Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
This is the first part of a two-part series of posts that present chapters from my recently published ebook On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1. The introductory post for the book is here (WattsUpWithThat cross post is here), and the book in pdf format is here (25 MB). Yes, the book is free.
The topic of this post is What is Global Warming? The second post, to be published next week, is What is Climate Change?
1.2 – What is Global Warming?
The term “global warming” has come to mean the warming of our planet Earth (the surface, the lower atmosphere, and the oceans to depth) that has been caused by, and will be further enhanced by, the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. No one bothers calling it man-made global warming or anthropogenic global warming or human-induced global warming anymore. Whenever a news report or article uses the term global warming, everyone now assumes they’re talking about the hypothetical man-made kind of warming.
There are many possible reasons why global warming has occurred over the past few decades, some of which are natural, but the primary focus of research has been on the consequences of increased emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that result from the burning of fossil fuels.
Graphs that show global land plus ocean surfaces warming since pre-industrial times are commonplace. Figure 1.2-1 shows the annual global land+ocean surface temperature anomalies, based on the UKMO HadCRUT4 reconstruction, from its start year in 1850 1880 through to 2014. Based on the linear trend, global surfaces are warming at a not-very-alarming long-term rate of about 0.06 deg C/decade (about 0.10 deg F/ decade)…for a total warming of less than 0.8 deg C (about 1.4 deg F) since 1880.
The linear trend line also helps to illustrate that the warming was not continuous. Initially, there is a period of cooling followed by a period of warming until the mid-1940s. Then the cycle repeats itself with a period of cooling until the mid-1970s, followed by a warming period. Because the rates of warming during the two warming periods are greater than the cooling rates during the two cooling periods, there is a positive warming trend.
That leaves us with a very basic question. Should we expect another multidecadal cooling period, or at least a slowdown lasting for a couple of decades, before another warming period? Rephrased, would we expect the multidecadal (approximately 60-year) cycle to repeat itself?
Many persons believe the cycle will repeat into the future. The climate modelers do not. Their models have been tuned to extend (and amplify) the warming from the more recent higher-than-average warming period out into the future, without accounting for the cyclical nature of global warming. If the cycle continues into the future, then the climate models have simulated too much warming…way too much warming.
THE RATE OF WARMING IS SO SMALL WE HAVE TO BE TOLD GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING. WE CAN’T SENSE IT.
In the Introduction, I noted we have to be told global warming is occurring…that we as individuals would not be able to sense that global surface temperatures have warmed. Daily and seasonal variations in local temperatures are so great that we’d never notice the slight change in global surface temperatures we’ve experienced since the mid-1970s. It’s only about 0.7 deg C or 1.3 deg F (based on the linear trend), and it’s occurred over a 40-year period.
Think about how great the temperature variations are at your home: over the course of every year…and daily. Here are examples from a widely referenced dataset.
In the two graphs in Figure 1.2-2, the increase in annual global surface temperature (red curves) since 1880 (same red curve as in Figure 1.2-1) is compared to daily maximums (orange curves) and minimums (dark green curves) for the Central England Temperature dataset, during that same timeframe. The top graph shows the three datasets in deg C, while the bottom graph shows them in deg F.
The UKMO Central England Temperature (a.k.a. HadCET or simply CET) dataset is the longest continuous temperature record in the world. It is supported by the 1992 Parker et al. paper A new daily Central England Temperature series. As its name suggests, it is not based on a temperature record at one specific location but rather a group of locations in Central England.
Daily Central England maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperature data are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer, specifically the Daily climate indices webpage, starting in 1878.
The minimums of the green curves in Figure 1.2-2 above show the lowest temperatures reached each year, and the maximums are the highest annual temperatures. Obviously, the range in temperatures that Central England sees every year dwarfs the rise in global surface temperatures.
Now let’s consider the daily change in temperature, from minimum to maximum.
Using the Central England Temperature data again for example, we can determine what climate scientists call the diurnal temperature range by subtracting the daily minimum temperatures from the daily maximums. See Figure 1.2-3. The global surface temperature anomalies are also included as a reference. As shown, there can be very large swings in daily temperatures.
