Video: analysis of NASA data shows modern temperature trends are not unusual

Michael Thomas writes:

An important aspect of the climate change debate can be summed up like this: “One position holds that medieval warm temperatures reached levels similar to the late twentieth century and maintained that the LIA was very cold, while another position holds that past variability was less than present extremes and that the temperature rise of recent decades is unmatched”. This video challenges whether the rise of recent decades is unmatched.

The overall trend since 1880 when instrumental data started is 0.11 degrees Celsius per decade. This is according to NOAA data for northern hemisphere land records. The most extreme trend occurs between 2006 and 2016 and is, according to NOAA, is 0.38 degrees Celsius per decade.

Eight separate studies of historical data, all of which are referenced by the IPCC in the 2013 report, are examined to see whether the trend between 2006 and 2016 is indeed unmatched over the past two thousand years.

Multiple examples were found where trends equaled or exceeded over the past two thousand years.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 10, 2017 8:28 am

And the paleo record represents multi-decade to multi-century averages whose rate of change is being compared to the rates of change in much shorter term averages.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 10, 2017 10:50 am

Before plough into endless excel graphs he needs to say what the proxies are, what physical measurement they are based and what the temporal resolution is. They all seem to have identical annually spaced data points, I doubt very much whether this is what the physical samples provided. It will have be processed, interpolated and resampled.
He talks in several places about comparing like to like but never shows that this is what he is doing.
I would suggest that someone with no more scientific and data processing skills than fitting “trends” in Excel avoids trying to test any hypothesis about climate.

Reply to  Greg
May 10, 2017 7:14 pm

Relative to ice cores, the seasonal variability can be seen almost back to the last interglacial. Unfortunately, one year is not enough to get enough Deuterium or other proxy to establish the average temperature, much less CO2 concentrations, thus decades of ice needs to be processed per ‘sample’. Understanding the relationship between the rate of change seen in ice core data, whose RMS variability is about what we see today in short term averages, requires understanding the difference between how long term and short term averages of the rate of change varies over time.

Reply to  Greg
May 11, 2017 3:11 am

He identified the data sets used so I would suppose the viewer can look them up to determine the proxies used.

Tom O
Reply to  Greg
May 11, 2017 6:25 am

How is a “proxy” established in the first place? It would seem reasonable to assume the “proxy evidence” is compared to the instrumental record over the same period of time to “calibrate” its potential usefulness. How is the proxy definition and calibration affected when you then homogenize and change the data set against which it was compared in the first place? the manipulation of the data sets has destroyed any validity of the paleo data as well as the instrumental data ever had, so the “science” of “climate science” has, in its quest to eliminate past high temperature records and the pause, has totally invalidated itself and needs to start over. Without “hard, unchanging data,” you can’t “build” a science. You might as well pick your elements upon which you intend to build your science and its results and try modeling to try to find something that ” looks similar” to reality. Oh wait, they’ve already done that, haven’t they? Sort of like mixing paints – a touch of red, a little yellow and some blue and bingo, I have a tan – sort of. Is it the right tan? Does it matter as long as I get paid to make it?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 10, 2017 12:59 pm

I watched the video. The analysis is valid as far as it goes, and is especially interesting at the end when it identified common warming periods in multiple data-sets. This strongly suggests the result is not simply due to chance.
If there is a criticism, it is that the video is much too long. It could be significantly edited to shorten the middle section where each trend is identified, one by one in most tedious fashion.
The beginning and end are fine. Condense the middle, and or move the detail to the end. Get your findings out as early as possible, and leave the details to the end to those wanting confirmation. This is not a suspense novel where the killer is identified only on the last page. Also, the volume needs to be normalized. It is too low.

May 10, 2017 8:32 am

It would also be interesting to note how many negative trends occur in the same data sets.
As with any sinusoidal patterns you can find a slope on both side of horizontal.

Reply to  rocketscientist
May 10, 2017 9:44 am

Here is the seasonal Warming slope (Oct-Mar) and Cooling slope (Mar-Oct)comment imagecomment imagecomment imagecomment image

Reply to  micro6500
May 10, 2017 6:02 pm

Yes, one of those mathematical purities that the derivative of a sine will yield a cosine and vice versa. Still the pendulum swings. We are just beginning to observe all the perturbations that contribute to the oscillations. As long as we don’t slew wildly beyond past conditions where we know life thrived I don’t see any reason to set our hair on fire and make things worse.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
May 10, 2017 6:08 pm

Better still, it’s nonlinear, when it slows or stops cooling before sunrise, co2 doesn’t matter, water vapor controls cooling at night.

May 10, 2017 8:33 am

“The most extreme trend occurs between 2006 and 2016 and is, according to NOAA, is 0.38 degrees Celsius per decade.”
According to Dr. Jones, and his “official” position about the trends and the trend temp data+adjustments, this one does not fly…and has no much meaning. Still within the margins of a considerable effect from the short term natural variability…still good though as a “reason” to start pulling the “guns” and “shooting” at each other.

May 10, 2017 8:33 am

What happened to “the pause”?

Mitzi in Maryland
Reply to  daveandrews723
May 10, 2017 8:44 am

I’m wondering the same thing. Would love an answer

Reply to  daveandrews723
May 10, 2017 9:03 am

Cannot say yet. Still cooling from the 2015-16 El Nino blip.

Reply to  daveandrews723
May 10, 2017 9:47 am

It depends on how you define pause. It currently is about the same temperature as it was in the middle of 1987, thirty years ago. That could be construed as a thirty year pause. link If you do a linear regression, you get different results. YMMV

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  daveandrews723
May 10, 2017 11:38 am

Magic 8 ball says “ask again later”.

Reply to  daveandrews723
May 10, 2017 12:11 pm

Excuse me, but how did the “most extreme trend” occur during the pause?

john harmsworth
Reply to  Gil
May 10, 2017 1:09 pm

We had an extreme trend just yesterday! It was cold in the morning and then it went up to 30C in the afternoon and then back down to 4 last night. Crazy climate! Somebody should tell NOAA!

Tom in Oregon City
Reply to  daveandrews723
May 10, 2017 1:56 pm

This was about land temperatures. The pause is seen in the global satellite record. Still there.

Reply to  Tom in Oregon City
May 10, 2017 3:05 pm

The recently ended El Nino caused a pause in the pause.

Reply to  Tom in Oregon City
May 10, 2017 6:40 pm

Oh you mean where all the blacktop and buildings and ever expanding airports ect…retain heat into the cooler evening hours?

