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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
AND if true, ECS would be nowhere near the values of 1.5C – 1.8C. (more like the Lindzen value of 0.6C)…
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.
================
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.
===========
Andy May, thank you for the essay.
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!
Your comment is nothing but a personal attack against James Hansen and other honest scientists.
Jim Yushchyshyn
This is true: There is a significant difference between Jim Hansen and honest scientists.
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.”
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.
Jim, did Hansen do the adjustments?
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
Virtually indistinguishable?
Except for the cause.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1910/to:1944/scale:200/plot/gistemp/from:1910/to:1944/trend/scale:200/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1910/to:1944/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1910/to:1944/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1910/to:1944/scale:50/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1910/to:1944/trend/scale:50
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1975/to:2009/scale:200/plot/gistemp/from:1975/to:2009/trend/scale:200/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1975/to:2009/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1975/to:2009/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1975/to:2009/scale:50/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1975/to:2009/trend/scale:50/plot/esrl-co2/from:1975/to:2009/offset:-320
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850
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…
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.
Explain it, then Jimboy.
When the 30 year half cycle commences for the SIXTH TIME, then we have a basis…
It has to commence the first time.
If the absorbed W/M^2 isn’t linear for CO2 PPM, why should temperature changes due to CO2 be linear?
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.”
The Sun and PDO
Whatever that means.
Thanks Leif for the info.
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.
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.
Same thing with BEST and CET temperatures:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-BEST-CET.png
PDO from 1910-1944
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1910/to:1944/scale:200/plot/gistemp/from:1910/to:1944/trend/scale:200/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1910/to:1944/scale:50/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1910/to:1944/trend/scale:50
PDO from 1975-2009
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1975/to:2009/scale:200/plot/gistemp/from:1975/to:2009/trend/scale:200/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1975/to:2009/scale:50/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1975/to:2009/trend/scale:50/plot/esrl-co2/from:1975/to:2009/offset:-320
Showing a plot without an explanatory text is pretty useless. What conclusion do you peddle?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/scale:50
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…
PDO for the last century looks pretty flat, unlike temperature.
And 1910-1944 and 1975-2009 are time frames selected by the author.
Interesting. Thanks for plotting these.
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 🙂
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.
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.
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
Global climate has been cooling for the past decade–not a lot, but cooling, not warming.
There is no evidence for that.
ARGO, satellites.
============
How much did this last El Nino cool the ocean? Go have a look.
====================
“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.
The cooling began about 2001 and lasted at least a decade
?w=720
No cooling in sight:
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.
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.
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.
lsvalgaard – August 25, 2016 at 11:39 pm
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.
Whenever you think you have a trend, calculate the trend and its error bar. What is the error bar for 2000-2010?
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.
Don, You state ‘NASA NOAA erased the 1945-1977 cool period’.? Thats a new one. Since when?
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.
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.
So,
it’s warming
At times. Then again, it’s cooling. I’d rather be earlier in the Holocene.
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.
A Jim Yush,
The slope of the read line is 1.7 degrees per century (and falling). Nothing to worry about.
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.
“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.
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
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
heh, ‘corrected’. You would say that now, wouldn’t you?
============
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..
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.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/22/a-buoy-only-sea-surface-temperature-record/#comment-746676
Bindidon, thanks. I didn’t know that.
Andy May states “the upper layer of the ocean is almost 0.1K to 0.5K cooler than the immediate subsurface temperature because the ocean is normally warmer than the atmosphere” No. The reason is that the sea is evaporating and requires latent heat to be transported to the interface from the subsurface water.A quantitative interface energy balance shows that about 90% of the total latent heat required comes from the subsurface water, and hence the corresponding temperature gradients shown in Minnet’s graphs.The air adjacent to the interface is,of course,at the interface temperature.Otherwise an interesting post.Thanks.
Can someone explain the discrepencies between HadCRUT data shown here and data shown by Phil Jones in his BBC interview? Is it differences in HadCRUT 3 and 4? Thanks
Of course there are differences, Cinnamon. The best for you is to have a look at the source:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
Between Had3 and Had4, the main difference is, if I well remember, the inclusion of a huge amount of weather stations in the Arctic region above 60° N.
Donald Holdner on August 23, 2016 at 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).
Thanks for explaining how you filter what kind of data, but it would be by far more interesting to show us the results of the operation, so every one can compare.
