Virtually indistinguishable – Comparing early 20th Century warming to late 20th Century warming

Guest essay by Andy May

Many writers, including Professor Richard Lindzen and Ed Caryl have noticed the remarkable similarity in global warming observed from around 1910 to 1944 and 1975 to 2009. The similarity in slopes exists in all global surface temperature datasets. Figure 1 shows the HadCRUT version 4 dataset and the NASA GISS land (GHCN v3) and ocean (ERSST v4) temperature dataset. We’ve identified the two periods of interest on the figure. All datasets also show some cooling between 1945 and 1975.

clip_image002

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows the two periods overlain with data from the HadCRUT version 4 dataset. This display is scaled to actual average temperature. Unlike Figure one this figure and the next one use smoothed monthly data. In that way, we can see some of the variation within each year.

clip_image004

Figure 2

The left side of Figure 2 represents 1910 for the blue line and 1975 for the orange line. On average the earlier blue line is 0.36°C cooler than the later line. The later line also has a steeper slope, the earlier represents 0.144°C of warming per decade and the later line shows 0.192°C warming per decade. Figure 3 shows the same HadCRUT v4 data, but it is shown as anomalies from the mean and the two means are forced to be the same.

clip_image006

Figure 3

Now we can easily see the similarity in the two warming periods. The vertical scale is expanded and means of the two records are overlain, so the similarity jumps out at us. Yet the IPCC in their AR5 Summary for Policy Makers states on page 17:

“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

On page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers they provide a description of the anthropogenic “radiative forcing” from man’s emissions and other actions. This is shown in Figure 4.

clip_image008

Figure 4

At the bottom of the figure the total IPCC estimated anthropogenic climate radiative forcing is given for three years 1950, 1980 and 2011. The IPCC man-made radiative forcing for 2011 is 4 times the forcing for 1950. According to the IPCC, CO2 and methane (CH4) are the primary influences on climate. Land use change and variations in solar irradiance are very minor in their estimation. Soon, Connolly and Connolly (SCC15) and others have criticized this view and think that solar variability could play a larger role in climate change. One problem is the long term variation in total solar irradiance and in the amount of that radiation that reaches the earth is unknown at this time. Many different estimates have been published. Unfortunately the IPCC only chose four low variability estimates (as identified in SCC15 in their Figure 8) and ignored the others. Further they assume that the only natural influence on climate for the whole period of the IPCC study (roughly 150 years) is the variation in solar radiation, ignoring episodic volcanism. This assumption has been criticized by Professor Judith Curry and others. Variations in the strength of the sun’s magnetic field, the Earth’s orbit and inclination may be important. Very long term cycles in ocean currents might also be affecting this relatively short 150 year period.

The change in slope between the earlier HadCRUT line and the later line (see Figure 2) is about 0.05°C/decade. The later rate of 0.192°C/decade represents an increase of about 33% in the warming rate. So we are comparing a quadrupling of man’s influence to a 33% change in the rate of warming assuming that the natural forces were the same in both warming periods. It is understandable if this doesn’t make sense to you. Below we discuss this conundrum at more length.

The warming in the early 20th century has always been a bit of a mystery. Attempts to model this warming event have mostly failed. An excellent overview of the peer-reviewed literature on this warming period by Ari Jokimaki can be seen here. Generally it is considered to be natural and roughly equivalent to the warming since 1950, at least in the northern hemisphere and particularly north of 60°N. We have some indications that warming in the United States was more severe in the late 1930’s than today. In particular 1936 has the most US all-time records for daily maximum temperature and 1930 is second.

Measuring the global average surface temperature accurately is problematic. Land based measurements are affected by weather station siting problems and the changing environment around long term weather stations as people have become more urbanized. Attempts at “homogenizing” the temperatures can induce a warming trend because urban areas are warmer than rural areas and many previously rural weather stations have had urban areas surround them over time. In Connolly and Connolly (2014) they point out that the unadjusted US climate network data (their Figure 5) shows that the 1930’s were at least as warm as today. However, once the data are homogenized by the National Climatic Data Center, the 1930’s are suddenly cooler (Connolly and Connolly 2014, Figure 20) than today. Further, most weather stations in the world between 1850 and the present day are in urban areas. For example, only 24.7% of the GHCN network is fully rural.

Only 30% of the surface of the Earth is on land. Oceans cover the largest area and have a correspondingly larger effect on the average temperature. Here the problem is the ocean skin effect. The temperature difference between the air just above the water, the temperature at the surface of the water and the temperature just below the surface is often large. On “average” the temperature of the mixed layer (roughly the upper 50 meters of the ocean) is very similar and slightly higher than the temperature of the air above the ocean. But, the ocean mixed-layer temperature varies much more slowly due to a higher heat capacity. The mixed layer heat capacity is almost 23 times the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere.

Of necessity, the surface temperature over the oceans is not actually measured. Instead the global average surface temperature datasets use temperatures measured with ARGO floats and at the water intakes of ships. The depth of the water intake ports varies making these measurements problematic. Older measurements, especially before World War II, include bucket samples. Bucket samples are taken over the side of a ship. A thermometer is placed in the retrieved bucket to obtain a water temperatures. All of these methods are perfectly adequate for ballpark estimates of the ocean surface temperature +-2°C or so. But, we are interested in very small changes in temperature of only +-0.2°C. None of these methods, with the exception of the ARGO floats, is that accurate. To make it worse, the highly accurate ARGO float data has been adjusted to the ship measurements, not the other way around. As a result, as more ARGO floats are deployed the “average” ocean surface temperature goes up artificially because 0.12°C is added to the measurements. Two hypothetical temperature profiles of the upper ocean are presented in Figure 5. These are from Dr. Peter Minnet, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami. As you can see the upper layer of the ocean is almost always 0.1K to 0.5K cooler than the immediate subsurface water because the ocean is normally warmer than the atmosphere, but this varies a lot depending upon weather, time of day and cloud cover.

clip_image010

Figure 5

Besides an informative discussion of surface temperatures, SCC15 also provides a new land only northern hemisphere surface temperature dataset based mostly upon long term rural temperature stations. A comparison of the early 20th century and the later 20th century using their dataset is shown in Figure 6.

clip_image012

Figure 6

The difference in the two lines is reduced from the HadCRUT value of 0.36°C to 0.02°C. Probably, this is mostly due to using rural data and minimizing the processing and homogenization. But, this dataset is also northern hemisphere land only and not directly comparable to the HadCRUT or NASA datasets. Although the means have moved closer together, the difference in the slopes is similar. The HadCRUT increase is 33% and the mostly rural increase is 29%.

Both the HadCRUT v4 and the SCC15 records agree that the rate has increased.

clip_image014

Figure 7

In Figure 7, the NASA GISS data also shows an increase in the slope from the first period to the second. Here it increases 0.0046°C/year or 0.046°C/decade. This is very similar to the increase of 0.048°C/decade for the HadCRUT v4 dataset and not too different from the northern hemisphere, rural, land only difference of 0.07°C/decade observed with the SCC15 dataset. Like the HadCRUT dataset, this one shows a large offset (0.44°C) between the periods.

The ultimate, presumably natural, cause of the early 20th Century warming is unknown. But, Wyatt and Curry have observed and documented a series of cyclical patterns in numerous climatic records that they collectively call a “Stadium Wave.” This wave is illustrated in Figure 8. They believe that these cycles act in concert, like a stadium wave, to form our current natural climate cycle. The reverse could also be true, a single factor may be causing all of these observed effects, but with different time delays.

clip_image016

Figure 8

The climatic records they used include the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and various sea ice records. The curves in Figure 8 are normalized climate indices created from the records. They are presented so that up (positive) is warmer and down (negative) is cooler. The various indices are derived from records of atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data gathered since 1900. The two most important components turned out to be the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the sea ice extent in the western Eurasian arctic. Since the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850, we have been in a period of long term natural warming. The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens that trend. As the figure shows, from 1910 to 1940 it was enhancing the warming trend. From 1940 to 1970 the trend was dampened, warming resumed in the 1970’s. This corresponds well with the temperature records. For an explanation of the “segments” I, II, III, and IV I refer you to the paper. Figure 9 shows how Wyatt and Curry interpret the various records in terms of climatic effect:

clip_image018

Figure 9

They place the start of early 20th Century warming at about 1918 and the start of the most recent warming at 1976. These dates are not very far from what we picked off of the actual global temperature records. This is a statistical study and it has extracted a cyclic pattern from observations. It does not offer a cause for the pattern.

We can speculate that the natural forces causing the warming trend in the early 20th century are about the same as those acting on us from 1975 to roughly 2009. If this is true, then the increase in warming rate (roughly 30% or 28%-33%) might be due to man’s influence. The extra radiative forcing estimated by the IPCC (bottom of Figure 4, 1950 to 2011) is about 1.72 Watts/m2. They have also estimated that more than half of the warming since 1951 was due to man. No warming occurred between 1945 and 1975, so we are really talking about 1975 to 2009. The increase in the rate of warming from the HadCRUT record is 35 years x 0.0048°C or 0.168°C. The NASA GISS dataset gives us a virtually identical 0.0046°C increase in slope. We assume that the natural influences from 1910 to 1945 were the same as those from 1975 to 2009. We further assume that difference in the two slopes is due to man’s influence. The actual temperature increase from 1975 to 2009, from the best fit line to the HadCRUT record, is 0.672°C. So using our estimate of man’s contribution of 0.168°C, we can estimate that man’s contribution is 25%, much less than half.

SCC15 provides another record based mostly on rural northern hemisphere (land only) weather stations. Here the difference in the two slopes is 0.0074°C/year. So for 35 years the difference is 0.259°C, a little more than the HadCRUT difference. The total temperature change, from the best fit line, is 1.165°C from 1975 to 2009. SCC15 then suggests that man’s contribution is 22%. Very similar to the estimate using the HadCRUT record.

Discussion

The temperature records, except for SCC15, and Wyatt and Curry’s stadium wave are presented here as global. But, in reality all of these records are based mostly on northern hemisphere data. We simply have very little climate data for the southern hemisphere prior to 1979 when satellite microwave sounding units were first put in orbit. We have made our estimates of man’s influence on climate by comparing two 35 year periods of time out of a total record of 136 years. Our sole reason for choosing the two periods is that they looked similar and the earlier one was before man could have had much influence on climate. Choosing one short period as our example of a “natural” warming cycle is very speculative. Then comparing it to a later period and assuming that the entire difference is due to man is even more speculative. All we can say is this scenario is plausible given the data we have today. We would need much longer and better records of our climate and the solar climate to reach a firmer conclusion.

But, the same uncertainties exist for the IPCC’s estimate that man is causing more than 50% of current warming and their estimate that man’s radiative forcing is 4 times what it was in 1950. They picked only one natural radiative forcing, variations in solar irradiance and they picked only low variability total solar irradiance (TSI) records. They ignored equally well supported high variability TSI records. In one respect the estimate presented in this paper is superior to the IPCC estimate. In our estimate we used actual data for the calculation. The IPCC estimate of more than 50% is based only on unvalidated computer models. They are unvalidated because they have not successfully predicted the Earth’s climate to date. Therefore their results should not be used in calculations. A detailed description of their calculation can be found in IPCC Report Chapter 10, page 879. A more compact description is half way down “Facts and Theories.” You can see in the IPCC figures 10.1a and 10.1b how poorly their model reproduces the warming from 1910-1945. Yet they still ascribe nearly all of the warming from 1950 to 2014 to man. This is illogical.

Given the 20th century temperature record, the IPCC summary is internally inconsistent when it claims that man has increased his radiative forcing on the climate 1.72 Watts/m2 from 1950 to 2011 and has caused more than 50% of the warming since 1951. It is very difficult for both of these statements to be true. A rise of 1.72 Watts/m2 represents a global average temperature increase of 2°C using the conversion (1.18°C per Watt/m2) from section 5.1 of SCC15. But, temperatures have only risen 0.57°C in that period using SCC15’s record and 0.55°C using the HadCRUT record. If we cherry-pick the maximum warming in the period (1955 to 2006) we get a maximum warming of 1.1°C from the SCC15 record. The HadCRUT cherry-picked maximum warming is 0.62°C. So, we can get man’s influence to be over 50%, barely, by assuming no natural warming and using the cherry-picked warming from the SCC15 record. But, this is not reasonable. The actual warming from 1951 to 2011 is likely under 0.6°C. If we assume the radiative forcing values from IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 and that man’s influence is greater than 50%, then we would expect more than 1°C of warming, even if there were no natural warming, which is unlikely.

The early 20th century warming is very similar to the warming from 1975 to 2009 and no warming occurred at all from 1945 to 1975. Wyatt and Curry have shown that (statistically) a similar long term climate pattern existed in the two periods.