Reply to  daveandrews723
May 11, 2017 11:29 am

The 2006 to 2016 “trend was largely driven by a single event–the 2016 El Nino. So there was a long flat period with a blip at the end of it. Now we watch what happens.

May 10, 2017 8:33 am

The sound sucks on the video but I’ll check it on youtube during lunch. Looks neat so far…

May 10, 2017 8:57 am

Could we get a link to the data in text form? I would love to have that for the unprecedented warming folks.

David S
May 10, 2017 9:10 am

The advocates of CAGW have never been dissuaded by facts.

Reply to  David S
May 10, 2017 9:24 am

The advocates of CAGW have never been persuaded by facts. That’s why they ignore them.

David Ramsay Steele
Reply to  David S
May 15, 2017 8:44 am

Many people have moved from “advocate of CAGW” to “skeptic/denier” and many will continue to do so. Of course they were persuaded or “dissuaded” by facts. What else?

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 10, 2017 9:14 am

This global warming thing really is the biggest and most totally utter crock of shyte that there ever was.
It really is.
So what’s got me going today thinks you?
Taking ‘climate’ as some sort of average weather (has anyone actually done that?) – all these folks are investing sooooooo much time an effort into temperature trends, or especially average temperature.
But temperature does not make weather (and hence supposedly climate)
Temperature *difference* makes weather.
Its the temp difference between places that drives weather – differences between land & sea, forest & desert, high ground and low ground, high latitude and low latitude, which point of the compass the land faces.
Those things create weather and do we hear about any of them?
No. its all rolled into one humongous average plotted against time, not distance.
So we get all these temperature graphs (choreographies of the dancing faeries) and all and any useful climate information has been thoroughly & totally expunged from them. utterly utterly useless.
And people virtually come to blows about them.
Complete madness
Aren’t we lucky we have the people, time, money and resources to enable this fantasy.

Another Scott
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 10, 2017 11:34 am

Temperature reports have become like sports scores, everyone tunes in to see if their team won or lost that month or that year. I bet most people don’t even think about why they root for one team or the other any more…..

May 10, 2017 9:35 am

So who is the video by?
I’m listening now, but I’d like to know who I’m listening to.

Reply to  gregfreemyer
May 10, 2017 1:09 pm

Which noaa data set are they talking about. I get confused if this is the pause buster data where they threw out the Argo buoy data and tried to infer air temperatures above the ocean from buckets throw over ships or just the urban heat island spread data with homogenization set which ignores our 14 satellite instruments which cross check each other and are validated with balloons?

May 10, 2017 9:37 am

Is it NASA or NOAA? Post says “NOAA data trend…land records…” title to video says “NASA”data….

J Mac
May 10, 2017 9:45 am

A nice bit of analysis from existing data sets….

May 10, 2017 9:55 am

” An important aspect of the climate change debate can be summed up like this: “One position holds that medieval warm temperatures reached levels similar to the late twentieth century and maintained that the LIA was very cold, while another position holds that past variability was less than present extremes and that the temperature rise of recent decades is unmatched”.
Wrong. There is no firm consensus on the variability of the past. Mann has argued for less variability. Others have argued for more. All recognize that the mwp may have been’s probabilities.
The unprecedented argument is not central to our understanding that CO2 may be a problem.
We knew that before 1900.
We knew that before Manns work.
As gavin Schmidt points out the unprecedented argument is not important.
Finally if the mwp was higher our problem is worse.

David A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 10, 2017 11:43 am

Why is our ” problem” worse
Truth is the benefits are real and observable.

Reply to  David A
May 10, 2017 12:42 pm

He means that It is going to be more difficult for them to adjust the data.
Remember the “blip” mail @ climategate?

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

That is how they work. It is not what story the temperatures are telling, is how can they do with temperatures to tell the story they want us to believe.

Reply to  David A
May 10, 2017 1:33 pm

I’ll make a guess why our problem is worse. Sensitivity to what? All inputs. A flattened MWP might indicate a slow and sluggish response to changing inputs. A fast changing and agile climate system has a higher sensitivity.
“…climate variability and climate sensitivity are flip sides of the same coin.” – Kyle Swanson

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 10, 2017 11:59 am

I agree with you, Steven, that the argument of whether current temperature or it’s trends are unprecedented is irrelevant to the science. However, those arguments play a central role in convincing the general public to believe in the scientific claims. It is why we have news stations trumpeting every time we have a new “hottest year evah”.
I am also a bit confused by your last statement. “Finally if the mwp was higher our problem is worse.” As David mentions above, the benefits of higher CO2 and a warmer world to the human race are observable and tangible (even if they are ignored by many of the scientific reports on the subject). Could you elaborate on this a bit for me?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  jgriggs3
May 10, 2017 12:36 pm

He means if natural warming is even higher than we thought, just imagine how bad manmade warming will be added on top. Because the warming is coming, just you wait and see. It’s in the pipeline. Just waiting to pop out and say BOO! Then you’ll be sorry.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  jgriggs3
May 10, 2017 2:55 pm

“He means if natural warming is even higher than we thought, just imagine how bad manmade warming will be added on top …”.
Prime but crafty example of the logical fallacy ’begging the question’ (petitio principii): “To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning” (Wiki).

Brett Keane
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 10, 2017 12:20 pm

Mosh, what you believe from ‘before 1900’, you might want to really study in the light of optical and gas physics. Profs Wood and Maxwell come to mind. Bohr also.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 10, 2017 12:40 pm

BUT, you never see them saying that during interviews !! Things that make you go…Hmmmm.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 10, 2017 1:19 pm

I love the way you trolls keep trying to redefine the past. Even the recent past and your own works.
Mann declared that the MWP and LIA never existed. That’s way different from it may be a little bit warmer than today or a little bit cooler.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 10, 2017 2:41 pm

Can you detect the loss of the ‘maybe’ in this sequence?
“The unprecedented argument is not central to our understanding that CO2 may be a problem.”
“Finally if the mwp was higher our problem is worse.”
Is it not true that if the MWP was warmer, then the probability that CO2 is a major “driver” of climate change (and therefor a potential problem) goes down?
(Which does render the “our problem is worse” assessment true enough . . if by “our” you mean the climate alarm sounding community ; )

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 10, 2017 3:24 pm

Mr. Mosher, I just can’t get over your religious-like belief in the high sensitivity of our humble climate to CO2. Maybe if, in your Weed Wandering, you looked up you might find contrary information.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 10, 2017 8:32 pm