For ENSO I use Klaus Wolter’s Multivariate ENSO Index:
– http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
– http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/
Here is a simple Excel chart coupling views on MEI and HadCRUT4 from 1871 till today (monthly plots, together with their 60-month running mean, all data are here deltas wrt the mean of 1951-1980):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160824/anlxfpuj.jpg
As far as ENSO and HadCRUT4 trends are concerned, I really can’t agree with your statement above (I choosed 4 periods of ~ 35 years each, no real difference with your choice):
1. ENSO
– 1875-1910: – 0.03 / decade
– 1910-1945: + 0.14 / decade
– 1945-1980: + 0.06 / decade
– 1980-2016: – 0.12 / decade.
2. HadCRUT4 (in °C)
– 1875-1910: – 0.07 / decade
– 1910-1945: + 0.14 / decade
– 1945-1980: -0.004 / decade
– 1980-2016: +0.17 / decade.
While periods (1) and (3) rather correlate in trend, (2) and (4) – those this guest post after all is about – do not at all.
Because while temperatures go up in both (2) and (4), the MEI trend increases during (2) but is clearly on the decline during (4). Sorry: ENSO hardly could be viewed as the origin of the similarity between the two periods.
Thus you are welcome to present us your data…
… all data are here deltas wrt the mean of 1951-1980
No. Wrt that of 1961-1990.
Not sure how we got into the business of measuring trends in degs/unit time but it’s never made sense to me. The climate is integrative and full of noise. Noise + integration = random walk, and yes, I know it’s not exactly RW but the truth still holds – like the stock market, a time trend will hold until it doesn’t.
You’ve overlaid two periods of the AMO so it’s not surprising they correlate.
Note the huge spike in 1873 (known as the year without winter”). I think something catastrophic happened back then and energy’s been sloshing around the planet ever since. I suspect a massive undersea volcanic explosion, but its just a guess because I can’t think of another explanation for that much warming in a single year.
Jeff Patterson on August 24, 2016 at 4:02 pm
Note the huge spike in 1873
There was (globally) no such spike in 1873. What you mean happened during a very strong El Niño in 1878. Look at the chart above showing ENSO & HadCRUT, you’ll see it.
But many commenters at WUWT confound USA and the globe around it, especially when we talk about the “hot 30ies” which globally weren’t that much.
It’s amusing to read the flame wars between the “it’s all natural” folks and “it’s all anthropogenic” folks. In reality it both. The correlation between CO2 and GMST is something north of .9. Of course that doesn’t say anything about the chicken and the egg.
The scattergram below plots Hadcrut4 vs CO2. The solid blue curve is a simple gray-gas model of the atmosphere parameterized with a Bayesian MCMC-Hastings analysis.
The residual from the model is the gold curve in the post above. So the AMO oscillates about the solid blue curve.
If we drive the model with the observed co2 data, the output is temperature (gold curve in the plot below). The blue curve is the observed CO2 in ppm scaled for easiy comparison.
The connection between CO2 and temperature is undeniable, but which is a proxy for which?
In any case, Bayes such the chance of hitting 2degs at 2xCo2 is less than 6% …
and the IPCC says 1.8 degs of that is “probably beneficial”. How much should we spend to stop a 6% change that we’ll go over by ,2 and how many folks are we sentencing to object poverty for our feel-good-but-does-nothing pie in the sky? The evidence is unequivocal that even if we cut emissions to zero we could not make more than a few tenths(if that) difference.
Got a little carried away. That should read “The evidence is unequivocal that even if the entire world meets all of the emissions goals it will not make more than a few tenths(if that) difference.”
I understand what you are saying, Jeff.
Just one niggling question, though: If we consider land use changes, ozone, methane, etc. impacts on temperature, how would that affect CO2 vs. temperature curve-fitting?
Oops! Maybe the use of a model incorporates those effects? In the modeled world, CO2 would be the only variable considered for correlation?
The model is parameterized using post 1950 data after which presumably the CO2 signal dominates. Any fast acting feedbacks are included. The scattergram shows that back-casting the model all the way back to 1900 of so is excellent (notice the residual variance is nearly constant) which is evidence that the CO2 correlation has been in place for some time. That fact, IMHO, casts doubt on the theory that human emissions at the turn of the century could have been responsible for the uptick. More likely the CO2 rise is mostly natural and certainly benign until 600 ppm or so.
Jeff, thank you for your kind reply.
I await the IPCC’s AR6 and its attendant updated climate models. Everything else in IPCC papers, reports, etc. is wordy, bureaucratic misdirection and political posturing. No sane national government is going to go along with their social justice nonsense. Sadly, some nations have already begun to experience the suicidal consequences of decarbonization.