As I wrote earlier, because the daily and seasonal variations in temperature where we live are so great, it’s very unlikely that we would be able to sense that global surface temperatures have warmed. We have to be told. I suspect that’s why most people around the world rank global warming low on their list of priorities. See the MyWorld2015.org poll The United Nations Global Survey for a Better World.
Some readers may recall a similar presentation by Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology (emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in one of his many lectures on global warming. Yes, the idea for this topic came from his November 17, 2009 talk at Oberlin College. See the YouTube video here. It’s a wonderful lecture.
BE WARY HOW THE TERM GLOBAL WARMING IS BEING USED
Global warming can mean different things to different people. As a result, we have to be careful about how the term is used. Let’s assume a reporter is interviewing a climate scientist…but unknown to the reporter, the scientist is a skeptic.
If the reporter were to ask: Do you believe in global warming?
And if the scientist answered: Yes. Numerous datasets indicate the Earth has warmed since the start of the 20th Century.
That answer makes the scientist part of the consensus, the groupthink.
And if the reporter were to ask: Do you believe that mankind has contributed to global warming?
Scientist’s answer: Yes. Mankind has contributed to global warming in many ways.
The scientist didn’t specify what those “many ways” were. If the reporter was to stop there, the scientist would be thought to be a part of the groupthink.
But if the reporter asked: Do you believe that mankind is the primary cause of global warming and that future warming will lead to catastrophe?
Suppose now the scientist were to answer: Based on my research and detailed understanding of the data, climate models and their uncertainties, my answer is no.
For that answer, the scientist would likely be branded a heretic.
Different interpretations of the term global warming can also lead to questionable results in polls.
Bottom line: Always be wary of term global warming and how it is being used. Is the author discussing the fact that the surface of the Earth has warmed? Is he or she discussing naturally caused warming or human-induced global warming?
ACCORDING TO A WELL-KNOWN AND WELL-RESPECTED CLIMATE SCIENTIST, “…NO PARTICULAR ABSOLUTE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE PROVIDES A RISK TO SOCIETY…”
Every now and then, during the discussion of a global warming-related topic, a climate scientist—a member of the consensus—will make an amazing statement…or two. Examples can be found in a blog post by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Dr. Schmidt wrote the following in his December 2014 blog post Absolute temperatures and relative anomalies, at RealClimate. (Blog post archived here.) Dr. Schmidt was attempting to downplay the fact that there is a large range (about 3 deg C or about 5.4 deg F) in the absolute global surface temperatures produced by the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, which is roughly 3 times the warming we’ve experienced since pre-industrial times. Dr. Schmidt states, where GMT is global mean temperature (my boldface and my brackets):
Most scientific discussions implicitly assume that these differences [in modeled absolute global surface temperatures] aren’t important i.e. the changes in temperature are robust to errors in the base GMT value, which is true, and perhaps more importantly, are focussed on the change of temperature anyway, since that is what impacts will be tied to. To be clear, no particular absolute global temperature provides a risk to society, it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters.
See, I told you. That paragraph includes two memorable statements.
First: “…it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters”.
Well, we’re “used to” wide variations in surface temperature every day, and “used to” even greater changes each year.
Second: “To be clear, no particular absolute global temperature provides a risk to society…”
I would hazard a guess that many of you are now wondering why politicians around the globe are concerned about global warming. If the absolute global mean temperature today provides no “risk to society”, and if an absolute global mean temperature that’s 2.0 to 4.0 deg C (3.6 to 7.2 deg F) higher than today provides no “risk to society”, then what’s all the hubbub about? Based on Dr. Schmidt’s statement, should the priority then be adaptation to weather and rising sea levels, not reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not being a scientist myself, I was wondering about the following claim about human-induced global warming made by CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller at CNN’s website recently. Could someone please comment on his claim that the warming we have seen in the last 100+ years (0.85 C, 1.5 F) could not have been all natural because it would have taken many thousands of years to happen?:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/world/two-degrees-question-ice-ages/index.html.
From his piece:
“Scientists understand the natural processes behind the previous warm and cold periods that lead to ice ages. They occur in regular patterns called Milankovitch cycles……
….
….
….
These cycles take place on 100,000 year time frames, and the amount of warming we have seen, even though it is “only” about 1.5°F (0.85° C) since 1880, would take many thousands of years to occur if the process were occurring purely naturally. Also, when you plot these orbital cycles out, we should be in a “cooling” phase of the cycle — not warming.”