Mosher correctly writes: “The unprecedented argument is not central to our understanding that CO2 MAY be a problem.” [My emphasis]
Even the Met Office has admitted the case for AGW can not be made from 20th-century temperature record alone. AOGCMs are necessary. So Mosher needs to provide us evidence that AOGCMs are right.
Our understanding of GHG-mediated global warming before 1960 was fundamentally wrong. It was based on surface energy balance, not balance at the top of the atmosphere. Surface energy balance involves convective heat flux, which can’t be calculated from first principles. It wasn’t until Manabe correctly explained and modeled radiative-convective equilibrium in the 1960’s and Keeling proved that CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere. Everything before that time was fundamentally flawed*. Since then, little improvement has been made in narrowing the range for climate sensitivity.
So why do we hear so much about Arrhenius and other pioneers? Luck probably. If they had calculated a climate sensitivity of 1 degC or less, that effect would have been trivial, not published or forgotten. If they had calculated a climate sensitivity of much more than 10 degC, they already would have proven wrong for emissions by 1900 (assuming that all CO2 from fossil fuel use remained in the atmosphere). So, the only calculations that would be remembered today are those that produced climate sensitivity in the single digits – based on flawed reasoning.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 11, 2017 5:15 pm

“Finally if the mwp was higher our problem is worse.”
Mosher, the only problem we have results from credulous politicians believing dodgy temperature databases that you and your dodgy colleagues have Mannipulated with your AlGoreithims to match the even dodgier computer games climate models – and in many cases made a much better living than they ever could doing honest research.
Apart from that, there is no problem at all.
Mankind is no more capable of significantly changing the World’s climate with CO2 emissions than significantly changing the time the Sun rises and sets.
But hey, you’ve known that all along, haven’t you?

May 10, 2017 10:09 am

The warmists will dismiss this out of hand and say that degrees/decade is a unit of measure, not a recommended period of measure, and it’s an example of cherry-picking. Of course having said that, it should be trivial to tweek the software to output 15, 20, 30 and 60 year trends as well.
I’d love to have that data and write a perl script or two to work it over, especially compare Tmax and Tmin trends.

May 10, 2017 10:32 am

In the Bill Nye disparaging Will Happer video, Nye makes the claim that “It’s not the change that’s worrisome, it’s the ~rate~ of change. Nothing like this has ever been seen before.” (Or words to that effect). So what this post/video demonstrates is that the rate of change is not at all unprecedented and uses the IPCC’s own data to show it. Nye also claims that the pause is because “the heat is hiding in the oceans” and that the medieval warming period was a European/Northern Hemisphere anomaly and not global. I’m thinking all three of these assertions are false (let’s not even get into the 97/8-to-1 debate he proposes). Any idea if Nye is right or wrong on these?

Reply to  TomB
May 10, 2017 11:09 am

Bill Nye is an advocacy front-man taking bullet points from others to spin a story. That process is fraudulent from the start when fact checking is off limits in their debate style and approach. No one in any field with a genuine interest in the truth would turn to strawman arguments, insults, and other attacks while avoiding fact checking, model evaluation, and checks of assertions and claims. That would be tantamount to calling out advocacy claims of health benefits of marijuana after the policy train has reached full acceleration.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  TomB
May 10, 2017 11:12 am

Nye is a propagandist entertainer. Even his calling himself “The Science Guy” is propaganda with no basis in his education, training, or professional experience.
He is an animated caricature of everything wrong about today’s climate science that makes it pseudoscience.

Old England
Reply to  TomB
May 10, 2017 11:21 am

“The heat is hiding in the oceans” …… while the North Atlantic is still cooling – interesting concept that …. heat in the oceans reduces the temperature ……
Published Studies have found and demonstrated that the MWP was global and not N European as warmists prefer to portray it.

Reply to  TomB
May 10, 2017 11:46 am

The MWP affected China.

Chu et al. (2002) studied the geochemistry of 1400 years of dated sediments recovered from seven cores taken from three locations in Lake Huguangyan (21°9’N, 110°17’E) on the low-lying Leizhou Peninsula in the tropical region of South China, together with information about the presence of snow, sleet, frost and frozen rivers over the past 1000 years obtained from historical documents. And in doing so, they discovered, as they put it, that “recent publications based on the phenological phenomena, distribution patterns of subtropical plants and cold events (Wang and Gong, 2000; Man, 1998; Wu and Dang, 1998; Zhang, 1994) argue for a warm period from the beginning of the tenth century AD to the late thirteenth century AD,” as their own data also suggested. In addition, they noted there was a major dry period from AD 880-1260, and that “local historical chronicles support these data, suggesting that the climate of tropical South China was dry during the ‘Mediaeval Warm Period’.” link

Just as the MWP and LIA had a big effect on European history, they had a similar effect on Chinese history.
One of my Scandinavian associates tells me that ‘they’ are trying to re-write Greenland history to reduce the importance of farming. The new theory is that Europeans left Greenland when the ivory trade became unprofitable, not because they couldn’t farm any more. The alarmists will adjust anything and have no pride.
Anyway, I trust the historical record more than I trust proxies. It’s hard to fake historical documents where it is easy to fake proxies because the raw data is meaningless until it is subjected to interpretation.

Reply to  commieBob
May 11, 2017 1:57 pm

commieBob on May 10, 2017 at 11:46 am
One of my Scandinavian associates tells me that ‘they’ are trying to re-write Greenland history to reduce the importance of farming.
No idea where you got that strange story from. The people there had at that time to face with harsh deterioration of crop! And ivory in Greenland? During the 15th century? Somebody must have drunk a bit too much of this dangerous Aquavit I guess!
I propose you to move to more serious matters, and have a deeper look at this paper:

Reply to  commieBob
May 11, 2017 2:06 pm

Clearly you have never studied the history of Greenland.
One of the main exports of the Greenland Norse was walrus ivory.
It is generally considered wise to know something about a subject before commenting upon it.

Reply to  TomB
May 10, 2017 6:58 pm

Rate of change? Are these people crazy?
We have had record breaking cold winters, and spring once again is cool and wet, just like last year. I am still growing the same plants and pulling the same weeds that I pulled 40 years ago. I see the same bird species, I deal with the same pests every summer. No change of climate on this part of the globe

May 10, 2017 10:36 am

Getting temp increases out of paleo-data? If you would include the error bars, you would see how senseless that is.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 10, 2017 10:56 am

Same is true of the earth based temperature record up till the satellite era.
Error bars so much greater than the claimed trend that nothing meaningful can be drawn from it.

Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2017 11:10 am

I didn’t say _nothing_ could be derived. 30 year averages certainly century averages are useful and trim the SEs. Just not 10 year increases or decreases.

Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2017 11:16 am

If the error bars are 10 times greater than the trend, then even 30 and 100 trends are meaningless.

Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2017 4:32 pm

MarkW on May 10, 2017 at 10:56 am
Error bars so much greater than the claimed trend that nothing meaningful can be drawn from it.
Nearly everybody at WUWT will proudly tell you that UAH6.0 is fully trustworthy and reliable, “even at the Poles which are covered even up to 90S and 90N”:
GL 90S-90N, NH 0-90N, SH 90S-0, TRPCS 20S-20N
NoExt 20N-90N, SoExt 90S-20S, NoPol 60N-90N, SoPol 90S-60S
(I know by experience with UAH’s grid data that it can’t be true).
From a reply of yours to one of my comments, I remember that you are unable to trust in Kevin Cowtan’s deep statistics knowledge. Your problem!
Doesn’t matter! Take the good ol’ Excel instead, about 30 years old, and rock solid against all forms of manipulitis warmista officinalis. Its linear estimate function isn’t able to properly handle white noise nor autocorrelation, but let’s ignore here such ridiculous details.
And let’s have a look at the SoPol column in
Excel’s SoPol linear estimate for 1998-2016 for example is: 0.039 ± 0.072 °C / decade.
OK? There are plenty of such examples…
À propos: do you know how UAH’s linear trend looks like in the Arctic for 2011-2016?
I just tried it: 1.057 ± 0.362 °C / decade, i.e. over 10 °C per century.
It is statistically significant… uh oh it’s now 1:30 am here, time to go to bed!

Richard M
Reply to  MarkW
May 13, 2017 6:59 am

Get serious, Bindidon. Ending any trend at the peak of the 2016 El Nino is “not even wrong”. It is just plain stupid and makes you look like someone uninterested in the truth.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 10, 2017 10:57 am

“Access Denied”. Didn’t show me anything, other than a senseless link.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 10, 2017 11:10 am


Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 11, 2017 1:02 am

Error bars are likely related to the accuracy of any given data point. For the discussion here, the error of interest is the change (or rate of change) in year-to-year temperature (or decade-by-decade temperature). This could be a much smaller error if the precision of the proxy series has better resolution than the accuracy of individual data points.

May 10, 2017 10:44 am

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark, I think, makes an insightful observation.
Climate is caused by DIFFERENCES between regions, NOT changes in some mathematical (mathemagical?) average that quashes out those differences and homogenizes them into tidy numerals.
Now let’s do a graph about trends in the trends. (^__^)
We need more tidy numerals, proclaimed as valid, over small ranges where error margins can be so hefty as to render the focal figures a joke. But I’m not laughing, because I can’t make my head stop shaking. Every time I try to smile in a laugh, my head oscillates to the side of my face where the musculature is initiating the smirky smile impulse, thereby cancelling its effect, and this goes on in a cycle from side to side, thus damping out any possibility of a smile. There’s just this gurgling sound coming from a perpetual stone face in motion. Gray matter gets jostled too, so possible micro-concussions impinging on stroke caused by all the craziness.
Okay, I’ve got to get serious again now.
The video seems very useful. I hope it is correct. I’ll keep watching comments for its critiques.
If somebody asks where I got my climate education, then I tell them “at WUWT university.

Ron Williams
May 10, 2017 10:49 am

I wonder if they would have chose 2005-2015 time frame if they would have a whole different result? Obviously yes. If counting the record El Nino for 2015/2016 in this 10 year span is valid, the you obviously get a higher number per decade including the smaller El Nino of 2010. Pick a decade with two La Nina’s in it, and the trend is probably closer to zero. Should at least pick a 30 year trend as a starting point, since then is more apt to measure longer term climate patterns than just short of a half solar cycle with 10 years. And as Peta says above about just measuring a global average temp probably doesn’t mean much in a decadal scale, but perhaps more in a century or millennium scale as to general direction climate is heading in. Cherry picking temperature data and proclaiming some truth doesn’t make it true.

May 10, 2017 11:04 am

You cannot compare paleo data with instrumental data and get a meaningful result. They are apples and oranges.

ferd berple
Reply to  Javier
May 10, 2017 12:49 pm

You can compare apples to oranges if you ask the right question. for example, how much do they weigh?

Reply to  Javier
May 11, 2017 7:23 am

Another problem is trying to compare historical climate data with modern climate data.
Historical data was taken with different instruments using different methods.
Historically, readings were taken once a day using a mercury based thermometer that recorded the daily high and low. The readings were taken with the standard issue Mark One eyeball. You had to position your eyes level with the reading to avoid introducing parallax. You then rounded to the nearest degree, which involved an educated guess if the reading was close to halfway between two markings.
Modern instruments record the reading once an hour and the data can be downloaded directly to your computer.
Regarding the historical method, calculating a daily average from a daily high and low is an exercise in dishonesty. Calculating an average from 24 hourly readings is at least defensible, but is still wrought with the possibility of inaccuracy.
And that’s without getting into the issues of properly maintaining the equipment, micro and macro site contamination and most importantly the fact that we are only measuring about 2% of the world’s surface and trying to calculate a global average from that.

Joseph Murphy
May 10, 2017 11:09 am

I have not yet watched the video but to try to answer your questions. We have been measuring the rate of change for a little over a hundred years, so it hasn’t been seen since then. Trying to compare direct measurements with proxy data, or indirect measurements, comes with large error potential (I am guessing the video tries to do this exact exercise). If the heat is hiding in the oceans then it has not been found yet so “objection your Honor, speculation”. It could be hiding anywhere, or no where. As far as the MWP and LIA being regional or global, that is a tricky question. The short answer is there are papers going both ways. In my opinion both seem to be significant events that were felt outside of Europe but not everywhere. For the long answer… we need to define a couple things.
First off, they would not be strictly global even if they were beyond Europe/NH because the impact of climate swings is going to be diminished the closer you get to the equator. Second, even if they had affects beyond Europe/NH you should still be able to find mid/high latitude areas that were little affected or with the opposite sign. Climate just doesn’t affect everywhere the same. So, when someone calls the MWP or the LIA ‘global’ that just means that the average global temp was up or down. And in my opinion this seems true for both based on what I have read. Let’s use a quick example: during the medieval warm period the temperature in Europe is a few degrees above normal. The rest of the globe stayed average with some areas slightly cooler and some slightly warmer than average. This would be considered a global warming event because the global average would be up due to the unusually strong warming in Europe. If we are going to make the claim that this was not a global event the evidence would have to off set the warming in Europe/NH. I have not seen evidence to suggest that this was the case. Studies that I have seen have either shown strong warming in Europe/NH or nothing out of the ordinary, cooling for the LIA. This leads me to the conclusion that the global average was probably higher/lower during the MWP/LIA.