Let’s see, however, if AR6 models can finally reconcile early 20th Century cooling and warming, late 20th Century warming, and 21st Century flatlining.
After AR6, it will be on to mid-2020 temperature actuals. I wonder what they will actually look like? In any case, I will cease commenting on climate blog sites. If it is not resolved empirically (with at least a partial scientific understanding) by then, I think it will never be resolved in my lifetime.
“Let’s see, however, if AR6 models can finally reconcile early 20th Century cooling and warming, late 20th Century warming, and 21st Century flatlining.”
I wouldn’t hold my breathe. GCMs are ill-suited to the task, unaware as they are of both the state of the past climate from which they must evolve and many of the triggering events that cause theses observed dynamic responses. They are great for exploring the couplings involved and for somethings they are the only way to study the intricate but unobservable physics at play. But with increasing complexity comes increasing uncertainty, an immutable law of non-linear coupled system simulations. They will forever be chasing their tails, witness that the uncertainty re climate sensitivity didn’t budge for two decades. Folks like Nick and Judy reminded us (and hopefully the modelers as well) that the only way to increase knowledge is through observational science.
Fortunately we don’t need GCMs to make sound policy decisions. The short-term dynamics are irrelevant. The emphasis should be on simpler models that make falsifiable predictions, and statistically sound analysis of the observational data. I’m all for modeling (its what I do for a living) but we seem to have lost sight of i’s proper place and its limitations.
Why would anyone be sentenced to poverty? Wouldn’t spending trillions of dollars go into the pockets of the millions of people who would be hired into new jobs?
The broken window fallacy.
“Wouldn’t spending trillions of dollars go into the pockets of the millions of people who would be hired into new jobs?”
In Africa?? The high tech workers who might benefit aren’t the ones effected by being cut off from cheap energy. And so far the green boondoggles haven’t impressed.
No Jim. It would not. Has not ever worked that way.
The “state” is not smart enough to make those decisions. And, by trying to do so, has killed 110 million this century alone. China, USSR, Eastern Europe, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Congo, Egypt, … Name one place where your system has worked.
And, if you want to help the poor;
– raise the minimum wage
– increase welfare rates
– increase accessibility to training opportunities and to university education
– no sales taxes
– progressive income taxes
– if carbon is taxed, rebate a portion of the revenues to the poor
– universal health care
All, and more, have been tried and found wanting.
Third World poverty, ignorance, disease, despotism, and a whole raft of other intractable problems abound. Western liberalism has no clue as to causes nor solutions.
The only things that have a chance are the rule of law and a freeing of entrepreneurial spirit. Denying grants and loans for fossil fuel infrastructure development sure the hell won’t help. Develop industrially, or die.
Try thinking beyond your shores.
And, if you want to
helpHURT the poor, the country, the world;– raise the minimum wage
– increase welfare rates
– increase accessibility to training opportunities and to university education
– no sales taxes
– progressive income taxes
– if carbon is taxed, rebate a portion of the revenues to the poor
– universal health care
If you want to HELP the poor, the country, and the world,
– Lower Energy costs,
– Increase moral responsibility by streamlining welfare reform, prevent welfare fraud but help those who need it.
– Reduce government waste, corruption, and bureacracies.
– Reduce taxes.
– Train people with their money to purchase the training they desire, NOT what the educrats “feel” they need.
– Hold people responsible for the results of their decisions – and sometimes that’s painful.
– Allow catastrophic health insurance, the rest is paid by the user herself/himself, what is not used is saved by the individual for the future
– Prosecute illegal government actions, illegal government people ordering those actions.
Now, your list makes liberals “feel” good, but none of it works. ALL of it increases failure.
The source of the carbon dioxide is the combustion of fossil fuels.
If nature were the source of the carbon dioxide, or even a significant contributor, carbon dioxide would be increasing faster than could be explained by fossil fuels. But, if fact, about half of the carbon dioxide that hydrocarbon combustion has added to the atmosphere is missing.
You overestimate our knowledge of the carbon cycle.
Jim Y, please specify the actual harm caused by the increase in CO2 concentrations to date. Just saying temperatures have increased, sea levels have risen and glaciers have melted tells us nothing about what is exactly driving temperatures.
We have actual data that tell us temperatures have varied significantly in the observable past, without requiring CO2’s intervention.
Theory tells us that CO2 increases should raise atmospheric temperatures by a calculable amount. We have actual observations that, despite multi-annual increases in atmospheric CO2, tropospheric temperatures have not risen in accordance with calculations over a decade-plus period. Additionally, calculated increases in atmospheric water vapor have not occurred.