It is very hard to claim that mostly natural forces caused the warming from 1910 to 1945 and mostly man-made forces caused the similar warming from 1975 to 2009. The simplest explanation, given the data before us, is that the natural forces were the same in the two periods. That being said and accepting that man does have some influence on climate today with his CO2 and methane emissions, it seems more likely that our influence is in the 22% to 25% range. “More than half” is not credible to this observer.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
321 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JohnWho
August 22, 2016 4:15 pm

” That being said and accepting that man does have some influence on climate today with his CO2 and methane emissions, it seems more likely that our influence is in the 22% to 25% range. “More than half” is not credible to this observer.”
Maybe just me, but I’d rather you said”…our influence may be in the 22% to 25% range….”

kim
Reply to  JohnWho
August 22, 2016 6:41 pm

You say ‘may be’, I say ‘seems more likely’, let’s split the whole thing in half.
=================

JohnWho
Reply to  kim
August 22, 2016 7:37 pm

That seems more likely that it may be a good idea.

kim
Reply to  kim
August 22, 2016 8:01 pm

::grin::
====

Manfred
Reply to  JohnWho
August 22, 2016 7:05 pm

I’d accept localized anthropogenic influence based on changes in land usage leading to the urban heat island effect for example, or from a region of greening, or conversely deforestation. The theoretical and illusive degree (dT) of anthropogenic influence upon the atmosphere by the trivial demons of CH4 & CO2 is yet to be determined, if it is indeed shown to exist. So far, my understanding is that it cannot be detected above the cacophony of natural variation.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Manfred
August 23, 2016 3:25 am

And that is “rock solid” understanding on your part.
But the majority gets their Slide Rule out and calculates how much “warming” the CO2 in the atmosphere is causing and their Slide Rule results tells them its gettin hotter n’ hotter …… and they believe it and start sweating profusely.

jeanparisot
Reply to  Manfred
August 23, 2016 7:05 am

I’d add:
‘anthropogenic influence based on changes in land usage ‘

jeanparisot
Reply to  Manfred
August 23, 2016 7:10 am

I’d add:
‘anthropogenic influence based on changes in land usage exacerbated by poorly sited measurements and misuse of spatial error estimates’
Sorry – poor used of tags

Reply to  Manfred
August 23, 2016 9:28 pm

Samuel C Cogar:
I suspect that those of us who actually know how to use a slide rule are most likely to be skeptics. The GIGO ivory tower computer modellers OTOH …

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Manfred
August 23, 2016 9:41 pm

@ Samuel CC
Slide Rules!? – I wish! – The current generation of CAGW “scientists” generally do not possess a sixth sense for orders of magnitude that slide rules provided those of us who used them in our university math and physics courses during the 50s and 60s. When I was first confronted with the question of whether or not we could measure the amount of climate change caused by man, that sixth sense for orders of magnitude quickly provided me with the answer of “NO!”

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Manfred
August 24, 2016 10:10 am

OOPS, …. Sorry bout that ya all, ….. it was meant to be a little satire directed at the computer modeling climate scientist “claimers”.
A long time ago I was a novice user of my Keuffel and Esser SR ….. but I dun forgot it now.

Cinnamon Johnson
Reply to  Manfred
August 24, 2016 1:14 pm

How does Phil Jones come up with these numbers? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Ron Clutz
Reply to  JohnWho
August 23, 2016 5:25 am

John, consistent with that finding is a calculation of 19% as the most that CO2 could contribute to temperatures warming since 1895. That’s when you compute the effects of ocean and solar cycles integrated over time to show accumulations and losses of heat content.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/quantifying-natural-climate-change/

Editor
Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 23, 2016 7:13 am

Thanks for the link, a good post.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 23, 2016 8:38 am

+1

Editor
August 22, 2016 4:17 pm

I have a hunch that the AGW effect will be most notable in periods of natural cooling. As Andy points out the early and late 20th century warming periods are statistically indistinguishable. However, the mid 20th century and early 21st century cooling or hiatus periods are quite different. The mid 20th century cooling was so pronounced that atmospheric CO2 stopped rising for about 20 years, despite an acceleration of emissions (most likely due to cooling of the southern oceans). The early 21st century hiatus, might very well have mimicked the mid 20th century cooling without AGW… and that cooling triggered warnings of an impending “ice age.” Which is kind of funny because Earth is still in an ice age.
Since the greenhouse effect doesn’t really cause warming (it retards radiative cooling), it only makes sense that its effects would be most pronounced in natural periods of cooling. Since cooling is bad, AGW, to the extent it exists, is a definitional good thing.

afonzarelli
Reply to  David Middleton
August 22, 2016 7:13 pm

David, we’re just getting started on this 30 year period of cooling, give it time! Also, thanx much for all your wonderful posts— you use a lot of really nice graphs. (yours are the only posts that i ever bookmark) THANX…

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 2:27 am

Coming from the Fonz, that’s a huge compliment…comment image
We’re 13-18 years into this 30-yr cooling period. I think, but don’t know, that we should have already bottomed out.
The true test of AGW as “friend or foe” will come when the millennial cycle switches from warm to cold. This could happen anytime from now until the early 22nd century.

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 3:41 am

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 5:35 pm

“We’re just getting started on this 30 year period of cooling.”
Tell me about it in 30 years.
Climate “skeptics” have been predicting cooling for decades. And they complain about computer models.

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 6:08 pm

Who the hell are you that anyone would tell you about anything in thirty years anyway? You’re just a light weight troll coming over here with your alinsky radical mind games. Go back to the cold dark cave that you came crawling out of…

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  David Middleton
August 23, 2016 3:59 am

So sayith: David Middleton – August 22, 2016 at 4:17 pm

atmospheric CO2 stopped rising for about 20 years, despite an acceleration of emissions (most likely due to cooling of the southern oceans).

Tain’t nuttin “most likely” about it. The temperature of the southern hemisphere ocean water is the atmosphere’s “CO2 thermostat”.
When the ocean water temperature “cools”, …. atmospheric CO2 ppm decreases.
When the ocean water temperature “warms”, …. atmospheric CO2 ppm increases.
And that is a scientific fact because the steady and consistent bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2, ……. as defined by the Keeling Curve Graph, ….. cannot be logically or intelligently defined or explained by any other means than the “changing of the equinoxes”. To wit:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif

afonzarelli
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 23, 2016 8:43 am

afonzarelli
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 23, 2016 9:06 am

Samuel, i have to agree with “Ferd the Nerd” on this one. (not that i matter, i’m just a guy in a tee shirt and leather jacket…) Note the (very) wide swings in the northern hemisphere land data. Note also how the swing decreases the further south it goes. Let me know what you think (go slow…) as you have an interesting point of view.
fonzie

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 23, 2016 11:56 am

It is more likely that northern hemisphere summer shows that growing vegetation is a major carbon sink, than that Henry’s Law can have this large an effect in the mixed layer, which is only 50-150 meters deep depending on wind and wave.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 23, 2016 5:42 pm

“atmospheric CO2 stopped rising for about 20 years”
I must have missed that in your graph.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 24, 2016 5:27 am

afonzarelli – August 23, 2016 at 9:06 am

Note the (very) wide swings in the northern hemisphere land data.

Fonzie, the above graph you posted is awful purdy ….. but other than that I see no use for it.
First of all it doesn’t show CO2 ppm quantities or seasonal CO2 distribution …… other than the “red” sawtooth line on the right for 1979 to 1991 which I assumes represents part of the Keeling Curve (Mona Loa) data.
Secondly, there is no, per se, northern hemisphere (CO2) land (near-surface) data …. except for specific measurements in specific locales.
To obtain reliably accurate atmospheric CO2 ppm measurements one has to get above the “atmospheric H20 vapor” ….. because the H2O vapor in the near-surface atmosphere is constantly changing and whenever those lightweight but “big” H2O molecules flow into an area (called a low pressure) …….. they PUSH those heavyweight but “little” CO2 and Nitrogen molecules out of the way …… resulting in more “noise” than data.
And that’s why a “low pressure area” is a sign of cloudy skies, rain, thunderstorms and hurricanes …….. and a “high pressure area” is a sign of blue skies and Sunshine. And that is exactly why Charles Keeling built his laboratory high atop the Mauna Loa volcano and began recording accurate CO2 ppm quantities for the 1st time in 1958. To wit:

A Scandinavian group accordingly set up a network of 15 measuring stations in their countries. Their only finding, however, was a high noise level. Their measurements apparently fluctuated from day to day as different air masses passed through, with differences between stations as high as a factor of two.
Charles David (Dave) Keeling held a different view. As he pursued local measurements of the gas in California, he saw that it might be possible to hunt down and remove the sources of noise. Taking advantage of that, however, would require many costly and exceedingly meticulous measurements, carried out someplace far from disturbances.
Keeling did much better than that with his new instruments. With painstaking series of measurements in the pristine air of Antarctica and high atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, he nailed down precisely a stable baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Source: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Afonzarelli also said:

Note also how the swing decreases the further south it goes.

Fonzie, iffen you are referring to that grid line that is labeled “January 1979” then me thinks that it is little more than someone’s imagination of what they were wishing was true.
The data “points” on that grid line ….. makes no sense at all ….. simply because it is in violation of the “gas laws” ….. because the “gas laws” don’t give a “hoot” about latitudes …… but do care about altitudes.
Me thinks whoever “composed” that grid line ……. desperately wants you to believe that the “greening” of the Northern Hemisphere is directly the cause of the Summertime decrease in atmospheric CO2 ppm. But “sorry bout that”, Fonzie, because that is a biological impossibility.
The Spring and Summertime outgassing of CO2 by the decomposing dead biomass is equal to, if not greater than the ingassing of CO2 by the live biomass. And there is very little to zilch Fall and Wintertime outgassing of CO2 simply because it would VIOLATE the Refrigerator/Freezer Law that retards/prevents microbial decomposition of dead biomass. Here, click n’ read what the USDA Food Safety rules say.
I hope the above was enlightening, if not, ask again. SamC

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 24, 2016 9:02 am

So sayith: ristvan – August 23, 2016 at 11:56 am

It is more likely that northern hemisphere summer shows that growing vegetation is a major carbon sink, than that Henry’s Law can have this large an effect in the mixed layer, which is only 50-150 meters deep depending on wind and wave.

Ristvan, the summer growth of NH vegetation is a per se, major carbon sink. BUT, that is only relevant iffen when the “observer” is looking at the CO2 ppm problem with “tunnel vision”.
Being a learned Biologist I will attempt to enlighten you on the scientific-FACTS-of-the-matter.
First of all, the “greening” growth of NH vegetation is “latitude dependent”. Now what that means is, ….. springtime biomass growth from Texas to Florida begins in January …… and springtime biomass growth from Maine to Montana won’t begin until mid-April to May. Click to see US Planting Zones Map
And secondly, those springtime “warming temperatures” …..in their respective Planting Zones ….. will jump-start the microbial decomposition of the dead biomass thus generating a massive outgassing of CO2 … which will ALWAYS precede, from one (1) to three (3) weeks, any ingassing of CO2 by the live biomass. The initial growth or “greening” of the live biomass in the springtime is the sole result of the stored sugars/nutrients in the root system of the plant ….. and NO ingassing of atmospheric CO2 is possible until there are fully formed “green” leaves/foliage with functioning stomata.
And thirdly, from mid-August thru mid-September the NH “green” growing biomass starts “shutting down” production because of the decreasing hours of daily Sunshine and the decreasing of nighttime temperatures. And because of the lack of Autumnal moisture/rainfall and the decreasing temperatures of September and October the microbial decomposition of dead biomass pretty much comes to a “stop” …… because said microbes require “moist” dead biomass and temperatures above 40F, and ideally above 60F. (That is why dried apples, raisins, prunes and pemmican are not subject to microbial decay)
And ristvan, if you can associate and/or correlate the above stated “randomly occurring” scientifically factual commentary ……. with the “steady & consistent” 58 years of “bi-yearly atmospheric CO2 cycling” ……. as defined by the Keeling Curve Graph and/or the Mauna Loa official CO2 ppm record …. then I would be greatly interested in what you have to say.
Also ristvan, there are “fourthlys” and “fifthlys” that I can write about but my finger is getting tired from typing and therefore I cease for now and await your response. Sam C

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 24, 2016 7:46 pm

@Yushchyshyn,
Are you genetically obtuse?
Allow myself to repeat myself..
It’s “most likely” the southern oceans because it is possible, but unlikely, that the carbon sink was on land.
Plant stomata reconstructions (Kouwenberg et al., 2005, Finsinger and Wagner-Cremer, 2009) and contemporary chemical analyses (Beck, 2007) indicate that CO2 levels in the 1930′s to early 1940′s were in the 340 to 400 ppmv range and then declined sharply in the 1950’s. These findings have been rejected by the so-called scientific consensus because this fluctuation is not resolved in Antarctic ice cores. However, MacFarling Meure et al., 2006 found possible evidence of a mid-20th Century CO2 decline in the DE08 ice core…

The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm from ~1940–1955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.
[11] The CO2 stabilization occurred during a shift from persistent El Niño to La Niña conditions [Allan and D’Arrigo, 1999]. This coincided with a warm-cool phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua et al., 1997], cooling temperatures [Moberg et al., 2005] and progressively weakening North Atlantic thermohaline circulation [Latif et al., 2004]. The combined effect of these factors on the trace gas budgets is not presently well understood. They may be significant for the atmospheric CO2 concentration if fluxes in areas of carbon uptake, such as the North Pacific Ocean, are enhanced, or if efflux from the tropics is suppressed.