True or false, and why?
CD153,
From Brandon’s article. He simplifies everything so that the Milankovitch cycle is the control knob for temperature and only natural force that matters. This allows him to claim that it takes 100,000 years for the same amount of natural temperature forcing to accomplish what the increase in CO2 has accomplished in just 125 years or so.
He ignores all the other natural cycles, including oceans,changes in solar output, GCR’s and so on that are not known.
One of his statements near the end is actually quite revealing:
“In fact, humans have pushed the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to levels not seen in millions of years. The last time levels were this high, sea levels were several meters higher and temperatures were several degrees warmer”
If CO2 is as powerful in driving the planets global temperature as he states and he does not mention any other factors or natural cycles other than the Milankovitch cycle, then why aren’t current sea levels several meters higher and temperatures several degrees warmer applying his theory, based on the last time CO2 was at 400 ppm?
There must be additional(more) powerful forces that he doesn’t account for and/or the strength of the correlation with CO2 levels vs temp/sea levels does not match up so this contradicts causation.
CD153 True or false.
Knowledge is power CD153 First start with richard’s link below after that go to the top of the page and hit on the reference pages link. That should keep you in reading material for a bit.
richard November 9, 2015 at 3:16 am
“In 1971, the top climatologists at NCAR and NASA reported that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible, because the CO2 absorption spectra is nearly saturated already”
“Effects of Carbon dioxide and Aerosols on the Climate”
“it is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 ( co2), which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce a surface temp of less than 2K.
even by a factor ten the temp does not exceed 2.5K”
http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf
h/t tony heller
hope you have a comfortable chair
michael
Great link to Science article from back when climatology was actually practiced.
Note that one of the authors was Stephen Schneider, who later joined the politically motivated alarmist camp, first with “Nuclear Winter” in the ’80s, then “catastrophic man-made climate change” in the ’90s.
His role in the astronomical Dr. Sagan’s pro-Soviet nuclear winter hoax was to compute the effects of aerosols allegedly produced in putative atomic wars.
Gloateus Maximus
I had the pleasure of working with some ROTCs while taking a class on National sec policy in mid 1980s. The ROTCs were on the other side of the table in a mock SALT negotiation. To make it fair their Colonel loaned me a ton of reading material on SDI, nuclear winter and various weapons system; both US and USSR
Nothing classified just stuff that was in-house USAF publications at the time. They were quit the eye opener. The Union of concerned scientist lost all credibility with me. When I see their name on anything I dismiss it as unreliable. I do glance over it to see what they a now spewing.
michael
Mike,
In private conversation, Schneider owned up to the problems with how the Nuclear Winter activists handled soot.
Re: “These cycles take place on 100,000 year time frames, and the amount of warming we have seen, even though it is “only” about 1.5°F (0.85° C) since 1880, would take many thousands of years to occur if the process were occurring purely naturally”… “True or false and why”.
False or at the very least intentional misleading.
May I draw the jury’s attention to exhibit A:
“The return to the cold conditions of the Younger Dryas from the incipient inter-glacial warming 13,000 years ago took place within a few decades or less (Alley et al., 1993). The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades (Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993; Severinghaus et al., 1998).”
From IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/074.htm
“On the other hand, very rapid warming at the start of the Bölling-Alleröd period, or at the end of the Younger Dryas may have occurred at rates as large as 10°C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere.” These very rapid temperature rises are not global temperatures. They were clearly extensive, but cannot simply be equated with global temperature.
Thanks Seaice.
You are correct that they can not be “simply” equated with global temperature.
However, the continent scale changes are so impressive in magnitude that it would be hard to present a case that they were entirely locally confined.
Of course, we have numerous other lines of evidence which could and should be discussed.
Perhaps not here, since this thread is most likely already forgotten.
And because this is an entire topic in its own right.
@Mike The Morlock and Frog: Thanks for your replies. Much appreciated. Just needed to confirm that his piece had scientific problems with it–and you have shown clearly that it does.
Just checked, and it appears his piece is not yet open for comments. Interesting.
….. and thanks to Mike Maguire.