Something other than radiation physics is obviously at work. Guesses abound as to oceanic and atmospheric processes that could affect climate. Climate modelers have clearly not arrived at any coherent resolution of the complexities.
Now, I am being asked to allow faceless UN bureaucrats to dictate my energy use, direct my social structure and determine my economic well being? All based on unreliable models and a Third World sense of social justice? Frankly, I’d rather Florida drown and Canada feed the world.
Jeff, you needn’t even reference the carbon cycle as he’s referring to the fallacious “mass balance argument” here, which is little more than an accounting gimmick… The entire rise COULD be largely natural, in which case the anthro equilibrium sink rate would be near 100%. (in the warped logic of the mass balance argument, that would mean that since more CO2 is going into nature than is coming out of nature then the rise must be anthropogenic, nature being a “net sink” of CO2) The mass balance argument does not preclude the possibility that in the absence of human emissions the entire rise in carbon dioxide COULD still have largely been there. If that were the case, human emissions are having little impact on carbon growth…
Jim,
Have a look at the plot below.
The gold line is the year-to-year difference of measured CO2. Its the equivalent of a time-domain derivative. If the natural contribution was constant, it wouldn’t show up in this graph because the derivative of a constant is zero, which pretty much describes things until about 1950. Aha, sez you, clearly man’s dirty finger print. But notice the blue curve. It’s a G(1-exp(-a t) ) response. Notice it’s slope decreases with time, meanwhile the anthro emision slope have increased year over year. Do you have a theory about how this might be so? I can’t think of one.
Jeff Patterson on August 24, 2016 at 8:51 pm
You overestimate our knowledge of the carbon cycle.
No he doen’t. Hi just didn’t express the matter clear enough.
All we need to understand you find in Ferdinand Engelbeen’s CO2 story perfectly explained:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Jeff, I think that’s because carbon sinking is increasing. See the coccolithophores.
============
Ferdinand is incapable of perfectly explaining the mass balance argument. The usually competent man (with the 200 i.q.) suddenly comes up woefully inept when it comes to explaining it…
afonzarelli on August 25, 2016 at 12:25 pm
Ferdinand is incapable of perfectly explaining the mass balance argument.
In my world there is only one way to pretend that somebody doesn’t have it right: to scientifically falsifiy what he wrote.
Thus afonzarelli: I propose that you either
– falsify with clear scientific arguments what Ferdinand Engelbeen has written
or
– simply, respectfully, shut up.
Before you claim somebody be incapable of anything: better you show us what you are able to…
No, i’m not going to shut up! That’s the game you alinsky types play. You’re going to put some junk out there and then it’s incumbant on the rest of us to waste the time and energy falsifying you’re junk OR “shut up”. This is just a fricken’ climate blog and i can post whatever comments i want, however i want and to whoever i want. (and i don’t want to discuss anything with the likes of you…) Why don’t you shut up ?
[He may do as he wishes, as long as he follows the guidelines for everyone who writes (and wrongs) here. Most of the time, more is learned from the pro-CAGW propaganda than they suspect. .mod]
Bindidon says:
“In my world there is only one way to pretend that somebody doesn’t have it right: to scientifically falsifiy what he wrote.”
That’s in your world. But here on Planet Earth, the onus is entirely on those putting forth a hypothesis. I can propose a hypothesis that flying saucers are here. If you can’t scientifically falsify that hypothesis, does that mean there are flying saucers here? So your definition fails.
In science, those arguing in support of a hypothesis have the burden of producing credible evidence (measurements, observations) that support it. If they cannot produce verifiable, testable, data-based evidence, their hypothesis might not be falsified outright, but it devolves from being a hypothesis to being merely a conjecture; an evidence-free assertion. An opinion.
That’s where ‘dangerous AGW’ is now. There is nothing dangerous occurring as a result of human CO2 emissions. If you think there is, the burden is on you to show the cause and effect, and to produce credible, verifiable observations quantifying the global damage caused by human CO2 emissions.
A reliable test of any hypothesis (or theory, or Law) is predictability. Every level of scientific veracity (Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law) has the same requirement: they must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. The higher on that totem pole, the more accurate and reliable their predictions will be.