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  Joseph Murphy
May 10, 2017 11:17 am

Just to finish off my post with a bit of a counter argument. The best anecdotal climate evidence we have during these time periods comes from in and around Europe for the most part (some exceptions). So, if there were equal or large temperature swings in the opposite direction on a different part of the globe it is entirely possible we just haven’t found the evidence.

Reply to  Joseph Murphy
May 10, 2017 11:19 am

We have proxies from all over the world indicating that most of the world was above average during the medieval warm period.

Reply to  Joseph Murphy
May 10, 2017 11:57 am

Would it be the same individuals who proclaim the LIA and MWP as “local phenomena” who also proclaim ice variations on one Antarctic peninsula to be indicative of “global phenomena”?

Reply to  rocketscientist
May 10, 2017 1:22 pm

Or one tree ring defines the temperature of the world for 400 years.

Reply to  rocketscientist
May 10, 2017 3:07 pm

One tree ring to rule them all.

Reply to  rocketscientist
May 11, 2017 1:49 pm

“And in the darkness bind them”…sounds like the Paris Accord. 🙂

May 10, 2017 11:11 am

Unpersuasive. Paleoproxies do not have decadal temperature resolution. CET is not global, and probably not even NH. Comparing apples (climate proxies) to oranges (2006-2016 during the pause plus El Nino blip). Fruit salad.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  ristvan
May 10, 2017 11:18 am

Accepting either your argument or with the argument in video, the conclusion is: there can be no claim made about uniqueness of warming modern trends to those over the last 1000-2000 years.
That is a nuanced difference: rejecting the hypothesis versus no evidence for the hypothesis (that 2006-2016 warming trend is unique).

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
May 10, 2017 11:31 am

Nuances are important when debating Warmuists. There is much easier and sounder way to refute the ‘unprecedented’ claim using IPCC itself. See following comment just posted.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
May 10, 2017 2:14 pm

Past and present warming is unsubstantiated conjecture whether from the Warmist side or the skeptic side. A puzzle wrapped in an enigma with a truck load of bovine excrement on top.

john harmsworth
Reply to  ristvan
May 10, 2017 2:12 pm

Even the oranges are rotten in climate science.Adjusted past data, UHI effects, unequal representations by geographic distribution and/or altitude, ship engine intakes (for God’s sake), readings from peninsulas which are actually marine temperatures most of the time, etc. There’s more garbage data in this arena than I have ever seen in any other field. It is hopelessly corrupted.

May 10, 2017 11:28 am

There is a different and much better/simpler way to refute the ‘uprecedented rate of change’ argument. The warming rate from ~1920-1945 is essentially statistically indistinguishable to that from ~1975-2000. IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 said the former period was not attributable to AGW; not enough increase in atmospheric CO2. It was mostly natural variation. So the recent rate of rise is NOT unprecedented. Moreover, Natural variation did not stop in 1975, as the pause subsequent to 2000 shows. Thus the more current period’s attribution to AGW also fails logically. (The period subsequent to 2000 comprises ~35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958. This further falsifies the control knob claim, and is one way of three to observationally falsify the CMIP5 climate models.)

David A
Reply to  ristvan
May 10, 2017 11:57 am

Do not forget that the observed Tropspheric warming is a complete Fail. Sans the Tropspheric warming the surface warming, whatever the cause, legitamit or not, CANNOT be attributed to CO2 per the IPCC physics of GHG.

Reply to  David A
May 10, 2017 12:01 pm

DA, you mean the tropical troposphere hot spot in models that does not exist in reality.

john harmsworth
Reply to  David A
May 10, 2017 2:25 pm

I’ll put it another way. Tropical tropospheric warming is a central and critical result of the models constructed from the theory. It does not exist!
Can they show a model that accurately reflects reality? No!
Can they show a model that does not have a tropospheric hotspot and adheres to the theory? No!
Can they show a model that gives 20 years of zero trend? No!
Can they show where heat might be hiding in the oceans? No!
Can they show us a hockey stick made out of real information and not fraudulently concocted out of Michael Mann’s personal ambition and lack of character? No!
Can they show any change in trend overall from 1800 to the present? No!
Therefore any observed warming is “:stick-handled” out of neutral data or due to causes unrelated to Man, CO2 or methane!

Reply to  ristvan
May 10, 2017 11:59 am

With regard to the tide coming in, there is a different and much better/simpler way to refute the ‘uprecedented rate of change’ argument,. The increase in the rate of water rising in a wave from 50 to 40 seconds ago is essentially statistically indistinguishable to a wave from from 20 to 10 seconds ago. So the recent rate of rise is NOT unprecedented. Moreover, Natural variation did not stop 40 seconds ago, as the pause subsequent to 20 shows. Thus the more current period’s attribution to the rising of the tide also fails logically.
The tide can not be happening.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 10, 2017 12:06 pm

RS, that is a hopefully knowingly stupid mis-statement of the argument. Why not look at AR4 WG1 SPM fig 8.2, which is by continent, by land/sea, and global, then get back.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 10, 2017 1:25 pm

Notice how the troll tries to hide reality by selecting an example with a scale that is totally off the charts.
In global warming we are dealing with a natural trend that as large or larger than the CO2 signal.
With it’s example, the wave is several million times larger than the change in tide over the same period.

Reply to  ristvan
May 10, 2017 12:54 pm

Yep. There is no evidence at all that the long term trend has changed with rising CO2.

Reply to  ristvan
May 10, 2017 1:11 pm

warming rate from ~1920-1945
agreed, but the argument can be made that this might be a fluke. multiple results makes the fining more significant. what I found interesting is that multiple datasets found similar periods of warming, suggesting that either the datasets are derived from a common source, or that the past warming periods actually took place.

Reply to  ferdberple
May 11, 2017 3:02 am

ferdberple on May 10, 2017 at 1:11 pm
… suggesting that either the datasets are derived from a common source…
They are definitely not. JMA, BEST and NOAA/GISS all use different sources for both land and sea surface temperatures, and above all completely different tools to process the measurement data.