From about 1940 through 1955, approximately 24 billion tons of carbon went straight from the exhaust pipes into the oceans and/or biosphere.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="479"] Figure 4. Oh where, oh where did all that carbon go?[/caption]
If oceanic uptake of CO2 caused ocean acidification, shouldn’t we see some evidence of it? Shouldn’t “a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1” (or more) from ~1940–1955 have left a mark somewhere in the oceans? Maybe dissolved some snails or a reef?
Had atmospheric CO2 simply followed the preindustrial trajectory, it very likely would have reached 315-345 ppmv by 2010…
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="479"] Figure 5. Natural sources probably account for 40-60% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750.[/caption]
Oddly enough, plant stomata-derived CO2 reconstructions indicate that CO2 levels of 315-345 ppmv have not been uncommon throughout the Holocene…
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="480"] Figure 6. CO2 from plant stomata: Northern Sweden (Finsinger et al., 2009), Northern Spain (Garcia-Amorena, 2008), Southern Sweden (Jessen, 2005), Washington State USA (Kouwenberg, 2004), Netherlands (Wagner et al., 1999), Denmark (Wagner et al., 2002).[/caption]
So, what on Earth could have driven all of that CO2 variability before humans started burning fossil fuels? Could it possibly have been temperature changes?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

afonzarelli
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 24, 2016 11:57 pm

“Are you genetically obtuse?”
He’s as thick as a brick…

Reply to  David Middleton
August 23, 2016 6:12 am

It’s “most likely” the southern oceans because it is possible, but unlikely, that the carbon sink was on land.
Plant stomata reconstructions (Kouwenberg et al., 2005, Finsinger and Wagner-Cremer, 2009) and contemporary chemical analyses (Beck, 2007) indicate that CO2 levels in the 1930′s to early 1940′s were in the 340 to 400 ppmv range and then declined sharply in the 1950’s. These findings have been rejected by the so-called scientific consensus because this fluctuation is not resolved in Antarctic ice cores. However, MacFarling Meure et al., 2006 found possible evidence of a mid-20th Century CO2 decline in the DE08 ice core…

The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm from ~1940–1955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.
[11] The CO2 stabilization occurred during a shift from persistent El Niño to La Niña conditions [Allan and D’Arrigo, 1999]. This coincided with a warm-cool phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua et al., 1997], cooling temperatures [Moberg et al., 2005] and progressively weakening North Atlantic thermohaline circulation [Latif et al., 2004]. The combined effect of these factors on the trace gas budgets is not presently well understood. They may be significant for the atmospheric CO2 concentration if fluxes in areas of carbon uptake, such as the North Pacific Ocean, are enhanced, or if efflux from the tropics is suppressed.

From about 1940 through 1955, approximately 24 billion tons of carbon went straight from the exhaust pipes into the oceans and/or biosphere.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="479"] Figure 4. Oh where, oh where did all that carbon go?[/caption]
If oceanic uptake of CO2 caused ocean acidification, shouldn’t we see some evidence of it? Shouldn’t “a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1” (or more) from ~1940–1955 have left a mark somewhere in the oceans? Maybe dissolved some snails or a reef?
Had atmospheric CO2 simply followed the preindustrial trajectory, it very likely would have reached 315-345 ppmv by 2010…
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="479"] Figure 5. Natural sources probably account for 40-60% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750.[/caption]
Oddly enough, plant stomata-derived CO2 reconstructions indicate that CO2 levels of 315-345 ppmv have not been uncommon throughout the Holocene…
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="480"] Figure 6. CO2 from plant stomata: Northern Sweden (Finsinger et al., 2009), Northern Spain (Garcia-Amorena, 2008), Southern Sweden (Jessen, 2005), Washington State USA (Kouwenberg, 2004), Netherlands (Wagner et al., 1999), Denmark (Wagner et al., 2002).[/caption]
So, what on Earth could have driven all of that CO2 variability before humans started burning fossil fuels? Could it possibly have been temperature changes?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

Reply to  David Middleton
August 23, 2016 9:09 am

David,
Forget the historical data compiled by the late Ernst Beck: most were taken over land where one can find 200-500 ppmv, depending of time of the day, wind speed and sunlight… The 80 ppmv “peak” in Beck’s compilation around 1942 is the equivalent of destroying 1/3 of all land vegetation and restoring it both in a few years… Moreover, the much beloved other proxy by some skeptics – stomata data – don’t show such a peak, neither do the 13C/12C ratio data in leaves or in coralline sponges or the high resolution (less than a decade) Law Dome ice cores: these show even a small drop in CO2 in the period 1940-1945, opposite to Beck’s “peak”. See my comment on the historical data at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
If oceanic uptake of CO2 caused ocean acidification, shouldn’t we see some evidence of it?
The earlier (glass electrode) measurements were simply not accurate enough to detect the extremely small change in pH (about 0.1 pH unit over the period 1850-2000). Recent colorimetric measurements have sufficient resolution to show a real drop in pH at several fixed stations (and ships measurements) all over the world.
Had atmospheric CO2 simply followed the preindustrial trajectory, it very likely would have reached 315-345 ppmv by 2010
Not possible, as the oceans follow Henry’s law (no matter if that is static or in this case dynamic): not more than 16 ppmv/K up or down. As the emissions in the period 1945-1960 were about 43 GtC or ~20 ppmv as CO2, plus the fact that the increase of CO2 pressure in the atmosphere of that period was already good to remove half of the yearly emissions into the oceans, you only need a -temporary- drop of 0.6°C in average seawater temperature to explain the non-increasing levels…
Stomata data are CO2 proxies, not measurements, with their own problems: they grow by definition on land, where average CO2 levels are biased high compared to the bulk of the atmosphere. That can be compensated for by comparing to … ice cores CO2 over the past century, but nobody knows how much the local bias changed over the centuries because of changing landscapes in the main wind direction, even the main wind direction may have changed with climate (MWP-LIA)…
Simply said: if there is a difference between the average CO2 level in stomata and ice cores over the period of the resolution in the ice cores, then the stomata data are certainly wrong and should be corrected for a changed bias…

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  David Middleton
August 23, 2016 5:45 pm

Figure 5 shows no significant CO2 variability before 1800.
Plant stomata can close during droughts to conserve water.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  David Middleton
August 23, 2016 5:47 pm

Figure 4 shows CO2 leveling for 10 years, not 20 years.

James R McCown
Reply to  David Middleton
August 24, 2016 4:26 am

Ferdinand Englebeen said:
” the high resolution (less than a decade) Law Dome ice cores” – the measurement of greenhouse gases from the bubbles in the Law Dome ice cores do not have resolution of less than a decade. According to Etheridge et al (1996):
If there is no air mixing past the sealing depth, the air age spread will originate mainly from diffusion, estimated from the firn diffusion models to be 10-15 years……..It is seen below that a wider air age spread than expected for diffusion alone is required to explain the observed CO2 differences between the ice cores.
Thus, the resolution of the temporal accuracy of the greenhouse gas concentrations from the Law Dome cores are 10 – 15 years at best, and a wider spread is likely. The same goes for the measurements of methane taken from those cores.
Etheridge, D. M., Steele, L. P., Langenfelds, L. P., and Francey, R. J.: 1996, ‘Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn’, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 4115–4128.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  David Middleton
August 24, 2016 9:50 am

Great post, David M.
Now ya all take notice and react accordingly, because it is MLHO that …… Ferdinand Engelbeen “talks a good talk” that make one think it verges on the “believable” …… but Ferdinand doesn’t believe that refrigerators and/or freezers are capable of preventing microbial decay (rotting) of dead biomass (foods).
And anyone that would claim that the Ice Core CO2 Proxy data is highly more accurate and believable than is the fossilized Stomata CO2 Proxy data …. is either a biological science illiterate or extremely biased due to a funded interest association or connection.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 25, 2016 4:53 am

Plant stomata, when controlled for other variables, are accurate proxies for past CO2 changes. This has been demonstrated dozens, if not hundreds of times, in peer-reviewed scientific publications. And… gas bubbles in ice cores are not direct measurements of past atmospheric CO2 levels. The measurements have to be adjusted, according to models, in order to replicate past atmospheric CO2 levels.
Generally speaking, the stomata and high-resolution ice cores are fully compatible. The stomata chronologies have much higher frequency content than even the most high resolution ice cores; therefore they have much higher resolution than ice cores. However, due to their higher frequency content, the stomata have a much lower signal-to-noise ratio than ice cores do.
Stomata data are simply an inconvenient, high resolution, but noisy, record of global changes in atmospheric CO2.
Regarding the resolution of the DE08 core at Law Dome. The delta between the gas age and ice age is the minimum resolution (about 30 years). Deconvolution and other signal processing methods can boost that resolution to about 10 years, assuming the firn densification models are accurate.
However, the point here is not the validity of stomata and other inconvenient pre-industrial CO2 proxies. The point is that the mid-20th Century cooling period was so pronounced, that the Earth (most likely the southern oceans) absorbed all of the anthropogenic carbon emissions (possibly even more than all of) over a rough 20-yr period.

Bob Boder
Reply to  David Middleton
August 23, 2016 7:39 am

David “I have a hunch”
Why would you expect any 2 periods to be similar and of course because your hunch tells you they are not it must be CO2 that done it. Its natural variation and it is not predictable even by your magic hunches.

Reply to  Bob Boder
August 25, 2016 4:59 am

While the processes are very stochastic, the Earth tends to do things in a generally cyclical manner. There is a very clear roughly 60-yr signal in Holocene temperature records… Alternating ~30-yr periods of warming and cooling. I “expect” consistency. When I don’t see consistency, I have an anomaly which begs explanation.
The ~60-yr cycle is the peak at about 15 cycles/1,000 yrs…

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/27/a-geological-perspective-on-lovejoys-99-solution/
The early and late 20th century warming periods are nearly identical, hence no anomaly.
The mid-20th century cooling and early 21st century hiatus periods are quite different, hence an anomaly.

August 22, 2016 4:21 pm

But the mandate of the IPCC is to deal with man-made global warming, so they will find man-made warming whether it is there or not.:-)

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 22, 2016 4:29 pm

Since that’s the only kind they are looking for, that’s the only kind they will find… it’s like only looking for your lost car keys under streetlights because it’s the only place you can see… 😉

Gabro
August 22, 2016 4:43 pm

Give the crooked gatekeepers at GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT a few more years to cook the books, and the early 20th century warming will turn into cooling.
The first two criminal enterprises will however be shut down should the US elect a President Trump and return a GOP Senate.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 22, 2016 4:53 pm

Meant “Given”.
Wouldn’t trust the gatekeepers as far as I could adjust them. Forgot to mention BEST. All you can do is shut them all down and start over from scratch. With Steve McIntyre in charge.

Reply to  Gabro
August 22, 2016 8:14 pm

With Bob Tisdale’s revelation of model tampering, past data tampering is so passe. They are using model manipulation to tie discrete weather events to climate change. Those turgid government climate assessments need something to support their political speculations. Need a nap? Read one.
Data going forward will retain their massaged nature, but they should give us a believable trend for the early 21st Century. The period up to mid-2020’s should settle the AGW debate. RSS, UAH and radiosondes have already spoken, in my estimation. But they are discounted because the run counter to the AGW meme.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 23, 2016 11:56 am

As long as GISS and its unindicted co-conspirators are allowed to exist, they will keep cooking the books, for the past, present and future. The supposed temperature series are politically-motivated works of science fiction for advocacy, not in any way, shape or form science.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Gabro
August 23, 2016 5:53 pm

So, you want to let politics control the data, not science.

Reply to  Gabro
August 23, 2016 8:38 pm

Jim Y is a real study. Taken at his word, he believes science is “untainted” by politics. Somehow science is divorced from real world pecuniary and emotional/ego human failings.
I discern from the totality of his statements here that he believes there are no legitimate questions of current climate orthodoxy. Theory trumps observations. Denial, confabulation or silence meet reasoned arguments. It’s all OK. Sad.

kim
Reply to  Gabro
August 25, 2016 3:05 am

Likely Gorebot. Top of the class at school, and still naive because they’ve been lied to.
===========

kim
Reply to  Gabro
August 25, 2016 3:09 am

SKS stinks, Jim, because too often they pervert a skeptical argument into a strawman and then high five each other when they burn down their fantasy. You’ll learn.
===========

Reply to  Gabro
August 26, 2016 3:59 pm

kim says:
“SKS stinks, Jim, because too often they pervert a skeptical argument into a strawman and then high five each other when they burn down their fantasy…”
One of kim’s better posts, out of many excellent comments over the years. Props & kudos!

David Smith
August 22, 2016 4:55 pm

At the bottom of the figure the total IPCC estimated anthropogenic climate radiative forcing is given

‘estimated” really means ‘made up”. They’ll never admit it, but they really don’t have a clue, and this whole hysteria is based upon figures pluckes out of some warmist technocrat’s @rs3
BTW An informative and easily understood article. Thank you Andy.

David Smith
Reply to  David Smith
August 22, 2016 5:01 pm

My punctuation and spelling in my last comment were terrible.
It’s my fat fginres on my tlpeonehe kyaepd taht are ciuansg the pborelm.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  David Smith
August 22, 2016 5:32 pm

teh horror

Michael Jankowski
August 22, 2016 5:23 pm

Curious what the correlation between the sets in Figure 3 is…

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
August 22, 2016 6:23 pm

Dang. Annual anomaly correlation = 0.81, r-squared = 0.66.
Interestingly, if I sort each of those sets from smallest to largest, correlation = 0.98, r-squared = 0.97.

Editor
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
August 23, 2016 5:00 am

Thanks, I should have included that in the post.

Editor
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
August 23, 2016 12:50 pm

Michael Jankowski: I just computed the correlation coefficient for the monthly data (11 month running average) and got 0.86. Using the raw month-month data I got 0.99. I suspect that the month to month is driving this. In other words the January to December variablity is dominating the statistic rather than the year to year. Your number is more appropriate since the monthly variability is removed and you are looking at year to year. So, 0.81 it is.

August 22, 2016 5:30 pm

“Of necessity, the surface temperature over the oceans is not actually measured. Instead the global average surface temperature datasets use temperatures measured with ARGO floats and at the water intakes of ships.”
Wrong.
Go download ICOAADS. you will find Marine Air temperature.
or
https://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/information_and_inventories/edmed/report/368/

Janus100
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 22, 2016 6:23 pm

I like the note from the link you provided:
“Instruments… Inapplicable”
So, I guess they do not use any instruments in measuring the air temperature over oceans (?)