Apply that standard to the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis/conjecture. Every alarming prediction made based on the hypothesis that rising CO2 will lead to climate a catastrophe has failed; polar bears will be decimated, accelerating sea level rise will inundate Manhattan, Florida, and Tuvalu, disappearing polar ice will cause world-wide flooding, the planet will experience more frequent and more extreme weather events, global warming will accelerate, and so on. But none of those alarming predictions have come true. No exceptions. They were wrong, all of them and more.
So we don’t have to “pretend” that climate alarmists are wrong. The Real World disagrees with them, and that’s enough. If your side is ever able to make reliable, testable predictions showing a cause-and-effect relationship between human CO2 emissions and global climate events, skeptics will sit up straight and pay attention.
Based on the abject failure of every scary, alarming prediction, I have a question for you: when will you finally admit that the “carbon” scare is either wrong, or greatly exaggerated? Are you even capable of admitting you were wrong? In any of the hard sciences, if someone made repeated predictions that all turned out to be wrong, that would end the discussion. But in Climate Science™, proponents of the DAGW scare never admit they were wrong. So… what would it take?
The burden is on you, not on skeptics, because skeptics of a hypothesis have nothing to prove. But you continue to try and make skeptics prove a negative: that CO2 emissions will not cause runaway global warming. The onus is on you, but you always deflect.
Finally, you found a WFT chart somewhere that you believe supports your argument. Anyone can do that, even me:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2016/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
As we see, global warming stopped for many years, to the point that both sides referred to it as the “pause”, or the “hiatus”. But since that contradicts the DAGW narrative, now your side is claiming that “the pause never happened”. Don’t you think that takes alarmist credibility to a new low?
Don Easterbrook on August 25, 2016 at 9:35 am
Global climate has been cooling for the past decade–not a lot, but cooling, not warming.
Here again Don Easterbrook shows the level of his own incompetence.
1. Leif Svalgaard had already answered with a clear
There is no evidence for that.
2. It is easy to definitely falsify Easterbrook’s somewhat pretentious words by publishing a chart with plots of 4 different temperature time series showing global anomalies for the last decade:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160826/79kkdvzy.jpg
Here are the OLS trends, in °C per decade
– UAH6.0beta5 TLT: + 0.25 ± 0.05
– RSS3.3 TLT: + 0.21 ± 0.05
– RSS4.0 TTT: + 0.34 ± 0.06
– GISS lo: + 0.29 ± 0.05
Even the lower troposphere measurements by RSS3.3 show, for this last decade, a warming of not less than 2.1 °C per century… what a strange cooling indeed.
And to be sure not to get misunderstood, let me add this: warming or cooling over such a short period as “the last decade” is for me definitely not significant. Especially in the context of this last decade, which actually ends with a relatively strong ENSO signal.
That leads to trends whose significance is similar to those of periods beginning with a strong ENSO signal: OLS will then automatically compute a negative trend.
Bindidon
“1. Leif Svalgaard had already answered with a clear
There is no evidence for that.”
But there is–see my response to Leif above.
2. It is easy to definitely falsify Easterbrook’s somewhat pretentious words by publishing a chart with plots of 4 different temperature time series showing global anomalies for the last decade:
Few of the outrageously corrupted data series will likely show the cooling, but it is there. Stick with the UAH and RSS data to avoid the NASA, NOAA corruption of data.
“Here again Don Easterbrook shows the level of his own incompetence”
Hurling personal insults about other people’s competence does not enhance your own competence. If this is your view of the scientific method, your conclusions are not worth much.
“Stick with the UAH and RSS data to avoid the NASA, NOAA corruption of data.”
Bindidon did that. 2 RSS series and one UAH. They all show warming over the last decade.
Atmospheric temperatures are a poor gauge of warming or cooling. Look to the ocean.
==========
Hurling personal insults about other people’s competence
What an exxageration! For me scientist and engineer, personal insults are above all to put harsh, continuous discredit over the work of hundreds of scientists, and that without being able to falsify even a bit of their work.
That’s in my humble opinion dishonesty par excellence. If you feel this be correct, Mr Easterbrook, I can manage never to answer to any of your comments. No problem!
A last detail:
But there is–see my response to Leif above.
Here again, what you pretend has been once more falsified:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/22/virtually-indistinguishable-comparing-early-20th-century-warming-to-late-20th-century-warming/#comment-2286570
ANTHONY,
WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR POLICY OF NOT POSTING PERSONAL INSULTS AND THIS KIND OF CRAP?