Reply to  ristvan
May 10, 2017 1:51 pm

ristvan on May 10, 2017 at 11:28 am
Here is a link to an old info:,55a304092d09/2__Ozone/-_Cooling_nd.html
Authors and reviewers:
author: Dr. Elmar Uherek – Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz
1. scientific reviewer: Dr. Wolfgang Steinbrecht – German Met. Service
2. scientific reviewer: Dr. Christoph Brühl – MPI for Chemistry
Old but manifestly still actual matters. Btw, here is a UAH plot comparing tlt and tls:
P.S. I am NOT a propagator of any link between CO2 increase and its possible climatic consequences. It is far beyond my knowledge.
Best greetings from Germany…

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
May 10, 2017 11:51 am

While I would agree that proxy and measured data cannot be compared, let us keep this in mind: the various proxy methods show that temperature changed throughout the A. D. time frame. It is the IPCC’s position that carbon dioxide was essentially constant (or at least did not vary by more than a few tens of ppm) until the Industrial Revolution.
If these various proxies are all showing temperature change (in both directions) under a ‘constant’ concentration of CO2, does that not mostly invalidate the hypothesis that CO2 is causing the current change in temperature?
I do not know if any of the analyses presented are valid. If there is a modicum of similarity (as stated towards the end) between the data sets, and some consistency, it would seem to this commentator that warmists should be re-examining their pet dogma. The warmist camp should come to realize that throughout geologic time, temperature is not a function of CO2 concentration.
Why this simple piece of information escapes them, is beyond me.

May 10, 2017 12:54 pm

Who in the world did publish that video? When you see a link like
you can’t deduce anything out of it about the source.
Moreover, the video is simply redundant: the fact that decades or even longer time periods showed in the past higher trends than is actually the case is known since longer time.
Of course, some warmistas do not know anything of what happened over 50 years ago, but that is truly not a reason to ruminate such an evidence during 18 minutes.
Interestingly, the video started with charts showing the “GISS/NOAA” period 1880-today, but did not mention any trial to find such a period in the past! There should be a plenty of, and their comparison with today’s would be by magnitudes more interesting.
Patting yourself on the shoulder never helps.

Reply to  Bindidon
May 10, 2017 1:27 pm

As you are already aware, when you go past 1880, you are limited to proxy records, and proxy records low pass filter their data.

john harmsworth
Reply to  MarkW
May 10, 2017 2:34 pm

I’m not an expert on proxies but it seems to me that for periods closer to the modern era, there are more supporting documents and records and less opportunity for unknown natural effects to distort proxy sources. Further back the proxies are fewer and less is known about the exact conditions at the time. That’s before the proxies are selected, like Mann’s, to distort reality instead of to illuminate it. The further back the proxies are, generally speaking the less accurate they are.

Reply to  MarkW
May 11, 2017 7:25 am

Supporting documentation can help confirm that temperatures were going up or down, but by how much is still problematic.

May 10, 2017 1:03 pm


Reply to  kreizkruzifix
May 10, 2017 3:42 pm

Alias Johann Wundersamer?

Stephen Greene
May 10, 2017 1:04 pm

Let me get this straight, isn’t
“The most extreme trend occurs between 2006 and 2016 and is, according to NOAA, is 0.38 degrees Celsius per decade.”
the same timeline that a recent paper, succinctly discussed here at WUWT wherein virtually the same temp data were analyzed and presented as……
“Look at HadCRUT4 from 2001 (after the 1999-2000 El Nino/La Nina event) until 2014 (before the start of the recent El Nino event) and you will see the temperature is flat. Apart from the recent El Nino there has been no global increase since 2001, even though there have been El Ninos and La Ninas in that period. Now that’s what I call a pause.
Look, use crappy data that has been manipulated to further a non-scientific narrative, and you will predictably get biased, antagonistic and meaningless results that only serve to confuse the AGW body of knowledge as a whole. All you have to do is give it to stupid wrong minded media and away she goes!

May 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Amen!, Peta, Amen!
Weather is derived from heat flowing to cold, unstoppably. Everyday a brand new set of temperature differentials come into play. That is why weather is chaotic.

Chris Hanley
May 10, 2017 2:09 pm

MacDonald et al. 2008: “Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10 000–3000 years ago) …”.
“Comparison of northern Eurasia summer temperature trends (Briffa 2000) with Larix treeline advances and retreats in the northern Polar Urals of western Siberia (Shiyatov 2003) over the past 1000 years”.

May 10, 2017 2:11 pm

Contrived GISS ‘data‘ has a trend? Oh, my!

john harmsworth
Reply to  stevekeohane
May 10, 2017 2:36 pm

No point in contriving it if you don’t care where it’s going when you’re done!

May 10, 2017 2:32 pm

The Excedrin headache of “climate science” will never cease, as long as the notion persists that regressional slopes over a decade (or few) are meaningful metrics of climate change. All of the proxy records clearly show major temperature variability over multidecadal, centennial, and quasi-millenial time-scales. The unstable decadal variability is of little consequence in the long run. Nothing short of multi-centennial scales are required for meaningful estimates of SECULAR changes.
And the Excedrin headache will only intensify as long as Mosheresque arguments are entertained that the effects of CO2, observed in vitro under radiation-only constraints, translate directly into temperature effects in situ, where surface heat transfer by evaporation demonstrably exceeds that by all other mechanisms combined.
The cure is for “climate science” to come to grips with bona fide signal analysis methods and with the intricate complexities of real-world thermodynamics.

Reply to  1sky1
May 10, 2017 5:32 pm

1sky1- lets hear for signal analysis methods. I suspect it would cause a lot of the modellers and statisticians to drop their drawers. Signal analysis would be likely to come up with 20 or more required variables to explain the data, with no indication of what they actually are- solar radiation, other radiation, heat fluxes, ocean patterns, etc. and no way to model it.
No more linear statistics! When I started following this stuff a while ago some of the first things I found were a few statisticians and economists that pointed out that most of the analysis of temperatures and other variables was improperly done( climate4you, wmbriggs, the folks doing economic forecasting, etc). Wrongly used statistics have caused more confusion over the years.
Has the climate warmed? What was the high temperature where you live in 1880? What was it today? Is the difference more than the 3sigma variation? If so which one was higher. There you are.