Not only do we have to be told that GW “is happening”, but they then have to make up ooh so-scary stories about “evidence” that we’re heading for climate catastrophe. They have to exaggerate what has happened, what is happening, and what they claim will happen if we don’t sabotage our energy systems and our economies, lowering living standards worldwide, following Stephen Schneider’s infamous “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
You are correct that the term global warming has fallen into decline, probably like global temperature. 😉 They now call it ”climate change“. I say that climate change is just a thing of the past! Now tell me, how can you beat this? No wonder they shifted news reports and all that jazz to ‘climate change’ – coz that’s what the climate does – see the name IPCC.
Jimbo
I saw this in your list and had to laugh/cry
Von Storch, H. and Stehr, N., 2006
Anthropogenic climate change: a reason for concern since the 18th century and earlier
…1. Religious interpretations of climate anomalies, such as the prolonged wet period in England in the early 14th century, explained the adverse climatic conditions as the divine response to people’s life-style (Stehr and von Storch 1995). In Medieval times, for instance, it was proposed that climatic anomalies, or extreme events, were a punishment for parishes that were too tolerant of witches. Witches were believed to be able to directly cause adverse weather (Behringer 1988). There was a so-phisticated system of rogation in response to droughts in Spain (Barriendos-Vallvé and Martín-Vide 1998).
I guess we can now add /define fossil fuel CEOs as ah, Witches?
Yes I can see them now the heads of EXXON, BP, and SHELL all around a over sized cauldron chanting
1 WITCH. Thrice the brinded cat hath mew’d.
2 WITCH. Thrice and once, the hedge-pig whin’d.
3 WITCH. Harpier cries:—’tis time! ’tis time!
1 WITCH. Round about the caldron go;
In the poison’d entrails throw.—
Toad, that under cold stone,
Days and nights has thirty-one;
Swelter’d venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i’ the charmed pot!
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
grin
michael
Bob – you said, ” . . from its start year in 1850 through to 2014.” Should be 1880?
Gary H, thanks. Corrected.
The post WWII love affair with science is coming to an end. She was exciting, fresh, and sexy. As she aged, she noticed more and more competition in form of new types and numbers of science gals. She also noticed that if she did a good job at solving problems, it was very likely that she got ignored till she was needed again.
She became disillusioned with what a life of science had wrought.
She sat and pondered her state. While out on the town she figured out that if she faked urgency and sowed the fear of uncertainty she could attract the admiration she was given in the early days of her desirability. Now she is surrounded by fakers.
24000 plus attendees at the 2014 American Geophysical Union Conference and only ONE presentation by a skeptic. Shocking.
” . . If the reporter were to ask: Do you believe in global warming?”
I love this exercise. I’ve been on a mission for a couple years now (not doing well at it, however) to encourage skeptical folks (targeting politicians) on how not to answer that question – or the other one, “do you believe in climate change,” with a yes, or no answer.
Instead of yes, or no, to either question, the first response is to flip it around – just as Bob Tisdale laid out – and put the person asking the question back on their heels. “I’m not to sure exactly what you are asking me. Are you asking if I believe that there is a human footprint – anthropogenic – on GW – since the 1950’s, or 1970’s (as many orgs suggest)? Was it your intent to ask me that?”
Still going to get labeled a heretic – but at least this is a more informed conversation, with the winner being the audience, which might start thinking a little bit.
[Should that not be “Or from the 1650’s?” .mod]
Gary
Bravo.
Scientists are often like bright eyed school children with the media. The media knows this and consciously tries to bait them. Well traimed attorneys do the same thing in court but at least you have your own attorney to have your back.
Here’s a helpful hint. Before answering any question, take a deep SILENT breath, ponder the question and categorize what form of fallacy is the question being introduced as … then answer accordingly. Use the opportunity as a type of jujitsu moment to steer the audience that you are both battling to inform.
If you do it well, their only remaining advantage is the editing room.
Common interviewer techniques
1. Affirming their fact in the question
2. Half truthing
3. Cherry picking
4. Tempting perfection
5. Exaggerating fear thru uncertainty
6. Appealing to your ego as a scientist to “save” the audience from complexity
7. Tempting ad homs.
Nowadays (IMHO) nobody should get an advanced degree in science without being taught how to identify these traps … and those are just a few.