[For us to more quickly find the comment of which you complain, you need to be more specific about who wrote it, and when they wrote it – and which of the 1.9 million comments needs evaluation. .mod]
Bindidon,
I replied to your comment upthread, but since you accused Dr. Easterbrook of dishonesty for pointing out that global warming stopped for a decade, I made this chart:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2016/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
It appears that everyone but you and a few others agree that global warming stopped for more than a decade. Both sides began calling it the “pause”, or the “hiatus”. But you’re calling Dr. Easterbrook dishonest for pointing it out. You made similar comments about him upthread, too.
Is the chart I put together also dishonest? I have many others showing the same ‘pause’, which weren’t made by me. I look forward to your trying to defend the latest narrative that ‘the pause never happened’. Bring it on. Please.
Regarding the comments that a decade isn’t a long enough time frame, here’s a chart of arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones’ data from 1860:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
We see the rises in global T are almost identical—whether CO2 was low, or high. It requires some very fancy tap-dancing to try and explain how the current mild warming is caused by human CO2 emissions…
Hi dbstealey,
thanks for both replies. It’s about 19 pm here, and I have a lot to do till late evening.
I’ll manage to reply again in detail tomorrow.
But one matter requests an immediate answer. It is your claim or supposition as follows:
but since you accused Dr. Easterbrook of dishonesty for pointing out that global warming stopped for a decade…
This is absolutely incorrect. Never I would accuse anybody of dishonesty just because his meaning differs from mine.
My accusation has to do with this:
1. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/22/virtually-indistinguishable-comparing-early-20th-century-warming-to-late-20th-century-warming/#comment-2285907
2 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/22/virtually-indistinguishable-comparing-early-20th-century-warming-to-late-20th-century-warming/#comment-2285921
Never I would allow myself to pretend that institutions erase data. For me it is especially inacceptable when such a claim is made by a person manifestly unable to proof the claim.
That there is a dispute concerning pauses, hiatuses and whatsoever, is unavoidable, and I can live with that, even if the discussion sometimes looks a bit ridiculous:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1997/to/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2007/trend
Here you see that we move back from an infinitesimal increase (1997-2016) over a pause (1997-2014) down to a real decline (1997-2010) and up again to a little increase (1997-2007).
I can show you many many more of such charts…
Please keep me off that boring CO2 discussion. I’m busy with showing warming (espeacially above 60N) and with nothing else.
Sometimes I have interesting discussions (the last one with CO2islife around Zharkova’s story), but I concentrate on technical details. Lay(wo)men like we all here know nothing about CO2. Nothing.
For the sake of completeness…
Hi again db,
I made a little revision of my plot above, which certainly will fit far better into your specific view of the matters we discuss here:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160831/og55iyo9.jpg
Please enjoy!
But why is this in my opinion cherry-picking?
Simply because 5 or 6 years ago, not one climate skeptic accepted to eliminate the 1997/98 temperature peak due to El Niño, which was at that time the evident cause of negative OLS trends in all Wood for Tree charts.
At that time they all told you “No that’s plain wrong, you can’t eliminate El Niño as it is an integral part of the climate”, etc etc.
But now, a new El Niño is at the end of the current time series’ interval, the older one’s huge statistical influence has disappeared. Result: the OLS trends move up again – as expected.
And suddenly, every climate skeptic tells you “That’s plain wrong to have the El Niño at the end! Because if it wasn’t there, the trend would be much lower!”.
So oh miracle: if a person with climate skeptic background writes in august 2016
Global climate has been cooling for the past decade – not a lot, but cooling, not warming.
he evidently won’t mean the decade 2007-2016, what after all would be evident!
No no no: he will mean… 2005-2014. That’s namely the correct past decade 🙂
A marvellous world, isn’t it db?
Fascinating, Bindidon. Temperature trends at the top of the troposphere seem to reflect down to the surface without being reflected into the lower troposphere. I guess we will have to wait for future adjustments to TLT.
Temperature trends at the top of the troposphere seem to reflect down to the surface without being reflected into the lower troposphere.
No idea of how you come to that. TTT is the total troposphere, not the top of it.
And it’s trend here is above GISS because it is RSS’ new product, V4.0, which reports much higher temperatures than did V3.3 TTT.
Anthony and others have claimed this be due to a “Karlization” of RSS’ data. Maybe they all didn’t manage to carefully read this paper:
“Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment” by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1).
I guess we will have to wait for future adjustments to TLT.
This is. should you mean UAH’s product, less probable. Because Spencder/Christy did the inverse, namely to move by april 2015 from revision 5.6 to revision 6.0 (actually beta5) which experiences a rather strong cooling (especially at the north polar regions).
RSS4.0 TTT is similar in behavior to UAH5.6.