Reply to  Philo
May 11, 2017 2:57 am
Terry Warner
May 10, 2017 2:40 pm

It is utterly disappointing that we do not have a temperature record agreed by both parties.
Both sides of the argument seem to be intent on selective use of data to support their preconceived conclusion. Any data running counter to the preferred outcome is dismissed as incomplete, wrongly interpreted, missing key geographical or temporal elements etc etc.
The public have lost interest in the debate – in much the same way as for politics having been fed a diet of spin, exaggeration and blatant nonsense. It is up to scientists from both sides to agree a coherent statement of what has happened so that at least the baseline is trustworthy.

Reply to  Terry Warner
May 10, 2017 3:44 pm

I agree with a +100 !!!

May 10, 2017 3:10 pm

Another way to test the data is to see if the current variation falls outside 2 std dev of the mean for the Holocene, it doesn’t. Also using ground measurements only measures the Urban Heat Island Effect, and uses criminally “adjusted” data sets. CO2 is 400 ppm everywhere, so choosing data sets not corrupted by the other facts is best. That can be done using thermometer data from Antarctica. It shows no warming vs the N Hemi. Also using the oceans, there are no cities in the oceans.

May 10, 2017 3:31 pm

II quote: “… most extreme trend occurs between 2006 and 2016 and is, according to NOAA, is 0.38 degrees Celsius per decade.” If you include the 2016 El Nino in the trend, that is.
These so-called climate “scientists” have no idea how to measure trends and simply stick in any convenient temporary feature such as an El Nino into their temperature curve. If you are measuring trends you must navigate away from any El Ninos and super El Ninos, such as the one in 1998. This is preached in a Nature editorial (What Pause? May 4th. )
, only they pretend that it is only “climate deniers” who do it. In the above cited trend, there are two segments: a background segment that shows cooling from 2006 to 2012 and a warming segment that belongs to the El Nino of 2016. That one is quickly incorporated into their warming curve as if they were climate deniers. If cooling was a deep, dark secret to you, here is part of the reason for it. Including it as part of a warming trend is pure fakery in two ways: first, the inclusion of the El Nino of 2016 is fraudulent, and according to Nature something only climate deniers practice. In addition, IPCC has increased the general warming trend starting from 1980 by introducing fake warming. First they wiped out an 18 year hiatus in the eighties and nineties by changing it into false warming. I had used it as figure 15 in my book in 2010 and protested but was ignored. (Come to think of it, Nature did the same thing to me in 2008 when I proved Al Gore to be a fake.) Second, they continued this fake warming from the nineties into the twenty-first century, with the absurd result that both the El Nino of 2010 and the El Nino of 2016 now stand above the super El Nino of 1998. As to the cooling I mentioned, it is part of the cooling of a large body of water left behind by the super El Nino of 1998 when it pulled out in 11999. This warm water mixed with the ocean and there was an almost instantaneous warming where temperature rose by a third of a degree Celsius in only three years. But that was a one-time rise because no more heat from the super El Nino was available. Cooling followed starting in 2002. It was slow at first and its first six years could, with some effort, be incorporated into a Pause. But right to the middle of this cooling curve we get an interference from the 2008 La Nina and the 2010 El Nino. The background is thereby blocked out by these two obstacles and you have to wait until they clear until you can see what the trend is. The view becomes clear by 2012 and now you can see that the cooling curve extends from 2002 to 2012, with its center blocked by the La Nina/El Nino combination. That obstruction was cleared by 2012 and now we can see that the temperature drop from 2002 to 2012 was 0.17 degrees per decade. Beyond 2012. The El Nino of 2016 starts to rear its overheated peak. Its height could be overestimated by as much as 0.4 or even 0.5 degrees Celsius by comparing it with the super El Nino of 1998. By knowing the trend of the cooling curve from 2002 to 2012 we can now extrapolate it beyond the time that the El Nino of 2016 can be expected to stay. My best estimate for this beyond-El Nino temperature value is a tenth of a degree below the zero line. This puts it in line with the background level that existed in the eighties and nineties before the IPCC started monkeying with temperature. However, the true believers’ wish to have their warm peaks back is quite impossible.

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
May 10, 2017 10:36 pm

Just a few other things I find objectionable. First, many of their graphs have a step size of one year and quite a few have angtular features. There should not be any and there is no reason why the step size should not be at least a a week, with all he billions spent on climate study. Many finer points, including several temperature reversals, simply get lost in this coarse display. The choice of a representative graphic section is a line extending from 2008 to 2016, inclusive, is also absurd. 2008 is smack in the middle of a cooling curve whose beginning in 2002 is simply left cut. You need this because the part of the cooling curve at 2008 is blocked by a La Nina and you can’t even see that cooling is taking place. It seems to be chosen to be near the height of 2012, to minimize suspicions of cooling. .Another thing that is worthless is fitting straight lines to their oversimplified graphics. Unless you are dealing with a random data set there is no excuse for putting straight lines on data to show trends. And to make their graph inclusive of 2016 they simply go and do what Nature says only climate-science denialists do. It might be worthwhile to see how Nature puts it. First, the editorial starts with the words: ”climate-science denial” so you know what they are talking about. A revealing section states: “From the top of the Himalayas the rest of the Earth is downhill. And, in similar way, the 1998 peak in temperature offered an easily visualized time that climate sceptics could cherry-pick as a starting point for a ‘hiatus’ or ‘slowdown’ in climate change.”All nonsense, fallacious. Simply put “2016 El Nino” in place of “1998 peak” and you turn it around to show how the global warming peak at at 2016 beats 1998 by half a degree Celsius, with no cooling anywhere in sight. Speaking of cooling, the movie had nothing to say about it. That is a substantial omission so let me set the record straight. In addition to twenty-first century cooling I already described, there were two cooling incidents in the time interval from 1850 to 2008 according to HadCRUT3. The first one started in 1877 and ended in 1910. Temperature went down half a degree Celsius. The second one went from 1940 to 1955 and temperature dropped a third of a degree Celsius. The first one lasted over 33 years, the second one 15 years.T^his means that 45 years, out of that century that includes both, was cooling, not warming. This immediately gives a lie to your movie in which no cooling was shown. In the twenty-first century there was a ten year cooling, from 2002 to 2012. The century is only 17 years old now and already more then half of it has been cooling .Its effect was to create an apparent hiatus during an initial slow cooling. The total warming comes from adding warming and cooling and could be anything but calling it global warming is misleading and inappropriate. Nature editorial also wants to rename hiatus into the “… most recent instance of normal climate variability.” That is too long and clumsy but perhaps we could use “normal climate variability” to describe our present climate of roughly equal proportions of warming and cooling.

