20 heads in a row.
“That is plainly dishonest. “No statistically-significant global warming” means exactly what it says: There has been NO global warming. Period.”
This is incorrect. You are applying a statistical fallacy. See my reply above.
When I say “no warming”, I mean the slope is basically 0 for the indicated period of time. I fully realize that this means there is a 50% chance of warming and a 50% chance of cooling.
When I say no “statistically significant warming” I mean that even though the slope is positive, we cannot be 95% sure warming is taking place.
See an earlier post of mine here that explains exactly what I mean:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/
No. Wrong again. The slope is not basically 0, this can be seen directly from the confidence limits you give. Also the 50%’s are not correct. No idea where you got them from.
You are correct that the data show we cannot be 95% sure of warming over that particular period, the value will be marginally below 95%.
In his last post, Lord Monckton says:
So he defines no global warming the same way I do, namely a slope of 0. If you or anyone else does not agree with this definition, that is your prerogative. But at least you know what I mean by “no warming”. As for the 50%, if you go to http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
you will see that when a slope is zero, there is a chance that the real value at the 95% point to be the same amount above the zero line as below. It is basically a matter of definition that assuming a normal distribution, the chances are 50% for higher and 50% for lower. What else could it be?
P.S. I just gave CL for the 95%, not the 50%.
For RSS this is true, for all the other datasets it is not. So claiming no global warming for 18 years is picking the one dataset that supports your claim and ignoring all the others. Your claim that 4 out of the 5 datasets you considered support the no warming theory is false. Only one does and only for a relatively short period.
There is simply no evidence in the data for a pause in warming. It does appear the rise of surface temperatures has slowed down (not stopped) recently, but the amount of heat stored in the ocean has increased, so the warming continues nonetheless. I realise you argue that ocean heating is not a big deal, but it is an indicator that the warming we have seen over the last decades has not slowed down recently.
True, only the satellites show no warming. One for about 18 years and the other for about 6 years. And 4 out of the 5 show no statistically significant warming for over 15 years.
[And 4 of the 5 surface temperature sets, correct? .mod]
Note also that the RSS dataset has been drifting away from the other datasets over the same period you’re addressing. See this post from a UAH scientist about this discrepancy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
Basically the cooling in RSS appears to be systematic and should be treated with caution.
Aran says:
For RSS this is true, for all the other datasets it is not.
Wrong again. Where do you get your misinformation?? How many datasets do you need?
Global warming has stopped. Deal with reality, if possible.
You’ve been spending way too much time at the pseudo-science blog SkS. Stick around here, and learn something. Werner Brozek knows a lot more than you do; you should take this opportunity to learn someting — if SkS han’t already colonized your mind with their anti-science nonsense.
Sorry! I meant 4 of the 5 that I am talking about, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4 and Hadsst3. The one that is under 15 years is GISS.
On the other hand, version 6, when it finally comes, should bring us closer to RSS.
I guess we will just have to wait and see.
dbstealey
I get my ‘misinformation’ from this site. It is written in the article above that 3 of the 5 datasets show “The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.” the UAH shows a flat slope for 6 years, which is peanuts. You can find flat slopes of that duration at many places throughout the dataset, just as you can find slopes of 6 years that are steeper than the predicted warming.
Other than that I get my information from here:
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
The discussion was about the claim of zero warming since 1997 (conveniently chosen year by Lord Monckton btw) and only RSS shows a zero trend for that period. All others are positive.
I don’t know what SkS is so I can’t comment on that. I am a bit worried about the scientific content here sometimes. I have seen errors in statistical inference (including by you and Werner), fallacies in argumentation and there is a lot of cherry-picking going on.
About reality: there is simply no statistically sound evidence for a stop in the total warming of the planet. Unless you know something I don’t, in which case please share. I am eager to learn.
[Monckton’s linear analysis does NOT “select” 1996-1997 as a starting year. It BEGINS at today’s date, just like every one of his series on this subject, then goes back as far a straight line fit extends. Today, that year (as it has been for a while) is 1996-1997 timeframe. NOTHING is “conveniently selected”. .mod]
As for the 4 of the 5 temperature sets: I have already explained why ‘no statistically significant warming’ is something completely different from ‘no warming’.
@mod: I was referring to Lord Monckton’s quote in the post from Werner at March 10, 2015 at 7:27 pm
Furthermore I would argue that ‘going back as far a straight line fit extends’ is a textbook example of convenient selection. He uses linear regression the find the best data point to fit his theory.
I could use the exact same kind of reasoning to claim that even the RSS data has shown an increase in temperature ever since the beginning of their measurements until today. I.e. warming for a whopping 35 years! Just simply going back as far as a rising line fit extends. Same technique.
NOAA says this:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
So please tell me exactly how you would go about finding out how to tell if this threshold has been crossed? With “no warming” for over 18 years, it is obvious that the period of “no statistically significant warming” is several years more, at least on RSS.
Gavin Schmidt has said that we will have another 5 to 10 years without warming but then the .extra .2 watts per sq meter co2 effect will kick in and overcome the natural cooling factors to resume the warming. I am not sure how he figures this will happen because both ocean cycles will be in cool mode by then and continue for quite some time. Sunspots are low for now of course and who can predict volcanic activity at that time or what Asia will do about cooling sulfate aerosol emissions. It is hard to make short term predictions of ten years let alone 50 yrs. How can anybody predict that far out?
I do not see how they can. But it gives political leaders a reason to act now.
Aside from Aran’s assertions, I want to poinbt out that the 1/10th and 1/100th of a degree division are not credible. They are used only because some of them can show a slight warming trend [although the most accurate — satellite data — shows global cooling].
The alarmist crowd just loves those tiny divisions. But they are meaningless. If global warming was happening like the alarmist crowd wants people to believe, then it would be very clear in the temperature record. As we know, it isn’t clear at all. That’s because there is no global warming.
Aran doesn’t have what it takes to be a scientific skeptic. He has preconceived, cherry-picked notions, and therefore he searches for factiods to support his belief — instead of being skeptical like any honest scientist.
The fact is that global temperatures have been amazingly flat for the past century and a half. Only in the addled minds of climate alarmists is there a problem.
There is no problem. Humanity and the biosphere is very fortunate to be living through a true “Goldilocks” climate. The alarmist contingent only sees the glass as half empty, never half full, based on their religious beliefs. But based on reality, there is no problem at all:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
Aside from the ad hominems, your temperature graphs are a farce. You can make any change disappear by blowing up the y axis far enough. I actually came to this blog with an open mind, but it is these kinds of mistakes that make me want to leave. You accuse me of cherry-picking while you do so yourself in your first paragraph. You make inferences based on statistical fallacies. I came here looking for serious opposition to the currently widely accepted theories on climate change. I have received lots of and name-calling but I have not let that deter me. I’m beginning to doubt whether it is worth the effort to filter through all this hostility and posts that do not follow very basic scientific principles to find some actual serious and scientifically valid opposition.
Aran says:
You can make any change disappear by blowing up the y axis far enough.
Likewise, you can make any tiny, insignificant, and statistically meaningless fluctuations appear to mean something, when they don’t. As I wrote above:
…the 1/10th and 1/100th of a degree divisions are not credible. They are used only because some of them can show a slight warming trend [although the most accurate — satellite data — shows global cooling.
Despite decades of predictions by the alarmist crowd confidently stating that global warming would continue, and likely accelerate, it turns out that they were wrong. All of them. Even the IPCC admits that now [although they call it a “pause”].
When one side in a debate is 100.0% WRONG in every one of their scary predictions, honest scientists will admit that something was wrong with their basic premise. They will step back, and try to understand how and why they got it so wrong.
But the alarmist crowd doesn’t do that. Instead, they carefully select whatever factoids they can find that support their belief system — without ever admitting what everyone here knows, whether they will admit it or not: the man-made global warming conjecture was flat wrong.
So, why will you not admit that? More to the point: what would it take for you to admit that you were wrong from the get-go? It’s been eighteen years [or fifteen years, or ten years, depending on the database used] with NO global warming. Even über-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones admits that. In other words, it has been many, many years without the predicted global warming, even as CO2 levels have steadily increased.
What would it take for you to admit you were wrong? Twenty years without global warming? Arctic ice rising to previous levels? Or maybe a new great stadial, where glaciers cover Chicago a mile deep again? Really, what would it take? Pick a point. Because most everyone already knows you’re on the wrong track now. Constantly moving the goal posts back doesn’t help your credibility. Your conjecture was wrong, that’s all there is to it. You should be trying to figure out why, instead of always backing and filling.
Something was seriously wrong with your original premise. It is the job of skeptics to refute conjectures if possible, and the skeptic crowd has done that extremely well. There is nothing left of the original MMGW conjecture. In the event, it was flat wrong. You should be very happy about that — unless you are one of those feeding at the taxpayer trough. Then it would make sense to claim that global warming is chugging along as always.
It’s not. Global warming has stopped, despite incessant predictions to the contrary. Why won’t you admit it?
You are pretending that I made those predictions, which I did not. But I will answer your question anyway. I will admit that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is false if a) there is strong statistical evidence to disprove it or b) if there is another testable theory, based on sound scientific ideas that is able to explain observations better. At the moment it is the best we have, as far as I have seen. It is definitely not perfect.
As for a) the current pause or whatever you want to call it is by no means statistically significant. This could be due simply due to the fact that it has been too short. I know 18 years sounds long, but generally in climatology 30 years is the typical minimum timeframe in which effects have to observed. Before you go into cherry-picking accusations, this period is used in any field of climatology, so not only climate change and was already in use before the whole pause or whatever or ever, so Iḿ not trying to move the goal posts. Actually this period is one of the reasons that the first serious debates regarding climate change only started by the end of the 80s/early 90s, even though the signal was visible way before. Climate is measured over long periods.
FYI:
I have never claimed that the current models of global warming are perfect. I know very well that there are many unknowns and there is definitely room for improvement of our understanding. As a matter of fact I doubt whether something as complex as climate can even be modeled at all. Also I have admitted before that over the last period surface temperature has risen at a slower place, if at all. This is something that is not understood and has to be investigated. Note that it might still be a statistical fluctuation. Even 18 years is not that long, considering there have been several periods in the past where warming has been stagnant for over a decade, nevertheless the long term trend is still in line with anthropogenic global warming.
Note again that you keep on making the same mistake. 18 years of no statistically significant global warming is something completely different from no global warming.
Global temperatures.
One reason the climate debate is so acrimonious is that our government chooses to use the low tech thermometer database (red) that has many alterations. Unlike the high tech satellite data base (green) showing .2 deg C above normal. (1/5 deg C) With such a wide divergence in data how can anyone come to agreement? And yet NCEP which is part of our government weather service seems to disagree with GISS on their graphs too? It is hard for me to see 2014 as the warmest year which was mostly a warm spike in Pacific ocean temps. Why are they combining the ocean temps with land temps since the ocean Enso is so variable?
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
I notice that this graph says it is NCEP government data but it is from Weatherbell which is associated with Joe Bastardi, a well known skeptic. Is this graph accepted by both sides of the debate since it shows the last 5 year average anomaly as .067 deg C, barely above zero? http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
I got “access forbidden” for this. However I do know that many believe that GISS continually makes adjustments to make the past cooler and the present warmer.
It appears that NCEP models predict global cooling in the yellow graph on page 2202 of this paper. I could not post the image of the graph for some reason. I am not a conspiracy buff but it seems strange that NOAA does not want to show their data in a global graph even though they are part of NOAA. http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wd51hd/vddoolpubs/2014_2185-2208_JClimate27_CFSv2.pdf
It sure looks that way. Are they being ignored because they do not fit with the present scare?