My TTT definition error. I must have “misremembered” something I read some time ago.
The calculated altitude weighting function for the Temperature Total Troposphere (TTT) subtracts 10% of the TLS altitude weighting function from 110% of the TMT altitude weighting function. This shifts the existing TMT altitude weighting function curve to the “right” in the Tropospheric portion of the TTT weighting curve.
This shift of weighting factors, to add “weight” to the RSS-estimates of temperatures throughout the lower atmosphere, serves to increase the temperature trend of TTT vs. TMT. It gives a trend closer to surface estimates than do current estimates of TMT and TLT.
Forrest Gardener on August 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm
Bindidon, you may be interested in an article by Richard Feynman which may assist you in reviewing what you have written – http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm
Many thanks Forrest Gardener for this hint, the exerpt was really like a T-bone steak 🙂
But… I’m over 65 and have read a lot of papers of that kind.
But I’m sure you will appreciate some similar litterature, e.g.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
And this not less, with this thoroughly delightful “Temperatures do not add!”:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/
They all share one and the same goal: to warn us about things we never would do, e.g. adding star temperatures.
Temperatures do not add!
That’s exactly what we learned over 5 decades ago in a school somewhere in Europe, as the math and the physics teachers managed a rendez-vous to explain us this sometimes a bit strange interface between arithmetics and physical entities.
It was an amazing hour. We understood that some entities are extensive, others intensive.
And that values like time, temperature and velocity not only cannot add; they even cannot subtract nor be multiplied or divided.
But… they nevertheless can very well differ or be averaged. A minimax thermometer shows us that the difference between yesterday and today is not just the abstract number “2”, but 2 °C or F or K.
And a sensor in a room will not register the sum of the temperatures, but their average value. It is not an abstract entity: it is a temperature, just like the average of all car velocities in car bulks on highways of course is itself a velocity, and its rolling computation helps in anticipating traffic jams.
But after all: why should that bother us? At the end of their magic hour, the two teachers warned us that the more we would go down into the infinitesimal, the less perceptible entities there we would find: all would disappear in favor of strange abstract gremlins like probabilities and uncertainties.
Does it really bother wether or not anomalies are real temperatures or abstract differences between them? The only thing that counts here: to detect for example that during the last winter, two stations in the tundra having measured exactly the same absolute temperature of say -21.4 °C in fact present anomalies wrt a common average mean differing by say +11.2 °C, what means that the one is located at a place warming much faster.
Who would detect that if there were neither averages nor deltas, but only absolute temperatures, as dogdaddyblog manifestly wishes?
Wrong-o, Bindidon. It seems in your 65+ years you have not learned that jumping to conclusions can lead to bad falls.
My comment was that climate models that differ in base temperatures by 3+ degrees C can’t have the same physics operating. Can I be assured that evaporation of seawater at 26 degrees C is the same evaporation as that of seawater at 29 degrees C? Let’s not even consider cloud formation! Additionally, how would one calculate the effective water vapor emission level?
We have climate models that show energy loss at TOA. Somehow they get surface warming as an output. Your explanation?
Comparing seawater temperature anomalies with those of land surface air requires some heroic assumptions. An assumption of a weighting of 70%/30% to get global averages is one.
Atmospheric anomalies diverge from those at the surface more as surface data providers adjust more recent data. Can there be a relationship?
This is all very hasty as I must feed the horses and poop scoop. I’m done arguing.
I’m not interested in model discussions. I’m interested in comparing different data about climate:
– temperatures (satellites, radiosondes, surfaces)
– ENSO
– Sun Spot Numbers, TSI
– CO2 emissions, concentration, absorption/emission
*
What do you intend when asking about “energy loss at TOA”? If there was none, we wouldn’t be here.
And when you write “Atmospheric anomalies diverge from those at the surface more as surface data providers adjust more recent data”: do you have any REAL proof of your claim? I’m interested!
Regards from the guy who has “not learned that jumping to conclusions can lead to bad falls”
Bindidon
Bindidon, still jumping, I see.
With “energy loss at TOA” (more out than in) earth freezes.
In regards to proof of adjustments to data, please refer to data providers’ public pronouncements regarding such adjustments. NOAA/NASA 2015’s were a real doozie.
Since climate models use all the data you care about, wouldn’t you wonder what they are doing with them? Those darned maths that the computers use may be abusing those poor, defenseless data once they are caged.
Anyway, I’m unaware of any data that show any adverse effects of the minor warming since the Little Ice Age. Do they speak to you in Tongues?
With “energy loss at TOA” (more out than in) earth freezes.
It’s time to learn a bit, dogdaddyblog (August 28, 2016 at 5:02 pm). I repeat: if Earth didn’t lose as much energy as it obtains fron the Sun, we wouldn’t be here. Please read publications about that.
I have really enough of such comments where people just imagine, suppose, guess, pretend, claim – without really knowing what they talk about, and above all aren’t even able to produce any REAL proof of their claims.
No sources: just blah blah. No thanks.
Blah blah. “https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/no-consensus-earths-top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance-in-cmip5-archived-ipcc-ar5-climate-models/” Blah blah.
Yes, thanks.
Dave Fair
Bob Tisdale doesn’t tell any blah blah. But though being useful and respectable work, a sequence of charts mixed with comparisons of scientific results can’t replace science: it is scientific journalism.
So please come out with a few original publications focussing on what we dispute about, and I carefully will read them.
Who would have known, Bindidon? IPCC reports are nothing but “scientific journalism.”
After all, they simply show your “a sequence of charts mixed with comparisons of scientific results,” No original publications there, Bindidon, my (older) boy.
I turns out to be poor “scientific journalism,” though. Rather than rigorous comparison of models with the various actual real world data, IPCC documents smear out “envelopes” and assume what CMIP5 models can’t model must not be real.
IPCC clarity in “scientific journalism?” Nope! Read AR5, especially its SPM. That pile of words is meant to confuse issues and obfuscate truths.
Bob Tisdale has a laser-like focus on your “what we dispute about.” IPCC documents, in contrast, are designed to support a prior political conclusion. If you can’t see that, you need glasses in your dotage. [I’m over 65, so the PC Police can’t get me on ageism, at least in front of a jury of my peers!]
Bindidon, your comment implies to me a level of science snobbiness. Bob’s methods, however, are the epitome of scientific inquiry. He uses facts to draw conclusions. He clearly (tediously) lays out his data and methods for others to follow. Replication? You bet! Humility? You bet! Look down your noses at him at your own peril.
If only climate science heros like Mann, Trenberth, Schmidt, Karl et al would do the same. Scientists? Public servants? In name only. I call them aware deceivers.
Dave Fair
So we should now really close the discussion with the fact that you do not have even one publication to present. Only assumptions, comments, questions. And you still do not understand that I’m not at all interested neither in models nor in IPCC reports.
Please stop this meaningless discussion.
Well, Bindidon, what about the recent publication highlighted in Dr. Curry’s blog that debunks popular notions of radiation physics’ application to the real climate?
“It” not “I” in the third paragraph. I’ll have to hire a copy editor.
I think there’s a simpler way to look at this.
Our current warming (such as it is) began NOT in the mid 1800s (a cherry-picked date), but, BY DEFINITION at the first BOTTOM (low temperature) during the LIA. That would have been around 1630-1650 (Dr. Evans’ estimate, as I recall). However, that is two centuries before the level of co2 (the only culprit under consideration) began increasing.
So, our measurements for 1650 to 1850, the first 200 years, reflect NATURAL temperature increase. But there appears to be general agreement that co2 did not begin increasing until about the mid 1800s and there is also appears to be general agreement that it would have taken at least another 100 years before co2 aggregate increase could have possibly had any impact on global temperature.
That pushes our history of temperature increase from 1850 to 1950, so 300 years of NATURAL temperature increase. However, from 1940s to 1970s was a period of mild cooling.
If there was any co2 impact on warming it could NOT have begun before 1975.
Not sure how you arrived at your general consensus “that CO2 did not begin increasing until about the mid 1800s” as the Law Dome Antarctica Ice Core samples show that CO2 started increasing right around 1770, or very near to the start of the 1st Industrial Revolution. Those ice core samples also show CO2 was very stable for the 120 years prior to 1760 after hitting a low around 270ppm in the early/mid 1600s, which does coincide with the end of the LIA. The Antarctic ice core samples show CO2 rebounded slightly up after the LIA low, which also supports your claim that the planet has been warming since the LIA, except that is simply b/c CO2 rose. And if your general consensus that it takes “at least another 100 years before CO2 aggregate could have … any impact on global temperature’ is correct, then since CO2 started rising around 1770 it correlates well with the mid/late 1800s start of the rise in global surface temperatures b/c of CO2, as the planet did start warming in the mid/late1800s, not only since 1950 as you write. So the rise of CO2 is v much in line with global temperature rise from the end of the LIA to now.