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
May 11, 2017 4:59 am

(1) 2008=2006
(2) 45=48

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
May 11, 2017 4:35 am

Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak) on May 10, 2017 at 3:31 pm
Sorry, but the redundancy and lisibility coefficients of your “contributions” are today as usual. So I’ll probably not be the one and only WUWT reader quickly skipping these lengthy and unreadable text pieces.
But today the first lines already disturbed me a bit.
These so-called climate “scientists” have no idea how to measure trends and simply stick in any convenient temporary feature such as an El Nino into their temperature curve.
So you mean that e.g. Roy Spencer is a « so-called climate “scientist” having no idea how to measure trends » ? That gives us imho a pretty good measure for the degree of your opinions’ relevance.
But you are right in one point: El Niño’s 1997/98 edition has really been the SuperNiño of the last decades, as opposed to the meaning of many guest posters and commenters who think 2015/16 is it.
This meaning manifestly roots in the supposition that UAH’s temperature record and El Niño’s record show exactly the same thing, what is wrong, as ENSO signals are by far no the only ones influencing the tropospheric temperatures.
The comparison between the 1981/82 edition and the TLT is a good example, see the temperatures in the graph at that time, due to huge volcanic eruptions and their influence on the stratospheric aerosol optical depth.
And above all, it should be well understood that El Niño’s side of ENSO influences the Troposphere far more than the surfaces, as ocean heat directly escapes up to these levels during its activity.

May 10, 2017 4:58 pm

Hey everyone, I’d appreciate some critiques of this most recent article. It follows what was done in the highlighted video.
CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does
In conclusion, if you break the data down to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, there simply isn’t a strong case to be made that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yes the oceans are warming, yes temperatures have been warming, but that doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause of that warming. If you isolate the impact of CO2 by removing the impact of the oceans, the urban heat island effect, and atmospheric water vapor, the result is that those areas show no warming what so ever. CO2 increased from 335 ppm to 405 ppm in Antarctica, and it had no impact at all, none, nada, zip.

Reply to  co2islife
May 10, 2017 6:08 pm

I like it, but I’m easy ; )
The aspirin analogy seemed a bit problematic, and I a bit of time to think up something perhaps a bit more palpable for most folks . . I came up with; Brushing your teeth . .

May 10, 2017 5:17 pm

Sorry to go off the thread subject, but some of the comments above made me think about something from a few years back. What ever happened to Trenberth’s deep ocean missing heat hypothesis? Did he ever find anything?

michael hart
Reply to  Bryan
May 11, 2017 12:51 am

No. But the advantage of his hypothesis is that because the amount would actually be very small compared to the overall uncertainty in the measurements, then it is possible to continue claiming that it might actually be there. In normal science this would mean that your speculations have no good evidence to support them and are thus not taken too seriously. That is why he publicly wanted to reverse the normal way of confirming or refuting scientific hypotheses, and also why IPCC climate scientists like to just widen their uncertainty bands to accommodate currently inconvenient data.
They may actually believe that the data will soon turn more favorable if they can just wait a bit longer. A bit like someone in Las Vegas who is not able to leave the table because they are convinced the cards will turn.

Alan Ranger
May 10, 2017 5:50 pm

This presentation does a very good job at showing (in simple layman terms) how a claim might be tested (albeit without rigour) in a scientific way. Its aim is quite specific – to test the claim that the warming rate over the 2006-16 period is unmatched by any decadal warming rate over the past 2000 years. It does as good a job as possible, with what’s available, in trying to compare apples with apples. And it disposes of that alarmist claim with ease and simplicity.
I think this is the kind of material Jo Public needs to see – light enough on technical detail to be accessible and understandable to the masses. The alarmist community rely heavily on the line that “it’s all too difficult for you to understand, but we can trust our concerned climate scientists to come up with the right answers for us mortals.” Videos like this show that all this alarmist climatism is anything but rocket science.

May 10, 2017 6:09 pm

I would like to see a graph of the MEAN annual temperatures. That is where “trends” will show up. Chaos rules weather with an iron fist. It is impossible to “average” chaos. I remember during the 80’s it was widely reported that wheat would not grow in the 5 major wheat growing regions of the world if the mean annual temp. dropped one degree. That is why the mean annual temp. is do important.

michael hart
May 11, 2017 12:26 am

A song you will never heard sung at a global-warming convention:

John in Oz
May 11, 2017 12:56 am

At the 0.38min point the graph show the anomaly as blue from 1880 to around 1930-50. I.e. IT IS INCREASING
Why is it that only the red portion is due to CAGW but not the blue rise? If mankind has been irresponsible since 1950 and our CO2 is the cause of the red section, what caused the previous increase?

May 11, 2017 1:21 am

True as far as it goes, but as was said, the primary source data may well not be annual, so the interpretation isn’t very clean.
Ignoring that: if he has examined all ten year trends in eight datasets, he has up to 1600 non-autocorrelated instances of trends. He has established that the current trend is somewhere around 26th in the list. So only circa 1.6% of instances are higher than current. Needs more work to quantify ‘up to’ 1600, but I think he has shown that current trends are highly statistically significant. Further, historic trends are subject to larger noise than the instrumental trend. The number of trends which beat the current trend by a statistically significant margin will therefore be lower still. (E.g. is 0.4+-0.1 really greater than 0.39+-0.05?).
I accept that ‘unprecedented’ doesn’t stand, but it dwindles to a very narrow point.

Robert B
May 11, 2017 2:43 am

Isn’t it time to stop ignoring the trunk on the balance?

May 11, 2017 2:51 am

If your trend calculation is *very* sensitive to your start and end dates then you need to widen your error bars or not bother with the calculation.
If you can generate a variety of trends from a data set just by varying the start and end dates then give up or average your trends and include large error bars.

Reply to  steverichards1984
May 11, 2017 3:19 am

steverichards1984 on May 11, 2017 at 2:51 am
If your trend calculation is *very* sensitive to your start and end dates then you need to widen your error bars or not bother with the calculation.
Maybe you mean the difference between …
.. and…
… or even
If you can generate a variety of trends from a data set just by varying the start and end dates then give up or average your trends and include large error bars.
You should write a guest post concerning that; a vast majority of the WUWT readers & commenters would highly benefit of it.

Robert B
Reply to  Bindidon
May 11, 2017 3:42 pm

Best to compare fits to the whole data from when warming appears to start in the late 70s of different functions…
To real data, that is.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights