Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Comment Included From David Hoffer, Edited by Just The Facts:
In the above graphic, the green line is the slope since May 1993 without consideration of error bars. When including error bars, the range could be as low as zero as indicated by the blue line. It could also be an equal amount above the green line as indicated by the purple line.
The numbers that were used to generate the above graphic are from Nick Stokes’ Temperature Trend Viewer site.
For RSS, the numbers are as follows:
Temperature Anomaly trend
May 1993 to Feb 2016
Rate: 0.871°C/Century;
CI from -0.022 to 1.764;
t-statistic 1.912;
Temp range 0.118°C to 0.316°C
So in other words, for 22 years and 10 months, since May 1993, there is a very small chance that the slope is negative.
For UAH6.0beta5, the numbers are as follows:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 1993 to Feb 2016
Rate: 0.911°C/Century;
CI from -0.009 to 1.830;
t-statistic 1.941;
Temp range -0.001°C to 0.210°C
So in other words, for 23 years and 2 months, since January 1993, there is a very small chance that the slope is negative.
As mentioned in my January post, there is now no period of time going back from February 2016 where the slope is negative for any period worth mentioning on any of the five data sets I am analyzing.
As a result, my former Section 1 will not be shown for the foreseeable future.
My last post had an excellent comment by David Hoffer that I would like to share to give it wider exposure and for you to give your thoughts:
davidmhoffer
March 2, 2016 at 10:11 am
1. The “Pause” hasn’t disappeared. It now just has a beginning and an end. But it is right there in the data where it always was, and it doesn’t cease to exist merely because we can’t calculate one starting from the present and working backwards.
2. The “Pause” was never significant in terms of showing the CO2 doesn’t heat up the earth. It only became significant because the warmist community (Jones, Santer, etc) said that natural variability was too small to cancel the warming of CO2 for more than a period of 10 years…er 15…er 17 and made a big deal out of it.
So regardless of the “Pause” having ended or not, what we have is conclusive evidence that the models either:
a) grossly under estimated natural variability or
b) grossly over estimated CO2 sensitivity or
c) both
In all three scenarios above, natural variability dominates in terms of any risk associated with a changing global temperature. That’s what we should be studying first and foremost. Once we understand it, then we can determine how much CO2 changes natural variability. Trying to determine CO2 sensitivity without first understanding the natural variability baseline that it runs on top of is a fool’s errand. Unfortunately, fools seem determined and well funded, and so they continue to try and do just that.
The world has been warming for 400 years, almost all of it due to natural variability. It will continue to warm (I expect) and most of the warming will be due to natural variability, which we just learned from this last 20 years of data is a lot bigger deal than CO2.
(End of David’s post)
In the sections below, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in two sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The second section will show how 2016 so far compares with 2015 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2015 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
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 11 and 23 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH6.0: Since January 1993: Cl from -0.009 to 1.830
This is 23 years and 2 months.
For RSS: Since May 1993: Cl from -0.022 to 1.764
This is 22 years and 10 months.
For Hadcrut4.4: Since October 2001: Cl from -0.016 to 1.812 (Goes to January)
This is 14 years and 4 months.
For Hadsst3: Since May 1996: Cl from -0.002 to 2.089
This is 19 years and 10 months.
For GISS: Since March 2005: Cl from -0.004 to 3.688
This is exactly 11 years.
Section 2
This section shows data about 2016 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. 15ra: This is the final ranking for 2015 on each data set.
2. 15a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2015.
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 2015 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. The 2016 records are not included here.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. 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.
8. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 7.
9. Jan: This is the January 2016 anomaly for that particular data set.
10. Feb: This is the February 2016 anomaly for that particular data set.
11. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months.
12. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2016 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 10 minutes into a game.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.15ra | 3rd | 3rd | 1st | 1st | 1st |
| 2.15a | 0.263 | 0.358 | 0.745 | 0.592 | 0.86 |
| 3.year | 1998 | 1998 | 2015 | 2015 | 2015 |
| 4.ano | 0.484 | 0.550 | 0.745 | 0.592 | 0.86 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Dec15 | Sep15 | Dec15 |
| 6.ano | 0.743 | 0.857 | 1.009 | 0.725 | 1.10 |
| 7.sig | Jan93 | May93 | Oct01 | May96 | Mar05 |
| 8.sy/m | 23/2 | 22/10 | 14/4 | 19/10 | 11/0 |
| 9.Jan | 0.542 | 0.663 | 0.899 | 0.732 | 1.14 |
| 10.Feb | 0.834 | 0.974 | 1.057 | 0.604 | 1.35 |
| 11.ave | 0.688 | 0.819 | 0.978 | 0.668 | 1.25 |
| 12.rnk | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | 1st | Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 6.0beta5 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.6. So to verify the length of the pause on version 6.0, you need to use Nick’s program.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta5.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.4.4.0.0.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 2015 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that UAH version 5.6 is shown. WFT does not show version 6.0 yet. Also note that Hadcrut4.3 is shown and not Hadcrut4.4, which is why many months are missing for Hadcrut.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2015. This makes it easy to compare January 2015 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
UAH6.0beta5
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since January 1993: Cl from -0.009 to 1.830. (This is using version 6.0 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2016 is 0.688. This would set a record if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.484. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.743. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.263 and it was ranked 3rd.
RSS
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since May 1993: Cl from -0.022 to 1.764.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2016 is 0.819. This would set a record if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.550. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.358 and it was ranked 3rd.
Hadcrut4.4
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since October 2001: Cl from -0.016 to 1.812. (Goes to January)
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far is 0.978. This would set a record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in December of 2015 when it reached 1.009. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.745 and this set a new record.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since May 1996: Cl from -0.002 to 2.089.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2016 is 0.668. This would set a record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in September of 2015 when it reached 0.725. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.592 and this set a new record.
GISS
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since March 2005: Cl from -0.004 to 3.688.
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2016 is 1.25. This would set a record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in December of 2015 when it reached 1.10. This is prior to 2016. The average anomaly in 2015 was 0.86 and it set a new record.
Conclusion
Warming does not become catastrophic just because we cannot go back from February 2016 and find a negative slope. This is especially true since it was a very strong El Nino and not CO2 that was mainly responsible for the negative slope disappearing for now.
One limitation of linear regressions is that they cannot confirm a lack of trend.
It’s good to see that finally people are getting interested in confidence intervals. Now that this is a factor, we can use them to test the proposition of a pause. Obviously, ‘pause’ implies that something was going on before the pause. A pause from what? A pause from warming.
So let’s compare the confidence intervals of the alleged pause period with the previous warming period.
May as well start with the classic “pause since 1998.” The same results will be found no matter what period one uses.
Using RSS, which has been the most prominent source (cf Monckton), and in trend per decade:
Jan 1979 – Dec 1997 = 0.082 C (+/- 0.156)
The trend is anywhere from -0.074 to 0.238 C (95% confidence interval)
In order for the trend since 1998 to be statistically distinct from the previous trend, there should be no overlap in the confidence intervals.
Jan 1979 – Mar 2016 = 0.011 C (+/- 0.188)
The trend is anywhere from -0.177 to 0.199 C (95% confidence interval)
The two trend lines are statistically indistinct. The uncertainty intervals not only overlap, they overlap with the mean estimate.
There is no statistically significant change in trend from pre to post 1998.
There is no pause.
This works for all the data sets. Same results. Doesn’t matter if you start 23 years ago or 11. The confidence intervals overlap – not statistically significant change in trend.
One could try to say that the two periods are both pauses – they are after all, statistically non-significant. The uncertainty includes zero trend.
However, linear regression cannot be used to determine a ‘no pause’ scenario. Or one could easily end up with a series of ‘pauses,’ each higher than the last, even while the underlying trend is warming (or cooling). Saying that the time series shows no trend in this case would, of course, be spurious.
Final test for RSS would be to obtain a trend for the whole period.
Jan 1979 – Mar 2016 = 0.128 C (+/- 0.064)
That’s a statistically significant warming trend. Segmenting the full time period gave us two statistically non-significant time periods. That should indicate some thinking is required before one claims a pause.
Examining the confidence intervals is fundamental to trend analysis (at last!). Doing so with the ‘pause’ notion puts it to bed.
barry,
Step back a bit.
All you’re doing is the usual nitpicking, while avoiding the fact that every alarming prediction has failed.
As it turns out, CO2 is entirely beneficial, with no observed downside. Global warming is good, not bad — but even so, there’s been essentially no global warming in almost half the decades of the preceding century.
As Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Karl Popper, and others have pointed out, all it takes is one (1) prediction that is contradicted by real world observations, and your “theory” is falsified.
Since not one scary prediction ever made by the eco-lemmings parroting ‘dangerous AGW’ has ever come true, your “theory” is nonsense. So you try to cover up that abject failure with endless parsing, like you’re doing here.
Give it up, barry. You lost the scientific argument years ago. Now all you’re doing is backing and filling, because you’re afraid of it being pointed out that it’s nothing but a climb-down by you and your side.
Once more for the slow learners here: there is nothing either unprecedented, or unusual happening. Everything being observed now has happened naturally, repeatedly, and to a greater degree, before human CO2 emissions mattered.
You lost the debate. Now you’re just flogging a dead horse.
dbstealy,
Nothing you wrote in reply to me has anything to do with my comment.
Once you get into statistical analysis and observe the uncertainty intervals in the data, claims of a pause or indeed warming or cooling for these shorter time-periods, are revealed as bogus.
essentially no global warming in almost half the decades of the preceding century.
Already covered that.
one could easily end up with a series of ‘pauses,’ each higher than the last, even while the underlying trend is warming (or cooling). Saying that the time series shows no trend in this case would, of course, be spurious.
Using HadCRU4 data for the last 45 years I can get 95% of all the data showing either cooling or very slight (statistically non-significant) warming periods, just by choosing my time periods carefully. Here’s how it looks.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1988/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1988/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2014/trend
If I was ignorant or mendacious about statistics I could say this ‘proves’ there has been virtually no warming since 1970. But a glance at the graph shows this to be absolute nonsense.
If the last decade of the 20th century is significantly warmer than the first, then you have global warming, even if ‘half’ the decades had non-warming slopes. If I selected really carefully, I reckon I could do better than your ‘half the decades’.
Viola, my best effort was 66% of the period in the previous century had no warming and included periods of cooling. Here it is.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2000/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1919/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1938/to:1985/trend
To the statistically illiterate I could probably persuade them that 66 years of the 20th century showing no warming or showing cooling means virtually no warming had occurred. I would have to be careful not to show them all the data, though. Alternatively I could scale the Y-axis to some outlandishly high number in order to hide variation and trends. If I wanted to fool them without resorting to Y-axis shenanigans I would just show the segments. Like this.
(1) http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1919/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1919/trend
(2) http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1938/to:1985/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1938/to:1985/trend
Add up the periods and you get 66 years with no or virtually no warming. Wow! Surface temperatures barely warmed in the 20th century!
I would have to avoid showing them the full data set. I wouldn’t want them to get context – like this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2000/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1919/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1938/to:1985/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2000/trend
Nowhere has this segmenting trick been played more often than with the “no warming since 1998” meme. Despite claiming a pause, it was rare to see the ‘pause’ in the context from which the so-called pause occurred (the previous warming). Graphs almost always started in 1998 (or some month in 1997). I have even asked “a pause in what?” and been amazed at how people contorted to avoid saying the obvious – a pause in warming.
They never wanted to say the word “warming.”
I knew it was only a matter of time before skeptics ‘discovered’ statistical significance after the mean trend from RSS went positive last month – so that they could say “no statistically significant warming since X.”
And I’ve been waiting for statistical significance – confidence intervals – to be ‘discovered’ by skeptics so that I could finally have this conversation where the basis is agreed on.
There was no pause, demonstrated using the same statistical premise used to claim no statistically significant warming from ‘X.’ The uncertainty includes zero trend, therefore there is a chance no warming has occurred. The uncertainty in the data from 1988 also includes the previous mean warming trend. Therefore there has been no statistically significant deviation from the prior warming trend.
Warming is not statistically significant since ‘X’? Fair enough. The ‘pause’ is not statistically significant either. On the same premise.
If you’re interested in taking up the point, refer to my previous post. Otherwise, carry on with whatever you’re doing.
barry me boi,
You say:
Already covered that.
Meaning:
dbstealey was right, there’s nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Global warming is the natural recovery from the LIA.
And if you want to learn some statistics, click on Dr. Briggs link on the sidebar. That way you won’t be such an amateur, like Mann and Jones.
The alarmist cult lost the science debate when every one of your scary predictions failed. Now you’re just doing a climb-down.
Was this a typo? If not, which data set is this for?
You bring out a good point as to exactly what is required for something to be defined as a pause. It seems as if no one has really defined what is really meant by a pause or even an hiatus. Lord Monckton and I have been using one definition for pause.
I discussed this point about a definition of an hiatus on a post here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/08/is-noaas-hiatus-gone-now-includes-may-data/
The following is part of what I wrote:
“We need to know how long the recent period is that we are comparing things to. Then we need to know how long the previous period can be that we are using for a comparison. Then we need to know how much higher the previous period needs to be in order for us to have a hiatus. For example, does the previous slope need to be at least 10% or 20% or 30% higher than the most recent slope in order to claim that we have a hiatus?”
Werner,
I would also note that the climate debate on both sides acknowledged that global warming had stopped. The number of reasons (excuses) exceeded sixty by the time the alarmist Narrative changed, and the new talking point became: global warming never stopped.
Since the same data was available for the entire 18+ years of the so-called ‘pause’, anyone could have used it to claim that warming never stopped.
But they didn’t. Even the IPCC’s scientists admitted that global warming was in a ‘hiatus’. Numerous alarmist scientists are on record as admitting that global warming was in a long-term ‘pause’. Numerous articles on this site record their statements.
So now they’re repudiating what they admitted as recently as last year. One thing we know for certain about the alarmist crowd: the truth is not in them.
And once the dust settles from the present very strong El Nino, they will have to agree that the slight warming that may be occurring is definitely not catastrophic.
Werner,
Yes, a typo. From 1998 to present, not from 1979.
Why don’t you apply the same statistical test to the so-named pause period that you have applied in the OP to determine if a trend is statistically significant from zero?
A warming trend must be statistically distinct from a zero trend.
A ‘pause’ must be statistically distinct from the previous trend.
There is a statistically distinct ‘pause’ in surface temperatures between the 1940s and the late 70s or early 80s in the longer term instrumental records. The confidence intervals don’t over lap for the 3 trend segments.
HadCRU4
1900 – 1940 = 0.096 C (+/- 0.040) : [ 0.056 to 0.136 ]
1940 – 1977 = -0.035 C (+/- 0.041): [ – 0.076 to 0.006 ]
1977 – 2016 = 0.165 C (+/- 0.035) : [ 0.130 to 0.2 ]
You can find pauses and cooling and warming in short segments after 1975, but none are statistically distinct (large overlapping CIs).
And once the dust settles from the present very strong El Nino, they will have to agree that the slight warming that may be occurring is definitely not catastrophic.
One might be tempted to say that after every strong el Nino. But one would not be talking about long-term climate.
Werner,
barry presumes to know what the ‘long term climate’ will be. But since his alarmist clique got every alarming prediction that they ever made wrong, only the anti-science crowd would listen to him now.
Barry,
I am an AGW Skeptic, not a global warming skeptic. I totally expect the globe to warm and cool, as it has for tens of millions of years in the past, the overwhelming majority of it without human influence.
I have no problem stating that if there’s been a pause for the last 18 years, or 18 minutes, that it would of necessity be referring to a pause in a warming trend that started when this interglacial period began.
When people say “trend” they need to define the time period they are referring to, specifically. For example, the Earth has been in a cooling trend since the mantle solidified billions of years ago. And no matter how “warm” it is now, or will be in the future, unless the planet returns to it’s billion year old pre-cooling temp, the longest, long term trend is cooling. Right?
People are also sloppy with the terminology they use themselves, and in how they interpret terminology used by others. For example, there is a difference between there being ” no statistically significant warming during X period” and “no statistically significant change in a trend, which is based on time period that “Xperiod” is only part of. ”
In the end, whether or not there’s a pause, and whether it is “statistically significant” or not, it is not ” real world SIGNIFICANT” to anything outside of statistical analysis. It’s not significant to the world. Or the general public, or really anything or anyone outside of a discussion about statistics. I believe THAT is what dbstealey keeps trying to remind everyone of.
Werner,
Just as I must clarify that my skepticism: that I have serious problems with AGW theory, but I do believe the globe is warming, I believe it must be said that there are many people who you might describe a “alarmists” or opponents to skeptics, who have never believed that the warming will be catastrophic. And you can add and plot and apply all the analysis you wish, and arrive at almost flawless (in your opinion) conclusions about the pause, or trends etc and still not change anyone’s mind because the climate debate involves so much more than that. Plus or minus tenths/hundredths of a degree in a slope/trend that covers less than 0.0000000000000000001% of Earth’s history matters no more in the end than the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin!!! (I randomly typed 0’s because I just don’t care and my point is obvious whether my math is accurate or not Phil.)
I mean, I wish you well, and if it satisfies your curiosity and concludes something solidly, great. But don’t expect opinions that SHOULD involve examining all aspects of the issue to hinge on just this one tiny aspect of it.
O.K. Let us talk about long-term climate. Over the last 80 years, the slope for GISS is 0.010/year or 1.0/century. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:960/plot/gistemp/last:960/trend
That is not alarming by any stretch of the imagination. Or did you have a longer period in mind?
Thank you! Since it sounds reasonable, I will take your word for it.
Granted, there are many people’s minds that no one will ever change. But many are neutral right now and are looking for answers that make sense to them.
I agree there are many neutral people. I disagree that something this small, this microscopic in relation to the scope of climate, will sway, or even should sway, anyone. 🙂
We are all different, and I mean that in a positive way and not a negative way. What is important to one person may be totally unimportant to the next person. I give a “tiny aspect” of the reason to doubt CAGW. Other writers and commentators give other “tiny aspect(s)”. That is the beauty of a site like WUWT. Many different people with many different areas of expertise write posts and comments which cover huge areas that no single person could hope to understand.
Speaking for myself, I know high school physics and chemistry cold. I have proofread high school physics texts, but when it comes to statistics at a certain level, I defer to Nick Stokes.
Werner, In deferring to Nick Stokes, I would be much happier if Nick Stokes deferred to Dr. William Briggs, a PhD Statistician.
I suspect that Nick would learn where he’s off-base statistically. If he wants to learn, that is…
If you think Nick is off-base, have Dr. William Briggs or anyone else for that matter comment here if you can. Are any numbers that I am quoting from Nick’s site actually wrong?
Werner,
Since it sounds reasonable, I will take your word for it.
I’d be happy with “trust but verify.” But thanks for crediting me with honesty.
The point is, there are no pause or cooling periods after 1975 that are statistically distinct from the previous trend.
There has been no statistically significant pause in global warming since 1975.
Plenty of opportunity to discuss climate sensitivity or what have you, but the ‘pause’ is a bit of a myth – statistically speaking.
barry says:
There has been no statistically significant pause in global warming since 1975.
barry might have some credibility — if practically the entire scientific establishment had not acknowledged the “pause” (AKA: the “hiatus”) throughout most of the past 18+ years. That included scientists onall sides of the debate. They all admitted that global warming had stopped.
All the same data was available then. But even most alarmist scientists were trying to come up with explanations of why global warming had stopped. At last count, they had more than 60 possible reasons.
BUT… now the talking point has changed, and barry is parroting it: ‘Global warming never stopped!!’
barry is just another eco-lemming who made up his mind early on, before there was sufficient evidence. And now he just cannot admit that he was so wrong.
So now barry is into his personal brand of ‘statistics’. Never mind that Dr. William Briggs, PhD Statistician, flatly disagrees. barry just cannot admit that he was so wrong. So he nitpicks, deflects, prevaricates — and parrots the new alarmist Narrative.
Planet Earth says barry is flat wrong. Which one should we believe? Planet Earth, or barry?
Because one of them is wrong.
BUT… now the talking point has changed, and barry is parroting it: ‘Global warming never stopped!!’
I’ve consistently maintained that the pause is statistically non-significant. Because it has been the whole time. Papers or pundits that talked about a change in trend without performing statistical analysis never convinced me, no matter who was doing the talking.
If you can stick to the point, and refrain from lumping me in with whatever group you think soils me by association, we may get somewhere.
barry,
You think you understand statistics, but you always hide out when it’s suggested that either you or PhD Statistician William Briggs is wrong. One of you is right; the other is wrong.
Do you have a Doctorate in statistics? Or are you just trying to deflect from the fact that global warming stopped for so many years? Because it did, no matter what you assert.
That’s the point. Why are you avoiding it?
Actually, Barry is not saying it never stopped. He is saying:
Lord Monckton and I have never discussed the statistical significance of any pause. We simply defined the pause to be a period of time with a negative slope. And presently, no data set shows a half decent period with a negative slope.
I have never read of anyone claiming that there is a 95% or more certainty that any pause at any time on any data set was statistically significant. I did not even think it was possible on the basis of my understanding of what Dr. McKitrick said. But if Dr. William Briggs actually gave a high percent for the statistical significance of any pause, could you please give a link to it? Thanks!
“Werner, In deferring to Nick Stokes, I would be much happier if Nick Stokes deferred to Dr. William Briggs, a PhD Statistician.”
Well, he has a PhD in Mathematical Statistics. I have a PhD in Mathematics, and forty years in a research division of mathematiucs and statistics, and its successors.
But anyway, so what does Briggs have to say about statistical significance and p-values? He wants none of it.
Aphan: Using your logic, since you’ve never been declared a Saint and you’re not the Pope, you must also “go with the consensus” that God exists! Right?
I think I’ve been expecting too much of you. Sorry.
“I think I’ve been expecting too much of you. Sorry.”
That’s why logic is so important. It helps you realize that having any “expectations” of total strangers is irrational and irrelevant to the topic. Now I understand why you’d rather have other people do all of the thinking for you. 🙂
Aphan: It helps you realize that having any “expectations” of total strangers is irrational and irrelevant to the topic.
I don’t know many members of the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, or all the other learned societies that accept the science, but I don’t need to.
I’m not going to challenge their collective wisdom on climate science or any science. When I don’t understand I ask and learn, because I accept I’m wrong.
Dennis,
It is OBVIOUS that you don’t personally KNOW many members of those societies, and there’s the problem. You seem to think that the “public statements” issued by boards of directors over those organizations = “the science”. You actually view “the consensus”…imaginary or not, as “the science”!!! And, even worse, you seem to think that every single member of those associations agrees 100% with every single declaration from their boards!
What “science” Dennis??? Specifically….name and define “the science” which has used the Scientific Method, to conclude that human emissions are directly and solely responsible for increase in global mean temps since 1950!!! Show me. Link to it. Surely that “collective wisdom” is in one place, easily found, and indisputable. Because unless it exists in one easy to find, easy to read form that you can prove that 100% of scientists have personally examined and declared their agreement with, the 97% statement is nothing more than a lie, a fabrication, a distortion, a unicorn that you keep insisting is real!
I state that it is completely irrational, based on real world observable evidence, to assume or conclude that every member of any given group agrees completely with every single statement uttered by those who direct it. Please provide empirical evidence to support any counter argument you might have to my statement.
You’re absolute trust in authority, rather than your own analysis, experiments, studies indicates to me that you will most likely be a mediocre, average scientist in your field, because you aren’t even willing to discuss, or curious enough, or perhaps don’t have the skills to, validate what is said by those you consider to be “experts”.
You’re inability to think or speak with logical consistency is another strike against you. Of every profession in the world, SCIENCE is the one field in which LOGIC is crucial. The ability to separate opinion from fact. To declare things based on empirically observed evidence, not popular vote. To spend one’s career trying to FALSIFY hypothesis and theory, not cheerlead for those who do the opposite.
Society has terms for people who behave in the manner that you have here…blind sheep, groupthink, useful idiots. Sadly, because of people like you, the word “scientist” is becoming synonymous with those.
dbstealey: As it turns out, CO2 is entirely beneficial, with no observed downside.
So where was the sea level when CO2 was very high?
Since you’re deflecting as usual from my comment, maybe you can produce a verifiable, empirical and testable corellation between geologic sea levels and CO2?
Didn’t think so.
Continue with your deflection, it’s all you’ve got.
dbstealey-
dbstealey said to Dennis- “Since you’re deflecting as usual from my comment, maybe you can produce a verifiable, empirical and testable corellation between geologic sea levels and CO2? Didn’t think so.
Continue with your deflection, it’s all you’ve got.”
Cut him some slack db. When the “Committees on Collective Wisdom” get all that verifiable, empirical and testable stuff done, he’ll bring it in here with bells on!! But as he must rely upon them for all of his “science”, there’s nothing he can do until the Gods provide. Ya know? It’s not like he’s willing to collect a dog, a tin man, a scarecrow and a lion and actually face the Great and Powerful Consensus on his own. 🙂
Aphan,
You’ve got D. Horne pegged. He’s a parrot, nothing more.
dbstealey: Once more for the slow learners here: there is nothing either unprecedented, or unusual happening. Everything being observed now has happened naturally, repeatedly, and to a greater degree, before human CO2 emissions mattered.
You know what, I think you really believe that.
Slow Learner:
I can support my statement with plenty of empirical evidence. But all you have are your baseless assertions. Better trot on back to SkS or wherever you’re getting your misinformation from. You need some new talking points.
Why wouldn’t he believe that? The EVIDENCE proves it. The question is, why don’t YOU believe the evidence?
NOAA’s evidence charted– http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/02/unexpected-noaa-debunks-factchecks-myths-about-modern-global-warming.html
Historic data-http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c37fa9895970b-pi
Ice Core data proves it-http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/24/current-warming-is-not-unprecedented-it-is-not-even-unusual/#sthash.wtxqr1F7.nWlogdgC.dpbs
From the Ice Core Data linked to above-
In the past 100 years, “the highest warming took place in the six year period between 1975 and 1981- a rate of 0.27C/decade. There were two periods in the ice core data with higher warming rates, one was in 1370 BCE where in a 12 year period the warming rate was 0.357°C/decade. This period was bracketed by similar length periods with 0.25 and 0.16°C/decade warming periods. This 34-year period saw a warming of nearly a degree (0.98°C) far exceeding the warming in the late Twentieth Century. ”
For something to be “unprecedented”, there can be no prior precedent, or instance of it happening before. As you can SEE, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that the “rapid increase” in CO2 over the past 120 years has caused an “unprecedented or unusual” rate in warming. PERIOD.
I get statistically non-significant warming in the RSS data set from the beginning of March 1992.
Use this link and choose 1992.2 in the start date box. Hit ‘Calculate.’
The trend is 0.128 C (+/- 0.128).
(App uses ARMA(1,1) regression model)
Thank you. I believe this came up before. They use 2 sigma which is 95.45% and not 95% as Nick uses. I am happy that this extends my point about the 23 years by a year rather than totally contradicting it.
Thanks Nick.
Werner,
I think they get higher CIs because of using AMRA(1,1) regression model, in order to deal with autocorrelation. Accounting for autocorrelation increases the CIs. I’m not sure, but would guess woodfortrees uses an AR(1) regression model, which does not account for autocorrelation, treating data as ‘white noise’ (ie, random/uncorrelated), and thus giving narrower CIs.
I don’t know what regression model Nick Stokes is using. I’ve posted to ask him.
I’ve responded there. I think the reason for he discrepancy here is that I use AR(1) model for autocorrelation, and SkS uses ARMA(1,1), also used by Foster and Rahmstorf. This is slightly harder to meet, and so gives slightly longer periods without significance. I have set out here a study of the difference, and why I stick with the more commonly used AR(1).
AR(1) does allow for autocorrelation; it is the simplest model that does so. WFT is probably using OLS – that is the “white noise” model.
barry: Warming is not statistically significant since ‘X’ … The ‘pause’ is not statistically significant either.
If you’re interested … Otherwise, carry on with whatever you’re doing.
dbstealey: Now you’re just doing a climb-down. And, earlier: You lost the debate. Now you’re just flogging a dead horse.
Never mind drawing a conclusion, what about a cartoon? Would have water trough in it somewhere…
As usual, the analogy I posted flew right over D. Horne’s head.
As I recall, Dr. Ross McKitrick said that we can calculate statistical significances of warming, but we cannot calculate statistical significances of pauses.
And that makes sense to me since we can have a slope of 0.3 +/- 0.2 for example. That would mean statistically significant warming. But what if we had a slope of 0.0 +/- 0.2 or even 0.0 +/- 5.0. At what point would the pause be 95% significant?
Science? Let’s start at the beginning and see how we go. The level of CO2, an important greenhouse gas, has increased 40% from 280 to 400 ppm, since industrialisation.
So. We would expect Earth to retain more energy, and it has. Temperatures in the Arctic have soared and the mean global temperature has risen about 1 degree Celsius. Much of the heat has gone into the oceans, but they have also absorbed about half the CO2 emitted by man, making them more acidic. Ice is being lost not only from the Greenland Ice Sheet but also in the Antarctic.
Of course it would take thousands of years for the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet to melt, but there is enough ice there to cause the sea level to rise over 50 metres.
It’s happened in the past when the CO2 was high.
But, unless you break the law, there’s no requirement to face reality. Carry on.
19april,
Thanx for your assertions. While generally correct (some of them, anyway), please note that not one scary prediction made by the alarmist cult has come true.
When predictions are contradicted by observations, the hypothesis is falsified. In this case, “dangerous AGW” has been falsified by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth.
The alarmists were flat wrong. Carry on.
Toneb: “The answer lies in these choices my friend to engender the razor.
1)All climate scientists are incompetent.
2)All clmate scientists are in on a conspiracy.
3)Climate scientists know more than you.
The answer is obvious.”
You missed one.
4)Most climate “scientists” are not scientist at all.
Which is of course the correct answer.
When it’s this bad, who needs a conspiracy?http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken
Carrie: “Stealey is ignorant of the scientific method. If you are skeptical of a conjecture you must falsify it. You must PROVE the conjecture false.”
Oh dear, where to begin…
“Rubbish!” will have to do.
cat,
I don’t think ‘Carrie’ understands how science works:
Skeptics of a hypothesis have nothing to prove.
The onus is entirely on those putting forth their hypothesis.
In the case of CO2=cAGW, the alarmist clique has failed to produce any verifiable, testable, empirical measurements quantifying AGW. All they have is their opinion; their conjecture.
That is not to say that AGW doesn’t exist. I happen to think it does. But since it is too minuscule to even measure, then it does not follow that there is anything catastrophic happening as a result of that tiny rise in CO2 (actually, by just one part in 10,000 — over more than a century).
Furthermore, everything currently being observed regarding global temperatures has been exceeded repeatedly in the past, and by a large degree — and before human CO2 emissions could have had any influence.
Thus, the alarmist hypothesis has been falsified by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.
“The last time we had a major climate change on this planet, the surface warmed by about 5C over 5000 years. That’s 0.001C per year, or 0.1C /century. This amount of warming included the removal of kilometers thick ice sheets from Northern America and Europe and a 100 meter rise in sea level. That is significant change from a few degrees of surface warming.”
Really Barry? You call a 5C increase over 5,000 years “a major climate change”???? Naw, let’s see what the experts say about abrupt, extreme, “major” changes in climate. In 2002, a 244 page report containing over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate was prepared for the National Research Council, and published by the National Academies Press:
Abrupt Climate Change-Inevitable Surprises 2002– http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136/abrupt-climate-change-inevitable-surprises
“The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic–and often extreme–shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes.”
From the Weather Underground regarding the above report- https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp
Jeffrey Masters-PhD- Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.
“The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available.”
“Ocean and lake sediment data from places such as California, Venezuela, and Antarctica have confirmed that these sudden climate changes affected not just Greenland, but the entire world. During the past 110,000 years, there have been at least 20 such abrupt climate changes. Only one period of stable climate has existed during the past 110,000 years–the 11,000 years of modern climate (the “Holocene” era). “Normal” climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps–like a light switch flicking on and off. ”
“As seen in Figure 1, the ice core record showed frequent sudden warmings and coolings of 15°F (8°C) or more. Many of these changes happened in less than 10 years. In one case 11,600 years ago, when Earth emerged from the final phase of the most recent ice age (an event called the Younger Dryas), the Greenland ice core data showed that a 15°F (8°C) warming occurred in less than a decade, accompanied by a doubling of snow accumulation in 3 years. Most of this doubling occurred in a single year.”
“Conclusion
The historical records shows us that abrupt climate change is not only possible–it is the normal state of affairs. The present warm, stable climate is a rare anomaly.”
Aphan, the second report:
Describes shutdown of AMOC bringing abrupt CC to NH, measured as a local change of 15C at Greenland in a decade. Speaks of tipping points where change happens suddenly.
Greenland (and both poles with big jumps, ie ice age transitions) warms more than the globe, and can do abruptly. I was, of course, talking about global warming.
I didn’t want to spread ‘alarmism’, so avoided mentioning tipping points. But here you’ve gone and brought it up.
Conditions are heading towards those possible for an AMOC stop – freshwater pulse to the Atlantic. The report points that out.
Your cited reference warns of abrupt climate change. We *know* it’s possible. You sure you want to flourish this ‘alarmism’?
Regardless of tipping points (if any), we’re still warming at 10 times the rate that we did during the last global climate change 15-10 k years ago, which was a period that saw huge climate changes in ice cover, sea level, and global surface temps (the poles warmed by 10 – 12 C in that period, the tropics 2 – 3C, the global average 5 – 6C).
No alarmism from me, just facts and figures, and a neutral approach to uncertainty. Uncertainty cuts both ways, despite spin to persuade otherwise.
barry,
“Describes shutdown of AMOC bringing abrupt CC to NH, measured as a local change of 15C at Greenland in a decade. Speaks of tipping points where change happens suddenly.”
That one particular quote speaks of ONE particular tipping point among many, that prove that climate change happening suddenly is the NORM for planet Earth. That is not “alarmism”, it’s just fact to anyone who studies Earth’s entire history rather than just a 135 year part of it. If the history of Earth alarms people, nothing I can do about that. People who study history know that CO2 has never, ever preceded or caused a “tipping point” shift in Earth’s climate.
But it is weird. You mention that event above as if it only caused a “local change” but then bring it up again later along WITH its world wide global effect:
“Regardless of tipping points (if any), we’re still warming at 10 times the rate that we did during the last global climate change 15-10 k years ago, which was a period that saw huge climate changes in ice cover, sea level, and global surface temps (the poles warmed by 10 – 12 C in that period, the tropics 2 – 3C, the global average 5 – 6C).”
Are you using Common Core Math? Let’s see….a global average of 5-6C increasing in just “a decade” compared to 0.8 C of “global average warming” occurring in 135+ years…..please, do that math for me and show you work, because I’m dividing 0.8C by 13 (13.6 decades) and getting 0.065C per decade which is close to 1/10th the rate of warming we had “during the last global climate change 15-10k years ago”.
You were talking about global warming; the entire actual report (not the article) was too. That was ONE example. Let me post the same quote for you AGAIN, with different emphasis:
“Ocean and lake sediment data from places such as California, Venezuela, and Antarctica have confirmed that these sudden climate changes affected not just Greenland, but the entire world. During the past 110,000 years, there have been at least 20 such abrupt climate changes. Only one period of stable climate has existed during the past 110,000 years–the 11,000 years of modern climate (the “Holocene” era). “Normal” climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps–like a light switch flicking on and off. “
We don’t just KNOW that “it’s possible”. We know it HAPPENED over and over and over again. The report’s title states the fact….it’s INEVITABLE. Pretending that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause or precede an abrupt change in temperature in the future, something is has never, EVER, been proven to do in the past, is idiotic… but is used intentionally to cause alarm. Why?
Based on the empirical evidence contained on and in this planet, that abrupt climate changes are the norm, and have NEVER been the result of increased CO2, give me ONE logical reason why the “scientific community” would even want to form a “consensus” that CO2 is responsible for driving Earth’s climate??? I cannot think of a single logical reason why any intelligent person would think that it does, let alone accuse “ALL OF the experts” of being stupid enough to think that!
Aphan,
You mention that event above as if it only caused a “local change” but then bring it up again later along WITH its world wide global effect
First mention is regional effect of AMOC shutdown, second one is the ice age transition. Your calcs are in error due to conflating two different climate changes. (Global warming of 5-6C occurred during ice age transition over 5000 years, not one decade: Greenland temp changed by 8C in a decade during Dryas event, by 10-12C during ice age transition).
AMOC shutdown would have opposite temp effects for both hemispheres.
* Annual average temperatures would drop up to 5° F in North America, and up to 6° F in northern Europe. This is not sufficient to trigger an ice age, which requires about a 10° F drop in temperature world-wide, but could bring about conditions like experienced in 1816–the famed “year without a summer”. In that year, volcanic ash from the mighty Tambora volcanic eruption in Indonesia blocked the sun’s rays, significantly cooling the globe. Snow fell in New England in June, and killing frosts in July and August caused widespread crop failures and famine in New England and northern Europe.
* Annual average temperatures would warm up to 4° F in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
* Multi-year droughts in regions unaccustomed to drought would affect critical agricultural and water
resource regions world-wide, greatly straining food and water supplies.
* Winter storms and winds would strengthen over North America and Europe.
Obviously, this is not what is happening now. Both hemispheres are warming. The global warming underway is 10 times faster than during the last ice age transition (warming @ur momisugly 1C per century current). If you wish to go with the 20th century trend, warming now is 6.5 times faster now than then.
Shutdown of the AMOC would have a significantly deleterious effect for us. Shutdown of the AMOC last occurred at the peak of the last ice age transition to interglacial, whereafter surface temps have been relatively steady. Report mentions the possibility of AMOC shutdown occurring under AGW.
Pretending that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause or precede an abrupt change in temperature in the future, something is has never, EVER, been proven to do in the past, is idiotic… but is used intentionally to cause alarm. Why?
The report raises just that possibility. Was it your intention to cite an ‘alarmist’ reference?
An AMOC shutdown – several degrees temp change in each hemisphere (cold NH, warm SH) would strain water supply and agriculture (also mentioned in report). It seems your need to prove bigger climate changes in the past has made you blind to that part of the report. Worth mentioning that the last time AMOC shutdown occurred, there were no civilizations dependent on stable food supply and water.
AMOC shutdown is considered unlikely by 2100. From where I’m standing you look like the alarmist here.
barry says:
The global warming underway is 10 times faster than during the last ice age transition (warming @ur momisugly 1C per century current).
That’s wrong. Check the Alley link downthread. He shows that temperatures fluctuated by tens of whole degrees, within only a decade or two. Now, that’s scary!
What we’ve observed over the past century is a true “Goldilocks” global temperature. It couldn’t be more benign.
But if you’re a climate alarmist, you look for factoids that feed your confirmation bias.
For everyone else, this is what all the alarmist hand-waving is about:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
A century and a third, without more than a ±0.7ºC wiggle. And they’re trying to alarm the public with that. As if.
“That’s wrong. Check the Alley link downthread. He shows that temperatures fluctuated by tens of whole degrees, within only a decade or two. Now, that’s scary!”
You are so wrong. (DB-style explanation!)
db,
Of course there have been abrupt regional changes. What is happening now is not an AMOC shutdown, which has differentiated regional effects. For current global warming, the closest analog – where both hemispheres warmed – was the last transition from ice age to interglacial.
An AMOC shutdown or other trigger for an abrupt change like the Dryas events would be cause for great concern. Do you expect that to happen any time soon? Or are you about to suggest – as the authors of Aphan’s cite do – that a shutdown is possible in the future with current global warming?
I think such a position is alarmist. We survived such events when we were wearing goat skins. A warming of 6C in a decade across the Northern Hemisphere now would wreak havoc on civilizational infrastructure (agriculture, water supply). But I’m not selling that idea. It’s a much less certain proposition than the basic GHG physics.
The example here is of a ‘tipping point’ – relative to the stability of the Holocene, a cataclysmic event. It’s pretty odd that skeptics would be pushing the notion of a potential rapid change of such magnitude. I guess the eagerness to ‘disprove’ my argument caused that.
You think this could happen any time soon or what?
Aphan. You told me you could read. Why did you misquote the conclusion in the article you linked?
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp?MR=1
Conclusion
The historical records shows us that abrupt climate change is not only possible–it is the normal state of affairs. The present warm, stable climate is a rare anomaly. It behoves us to learn as much as we can about the climate system so that we may be able to predict when the next abrupt shift in climate will come. Until we know better when this might happen, it would be wise to stop pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air. A nasty surprise might be lurking just around the corner. In the words of Dr. Wally Broecker, “the climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking it.”
It behoves (sic) us to learn as much as we can about the climate system so that we may be able to predict when the next abrupt shift in climate will come. Until we know better when this might happen, it would be wise to stop pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air.
That is a text book example of an illogical conclusion; a non sequitur. It is a logical fallacy that the authors are using to troll for grants.
Nope. I didn’t misquote anything. I quoted the known, understood facts gathered from empirical evidence. The rest was the personal opinion of the author and a personal quote from someone else who refers to climate as if it has the traits of an animal or sentient creature. The whole point was to refer to facts and data, not personal opinions.
Indeed, the logic used by the Author cuts both ways…Since all the evidence demonstrates nature changes climate bigger and badder and faster on her own, until we know better what causes abrupt climate changes, it would be wise to hold off calling anything that has occurred in the past two hundred years “abrupt” or even “climate change,” or blaming any future changes that might come on human CO2.
So, Dennis, if you actually read the report, (and not just the last sentence or two of an article that reviewed the report, would you agree that the “expert” witness of all of the evidence in it, testifies that:
*nothing in human history in the past two hundred years has caused or led to, the kinds of dramatic, dangerous, FAST changes that make up the vast majority of Earth’s history.
*rapid, significant increases in CO2 have never, EVER, proceeded ANY of the Earth’s climate shifts….Ever. So suspecting such events to start doing so NOW, is illogical and unreasonable. Especially with zero proof upon which to base that suspicion other than how CO2 in a sealed environment with none of the other atmospheric factors involved behaves?
*the odds that Earth would undergo another, perfectly natural climate upheaval WITHOUT human CO2 influence are far greater than the next climate upheaval being caused by, or related to, increasing CO2? (Especially given the FACT that increases in CO2 have less and less effect?)
It’s perfect dbstealey, Dennis clearly values opinions that match his, over scientific evidence. It’s the only thing he bothered to comment on. 🙂
barry,
Aphan is right. Abrupt climate change (meaning abrupt change in global temperatures) has happened as 11,600 ybp; just prior to the current Holocene. Temperatures fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within only a decade or two:
http://oi43.tinypic.com/1zoanbc.jpg
Contrast that with the past century, in which humanity and the biosphere enjoyed the most benign global temperatures of any similar time frame in the entire temperature record.
Despite a double digit rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, global T has fluctuated by only ±0.7ºC. As we see from the chart above, that is nothing.
As usual, the alarmist crowd was flat wrong.
dbstealey. Whatever. Still a thoroughly misleading quote. Whether you agree or not. Dishonesty or second thoughts?
By the way, behove is an English word. You can spell it like hoover if you like.
Then IGNORE the freaking quote I gave from the conclusion. Let’s talk about the SCIENCE….the evidence…the facts produced in the report done by EXPERTS in 2002. The entire point is that Earth’s climate changes rapidly and shockingly on it’s own, without human influence. In fact, the period of human civilization on this planet has been the most NON active climate in Earths history. Did they cause THAT too?
Yes, the climate does change for various reasons and right now the accumulation of much more energy (heat) is being driven by much more CO2.
The fact you give half a quote and chop off the bit you don’t like shows you up.
Just to illustrate this point, supposedly Earth’s temperature went up by 0.8 C since 1750. I do not know how much of this 0.8 C is due to our CO2. I am guessing perhaps a third to a half. But whatever it is, from January to February, only one month, GISS went up by 0.21, from 1.13 to 1.34. This was due to the El Nino and had nothing to do with us.
Then think of the asteroid that supposedly killed the dinosaurs. Or think of the woolly mammoths that still had food in their stomachs. See:
http://creation.com/the-extinction-of-the-woolly-mammoth-was-it-a-quick-freeze
Dennis-
“Yes, the climate does change for various reasons and right now the accumulation of much more energy (heat) is being driven by much more CO2. The fact you give half a quote and chop off the bit you don’t like shows you up.”
And the fact that you refuse to actually discuss the actual science of rapid climate change, and would rather focus on opinions, shows you up too. Not ONCE in Earth’s history have scientists proven that CO2 in our atmosphere affects temperatures in the same way contained CO2 in a lab does. Not ONCE in Earth’s history have scientists proven that an increase of CO2 PRECEDED an increase in temperatures. NOT ONCE. And yet here you are…..just certain that energy is accumulating in our system….despite the fact that the “experts” cannot seem to FIND that unaccounted for heat accumulating anywhere.
In fact, CO2 can’t cause heat to accumulate anywhere except inside of a sealed container! (and then at MUCH higher levels than are currently in our atmosphere) In our atmosphere, it can only slow down it’s rate of escape to space…which….shockingly….the experts admit it still does!
But you just keep talking about me cutting off a quote right where it became opinion instead of fact. If that’s the best you can do, then by all means, present it.
Werner-
“Just to illustrate this point, supposedly Earth’s temperature went up by 0.8 C since 1750.”
0.8C since 1750? I don’t think so….but whatever.
But in the 150 years between 800 and 950 AD, the globe warmed almost the exact same amount as it has in the past 200 years. (Even though barry will tell you that today’s rate of warming is unprecedented. :)) And in the 300 years between 950 AD and 1250 AD, it DROPPED more than it had risen in the previous 150 years despite the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere staying fairly constant!
http://www.biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg
D. Horne,
Hey, I learned something new! I always like that. ‘Behove’ is the Old English spelling of ‘behoove’. We don’t use it in America, but thanks for that. I like accurate language as much as Aphan and Willis do.
However, I was absolutely correct about the non sequitur.
The author wrote:
It *ahem* ‘behoves’ us to learn as much as we can about the climate system so that we may be able to predict when the next abrupt shift in climate will come. Until we know better when this might happen, it would be wise to stop pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air. (My emphasis)
It would be the same kind of non sequitur (eg: logical fallacy) if they had written:
…Until we know better when the next Ice Age might happen, it would be wise to keep pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air.
It is gratuitous grant-trolling, and if you can’t see that it’s because you’ve closed your mind to what’s happening in acedemia.
Aphan. No sure which expert you quote/misquote.
Dr. Wally Broecker of Columbia University, the scientist who first pointed out the link between the Atlantic’s conveyor circulation and abrupt climate change, wrote a letter in March 2004 to Science magazine, accusing the authors of the study of making exaggerated claims that “only intensify the existing polarization over global warming”. Broecker argued that a global-warming induced abrupt climate change is not likely to occur until 100 years or so into the future, by which time Earth’s temperature will have warmed sufficiently to offset much of the abrupt cooling a Meridional overturning circulation shut down would trigger. Broecker added: “What is needed is not more words but rather a means to shut down carbon dioxide emissions.”
Note that was 12 years ago and there’s been a lot more energy retained by Earth since with soaring temperature increases in the Arctic and worrying signs the Antarctic ice shelves are being undermined by warm water.
Or, as dbstealey keeps telling us, it’s all a vast global conspiracy to get grants.
Aphan provides verifiable links, while Horne provides… his opinion.
And twelve years ago? Global temperatures rose during that time by how much? Nada. Except for El Nino, global T rose too little to even measure within the error bars. Therefore, that vast increase in absorbed energy is… hiding!
Where is it hiding? In the deep oceans, as Trenberth speculates? But that presumes that warmer water didn’t rise in 12 years. So forget that nonsense, Planet Earth has falsified it. The deep oceans are not warming, according to ARGO data (I’ll post it on request).
Next, why is the Arctic always cherry-picked? The original scare was that ‘polar ice’ would disappear. But since rising Antarctic ice has debunked that claim, no alarmist wants to discuss the Antarctic. And the Antarctic contains 10X more ice volume than the Arctic. That’s why global ice cover isn’t changing. The global ice trend is flat.
Finally, Horne doesn’t understand the difference between a ‘conspiracy’ and a ‘bandwagon’. I’ll explain, even though it’s been explained before, repeatedly, by others here:
A conspiracy is a secret agreement to defraud someone. Sure, that’s a part of it. But the biggest part is the bandwagon effect.
In a ‘bandwagon’, everyone with a common interest jumps aboard, so long as the bandwagon is rolling in a direction that benefits the riders. The bandwagon here is the “carbon” scare, and the “dangerous man-made global warming” alarmism. With more than $1 BILLION in grants being handed out every year to “study climate change”, the bandwagon is clear: you get on board, and get rewarded, by parroting the Narrative. There is nothing secret happening. Every postdoc in ‘climatology’ clearly understands what must be said, and done, and written, to get ahead. You can hardly blame them for helping to perpetuate the CAGW scare. But it’s not science.
As I’ve said for many years: take away the easy money, and the cAGW scare would collapse overnight. Money — and lots of it — is the only reason that the DAGW alarmism isn’t constantly ridiculed. Except for the taxpayer loot, the scare would have evaporated long ago.
But there’s more to it than mean global temperature, there’s heat, and there is a difference between heat — which is energy — and temperature. Temperatures can be very high with inconsequential heat. Like a neon tube.
Surface temperatures can soar in one place because energy/heat is transferred by, for example, ocean currents. That’s what’s happening in the polar regions.
El Nino doesn’t account for any energy/heat added to the Earth system since we added CO2, it just shifts it around. CO2 does. ALL the increase in accumulated energy we see comes from the increase in CO2. We have added twice as much CO2 as is required to account for the added energy. Half the CO2 has dissolved in the oceans. Of course as the oceans warm it comes out again.
You are correct here. But why would you bring that point up since it weakens your own arguments? As you know, February smashed records on almost all data sets. And where do you suppose the anomalies were highest? It was in the Arctic as can be seen here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
It takes very little energy to raise the temperature of air at -30 C to -20 C with its low absolute humidity. So although the temperatures were much higher in the far north, the corresponding energy was not nearly as high in proportion.
“But there’s more to it than mean global temperature, there’s heat, and there is a difference between heat — which is energy — and temperature. Temperatures can be very high with inconsequential heat. Like a neon tube. ”
Why YES…there IS more to it than global mean temperatures! But Earth is not like a neon tube is it? But the entire AGW argument is that elevated levels of human emitted CO2 are directly responsible for increases in Earth’s global temperatures. Easy peasy right?
“ALL the increase in accumulated energy we see comes from the increase in CO2.”
Based upon WHAT evidence? Where exactly is this “accumulated energy”? In order to validate that AGW hypothesis, you have to falsify every other available factor that could have caused, or be part of causing, the supposed increase/accumulation. Where/when was that done?
“We have added twice as much CO2 as is required to account for the added energy.”
We have? Because Arrhenius stated in 1906 that a doubling of CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm would result in pretty much a 1.5 C increase, and we’ve supposedly added 120 ppm since 1880 and temps increased 0.8C…so isn’t that much C02 almost exactly required?
“Half the CO2 has dissolved in the oceans. Of course as the oceans warm it comes out again.”
That’s so weird….because warming oceans don’t absorb as much CO2…but the oceans just keep sucking it up. So…when the oceans warm up, which they NATURALLY DO during inter glacial periods…right?…which CO2 comes back out? The most recent amounts of CO2 it has absorbed…like ours? Or the CO2 that has been buried in the depths of the oceans for thousands/millions of years and enriched by the ocean floor with more CO2 (cold water holds more CO2 than warm water does) and then brought to the surface to be warmed (and thus release that CO2)? And there seems to be a LOT (a freaking lot) of dissolved CO2 on the deep oceans…..which mammals were responsible for putting all of THAT “additional CO2” in the atmosphere thousands, billions of years before humans came around?
As far as CO2 being the ONLY thing that could possibly be responsible for the temp increases since 1880, here are links to just 631 peer reviewed papers published since 2014 that say otherwise…. (Cook et al 2013 only found 41 papers out of 11,994 that explicitly agreed with AGW theory.)
248 peer reviewed papers published in 2014
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/#sthash.HXwA9xsA.dpbs-
250 published in 2015
http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/#sthash.iGT3gMHB.dpbs
and 133 papers published between January and March of THIS YEAR ALREADY-
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/#sthash.2k3mmvcz.dpbs
Aphan. Jeffrey Masters wrote a conclusion at the end of his article: Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
You read the article and decided CO2 was irrelevant. Okay. You’ve come to different conclusions.
You can’t both be right. So don’t try and tell me you can.
Oh NOW who is misquoting who??? Jeffrey Masters SAID-
“The historical records shows us that abrupt climate change is not only possible–it is the normal state of affairs. The present warm, stable climate is a rare anomaly. It behooves us to learn as much as we can about the climate system so that we may be able to predict when the next abrupt shift in climate will come. Until we know better when this might happen, it would be wise to stop pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air. A nasty surprise might be lurking just around the corner.”
He said “until we know better when this (the next abrupt climate change) might happen, it would be wise to stop pouring so much carbon dioxide into the air”. A nasty surprise MIGHT be lurking just around the corner.”
He didn’t say stop pumping CO2 into the air, he said it would be wise to stop pouring so MUCH CO2 into the air. He also speaks as if climate change is sentient and capable of “lurking” around the next corner, and quoted a man who describes the climate as a creature that is capable of being “angered and poked” by humans!!! I’ll HAPPILY add those direct quotes in here as an example of the kind of professional “experts” you happen to agree with.
If YOU actually read the REPORT upon which Dr Masters bases his article (not a peer reviewed paper…an article that summarized the facts in the report well…which is why I included his summary and linked to it even KNOWING what he said at the end) you would ALSO have to admit that the report concludes that the evidence proves that CO2 increases have never, ever caused abrupt climate change in the past-making HUMAN CO2-irrelevant to the report, since human CO2 has risen during the most benign and quiet, LEAST changing climate in Earth’s history.
Dr Master’s personal conclusions, as well as mine, are IRRELEVANT because they are nothing more than our personal opinions. I explained perfectly to you prior, that I wasn’t interested in his opinion, which is why I only included the FACTUAL statement that was part of the conclusion.
The FACTS are the FACTS.
Opinions are opinions.
Do you need someone to define them both for you and point out the differences or are you just so freaked out by actual scientific experts reporting on actual scientific evidence in a way that doesn’t support your OWN OPINION, that your natural, human response is just to hyper focus on something inane and spew logical fallacies and cognitive biases?
I mean, you posted this to argue that I “misquoted” Jeffrey Masters, and then YOU misquoted Jeffrey Masters doing it….really? Math might be your strong point, but logic is mine.
Horne says:
Jeffrey Masters wrote a conclusion at the end of his article: Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Horne also calls that a “conclusion”. I call it an opinion, based on a non sequitur.
Maybe twenty or thirty years ago there might have been some legitimate concern over the additional CO2. But we’ve learned a lot in those decades. Here’s what we have learned:
The rise in CO2 has been completely harmless. You would not even be able to tell, except by using very sensitive instruments.
But the biosphere can tell. Plants can tell. Agricultural productivity is rising in lockstep with rising CO2. Therefore, the rise in CO2 has been very beneficial. Food costs are being kept down, and for the one-third of humanity subsisting on less than $2 a day, that is critical.
Since there is no observed global damage, or harm, resulting from the rise in CO2, the true ‘conclusion’ is that CO2 is “harmless”. QED
So on balance: the rise in CO2 is a net benefit, with no observed downside. More is better.
Masters is giving his baseless opinion because he’s riding the bandwagon; it benefits him. But he has no measurable evidence to support his beliefs. If he was being honest, he would admit that the “carbon” scare has been debunked by the Real World.
Sure, we’ll all keep an eye on things, and if there’s any change that looks threatening, no doubt the UN will be there with its hand out, beggig for $Billions to do more “studies”.
But so far there is not a scintilla of evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is anything but beneficial.
Seas are now rising faster than they have in 2,800 years, scientists say
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/22/seas-are-now-rising-faster-than-they-have-in-2800-years-scientists-say/?postshare=421456172051268&tid=ss_tw
Well, that’s it from me. I would like to thank the moderator. It can’t be easy.
That’s it? OK then, we’ll see…
Of course that’s all for you Dennis. Because when we got right down to the science and evidence, you had nothing left to say. Our Mods are great, and they speak for themselves.
Strange nobody was accused of thread bombing here 😀
Phil: 96 matches
Aphan: +100
DB: +100
[Reply: There’s a difference between giving a personal opinion after every comment another person posts, and posting science. Moderators make the call. If you’re unhappy, there are many other blogs that would be happy to add your comments to their traffic. -mod.]
Strange that only you seems to think this is “thread bombing”. 😀
Well, you were blowing up the bad information being posted.
/grin
Hugs to you JW 🙂
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-04-19/earth-s-temperature-just-shattered-the-thermometer
Only three months in, and 2016 will almost certainly be the hottest year on record.
This is how they “shatter” the record:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PxZyE6Jgabo/Sw6YAcxWi_I/AAAAAAAAMJA/axWcg5GpFI8/s1600/theo2.gif
dbstealey. Yeah, I reckon that sums up your position.
Dennis Horne April 19, 2016 at 3:29 pm
“Well, that’s it from me.”
And I have an honesty/accuracy problem? You’re still here posting….
Horne,
Read Dr. Pat Frank’s total deconstruction of the “adjustments” that fabricate alarming global warming.
On second thoght, don’t bother. You wouldn’t understand it.
“Christy’s February 2016 presentation explained this common origin as the most appropriate reference period, using the start of a race as a metaphor:”
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf
U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology. 2 Feb 2016. Testimony of John R. Christy
Summary of Extract
The messages of the two points outlined in the extract above are: (1) the claims about
increases in frequency and intensity of extreme events are generally not supported by
actual observations and, (2) official information about climate science is largely
controlled by agencies through (a) funding choices for research and (b) by the carefully selected
(i.e. biased) authorship of reports such as the EPA Endangerment Finding and
the National Climate Assessment.
“… official information about climate science is largely controlled by agencies through (a) funding choices for research and (b) by the carefully selected (i.e. biased) authorship of reports …”
Ah, I see the problem!
dbstealey: The rise in CO2 has been completely harmless … the rise in CO2 has been very beneficial.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/great-barrier-reef-damage-weve-never-seen-anything-like-this-bef/
Scientists in Australia have revealed the “tragic” extent of coral bleaching across the Great Barrier Reef, releasing maps which show damage to 93 per cent of the famous 1,500-mile stretch of reefs following a recent underwater heatwave.
Scientists believe the bleaching was caused by an El Nino weather pattern, combined with rising water temperatures due to global warming.
It is believed that Cyclone Winston, a severe tropical storm which killed more than 40 people in Fiji in February and was the Pacific island’s worst cyclone, actually helped to prevent widespread coral bleaching in the lower parts of the reef because it brought a surge of cooler water.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/great-barrier-reef-half-of-natural-wonder-is-dead-or-dying-and-it-is-on-the-brink-of-extinction-a6992411.html
US President Barack Obama embarrassed Australia 18 months ago by warning of the risk of climate change to the reef during a G20 meeting.
Australia is one of the largest carbon emitters per capita because of its reliance on coal-fired power plants for electricity. Despite pledging to cut carbon emissions, Australia has continued to support fossil fuel projects…
Dennis Horne said:
April 19, 2016 at 3:29 pm
Well, that’s it from me…
Had your fingers crossed, did you?
dbstealey. Fingers crossed? No, you’e got your wires crossed. I know my comments upset you, but hey, you’re a skeptic and skeptics change their minds when the facts change. So I don’t want to give up on you yet.
Attributed to Keynes:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
D. Horne,
Your comments don’t upset me nearly as much as the anti-science ignorance expressed in them.
And yes, you’re right: skeptics change their minds if new facts warrant it. That’s what makes scientific skeptics the polar opposites of climate alarmists: the alarmist crowd never changes its mind. Mile-thick glaciers could once again cover the US midwest, but you would still be fabricating conjectures claiming that it is all due to man-made global warming.
The one thing that sets skeptics apart from alarmists is that no climate alarmist is ever the least bit skeptical. So thanx for pointing that out. You are as certain of your beliefs as any Jehovah’s Witness. Alarmists are often wrong, but never in doubt.
Skeptics are always in doubt. We look for evidence that we are wrong. If we find it, we are always ready to change our views.
As I’ve often stated, all you need to do to convince skeptics that there’s a problem is to produce verifiable, testable, empirical measurements quantifying AGW. But despite more than a century of searching, no one has been able to convincingly measure AGW. That is obviously because AGW is simply too small to measure with current instruments.
As always, the onus is on you to provide convincing, credible, measurable data showing that the rise in human CO2 emissions is causing unusual or unprecedented global warming. But again, no one has ever produced any credible measurements.
Thus, the cAGW scare is nothing more than a conjecture. An opinion. Conjectures are fine in science. They are the bottom tier in ‘Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law’. Conjectures are the starting point.
But a conjecture must rise to the same standard as the others: a conjecture, like a theory, must be capable of producing repeated, accurate predictions, or the conjecture is falsified. The CO2=cAGW conjecture has never made repeated, accurate predictions. In fact, no one was able to predict the most significant global temperature event of the past century: the fact that global warming stopped for almost 20 years.
As Einstein, Langmuir, Popper, and Feynman all pointed out, all it takes is one contradiction between your conjecture and empirical observations, and your ‘theory’ has been falsified. Therefore, since the CO2=cAGW conjecture has never made any correct predictions, the science debate has been won by skeptics. QED
“I know my comments upset you”
It’s not your comments that are upsetting, Horney old chap, but the cloak of invincible ignorance and scientific illiteracy that you wear as though it were a badge of honour, not to mention your patronising and obnoxious passive-aggressive debating style.
catweazle666-
Dennis said “Well, that’s it from me.” yesterday and he’s still here. So add liar to all those other accurate things you said so eloquently. (Your comments always make me smile.)
Perhaps he really did not intend to say more when he made that statement. However he may have been prompted to do so by other statements. So let us be charitable and say he made what turned out to be an erroneous statement. ☺
…let us be charitable and say he made what turned out to be an erroneous statement.
Sure. On top of lots of other erroneous statements. ☺
Werner,
You seem to be a fair and good man. And you may be as charitable to him as you see fit. After being the recipient of his repeated uncharitable declarations, when I called him a liar, I was being charitable. 🙂
A commentator half quotes a conclusion leaving the impression the writer wrote something exactly opposite to what he actually did write, and when attention is drawn to it she defends doing it. Then calls another commentator who changes his mind about going away for a few days — and continues to comment — a liar.