Mod – get the angle; however, no. I was referring to the consensus of views offered up “since the 170’s, or so.” At NASA’s “Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming.” here:http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#footnote_1 . . . though NASA offers up at the top of the page with, “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,” it immediately offers this, “Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations,” for proof of that view.
However, here’s a sampling of what they actually offer up:
” . . on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.”
” . .that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”
” It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities .”
“The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced . .”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century . .”
“Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)” – GSA
“It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” Joint Science Academies Statement.
“The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.” From Executive Summary “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009) – U.S. Global Change Research Program.
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.[12] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
—
I might have been more specific; however I see a bias towards 1950, or later – not 1950, or earlier.
Any long-winded response to this question will simply be ignored. The reporter/activist merely wants to pin you down as a “denier”, so if you reply anything but “yes”, you have been ‘pwned’
So always use this simple but effective retort:
The Earth has been warming since the last ice age, so yes, global warming is a fact. But global warming scare is a fraud!
It’s probably the only way to counteract the highly successful warmist/extreme-climate meme.
Repeat after me:
Global warming is a fact.
Global warming scare is a fraud!
Climate change is a fact.
Climate change scare is a fraud!
I’d like to see a more explicit discussion regarding impacts of the radiative imbalance concerning incident solar energy flux vs impacts due to direct human generated thermal flux. The latter has grown exponentially since 1880.
Maybe you should start here: surfacestations.org
That’s barely scratching the surface. Consider an integral or integral series that encompasses all human generated flux world wide.
They dropped catastrophic and anthropogenic to increase the deniability of their assertions. The global statistic is only meaningful with a uniform global effect or for purposes of constructing a [social] consensus.
It’s the same marketing hack job they did with “green” energy that conflates drivers and technology, while obfuscating mass environmental disruption of these low density energy converters.
If you work the numbers on IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 you will discover that anthro CO2 is partitioned 57/43 between natural sequestration and atmospheric retention. (555 – 240 = 315 PgC) World Bank 4C (AR4) said 50/50, IGSS said 55/45. So much for consensus. IMO this arbitrary partition was “assumed” in order to “prove” (i.e. make the numbers work) that anthro CO2 was solely responsible for the 112 ppmv increase between 1750 – 2011.
PgC * 3.67 = PgCO2 * 0.1291 = ppmv atmospheric CO2
IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1
…………………………………….PgC/y……ppmv/y
FF & Land Use source………..….8.9…………4.22
Ocean & Land Sink………….……4.9……..… 2.32
Net……………………..…………..4.0……..….1.90
This implies that without FF CO2 (4.2 ppmv/y) the natural cycle has a net sink of about 2.3 ppmv/y. Drawing a simplistic straight line backward extrapolation (see, nothing to this “climate science”) in 121 years (278/2.3) or the year 1629 atmos CO2 would have been 0, zero, nadda, nowhere to be found.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave!
These days, the chief risk to the World comes not from small variations in temperature of one or two degrees but from the supposed remedial actions proposed by the Warmistas, including economic impacts. The worst of all are the dangerous geo-engineering proposals from Hardcore Warmistas
Just one thought: Temperature records on a single Station shows much more degrees up/down over the years than a global curve. These more than thousand stations are having somehow an averaging effect.
So climate change in any direction could have much degrees differences than a global curve shows. And this difference could be felt by the humans in this region.
Ah, the sweet sound of the wind. Fishing at sunrise was awesome. On the drive home I decided to give a deeper look at http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=I.
I’m looking for the CAGW revolving door. But once again, it’s not easy. It’s easy to see the industry groups such as pharma, O&G, and defense but not CAGW. Frustrating and fascinating.
Where would you look ?
On another note and kind of related ….
Why does this group have the ear of a government agency ?
http://environmentalintegrity.org/archives/7853
If they can, why can’t a consortium of WUWT’s best and brightest, aka climatescienceintegrity.org do the same ?
I see that WUWT views Skeptical Science as unreliable. I went anyway. http://www.skepticalscience.com/
I thought I was developing a good top ten skeptics list, but low and behold he’s got a nifty sidebar rebuttal link. Basically for the 18 yea temp pause, they rebutt it by claiming skeptics cherry picked the starting locations. He also took a dive in rebutting what EAIS growth meant. Essentially, he chalks it up to thickening due to old snowfall and new snowfall is less, so it’s a delayed response effect that will soon change :::: scratching head :::: and it doesn’t really prove anything as CAGW is coming and it’s bad.
