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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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) …”.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/363/1501/2283/F12.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
“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”.
Contrived GISS ‘data‘ has a trend? Oh, my!
No point in contriving it if you don’t care where it’s going when you’re done!
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.
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.
Philo on May 10, 2017 at 5:32 pm
https://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_cmip5.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
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.
I agree with a +100 !!!
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.
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.
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.
Typos:
(1) 2008=2006
(2) 45=48
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.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170511/lip77w7f.jpg
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.
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.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/co2-cant-cause-the-warming-alarmists-claim-it-does/
co2islife,
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 . .
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?
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.
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.
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.
A song you will never heard sung at a global-warming convention:
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?
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.
Isn’t it time to stop ignoring the trunk on the balance?
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.
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 …
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170511/w7ms3tq9.png
.. and…
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170511/nl2bw62r.png
… or even
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170511/hogbcqjd.png
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.
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.