Oldseadog
Reply to  Janus100
August 23, 2016 12:05 pm

During the mid 1960s when I was serving on cargo ships which were “weather reporting vessels” , every 6 hours we measured the sea temperature in the engine cooling water intake where it came into the engine room, usually between 15 and 30 feet below the surface, and we measured the air temperature using thermometers, wet and dry, housed in a Stevenson Screen on the weather side of the bridge, usually 40 to 55 feet above the sea surface.
So temperatures of air and water were taken although not at the sea surface.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Janus100
August 23, 2016 5:29 pm

Janus100 said:
““Instruments… Inapplicable”
So, I guess they do not use any instruments in measuring the air temperature over oceans (?)”
You need to look at the sources they reference.
“Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JD002670/full

harry
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 22, 2016 7:37 pm

“File not found” for the data website link.
Perhaps Jones has lost the data again?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 3:59 am

In defense of Mr. Mosher, the anomalies are temperatures… They are the difference between measured temperatures and a climatology baseline.
That said, while there are some actual measurements of marine air temperatures, most of the historical marine air temperature record is extrapolated from sparse water temperature readings taken from ships, either through drop buckets or engine intakes. These sparse extrapolated data points are calibrated with actual measurements and then interpolated by Hadley or fabricated by NOAA & GISS. Yet they are supposedly accurate.to +/-0.1 °C… or some such ridiculous accuracy claim.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 4:16 am

Steve:
wrong.
I looked at the link you so kindly provided.
It was totally non relevant to question at hand.
It provided no detail whatsoever beyond the notation that the time series was based on “in-situ observations”
Thanks for linking to dead end.
Did you even look at the link?

pochas94
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 5:34 am

“measured with ARGO floats and at the water intakes of ships.”
… which provides the opportunity for an additional adjustment.

Editor
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 6:27 am

Steve, actually MOHMAT is not a component of the HadCRUT v4 dataset I used, or the NASA dataset. The Hadley centre explains why: “Why are sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures used over the oceans?
Over the ocean areas the most plentiful and most consistent measurements of temperature have been taken of the sea surface. Marine air temperatures (MAT) are also measured and would, ideally, be preferable when combining with land air temperatures, but they involve more complex problems with homogeneity than SSTs (Kennedy et al., 2011). The problems are reduced using only night marine air temperature (NMAT) but at the expense of discarding approximately half the MAT data. Our use of SST anomalies implies that we are tacitly assuming that the anomalies of SST are in agreement with those of MAT. Kennedy et al. (2011) provide comparisons of hemispheric and large area averages of SST and NMAT anomalies.” I don’t think that marine air temperatures are used in any global temperature record. Perhaps they are used to help correct deeper measurements to a surface reading somehow. There are just too many problems measuring air temperature over an ocean.

Reply to  Andy May
August 23, 2016 5:10 pm

Karl used truncated NMT data to adjust SST. In the process, an obsolete climate model (different correlation parameters for NMT vs. SST than current models) was used. Even then, Karl used statistical outliers.
Subsequent observed NMT deviated from observed SST.
Please, in the future do not reference SST (models or observations) without first reading Bob Tisdale’s various works. His is fact driven, not opinion.
Dave Fair

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 7:13 am

I’ve always wondered how the accuracy of data can ever be greater than the accuracy of the instruments taking the readings.
Even without factoring in the contamination factors and the horrendous lack of data coverage.

Bindidon
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 12:59 pm

Forrest Gardener on August 23, 2016 at 6:44 am
David, with respect anomalies are not temperatures.
Sorry: this is the signature of a person who does not understand very much about temperature measurements.
This statement is really strange when we think that ALL institutions measuring temperature (i.e. not only NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, BEST, but of course UAH and RSS as well) publish their results in form of anomalies.
And what happens when we don’t care about that? We look at charts like this [1]
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160712/fzo8skcq.jpg
instead of looking at charts like this [2]
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160712/ncr2ir4g.jpg
And what would happen when we would use absolute temperatures instead of anomalies (which after all are nothing else than deltas wrt the mean value of a reference period)?
We simply would not be able to see even chart [1]. Because
– the average temperature at Earth’s surface is around 15 °C;
– the average temperature at the troposphere level measured by e.g. UAH in 2015 is 264 K, i.e. -9 °C.
And thus we never could be able to compare surface data with troposphere data as shown in chart [2].

Reply to  Bindidon
August 23, 2016 4:52 pm

Temperature anomalies also hide models’ abysmal representation of actual weather and climate processes. Kindly pardon the following rant.
Explain to me, please, cloud formation with “actual” temperatures plus or minus 3 degrees C or more (in the models). I could go on listing temperature dependent physical processes, but my point is, no matter Gavin Schmidt’s old apologia, real temperatures mater when discussing or modeling real world physics.
Models do not explain the lack of tropospheric humidity increases in response to a warming surface. Humidity should increase, according to our betters. Satellite humidity estimates are consistent; stable (no increase) tropospheric humidity levels, contrasted with increasing(?) surface temperature estimates of late. Bite me if you think I am wrong in believing the most up-to-date humidity estimates from those expensive satellites. Karlized temperature estimates are beyond parody. Read Bob Tisdale!
Current popular climate science estimations of radiation physics DEMAND a tropospheric response. Massive 21st Century increases in atmospheric CO2 DEMAND an increase in global tropospheric humidity and temperatures. It’s simple physics, plebian clod.
To me, a fairly (haw, haw) educated and knowledgeable technocrat by most definitions, radiation physics as understood by its practitioners does not seem to encompass other knowledge disciplines. I assume that their calculations would accurately emulate a blackbody emitting in a vacuum. The earth’s chaotic system? Go suck a popsicle. Scr%w your theory, I’ll take the objective facts.
Modelers are always playing a catch-up game. Change in true knowledge is episodic in any given discipline, notwithstanding a pile of “scholarly” papers expanding on genius. Just one example: Newtonian physics fell to the Einsteinian.
In over 30 years, our budding geniuses have failed to resolve the fundamental cloud formation and evolution processes. Notwithstanding government propaganda, it is not “basic physics” nor “settled science.” Every new paper shows the evolving nature of our understanding of what is actually going on out there. Even IPCC AR5 has to fudge the model outputs and substitute unidentified experts’ opinion in forecasting mid-term global warming.
Natural climate processes are not understood and are not reflected in AGW “science” models. Fer Christssakes, even model hindcasts before 2005 can’t get it right! Some studies have shown the climate models driven by SST alone (no “CO2 forcing”), get land temperatures close to actuals. I don’t believe that is indicative of any fundamental truths, however, any more than I believe any other 100-year computer game speculation.
I do believe that oceans responding to various solar-driven processes (modulated by coupled atmospheric dynamics) determine our weather and, ultimately, our climate states. I don’t claim to understand it, but then again, no one else has proven to me they do understand the complexities. The data indicates cycles, but it remains to seen in the mid-2020’s if anybody, model driven or not, has a line to Delphi.
So, justify all the temperature anomalies graphs you want. I, instead, will use real measured stuff on the ground locally to describe real physical properties as they occur. Those describe the past and the present local/regional temperatures and our limited understanding of their drivers.
Who the h##l knows what will happen in the future. Use a model? Cast the ancient runes? Both will give you the accuracy you want, if actual model results are any measure.
See you in 2025!
Dave Fair

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 9:08 pm

Mr. Mosher, I think the people on this thread would benefit from a real world exercise of your “Wandering in the Weeds” magic.
Bob Tisdale, in some detail, deconstructed Karl’s 2015 adjustment of SSTs based on NMT.
I encourage you to apply your keen wit and discerning eye to Bob’s four or five posts on the topic. If you are truly able to tease out the fundamental truth and relationship of the various data series, determine the felicity of using an old climate model and parse the applicability of Karl’s statistical methods, then we might know if Karl’s manipulations are a valid representation of “the truth.”
Sick’em, Torquemada! If not, maybe you are not the scourge you claim and I hope you to be.
Dave Fair

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 4:26 am

@ Dave Fair, aka: dogdaddyblog
Hey, …. no pardon necessary or needed, ….. you keep posting those “rants” because I like the way you think.
Its “old school” commentary that appears to me to be based in/on a learned knowledge of the subject matter and derived via common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 5:13 am

@Forrest Gardener,
The anomalies are still temperatures…
x °C – Baseline °C = Anomaly °C
Or more accurately…
x K – Baseline K = Anomaly K

Bindidon
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 26, 2016 1:57 pm

This amazing corner of the thread I had completely forgotten…
So it seems that while if you put 17 kg on a balance and take 15 kg away, 2 kg remain and thus 17 kg – 15 kg = 2kg is a measureable weight and quite similarly 17 mph – 15 mph = 2 mph is a measureable speed, 17 °C – 15 °C = 2 °C is no measureable temperature.
Great. An advance in science. Amazing.

Richard M
August 22, 2016 5:35 pm

I did a back of the envelope computation about 5 years ago and got similar results. Also keep in mind the 22-25% also includes the millennial cycle influence on temperatures.

August 22, 2016 5:53 pm

” A rise of 1.72 Watts/m2 represents a global average temperature increase of 2°C using the conversion (1.18°C per Watt/m2) from section 5.1 of SCC15. But, temperatures have only risen 0.57°C in that period using SCC15’s record and 0.55°C using the HadCRUT record.”
This is wrong in many ways. The 1.18 factor is a regression slope of NH temperatures (not global) against TSI for particular times. It doesn’t relate equilibrium conditions, so you can’t apply it to a change over different periods. You have to take account of the time varying issues. It takes time for fluxes to heat things. Plus of course, that Soon’s ratio is hardly the only (or best) choice. As they point out, it is about twice that of another paper.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 22, 2016 6:44 pm

Dr. Soon’s calculation is only one of many. It is high to be sure, but not as high as some of the IPCC estimates. If we assume no feedbacks at all and use lambda zero, we get ( 1.72 x 0.312) a number like 0.54K. Interesting, right? That happens to be about what one would calculate with the data alone! Perhaps the net feedback is actually zero. In that case the IPCC has no reason to exist.
Lambda zero + feedback has been estimated at anything from zero (even negative) to over 1.5. I used SCC15’s estimate because it is based on real data, even though it is a bit at the high end.

Reply to  Andy May
August 22, 2016 6:51 pm

“use lambda zero, we get ( 1.72 x 0.312) a number like 0.54K. Interesting, right?”
No, it’s not interesting. Again, it’s Monckton’s fallacy. The 0.312 is an equilibrium response to a steady forcing. Here the forcing is not steady (increases over a period), and the temperature is not equilibrium.
There is no point in just plucking wrong figures out of the air and saying “Interesting?”.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Andy May
August 22, 2016 9:28 pm

Mr. May, Dr. Spencer stated not too long ago that he thinks that about half of recent warming is anthropogenic. And he made sure to add the caveat, “BUT, I can’t prove it”…
btw, don’t feel bad that you can’t write as well as Spencer. NOBODY CAN !!!

MarkW
Reply to  Andy May
August 23, 2016 7:15 am

“There is no point in just plucking wrong figures out of the air and saying “Interesting?”.”
Self awareness is no longer a desired trait amongst climate scientists.

Editor
Reply to  Andy May
August 23, 2016 11:40 am

Nick Stokes: You are correct that Lord Monckton derived 0.312 as the Planck parameter. However, as you can see in AR5, WG1, Chapter 9, page 818, that is exactly the value used by the IPCC models. The give the Planck Feedback value which is the inverse of the Planck parameter. Their value is 3.2 Wm2/(deg C), inverted to (deg C)/Wm2 that is 0.3125. Still interesting in my opinion.

Reply to  Andy May
August 23, 2016 10:56 pm

“Still interesting in my opinion.”
You are totally missing the point. I’m not disputing that 0.312 is the Planck parameter. I’m pointing out that the Planck parameter is the ratio of the eventual equilibrium temperature to a sustained flux. You can apply it to such a situation. But not here. The 1.72 is not a sustained flux, but the peak flux reached just at the end, and the 0.54°C is not an equilibrium temperature, but the temperature at an intermediate stage of the warming process.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 23, 2016 11:03 pm

I was under the impression that radiation response was instantaneous and non-cumulative.

Bob Boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 23, 2016 7:51 am

Nick says “There is no point in just plucking wrong figures out of the air and saying “Interesting?”.”
Yet you have no issue you with your “we are not at equilibrium” wish fest BS.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 23, 2016 9:10 am

Nick Stokes: It doesn’t relate equilibrium conditions,
What exactly is the relevance of that, given that the climate system is never in equilibrium conditions, or even in steady-state, but is always fluctuating (apparently within a range, at least since the end of the last Ice Age)? What exactly is the best approach to treating the case that the early 20th century warming was entirely “natural” and the late 20th century warming included anthropogenic effects?
You have to take account of the time varying issues. It takes time for fluxes to heat things. Has anybody in fact done that well? What is the lag, in years, between a change in forcing and the occurrence of 90% of the hypothetical “equilibrium” response at the surface? 4 years, maybe? If so, Andy May’s calculations are reasonably accurate.
A certain amount of alarmism is built on the assumption that the temp rise since 1975 is entirely anthropogenic, even entirely due to anthropogenic CO2 — how reasonable is that?

Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 23, 2016 10:42 am

“What exactly is the relevance of that, given that the climate system is never in equilibrium conditions”
Because the definition of ECS relates to equilibrium conditions. That may be hard to observe. But that doesn’t mean you can say that because it’s hard, you can accept any half-baked (literally!) thing instead.
I’ll return to my swimming pool analogy. What temperature rise can you sustain with, say, 100 kW heating? That’s an important figure for a manager. But a swimming pool isn’t in equilibrium either. There is diurnal; even an intermittent presence of warm bodies. You just have to estimate properly. And applying 100 kW for an hour isn’t the way to do it.
“What is the lag, in years, between a change in forcing and the occurrence of 90% of the hypothetical “equilibrium” response at the surface? 4 years, maybe?”
Lord M likes and cited the result of Roe:
comment image
It’s a lot more than 4 years. Even a century only gets to about 2/3 the limit.

Bob Boder
Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 23, 2016 12:13 pm

Nick
So all the feedbacks till equilibrium are positive? Your spewing BS.

Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 23, 2016 1:28 pm

Nick Stokes: But that doesn’t mean you can say that because it’s hard, you can accept any half-baked (literally!) thing instead.
Thank you for your response.
The problem is not that estimating the equilibrium is “hard”, the problem is that an equilibrium does not exist. The calculated result does not refer to anything in the climate system. The climate system is a high-dimensional (i.e. more than 3 dimensions), non-linear dissipative system. It does not even have a steady-state (because of the constantly changing inputs), but might have an approximate steady-state trajectory within an attractor.
What is the best approach to combining the claims that the early 20th century increase is 100% natural and the late 20th century rise is due entirely to anthropogenic CO2?

Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 23, 2016 2:16 pm

“the problem is that an equilibrium does not exist”
Thbis stuff gets silly. ECS has been around forever – it is a useful measure. It is equivalent to talking about DC gain, say, in electrical circuits. It is a limit concept. It gives a calculated value for how much temperature rise doubling CO2 would give if then held fixed for a long time. Of course, CO2 won’t be held fixed either. It’s a scenario. If you don’t like it, you can use notions of transient climate response, or effective CS. TCR tracks a 1% rise over 70 years. That doesn’t “exist” either. But its easier to calculate.
“What is the best approach to combining the claims that the early 20th century increase is 100% natural and the late 20th century rise is due entirely to anthropogenic CO2?”
Whose claims? CO2 was increasing in early 20th Cen. It rose 10 ppm from 1910 to 1940 (Law Dome). It rose 48 ppm from 1975 to 2005. The IPCC says it is very confident that at least half the later warming was AGW. It’s best estimate was that the AGW component matched the total.

afonzarelli
Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 23, 2016 5:20 pm

Nick, Dr Spencer stated that the ipcc ignores natural internal variability in his 2008 testimony before the senate. (he then called it the “800 pound gorilla in the room”) In light of the obvious, then, what merit has your appeal to ipcc consensus?

Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 23, 2016 6:37 pm

“Nick, Dr Spencer stated that the ipcc ignores natural internal variability in his 2008 testimony”
Well, I don’t know what he actually said. But that statement is obvious nonsense. AR4, for example, has a chapter on “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. That is all about quantifying natural variability, and working out what goes beyond it. Other IPCC reports have similar. An early para says:
“Internal variability is present on all time scales. Atmospheric processes that generate internal variability are known to operate on time scales ranging from virtually instantaneous (e.g., condensation of water vapour in clouds) up to years (e.g., troposphere-stratosphere or inter-hemispheric exchange). Other components of the climate system, such as the ocean and the large ice sheets, tend to operate on longer time scales. These components produce internal variability of their own accord and also integrate variability from the rapidly varying atmosphere (Hasselmann, 1976). In addition, internal variability is produced by coupled interactions between components, such as is the case with the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO; see Chapters 3 and 8).”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 23, 2016 10:44 pm

Nick, please show us how the IPCC’s pile of bureaucratic words explains early 1900’s cooling and warming episodes. It sure wasn’t transient weather phenomenon.
The IPCC knows large-scale natural processes are at work, they just can’t describe them nor model them. All the words in the world can’t dance around that fact.

Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 23, 2016 6:47 pm

Nick Stokes: ECS has been around forever – it is a useful measure. It is equivalent to talking about DC gain, say, in electrical circuits. It is a limit concept.
High dimensional, non-linear, dissipative systems do not have equilibria. Even with constant input, such systems have oscillations, not limits. Physically, the climate system does not have something equivalent to the DC gain in an electrical circuit. You can read up on this in, for example, Modern Thermodynamics by Kondepudi and Prigogine, the last few chapters.

Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 23, 2016 9:56 pm

Nick, you slid around the “natural vs. anthropogenic” question. We all know the IPCC AR5 said warming from 1950 was estimated to be all anthropogenic, but that is was certain that at a minimum it was more than 50%.
We all also know that the early 1900’s cooling and warming was most likely natural. You can argue for some anthro, but it is meaningless in the overall scheme of things.
Looking at climate model outputs vs. actual temperatures, early 1900 cooling and warming periods are not modeled accurately. Even knowing that such periods occurred, modelers were unable to program in such events. Wildly varying ECS and aerosol parameters between models indicate a lack of understanding of the “it’s just the physics.” Some models even calculate a negative energy balance, while at the same time showing surface temperature increases.
AR5 model results comparing “natural” with “anthro” temperatures from 1950 is epitome of institutional hubris, if not outright deception. The IPCC KNOWS it cannot model natural climate variations. That knowledge is implicit in its decision to ignore model outputs in estimating mid-term warming.
Given available data. neither you nor I nor anybody else can know what percentage of late 1900’s temperature rise was natural. We do know, though, that significant prior warming and cooling periods during the instrument record occurred naturally. Additionally, paleoclimate studies confirm natural warming and cooling periods.
If the above is not sufficient argument that there are unknown climate forces in action, then discussions with you are impossible.
Dave Fair

Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 24, 2016 2:48 am

matthewrmarler
“Even with constant input, such systems have oscillations, not limits.”
We’re used to handling much bigger oscillations – diurnal and seasonal. There is still a climate. Time averaging. As, say, with mean turbulent flow.
“Kondepudi and Prigogine”
Well, Prigogine became famous starting 60’s for nonequilibrium thermodynamics. But there was already an ancient and entirely useful theory of equilibrium thermodynamics. And it didn’t just apply to strict universal equilibrium.
The thing is, it’s all about time scales. A dynamic equilibrium in chemistry just means that the reaction kinetics is faster than the timescale of the changes you are considering. It doesn’t mean you can’t be altering the equilibrium, as in practical chemistry you often are. And so it is here. Talking about climate means a decadal scale at least. On that scale, feedback processes are fast enough that you can take them to be instant. Diurnal, annual and even (mostly) ENSO oscillations average out. But the slow processes of diffusion of heat into ocean depths are a non-equilibrium effect. ECS assumes they too have gone to completion, and that is why you can’t use ECS numbers before the process is complete. Unless you do accounting for such flows, as in effective sensitivity, or some kind of advance estimate estimate of the endpoint, as in numerical accelerated convergence.

Bob Boder
Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 24, 2016 6:47 am

Nick;
You nor anyone else have a clue what the long term equilibrium feedbacks will be. it is just as likely if not more so that the long term response to “rapid” initial positive changes is negative counter forcing. As for the “long term diffusion of heat into the ocean” no one has established that atmospheric CO2 can warm the oceans and certainly no one has or can establish that CO2 is warming the oceans without first warming the atmosphere. It is pretty simple to establish though that a warming ocean does warm the atmosphere. You have past the point of credulity and have entered the world of make believe.

afonzarelli
Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 24, 2016 12:10 pm
afonzarelli
Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 24, 2016 12:30 pm

“They have totally ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room, natural internal chaotic fluctuations in the climate system.”
“It seems that the IPCC leadership has a history of ignoring natural climate variability.”

afonzarelli
Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 24, 2016 12:48 pm

Nick, o.k., fine, they’ve got sections on natural variability, but then they go on to claim that were it not for human emissions we would have been experiencing slight cooling. How realistic is that in light of the fact that we seen (30 year) warming/cooling cycles throughout the entirety of the temperature record? (what good is your appeal to consensus here when the consensus is clearly wrong?)

afonzarelli
Reply to  matthewrmarler
August 24, 2016 12:58 pm

comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 23, 2016 5:22 pm

Nick, my wife’s chickens are as adept as you in scratching and flinging dross in the air.

Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 23, 2016 5:36 pm

Nick, my wife has corrected me. She points out that scratching and flinging is what chickens are supposed to do! She told me she assumes you are not a chicken, although hunting and pecking on the keyboard might be indicative of such propensities. She defends you!

kim
August 22, 2016 6:37 pm

Phil Jones told this to a journalist years ago. In fact there are three periods of temp rise with similar slopes, one back in the Nineteenth Century. The cycle is approximately 60 years and once convinced me that the PDO was the capo de capos of the climate capers.
Similarly, the slopes of the two intervening periods are also similar, as may well the third which is just now well under way.
================

afonzarelli
Reply to  kim
August 22, 2016 6:49 pm
kim
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 22, 2016 6:54 pm

Thanks. Not quite as similar as I remember it, but it’s there, approx. 1850 to 1880.
===========

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 22, 2016 6:59 pm

YES, kim, we have had three incarnations of the so called “jesus cycle” of 30 year periods of warming (since 1850). If there is one thing that the pause in warming should be telling us, it’s that the recent warming is just a part of a larger cycle of warming (/cooling). This seems to be getting lost, not only on warmists, but also on many a skeptic as well…

kim
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 22, 2016 7:14 pm

Oh, yes, Beth persistently adores my ‘Ignore the millennial at your perennial’, and it warms my heart.
==========

kim
August 22, 2016 6:51 pm

The assumption that the underlying natural warming since the LIA is continuing is extremely attractive. Nonetheless, it could well be wrong.
Here we are barely risen above the lowest depths of the Holocene and barely hanging on despite pouring all that plant food into the sky. And at half precession.
==========

kim
Reply to  kim
August 22, 2016 7:05 pm

Also, your calculation, heh attribution, of 22-25% is entirely dependent upon that natural warming being steady, too, otherwise your attribution calculations would vary above and below, depending upon whether warming decreased or increased.
We don’t know the natural trend. We oughta. How long have they been after this? The IPCC should have been mandated to understand natural first. Heh, it’s not too late, and by golly, it’s important.
===========

kim
Reply to  kim
August 22, 2016 7:06 pm

The sillies. How could you possibly know man’s contribution without knowing nature’s? These monumental fools are truly epic.
===============

afonzarelli
Reply to  kim
August 22, 2016 7:25 pm

kim, Dr Spencer referred to this (unaccounted for) natural internal variability as the “800 pound gorilla in the room” in his ’08 testimony before the u.s. senate. (and, no, he was not metaphorically referring to senator boxer who was “in the room” at the time… ☺)

kim
Reply to  kim
August 22, 2016 7:35 pm

Mama Gaia peered at my ‘whether warming decreased or increased’ and insisted on the right of warming to decrease into cooling.
If in fact we’re at or past the peak of the Modern Warming Period, sensitivity is higher and still we’re barely holding on with temperature. We only have so many more fossils we can burn.
The above is all conjectural, but the rate of natural warming since 1850 is unlikely to stay steady for long. How long? I dunno. But the next direction it is likely to turn is to lower, it seems inevitable.
There are important questions to answer about climate science, and this dithering at keyboards and models is tragically wasteful. Burning sun time, as one of friends used to say.
And the sun may well be setting on the Holocene.
============

August 22, 2016 7:38 pm

Formerly climatology was regional, as defined by Koppen and others, notably Trewartha.
The paper by Belda et Al (2014) is probably the best to date in reconstructing the Koppen-Trewartha climate classification map from modern datasets.
The Belda maps show the climate regions of the world (except Antarctica) for two periods, 1901-1931 and 1975-2005, based on a 30 minute grid, average area about 2500 km2, (About 50,000 grid cells cover 135 million km2, the land area of the Earth except Antarctica.)
Belda confirms what H.H. Lamb said about climate chant between the beginning and end of the 20th century: there was not much change. Lamb wrote, “In fact, from about the beginning of this century up to 1940 a substantial climatic change was in progress, but it was in a direction which tended to make life easier and to reduce stresses for most activities and most people in most parts of the world. Average temperatures were rising, though without too many hot extremes, and they were rising most of all in the Arctic where the sea ice was receding. Europe enjoyed several decades of near-immunity from severe winters, and the variability of temperature from year to year was reduced. More rainfall was reaching the dry places in the interiors of the great continents (except in the Americas where the lee effect, or ‘rain-shadow’, of the Rocky Mountains and the Andes became more marked as the prevalence of westerly winds in middle latitudes increased).” (end of quote) Climate,
H. H. Lamb, History and the Modern World Edition 2, Routledge, 1995
The Belda maps show that between the two periods separated by 75 years, 8% of the cells changed climate type. When you plot a scatter diagram of distributions for the two periods, you will find there is little divergence from the straight line passing through the origin and with slope unity. R-squared is 99.5.
The paper does not discuss error bars. However, the CRU (UK) has revised the climate data to remove wet bias, an adjustment that would increase R2, indicating even less change than these maps show.
In any other field of Earth science, using data with similar precision, we would claim confirmation of the null hypothesis that the two data sets separated by 75 years are not significantly different.
So yes, the Earth has warmed a little and most people worldwide are better off than their parents and grandparents. The people benefiting the most are those on the margins of steppe to desert and those on the margins between ice and tundra.
Climate classification revisited from Köppen to Trewartha, Belda, M. et al, Climate Research, 2014

kim
Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
August 22, 2016 7:56 pm

The ‘Big Lie’ is that warming is dangerous and harmful. I don’t believe, personal opinion, but slightly informed, that we cannot warm the earth enough for the amount to be harmful.
Paleontology always shows the benefits to the biome of warming, with no upper limit ever yet demonstrated for the warming. Paleontology also always shows the detriment of cooling, and it is immediate and from any level.
We have been so desperately foolish to believe in this catastrophism. Whatever the reason, and there have been many, to believe it has certainly created a climate of fools.
If it warms, our grandchildren will be glad. If it cools, and catastrophism has economically crippled them, our grandchildren will curse our foolishness.
===============

kim
Reply to  kim
August 22, 2016 7:58 pm

er, that’s supposed to be ‘that we can warm’ in the first paragraph. Gad I hate saying exactly the opposite of what I mean in the middle of a rant.
=============

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  kim
August 23, 2016 2:27 pm

There was no permanent ice in the time of the dinosaurs. Put the continents back to where they were, and everything shall be fine.
Where they are, when all the ice melts, Florida will be under water.

kim
Reply to  kim
August 24, 2016 5:47 am

Silly, the Holocene is over long before all the ice melts. Your alarmism is just plain stupid.
========

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  kim
August 24, 2016 4:18 pm

Kim
Thanks for showing that all you have to respond to my comment is personal attacks.

kim
Reply to  kim
August 25, 2016 2:58 am

Oh, you delicate flower. Can’t respond to the point of the comment, eh?
==============

Reply to  kim
September 1, 2016 3:47 am

Kim, Hubert Lamb was making the same point as you make.

Editor
Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
August 23, 2016 5:42 am

Thanks for the reference the paper looks excellent. I will study it.

Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
August 23, 2016 5:39 pm

All politics (climate) is local.

August 22, 2016 8:07 pm

In finding this similarity you, Andy May, and others using these data are victims of IPCC fake temperature curve. I have complained about it but they are so big that they think they don’t have to listen to me. What they have dine is to cover up a hiatus in the eighties and nineties and substitute a fake “late twentieth century warming” for it. It does not exist but it makes a nice upward slope of the same angle as the other one (1910-1944). What is hidden is a hiatus that starts in 1979 and ends in 1997, an 18 year level platform. It is shown in my book “What Warming?” asa figure 15. To change your figure 1 to resemble the real temperature curve you would have to lower the eighties and nineties to create a common horizontal platform. That would eat an 18 year wide step into that beautiful upward trend and spoil your parallelism of slopes. That is the end of your hypothesis, I am sorry to say.The arrogance of these guys has lasted for 26 years now. In any normal laboratory the supervisors would not let that happen but here they seem to be either unconscious or approving of the kind of scientific forgery that goes on.

TA
Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
August 23, 2016 11:26 am

“To change your figure 1 to resemble the real temperature curve you would have to lower the eighties and nineties to create a common horizontal platform.”
And to resemble the real temperature curve, they would also have to put 1936, on the same horizontal line on the graph as 1998, and 2016.

John Harmsworth
August 22, 2016 8:15 pm

Western Canada here! Beautiful summer here with bumper crops after a very mild winter. It couldn’t be any better (well, maybe a little warmer would be nice). Record high temp.? 47C in 1937!

August 22, 2016 8:52 pm

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
If human CO2 influence was negligible during early 20th Century warming, what influence (if any) did CO2 have in late 20th Century warming and any future theorised warming?
CO2 sensitivity – the great unknown and unanswered climate question, yet we base trillions of dollars of taxpayers money on radical climate policy and climate fixes (wind/solar), based on predictive models that assume CO2 is the fundamental ‘climate control knob’.
Doesn’t sound very sciency or smart to me. Though, welcome to “Climate Crisis Inc.”, the trillion dollar eco-crisis we had to have to satisfy a multitude of political and professional ambitions.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Climatism
August 23, 2016 5:30 pm

“CO2 sensitivity – the great unknown and unanswered climate question”
If you see an electrical cable lying around, assume that it is live.
If we don’t know CO2 sensitivity, we must assume that it very high.
“Trillions of dollars of taxpayers money” is only money. If you want to put a price on human lives, become a hit person for the mob.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 5:41 pm

Example of Climate alarmism that has cost taxpayers billions:
Australia’s x4 mothballed desal plants placed along Australia’s eastern seaboard and SA at a cost of $12Billion.
Most of Australia’s dam reservoirs are currently near full.
The “mothballed” desal plants are costing taxpayers $1 million per day for not producing a drop of water, all based on the hyper alarmist global warming fear spruiked by warming alsrmists like Tim Flannery who blabbed “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems” (2007)
Sydney’s main reservoir Warragamba dam is currently around 97% full.
Yes, I do care about other peoples hard-earned money being WASTED away at the expense of hyperventilating climate alarmists sitting on the eco-pulpit of moral virtue.
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/the-legacy-of-tim-flannery-white-elephant-desalination-plants/

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 5:43 pm

As for CO2 sensitivity, it ranges from 0.1C to 4C (RCP8.5) by 2100 – that’s some “settled science” you can bank on.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 5:55 pm

Climatism does not address “trillions of dollars of taxpayers money” does not address it only being money.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 10:25 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn

Climatism does not address “trillions of dollars of taxpayers money” does not address it only being money.

the “liberal” politicians want their 1.3 trillion in new carbon taxes – available ONLY if they can maintain the CAGW fear and hysteria.
Their supporting banks want their share of the 31 trillion in carbon futures trading.
Their supporting “scientists” want their share of the continued 92 billion in grants and subsidies and salaries and travel allowances and labs and programmers and research funding – that is also dependent on these “scientists” delivering only the results these same bureaucrats and politicians want.
The donors and unions who support these liberal/socialist politicians was their share of the millions spent back into the companies started and continued only to continue sucking their share of the politician’s money. “I donate to you, you send money my way.”
yes, it is about the money. The power. The control. The religious zeal and mental rewards of CAGW.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 10:10 pm

Jim Y, you are a scary dude. You don’t seem to realize that those “trillions of dollars” could be better spent in relieving poverty, disease and early death in the third world. In your (assumably) comfortable lifestyle, misallocated investments won’t result in your starvation. Posterity, though, will be much poorer.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 4:26 pm

Dogdaddy
If you want to help solve poverty, disease and early death in the third world, there are plenty of relief organizations that would gladly accept your money.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 4:54 pm

Jim Y, your response supports the thought that you are a master of the non sequitur.
Governmental misallocation of scarce resources is the point.

Gabro
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 4:33 pm

Why should we assume it’s high?
Doing that has cost the world trillions in treasure and possibly millions of lives.

catweazle666
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 5:42 pm

Jim, [trimmed. not needed. .mod]

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:06 pm

Gabro
How, exactly, has assuming climate sensitivity to be high cost millions of lives, or even one life?
You can break it down for me.
How many people have died because of solar power?
How many people have died because of wind power? Or are you talking about birds?
How many people have died because of hydroelectric power?
How many people have died because of nuclear power? Before you start talking about Fukushima;
Natural gas and coal more harmful than nuclear power
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/
An unbiased source about supposed Fukushima deaths
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/experts-foresee-no-detectable-health-impact-from-fukushima-radiation/?partner=rss&emc=rss

catweazle666
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 5:59 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn: “How many people have died because of hydroelectric power?”
In fact, hydro power is responsible for several orders of magnitude more deaths than nuclear power. Take the Banqiao Dam disaster, for example:
Casualties
According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died[14] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Or the Sichuan earthquake, perhaps:
BEIJING — Nearly nine months after a devastating earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, left 80,000 people dead or missing, a growing number of American and Chinese scientists are suggesting that the calamity was triggered by a four-year-old reservoir built close to the earthquake’s geological fault line.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06quake.html?pagewanted=all

kim
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 3:45 am

Green alarmism artificially raising the price of energy is already killing third worlders and it will worsen as the artifice rises. You need to get out more.
==========================

catweazle666
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 6:01 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn: “How many people have died because of wind power?”
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

catweazle666
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 6:06 pm

kim: “Green alarmism artificially raising the price of energy is already killing third worlders”
Green alarmism is already killing first worlders too, specifically the elderly and infirm, the most vulnerable members of society.
The scandal of Britain’s fuel poverty deaths
Thousands of people die each winter in the UK as a result of being unable to heat their homes. Are we doing enough to help them?
The social cost of fuel poverty is massive, and growing. In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors. And not being able to heat your home also takes a huge toll on health in general: those in fuel poverty have higher incidences of asthma, bronchitis, heart and lung disease, kidney disease and mental health problems.

https://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/2014/sep/11/fuel-poverty-scandal-winter-deaths
Although as Jimbo is almost certainly little more than an adolescent, I doubt very much he is even slightly concerned about the deaths of a few old, sick people.

kim
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 26, 2016 1:43 am

Mid fifties, and usefully naive.
========

AndyG55
August 22, 2016 8:56 pm

Using Hadcrut, which is known to have warming “adjustments” (or past cooling “adjustments”), makes this sort of analysis very iffy at best.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
August 22, 2016 8:58 pm

I meant, “using HadCrut and GISS” which are known… etc.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  AndyG55
August 23, 2016 5:26 pm

Any evidence that the unadjusted data is more valid than the adjusted data. If so, publish a paper in Nature.

kim
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 3:46 am

Karl did his dirty deed and then vanished.
================

August 22, 2016 9:00 pm

Why don’t most of the graphic data show that the 1930’s were warmer than today?
It was more than just in the USA…

Toneb
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 23, 2016 12:52 am
Steve Case
Reply to  Toneb
August 23, 2016 5:13 am

An honest comparison would have the temperature scale on the Y Axis the same on both graphs

Reply to  Toneb
August 23, 2016 12:02 pm

Didn’t Gavin Schmidt once make a fatuous comment about people being concerned only with the climate in which they live, discounting tropospheric measurements? Well, the U.S. temperature profile would show that my climate hasn’t changed in 100-plus years.
Chew on that for awhile and spit out the standard “yes buts.”
Dave Fair

TA
Reply to  Toneb
August 23, 2016 8:18 pm

Well, according to the Climate Change Gurus, the U.S. temperature chart is the actual global temperature profile, since it shows the 1930’s as being on the same level as 1998, and 2016 (or close enough for government work).
The U.S. temperature chart shown is the *real* global temperature profile. The Climate Change Gurus said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, and the only chart that represents that profile is the U.S. temperature chart.
The global temperature chart is a joke. A bad joke. An expensive joke. A trauma and mental illness causing joke (on the part of the Alarmists).

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Toneb
August 24, 2016 7:56 pm

TA
“The U.S. temperature chart shown is the *real* global temperature profile. The Climate Change Gurus said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, and the only chart that represents that profile is the U.S. temperature chart. …
“The global temperature chart is a joke.”
Only because 1998 being hotter than the 1930s does not fit the agenda of certain people.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Toneb
August 26, 2016 4:11 am

So sayith: Jim Yushchyshyn – August 24, 2016 at 7:56 pm

The global temperature chart is a joke.”
Only because 1998 being hotter than the 1930s does not fit the agenda of certain people.

Sorry, Jim Yu, but the fact-of-the-matter is, … the global temperature chart/record is a joke, ……. ESPECIALLY the pre-1960 temperature data contained therein or on.
Here ya go, Jimbo, educate yourself as to the accuracy of the US Temperature Record from the beginning of the NWS ….. and then extrapolate your new-found knowledge to global coverage for the same time period of 1870 to present.
The beginning of the National Weather Service
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/pa/history/index.php
History of the NWS – 1870 to present
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/pa/history/evolution.php

Scott
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 23, 2016 4:01 am

This link shows what you were after J. Phillip Peterson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
The main reason is many like to use anomalies which are not temperature but changes relative to another point in time. Change the base, change the anomalies. Add to that the data adjustments and you have a complete obtrusion of the real picture.
We have the same issue in Australia where any history prior to 1910 is ignored – Why because that is when our BOM was created even through we had Stevenson screens in operation up to 60 years earlier which highlighted some of our hottest periods. Now conveniently pushed into the back ground. As a side issue the 1930’s were hot here as well.

AndyG55
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 23, 2016 1:49 pm

One would have to ask Tom Wigley what happened to the inconvenient 1940’s peak.

James R McCown
August 22, 2016 10:07 pm

IPCC: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”
The IPCC simply cannot say this about CO2 pre-1958, nor NO2 before 1978, nor CH4 before 1983. There were only sporadic direct measurements of these three “greenhouse gases” made before these dates. The data the IPCC are using come from Antarctic ice cores. These are no better than 20 year weighted averages of the gas concentrations and cannot be used to compare with annual temperature data.

Johann Wundersamer
August 23, 2016 1:49 am

comment image
is strongly indicating rising temperatures from 1910 to 2009 are due to natural behavior of climate, starting before industrial revolution – e. g. no correlation with changing parts of ‘greenhouse gasses’ of the atmosphere.

brians356
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 23, 2016 10:30 am

The Industrial Revolution proper ended before 1850, but your point still has merit.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 31, 2016 5:37 am

v’

Lou Maytrees
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 31, 2016 11:08 am

except Johann, atmospheric CO2 increased almost 10% from 1870 to 1944, with more than half of that being from 1910 – 1944 alone, so it wasn’t all ‘natural behavior of climate, starting before the industrial revolution’. And if you extend your 1975 Hadcrut4gl trend line out to 2016 (now, instead of 2009) you have an +.25*C per decade increase in global temperature since 1975, which correlates v well with the extra amount of CO2 we’ve put in the atmosphere since then too.
woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2016

richard verney
August 23, 2016 1:49 am

This has been known for some time, and will remain the case unless and until the temperature data sets are rewritten/revised.
One should see the BBC interview of Prof. Phil Jones of CRU.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.
The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA’s press office.
Question – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
ANSWER:
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
I would suggest that this observational data itself suggests that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 in real world conditions of planet Earth’s atmosphere, if any at all, is low. Especially if one also considers the post 1940s cooling.

kim
Reply to  richard verney
August 23, 2016 6:41 am

Nice, and thanks.
=======

Editor
Reply to  richard verney
August 23, 2016 6:53 am

Great interview, thanks for posting the link.

Bob Boder
Reply to  richard verney
August 23, 2016 7:48 am

Richard
I am waiting for Nick Stokes to say “but its not at equilibrium yet!”

Chris Wright
August 23, 2016 3:26 am

” We assume that the natural influences from 1910 to 1945 were the same as those from 1975 to 2009. We further assume that difference in the two slopes is due to man’s influence. ”
.
These seem to be huge assumptions. My guess is that the probability of natural warming in those two periods being precisely equal is virtually zero. Investors who make similar assumptions will probably lose their money.
.
Human emissions massively increased around the end of the last century, probably thanks to China. And yet this century has been dominated by a complete lack of warming which, until the recent el nino, had lasted for almost two decades. With the el nino out of the way, I wouldn’t be surprised if Christopher Monckton will be able to report, in a couple of years, that the pause is no longer a teenager!
.
My guess is that man’s influence is less than 5%.
Chris

afonzarelli
Reply to  Chris Wright
August 23, 2016 3:47 am

YES, the “pause” will not only be old enough to vote, it will be old enough to have a drink!

afonzarelli
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 4:58 pm

We know that you dolt! (pull your head out of your back side and read chris’ comment again, this time with your glasses on…)

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 5:51 pm

af
You are certainly talking a lot about a supposed pause which you know does not exist.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 5:54 am

i think you should need glasses Jim and read carefully the definition of the “pause”: “its the trackback to the date where the slope is zero” or in short: how far can you go back and keep the trend line at zero?
if you can track back 18 years that’s something significant.
if that is cherry picking for you i would say that the whole global warming is cherry picking: when we compare it with the 430.000 year long ice core reconstructions nothing is happening as all other interglacials of that record were hotter then this one.
so taking the last 100 “official years” stating there is CAGW is also cherry picking compared to a reconstruction of 430.000 years of temperature data which shows interglacials with sea levels 6 meter higher then today and temperatures 4°C higher then today.
when we just look at the last 10000 years the LIA is only overclassed by the 8.2 Kyr event so what are we actually seeing?
looking at the holocene bond events, nothing unusual is happening: we’re half way towards a new “medieval warm episode” – like optimum which we may call in the future “the Modern warm period”.
that is if the sun keeps on doing it’s job…

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 4:34 pm

Frederick Michaels
“i think you should need glasses Jim and read carefully the definition of the “pause”: “its the trackback to the date where the slope is zero” or in short: how far can you go back and keep the trend line at zero?
“if you can track back 18 years that’s something significant.
Where did you get that definition from? Monckton of Benchley? The planet between Saturn and Neptune?
“if that is cherry picking for you i would say that the whole global warming is cherry picking: when we compare it with the 430.000 year long ice core reconstructions nothing is happening as all other interglacials of that record were hotter then this one.”
Were people driving SUVs 430,000 years ago? Or do you mean 430 + 0/1000 years ago, as you typed out?
You also need to learn to use your shift key.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 4:54 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn

replying obnoxiously to Frederick Michaels

“i think you should need glasses Jim and read carefully the definition of the “pause”: “its the trackback to the date where the slope is zero” or in short: how far can you go back and keep the trend line at zero?
“if you can track back 18 years that’s something significant.

Where did you get that definition from?

Well Jim, evidently you have conclusively and absolutely proved both your lack of experience and lack of social judgement. That is the exact and actual definition of the “pause” as we use it in discussing your CAGW theory and its errors.
With, or, without, the, comma. Which, is, also, a, pause.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:13 pm

RACook
You attack me, but say nothing about the source of Frederik Michiels definition of pause.

kim
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 2:54 am

Plays dumb, where’s the good faith?
========

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 5:40 am

So sayith: Jim Yushchyshyn – August 24, 2016 at 7:13 pm

RACook
You attack me, but say nothing about the source of Frederik Michiels definition of pause.

Jim Y, me thinks it is quit juvenile of you to be, per se, DEMANDING a “source reference” for anything and everything that you are told that is not of your liking.
Ells bells, iffen you had ask me to define “the pause” I would surely have told you the “same thing” but via use of different verbiage.
Me thinks that you are displaying the personality of a semi-permanently nurtured (brainwashed) adolescent who would be silly enough to DEMAND that Einstein provide you with a “source reference” for his definition of “special relativity” (E=MC2).
“DUH”, its truly sad that the majority of the younger generations have no conception of “original thought” ….. and it boggles their brain activity whenever they are subjected to said.

catweazle666
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 6:16 pm

Samuel C Cogar: “Me thinks that you are displaying the personality of a semi-permanently nurtured (brainwashed) adolescent”
If this is him, you’re pretty damn close.
https://www.facebook.com/jim.yushchyshyn
Class of 2015 · Bachelor of Science, Biology · Edmonton, Alberta
A wet behind the ears kid with a nice shiny certificate that he hasn’t yet discovered doesn’t mean he knows everything, trying to teach his grandmother to suck eggs.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 26, 2016 5:26 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn:
“The Pause” is accepted science. Only folks who are still trying to argue that CO2 is the ‘control knob’ of global temperatures would still claim that “There is no pause”.
If “There is no pause” is the hill you’ve chosen to take a stand on, that’s up to you. It fits in with the rest of your comments.
But I’m curious, who’s giving you all your misinformation? Saying “there is no pause” is just an assertion, which has been thoroughly deconstructed by a mountain of evidence.
For example, the following list goes through 2015, the year the latest ‘pause’ ended. If you disagree you can argue with the folks named below. But here, we’re long past arguing about something that is accepted by just about everyone else:

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
__________________
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
__________________
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
__________________
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
__________________
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
__________________
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
__________________
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
__________________
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
__________________
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
__________________
Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
“The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
[Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
__________________
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
__________________
Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
__________________
Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
__________________
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
__________________
Met Office – July 2013
The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
………..
Executive summary
The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
__________________
Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
__________________
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
__________________
Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
__________________
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
__________________
Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
__________________
Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
“Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”
__________________
Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
“This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”
__________________
Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
“…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”
__________________
Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062596/abstract
__________________
==
Shuai-Lei Yao et al – Theoretical and Applied Climatology – 9 January 2015
The global warming hiatus—a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation
….We provide compelling evidence that the global warming hiatus is a natural product of the interplays between a secular warming tendency…..
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-014-1358-x
__________________
H. Douville et al – 2015
The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062775/abstract

Even Michael Mann has admitted that the ‘Pause’ was factual. Just put “pause” into the search box on this site. You will find reams of evidence like this:comment image
And this:comment image
Next time you’re tempted to make a baseless assertion, you should do a search first. It would help to avoid embarassment…

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 26, 2016 8:14 pm
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 26, 2016 9:07 pm

“Beaumont Vance” (that’s your newest fake screen name, is it?) says:
“you need to update your graphic to include recent data.”
No, I don’t, and it’s not my data. It’s real world data that conclusively shows “the Pause”.
You’re not NASA/GISS, so you don’t get to ‘adjust’ the past temperature record.
Rational readers here can see that there was no global warming during most of the past twenty years. You’re not one of them.

prjindigo
August 23, 2016 6:49 am

So the warming is 100% carbon soot altering planetary albedo. first from steam locomotive driven industry and later from massive increases in industrialization and jet air travel.

MarkW
August 23, 2016 6:59 am

Obviously CO2 can influence across time as well as distance.

August 23, 2016 7:02 am

The historical climatic record showing this period of time in the climate is in no way unique while changes in CO2 concentrations having no correlation in leading to resultant climate changes.
Now how the cooling evolves will have to be monitored. The cooling by the way has began.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 24, 2016 6:03 am

yup i agree this year we had more coldest days then hottest days. we had in belgium the coldest 10th august ever, and it was just 0.1°C shy of the coldest august day ever recorded since 1833.
note maybe we’ll get our first official heatwave. It’s about time
(note for belgian standards a heat wave is 5 days of 25°C with 3 days with 30°C, as our climate is a temperate climate. I know that for a lot of readers their region this is considdered normal summer temp)

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
August 24, 2016 7:15 pm

Belgium is not the whole world

kim
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
August 25, 2016 3:49 am

Finally, something Jim says that I can get behind.
============

Donald Holdner
August 23, 2016 8:29 am

I believe that the origin of the similarity between the two periods can be found in in the ENSO record.
Both periods (1900-1940, and 1980-2010) represent periods in which the Nino 3.4 values are generally positive, and follow periods in which Nino 3.4 values were generally negative (1870-1900 and 1950-1980).
This effect can be quantified by passing the monthly Nino 3.4 values through an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) filter, and correlating the filtered Nino 3.4 series with the global temperature record.
The filter is as follows
EWMA (t) = EWMA (1-t) * (1 -FC) + Nino3.4 (t) * FC
where FC is a filter constant.
The correlation is in fact bi-modal. At filter constant (FC) values of approximately 0.1, there is a significant correlation. This represents the well known concurrent effects of El Nino on global temperatures, such as in 1998 and 2016.
However the much more significant and important correlation, largely unrecognized by climate scientists, is evident at filter constant values of 0.02 to 0.01. At these filter values, the higher frequency changes in the Nino 3.4 record are removed, and the low frequency (i.e. longer term) trends of ENSO are revealed. These low frequency trends in the ENSO record are highly correlated with the temperature movements that are presented in the paper.

kim
Reply to  Donald Holdner
August 23, 2016 8:38 am

So, maybe the PDO is the Capo de Capos after all. What about the AMO?
=========

Donald Holdner
Reply to  kim
August 23, 2016 9:14 am

AMO also correlates with the EWMA of NINO3.4 (with a filter constant of about 0.01).

kim
Reply to  kim
August 23, 2016 9:23 am

Woof, and thanks.
======

kim
Reply to  kim
August 23, 2016 9:32 am

It would sure be nice to know how that happens, both basins correlating with a phenomenon in one.
===========

Richard M
Reply to  kim
August 23, 2016 10:58 am

El Nino events generally enhance the AMO. This tends to support the concept that El Nino may be related to rotational factors as is the AMO.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  Donald Holdner
August 24, 2016 6:10 am

A good point would be to use this on all known ocean shifts. (ENSO AMO PDO,QBO,IOD,…)Ten add them up to a “single resultant graph, then track the solar intensity graph with it, and make a new resultant. i dare to bet that this would correlate pretty neatly with the temperature graph.
i would not be surprised to see positive and negative resonance episodes which would explain the current holocene temperature fluctuations.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
August 24, 2016 7:59 pm

I doubt it.
But, if it does, prove it.
I would like to know, what other than greenhouse gases, have shown a positive trend over the past 44 years.

August 23, 2016 8:46 am

Very nice guest post. Bookmarked. The delta slope of the two periods is a clever approach to the attribution problem, AFAIK not done before anywhere.

afonzarelli
Reply to  ristvan
August 23, 2016 9:21 am

AND if true, ECS would be nowhere near the values of 1.5C – 1.8C. (more like the Lindzen value of 0.6C)…

kim
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 9:37 am

Well, Rud, I roughly noted it years ago, and given the low sensitivity speculated that feedback might be negative.
I was roundly ridiculed over at Climate Audit years ago for saying that not only do we not know the magnitude of feedback, we are not even sure of the sign of it.
================

kim
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 9:43 am

Heh, ‘years ago’. Why such nostalgia for the past? Why years ago I had the whole climate thing figured out, but have since forgotten. My joke with moshe is that you have to read the blogs.
===========

August 23, 2016 9:10 am

Andy May, thank you for the essay.

William Yarber
August 23, 2016 10:00 am

Good study but you must redo it using NASA data pre-2000! Hansen made an adjustment between 1999 & 2000 data sets that lowered 1934 (and basically all 1920-1950 data) by 1C! 1934 was still warmer than 2000 and Hansen couldn’t leave his job until he corrected that TRUTH!
Historical data is sacrosanct unless there is mass sensor systemic error which can be proven by multiple researchers! Hansen did it all by himself and there was no righteous outcry from the climate scientists! Proves fabrication and collusion!

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  William Yarber
August 23, 2016 2:10 pm

Your comment is nothing but a personal attack against James Hansen and other honest scientists.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 3:58 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn

Your comment is nothing but a personal attack against James Hansen and other honest scientists.

This is true: There is a significant difference between Jim Hansen and honest scientists.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 5:33 pm

RACook
“There is a significant difference between Jim Hansen and honest scientists.”
James Hansen has a lot more integrity than “scientists” who global warming deniers call “honest.”

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 6:07 pm

RE: James Hansen It is the minor little matter of his making short term temperature and sea level rise predictions that just didn’t happen, and his subseqently ignoring his own failures. Evangelical preachers claiming Jesus will come back by a certain date at least act embarrassed past that date.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 8:07 pm

Jim, did Hansen do the adjustments?

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:21 pm

dogdaddy
I’m not aware of anyone, Dr. Hansen or anyone else, denying that he uses adjusted temperature data. But, people should not just assume that he has ulterior motives for using adjusted temperature data. And I don’t deny that someone has some ‘spaining to do. But, before we condemn anyone, let’s give them a chance to do their ‘splaining, by following this link.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 1:42 pm

If it wasn’t natural cyclical warming, then it wouldn’t be maintaining its 30 year warming/cooling “fingerprint”. If there is one thing that we should be understanding in light of the pause, it’s that recent warming is part of a larger cycle…

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 2:09 pm

Your Hadcrut4 graph shows more pronounced warming in the most recent era than in the early 20th century.
And, you have no scientific basis to presume a “30 year warming cooling ‘fingerprint.'”
A repeat in the shape of a curve does not mean a repeat of the cause.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 7:57 pm

Explain it, then Jimboy.

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 5:03 pm

When the 30 year half cycle commences for the SIXTH TIME, then we have a basis…

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 5:57 pm

It has to commence the first time.

CO2isLife
August 23, 2016 12:24 pm

If the absorbed W/M^2 isn’t linear for CO2 PPM, why should temperature changes due to CO2 be linear?

August 23, 2016 1:00 pm

Some time ago I looked at CET and CO2. Here is what I found:
http://www.leif.org/research/CETandCO2.pdf
“It seems hard to ascribe the 0.171º/decade warming during 1971-2008 solely to CO2 when a much smaller increase in CO2 during 1908-1945 had a 0.162º/decade warming trend.”

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2016 2:20 pm

The Sun and PDO

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Whatever that means.

Bindidon
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 24, 2016 7:17 am

Thanks Leif for the info.

Louis
August 23, 2016 1:25 pm

Time will tell. If this is a natural warming cycle, it will become evident over the next few decades. If temperatures cool again, warmunists will go into hibernation until the next warming cycle begins. Then they will crawl back out of the woodwork with renewed cries of gloom and doom. That’s because they can never turn down an opportunity to blame humans for a coming potential crisis even if it’s merely a repeat of a natural cycle.

Don Easterbrook
August 23, 2016 1:35 pm

As I (and a number of others) pointed out years ago, the 1915-1945 warming is almost identical to the 1979-2000+ warming, clearing showing that you don’t need any CO2 increase at all to get that kind of warming. And it is no coincidence that both periods correspond to warm PDO periods. A nearly identical situation occurred in the preceding century–a warm period from about 1850 to 1880, followed by a cool period from 1880 to 1915, similar to the 1945 to 1977 cool period (before it was erased by NASA and NOAA).
So the question became, how long have these 25-30 years alternating warm/cool periods been going on? I plotted up the GISP2 oxygen isotope measurements of Stuiver and Grootes for the past 500 years and found a pattern of regularly alternating warm/cool periods with an average duration of 27 years (you can find this curve in several of my publications–just google my name to find them).
This regularly repeating pattern of warm/cool periods of 25-30 years, long before CO2 entered the picture, shows that these climate changes have nothing at all to do with CO2 . And because the past is the key to the future–we can extrapolate this ongoing pattern into the future (which I did in 1999 when I predicted global cooling for the first two decades of this century). The so-called ‘pause’ in recent global warming is not a pause at all, it’s just a continuation of the same pattern that has been going on for 500 years.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
August 23, 2016 1:53 pm

Same thing with BEST and CET temperatures:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-BEST-CET.png

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 2:50 pm

Showing a plot without an explanatory text is pretty useless. What conclusion do you peddle?

afonzarelli
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2016 4:47 pm

Jim, a wider view here of the pdo gives us a better picture of what’s going on. It’s so easy to cherry pick trend lines at wft…

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2016 6:01 pm

PDO for the last century looks pretty flat, unlike temperature.
And 1910-1944 and 1975-2009 are time frames selected by the author.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 23, 2016 10:39 pm

Interesting. Thanks for plotting these.

Bindidon
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
August 24, 2016 6:17 am

Don Easterbrook August 23, 2016 at 1:35 pm
As usual, again and again the same blah blah about the 1945 to 1977 cool period (before it was erased by NASA and NOAA).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/mean:120/plot/gistemp/from:1900/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1975/trend
The “better” cooling period was from 1940 till 1975. In fact, using Thomas R. Karls infilling temperature series at
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
you see that the “coolest” interval in fact is 1941-1965. Karl’s infilling shows even more cooling there than do GISS or NOAA. Yes: that’s the true, real face of the so-called “karlization of data”.
Feel free to enter your 1945-1977, and compare! Maybe one day you understand 🙂

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Bindidon
August 25, 2016 9:34 am

The data you cite has been so corrupted by NASA and NOAA that you can get totally different curves by choosing graphs at different years. The end of the cool period happened in a single year 1977-78,but the onset of the warm period is not so well defined–you could use most anytime between 1945 and 1955. But be aware that NASA/NOAA have almost completely erased a well-defined cool period.

Lou Maytrees
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
August 25, 2016 10:09 am

Every NASA/NOAA chart you show Don, clearly shows the 1945 – 1977 leveling/downturn in global temps except you keep repeating that they have somehow erased it? The problem you have is they didn’t ‘erase’ it, its still clearly there, you’re just making it up as you go along.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
August 24, 2016 6:19 am

there’s also the AMO cycle and PDO and AMO create resonance waves: we got a pause as the negative PDO is “canceled out by the positive AMO. it’s only with PDO- and AMO- that the cyclic downward moton is achieved.
i always found your graph very “correct” but i would have shifted it 20 years further: the predicted cooling will only start in 2020 with solar cycle 25 and the negative AMO

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
August 25, 2016 9:35 am

Global climate has been cooling for the past decade–not a lot, but cooling, not warming.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
August 25, 2016 10:17 am

There is no evidence for that.

kim
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
August 25, 2016 11:09 am

ARGO, satellites.
============

kim
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
August 25, 2016 11:30 am

How much did this last El Nino cool the ocean? Go have a look.
====================

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
August 25, 2016 9:16 pm

“lsvalgaard
There is no evidence for that.”
Actually there is, Leif–
1. The RSS curve shows slight cooling from 2001-2015.
2. The UAH cure shows slight cooling from 2003-2013.
3. The HADCRUT3 curve shows slight cooling from 2001-2012.
4. The NCDC curve shows slight cooling from 2003-2014.
The cooling began about 2001 and lasted at least a decade–it is only a slight cooling, but it is cooling, not warming. Monckton’s temp analysis shows no warming for more than 18 years and confirms the lack of warming. The recent El Nino will show a rise in warming, but the overall influence awaits seeing how low the coming La Nina goes. Is this decade of cooling a big deal? Not really–but it does interrupt the 1980-2000+ warming and we will have to see what effect the recent El Nino/La NIna have. I’m betting that cooling will intensify in the coming two decades, but time will tell.
Your two graphs were very interesting. Would be fun to do it for the entire GISP2 core.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
August 25, 2016 11:39 pm

The cooling began about 2001 and lasted at least a decade
No cooling in sight:comment image?w=720

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 25, 2016 11:45 pm

2013-14 North Pacific Blob and 2015-15 Super El Nino. Great way to end a series.
Try a 2001 to 2013 trend and get back to us.

Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 25, 2016 11:57 pm

Cherry picking short trends is not very fruitful.
Compare the temperature for that period with what is was 100 years ago, when solar activity [and thus cosmic rays] was similar to what it is today.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 26, 2016 12:19 am

Please excuse my typo: should have been 2015-16 Super El Nino.
My suggestion to look at the 2001 to 2013 trends was in response to other’s use of a 10-year trends ending in 2016.
Yes, short term trends can be misleading. The actual lower than model “projected” temperature trends from the end of the 20th Century, however, should give pause to anybody making claims about 21st Century model “projections.”
Significant multi-decadal warming and cooling trends in (at least) the 19th and 20th Centuries should also give pause to anybody making claims about the dominance of currently understood radiation physics in our atmosphere. The inaccuracy of model “projected” early 21st Century temperature trends, despite significant atmospheric CO2 increases, would also caution humility in climate practitioners.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
August 26, 2016 4:34 am

lsvalgaard – August 25, 2016 at 11:39 pm

The cooling began about 2001 and lasted at least a decade
No cooling in sight:

isvalgaard, put you “tunnel-vision” glasses back on and then look again at the above graph that you posted and focus your eyes only on the ten (10) year decade of 2000 thru 2010.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 26, 2016 5:29 am

Whenever you think you have a trend, calculate the trend and its error bar. What is the error bar for 2000-2010?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
August 27, 2016 4:15 am

lsvalgaard asks: “What is the error bar for 2000-2010?”
Sam asks isvalgaard: “What is the error bar for 23,000 BP-2016?”
I don’t deal with error bars or gay bars. If the data is in error then I throw it out.
It is asinine to accumulate reference data that is highly questionable, assign an “error bar” rating to it …….. and then suggest, infer and/or claim it is actual, factual, rock-solid physical evidence of a scientific nature.
An “intelligence bar” rating I could agree with.

Lou Maytrees
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
August 25, 2016 4:52 am

Don, You state ‘NASA NOAA erased the 1945-1977 cool period’.? Thats a new one. Since when?

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Lou Maytrees
August 25, 2016 9:42 am

Go to http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/the-history-of-temperature-history/ to see the cooling that took place from the early 1940s to 1977, then compare it with the HADCUT 4 curve. The cool period has been almost completely erased by corrupting the original data.

Lou Maytrees
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
August 25, 2016 11:38 am

Even the realclimate GISS link you posted clearly shows the 1945 – 1977 depressing of temperatures. The realclimate link also compares 1920 – 1979, not just 1945 – 1977, yet still shows CLEARLY the leveling/downturn of temps from 1945 thru 1977. What a bunch of bunk from you and realclimate.

toncul
August 23, 2016 3:55 pm

So,
it’s warming

Reply to  toncul
August 23, 2016 8:03 pm

At times. Then again, it’s cooling. I’d rather be earlier in the Holocene.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 24, 2016 4:39 pm

http://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator1024.gif
If you don’t like SkepticalScience, I might suggest deconstructing the graph, anyways. An actual logical argument beats an ad hom every time.

Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 24, 2016 5:28 pm

A Jim Yush,
The slope of the read line is 1.7 degrees per century (and falling). Nothing to worry about.

Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 24, 2016 5:29 pm

Jim Y, again the non sequitur.
The animations show how Sks wants you to believe (unidentified) contrarians view evolution of temperatures over their specified period. Oddly, even their own Dr. Trenberth postulates ENSO-driven temperature shifts accounting for the staircase pattern. I am unaware of any radiation-driven processes that would work in such a nonlinear pattern. Do you have a theory?
Look up Bob Tisdale’s work if you want an idea of how this contrarian views the evolution of satellite-era SST’s by ocean basin. He uses real data, not contrived graphing sleight of hand.
If you cannot agree that oceans mainly drive global temperatures, maybe you can show us with data an alternative mechanism.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 24, 2016 7:49 pm

“The animations show how Sks wants you to believe (unidentified) contrarians view evolution of temperatures over their specified period.”
OK! Admitedly, it is only the data since first 1995, then 1996, 1997 and then 1998 as “skeptics” moved the goalposts that “skeptics” look at as a horizontal line. But, the graphic does show how their logic would work if they had been organized since 1970.
“Oddly, even their own Dr. Trenberth postulates ENSO-driven temperature shifts accounting for the staircase pattern. I am unaware of any radiation-driven processes that would work in such a nonlinear pattern. Do you have a theory?”
No, I do not believe that carbon dioxide is the sole driver of temperature. A staircase type pattern could be explained in terms of certain cyclical patterns, such as ENSO, PDO and the sunspot cycle, on top of the continually increasing forcing due to humans adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
“Look up Bob Tisdale’s work if you want an idea of how this contrarian views the evolution of satellite-era SST’s by ocean basin. He uses real data, not contrived graphing sleight of hand.”
OK! I would like to review his work before commenting on it. Could you provide a link?
If you do, I might lose track of this thread. If I do, I appologize for that. I would invite you to post a link should we meet on another thread.
“If you cannot agree that oceans mainly drive global temperatures, maybe you can show us with data an alternative mechanism.”
I believe that oceans are reserviors of heat, but not the energy source. The Sun is the energy source and greenhouse gases regulate the release of heat back into space. I have a hypothesis that, if we had hundreds of thousands of years of temperature data, that PDO would show a sawtooth wave pattern, similar to temperature, lagging temperature by several centuries. The lag might resemble the lag that carbon dioxide shows in ice core samples.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 8:12 pm

Great dialogue, Jim Y!
Bob Tisdale blogs at Climate Observations: “https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com” He has a few books out and many ongoing blogposts at his site and at WUWT.
While there have been many Sks-type attacks on Bob, nobody has laid a glove on his data nor his detailed analyses. It can be laborious at times, but please read as much of his cogent analyses as you can take, then add on some more!
After awhile, you can just skim your eyes over stuff you’ve assimilated before. Additionally, he has always responded positively to honest questions and disagreements.
Dave Fair

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 25, 2016 7:54 pm

From https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/noaas-new-climate-explorer-noaa-needs-to-provide-a-disclaimer-for-their-climate-model-presentations/
“Climate Model Outputs Have Been Manipulated By NOAA to Make Models Appear to Perform Well”
I prefer the word “corrected” to “manipulated.”
If you would like to know why NOAA makes data corrections;
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

kim
Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 26, 2016 1:35 am

heh, ‘corrected’. You would say that now, wouldn’t you?
============

O R
August 24, 2016 12:43 am

ARGO data is not included in SST or global land/ocean temperature datasets. Andy May has mixed up drifting buoys (measuring sea surface temperature) and ARGO floats ( measuring profiles down to 2000 m). ARGO (surface) data may be included in SST in the future, but right now it is a independent source, supporting that there is nothing wrong with the ERSST V4 dataset.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/buoy_only_sea_surface_temperature.html
Also, the trends of 1910-1944 and 1975-2009 may be similar, but If we assume that the latter starts from a 0.5 C higher level, it has ( according to the Planck response, etc) a 1.7 W/m2 larger radiation loss to fight against..

Editor
Reply to  O R
August 24, 2016 5:08 am

Thanks for pointing this out. I should have used the phrase “SST measuring buoys” rather than “ARGO floats.” However, I do think ARGO float data is used in both ERSST v4 and HadSST3. I can find no reference that says they are excluded. The reference you site has them separated into two different datasets, but I think both datasets are used in the main products. Do you have a reference that says the ARGO data is excluded? It is usually considered a drifting buoy.

Editor