Man o man. No wonder Morales is so out of the closet on what he wants.
He’s got spinners, the unhappy masses, villains and cash flowing in his direction.
Climate skeptics are truly in an underdog position.
Hi Knute.
attention Mod
please where can I find some of those Photo shopped pictures of John Cook from Skeptical Science. you know like the ones of him in a Ahem military uniform, and some of the others showing his associates in german ww2 tanks.
I would like them to show Knute exactly who we are dealing with.
Knute
Hopefully the mod or someone else will provide a link to them seeing this.
michael
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/debunk/skepticalscience/1_herrcook-sml.gif
Hope this works. Found on Google Images.
ack please no more
i already had to endure a peer who insisted I reread the pre presidential “story” about POTUS, his gay lover and the cocaine binge in Chicago.
i’m just here for facts and the best group i know concerning the rooting out of fallacy in CAGW/CO2.
Gloateus Maximus
thank you
michael
De nada.
Didn’t look for the tanks.
Mike:
dbstealey
thanks a picture is truly worth a thousand words.
michael
Mike,
Here’s one they made of Dana Nuccitelli:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8apmfouVO-Y/U3CCBVFmwPI/AAAAAAAABKU/Ci-CsSKCF0g/s1600/Herr+Dana.gif
I have to wonder what his service ribbons are for?
At least one must be for the Anti-WUWT Campaign. Others might be for instances of lying above and beyond the call of duty to the Cause.
Hey Mike
I’ll pass and thanks. I’ve probably seen enough bad art to last a lifetime. What’s useful about the site is that I can use it as an early warning spin zone feeder site. Also gives me prep counters for the good stuff you guys at WUWT do.
He does have a point about temp. Skeptics cherry pick 18 years, but then believers cherry pick from the 1970s. Longer timelines such as what DB show frame the issue, yet lots and lots of mileage is gained from 1.3 degree change. Going back further to prior warming periods while man was around and even greater temps don’t to seem make a dent in the at large brain.
And of course NONE of the above matters when a few ivory towered scientists say that while the risk of catastrophe is very low they are not comfortable with the risk of the experiment. THAT type of stuff is really bad because the public has a post WWII love affair with scientists. It’s abusive and needs to be dealt a good throat punch.
That abuse of trust has enabled science to recommend preemptive action for a risk that does not warrant it.
Hi Knute.
No problem. I thought you could use the laugh. And they made them of themselves.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/skepticalscience-goes-godwin-nazi-or-something/
Knute,
Skeptics don’t cherry pick the past 18 or 23 years. They just start now and run a linear regression back to a point at which statistically significant warming starts in whatever data set is under analysis. Only the satellite and balloon records are of course actually data. The “surface” records are packs of lies and works of anti-science fiction.
But you’re right that study of climate rather than weather needs much longer time periods. It was alarmists who wanted to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. But that’s just the start of their troubles. They need to get rid of the Roman, Minoan and Egyptian WPs, the Holocene Optimum and all prior interglacial periods.
Max
Do you have a link to a good graphic that shows the prior human time warming periods ?
Also what is the data source for those periods … ice cores ?
Appreciate it.
Sure. Glad to oblige. Here’s a common one, from Greenland ice:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/greenland-ice-core-isotope-past-4000-yrs.png
Hope it appears as an image. If not, I’ll try another.
Do you have one runs the full timeline to present day ?
I realize we’d be mixing ice cores and “other” type of datasets.
Do you think that creates unacceptable uncertainty ?
The upswing during the Dark Ages Cold Period, a counter-trend cycle within the secular cold trend, is called the Sui-Tang Warm Period. In other parts of the world, it was less warm than not just the preceding Roman WP but also the following Medieval WP.
Note the strong long-term downtrend for at least 3000 years. This jibes with Antarctica, where radionuclides in soil around the EAIS confirm this date.
It would be inappropriate to attach instrumental records onto the ice core data, but doing so still shows that Greenland is colder now than during the Medieval Warm Period.
Simple observation of Greenland shows this to be the case, with Norse farms still under permafrost.
Thanks for your help.
You’ve been great.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Information needing to be understood by the public, although it is technical.
“Figure 1.2-1 shows the annual global land+ocean surface temperature anomalies, based on the UKMO HadCRUT4 reconstruction, from its start year in 1850 through to 2014. Based on the linear trend, global surfaces are warming at a not-very-alarming long-term rate of about 0.06 deg C/decade (about 0.10 deg F/ decade)…for a total warming of less than 0.8 deg C (about 1.4 deg F) since 1880.”
A part of a huge amount of data supporting, scientifically, genuine criticism of the falsely-based political and financial controls being currently imposed.
All these rabid complicated discussions about temperatures, sea/sheet ice, sea levels, pause or not, are attempts to prove/disprove the effect of mankind’s CO2. “See all these things that are happening? That proves mankind’s CO2 influence which is evil and must be stopped.”
1) Mankind’s CO2 contribution to the enormous global stores and fluxes of CO2 is trivial, lost in the chaos. Nobody can say with certainty how much there is, where it came from or where it goes.
2) CO2’s 2W/m^2 RF (watt is power not heat/energy) contribution to the global heat balance is trivial, lost in the turbulent ebb and flow.
3) IPCC’s GCM’s don’t work.
Discussions of topics other than these three are entertaining, academic, yet moot.
Daily and seasonal variations in local temperatures are so great that we’d never notice the slight change in global surface temperatures we’ve experienced since the mid-1970s. It’s only about 0.7 deg C or 1.3 deg F (based on the linear trend), and it’s occurred over a 40-year period.
And there you have it. The mid-1970s was when the PDO flipped to positive. So it’s a cherrypicked low-end start point. In 20 years we will know the “true” signal from 1970. That’s what it will take to cause the low start-point not to be a cherrypick.
“This is the first part of a two-part series of posts that present chapters from my recently published ebook On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1. ”
Should have called it “The Illusion of a Global Temperature.”
The illusion of control is a psychological problem. Is the need by human nature to try to control situations that cannot be controlled and that in certain persons reaches pathological levels that makes them really anxious and unhappy. The thought that we are responsible for climate changes is part of this psychological problem, because if we are responsible for climate changes then we can control climate changes by changing the way we act. The psychologically sane way to face this problem is to accept that humans are not and will not be able to control climate and to concentrate on adaptation. For example the Dutch instead of feeling responsible for their countries being low, concentrated in building and improving their dams. That would be a way of adapting to sea level raise if it ever gets to be a problem.
Ugh, such a dolt … i see it now.
Sorry to bother
So, I gotta say it out loud as I type this out.
It is incredibly self evident that the recent warming is much ado about NOTHING.
Even a 5th grader could understand that we were warmer before while people were here and Jesus and Mary and Joseph, alot warmer.
Why on earth hasn’t this ended the discussion before it even got off the ground ?
What happened ?
It makes it even more shocking that skeptics are being painted as CRAZY.
I’m really just rather floored by the whole thing.
I’d say it is much ado about rather little.
Take that image of past civilizations and temp and dress is up a little. Develop a catch phrase that captures the theme …. if far warmer temps were good for them why is a touch warmer bad for us …. or maybe simply … warmer IS better … we like it hot … i see a tshirt in my future … maybe a polo logo
It’s probably time to go and compare all the temperature data sets, because this headline just appeared:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34763036
Yes I know, mad cherry picking. However, speaking of cherry picking:
I know Mr Tisdale likes to use HadCrut4 because it’s the most recent, least adjusted, longest term temperature record, but it might be good to show a range of temperature records along with errorbars…
To do otherwise is to get accused of the same – cherry picking. Even if we all know that GISS, Hacrut-latest, etc. are massively adjusted at this point, on the order of +0.4degC trend if memory serves.
Peter
Haddy4 is no good for LST. Microsite and homogenization.
Hi Bob: I’m responding to this quote “There are many possible reasons why global warming has occurred over the past few decades,…”
My question is; Has it warmed in the past two decades? Maybe the the quote should read “There are many possible reasons why global warming has occurred until the past few decades…”
PS, I bought and loved your ebook, “Who Turned Up the Heat?”
Bob, thanks for the incredible efforts you continue to make in climate. You help lazy slugs, like me, keep track of this stuff. I am looking forward to volume 2.
I also retired about 10 yrs. ago and fortunately don’t have to worry about income. After my daily dose of reading on climate I spend a good part of my day trying to improve my golf game. Progress is slow and erratic in both climate and golf.
Found a global heat balance graph on Bing images. Seems to have typical W/m^2 values. (watt is power not energy) It appears to be Figure 10 of a work by Trenberth et al 2011 and includes values of eight data sets with acronyms such as MERRA, CFSR, JRA35, etc. What is interesting is the range of variations and uncertainties. Several examples follow showing the eight values, average, variation from average, and highest to lowest range.
ToA
341.0 -1.1
342.0 -0.1
343.0 0.9
342.0 -0.1
342.0 -0.1
341.0 -1.1
344.0 1.9
342.0 -0.1
342.1 3.0
OLR
243.0 -0.9
238.0 -5.9
245.0 1.1
237.0 -6.9
255.0 11.1
243.0 -0.9
246.0 2.1
244.0 0.1
243.9 18.0
Back Radiation
331.0 -7.3
337.0 -1.3
344.0 5.8
341.0 2.8
327.0 -11.3
341.0 2.8
342.0 3.8
343.0 4.8
338.3 17.0
Reflected Solar
100.0 -1.9
117.0 15.1
105.0 3.1
94.0 -7.9
95.0 -6.9
105.0 3.1
100.0 -1.9
99.0 -2.9
101.9 23.0
Latent Heat
82.0 -6.1
82.0 -6.1
95.0 6.9
93.0 4.9
90.0 1.9
95.0 6.9
79.0 -9.1
89.0 0.9
88.1 16.0
The 2 W/m^2 RF of CO2, even the 8.5 W/m^2 of RCP 8.5, are trivial compared the unknowns, the uncertainties, the differences/+/- ranges in these eight data bases. There are also 23 W/m^2 loose, unaccounted for, in the perpetual motion loop of surface and back radiation that I am unable to resolve.
It doesn’t get more basic and fundamental than the following.
1) In the earth’s enormous churning cauldron of CO2 stores and fluxes mankind’s CO2 is trivial
2) In the earth’s chaotic heat balance CO2’s RF is trivial.
3) The GCM’s can’t begin to model either of these chaotic systems.
Thanks Nicholas
Makes sense to me. But, I was sold on the ice cores from Greenland and prior warming periods.
According to this article I may have a cognitive disability.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta;jsessionid=1F67B5D09EF022F12B1E598B6F227D95.c1#http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta;jsessionid=1F67B5D09EF022F12B1E598B6F227D95.c1
Knute,
I always like to check to see who wrote papers like the one in your link. That one had authors like John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, and Naomi Oreskes. Those people are no more experts than you, me, or most readers here. They are self-serving individuals promoting a particular narrative, that’s all.
Those people have an axe to grind; they are the antithesis of impartiality. No wonder they write about a science “consensus”. They have no measurements of AGW to present, thus their belief system is based on their opinions, and the opinions of other climate alarmists.
Sold out scientists.
The article is linked thru a fine engineering school .. Perdue
It will take decades for science to recover from this, if ever.
The public will not be kind to scientists when this is all said and done.
What a loss of credibility.
I find that so sad.
If you work the numbers on IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 you will discover that anthro CO2 is partitioned 57/43 between natural sequestration and atmospheric retention. (555 – 240 = 315 PgC) World Bank 4C (AR4) said 50/50, IGSS said 55/45. So much for consensus. IMO this arbitrary partition was “assumed” in order to “prove” (i.e. make the numbers work) that anthro CO2 was solely responsible for the 112 ppmv increase between 1750 – 2011.
PgC * 3.67 = PgCO2 * 0.1291 = ppmv atmospheric CO2
IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1
……………………………….PgC……ppmv
FF & Land Use source…….8.9…….4.22
Ocean & Land Sink…………4.9…… 2.32
Net…………………………..4.0…….1.90
This implies that without FF CO2 (4.2 ppmv/y) the natural cycle has a net sink of about 2.3 ppmv/y. Drawing a simplistic straight line backward extrapolation (see, nothing to this “climate science”) in 121 years (278/2.3) or the year 1629 atmos CO2 would have been 0, zero, nadda, nowhere to be found.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave!