Guest short note by David Middleton
COMMENT 05 DECEMBER 2018
Global warming will happen faster than we think
Three trends will combine to hasten it, warn Yangyang Xu, Veerabhadran Ramanathan and David G. Victor.
If anyone cares to read what Yangyang Xu, Veerabhadran Ramanathan and David G. Victor have to say about this… Click here.
If anyone desires more comparisons of predcitions and models, let me know in the comments section.
Scenario C has humans undiscovering fire in 1999.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The best advice I can give folks is do not get your science from COMMENTS ( not peer reviewed) in Nature.
Look at Ar5. If its not in Ar5, then withhold judgment until Ar6 is published.
I would not take their argument seriously as it is only a comment in Nature and hasnt been peer reviewed and hasnt been through the grinder of other folks trying to poke holes in it.
Verdict: pay no mind to it: no review, no data, no code. Meh.
Won’t see data or code, per Dr Mann it is to be considered intellectual property and should not be available to anyone that only wants to find something wrong with it
I actually didn’t even read it… I just thought the title was funny.
Well I read it, and saw this (my bold for emphasis):
So – declining air pollution is now a BAD THING (can you believe it?)
So they understand natural climate cycles and they KNOW that there’s a natural warming trend that will continue for the next 20 years). (apparently, the power of knowing these things has been granted to them)
And then – from the “could have fooled me” department comes this gem:
“The climate-modelling community has not grappled enough with the rapid changes that policymakers care most about”
Well you learn something new every day!
So, pay no attention to the unofficial non-peer reviewed Alarmist nonsense, just the official pseudoscientific garbage the ipcc cranks out. Got it.
On the other hand, peer review (Especially climate science peer review) misses some real whoppers on a regular basis.
Well Steve, I find the comments to be very interesting , and its obvious that many are from very smart folk.
One of the benifits of living to a ripe old age is that one realises that there is no such thing as wasted knowledge. Something may appear to be of minor interest , but yearrs later we find that it was of use in another context.
Knowledge, plus of course cheap energy is the key to our way of life , which I am very grateful for as back in the 1800 I would probably be dead by the time I was 40.
MJE
Whenever you see global temperature charts for the next 2 years, you will probably notice that the data terminates around 2016. This is because 2016 was a hot El Nino year with well above average global temperatures. Ending at that time cherry picks the data to makes it look like global temperatures are rising faster then they really are. And 5 year averaging also tends to smooth and spread out the effects of an El Nino year to make it look like temperature increases are happening over a wider period of time.
A better view of what is actually happening comes from the UAH Global Temperature Update which Dr. Roy Spencer publishes on his blog monthly (http://www.drroyspencer.com/). It shows average monthly values and adds a 13 month moving average. The average temperature anomaly from the 1981-2010 mean for 2018 is .22C (the 13 month average is slightly higher). This is close to the mean from 1999 to the present, which eyeballing looks to be about .18C. This essentially means that global temperatures have barely budged in 20 years, not what a warmist would expect for a period in which CO2 levels rose 10% from 370ppm to 408ppm.
Another anecdote for 2018: In November 2018, North America had the highest snow cover percentage for November in the entire 50 years since it has been tracked by satellite. Warmists will try to say that more snow is to be expected with Global Warming, but that doesn’t fly for November when average temperatures are well above freezing for most of the continent.
Dan
I guess we should be equally cautious of global temperature charts that ‘start’ in 2016 for similar reasons?
That’s the problem with “eyeballing” time series data. Apply linear regression to UAH from 1999 to the present and you get warming of 0.14C per decade; a total warming of 0.27 C: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
If you use that calculator for RSS, the other satellite TLT data set, the trend is over +0.20C per decade from the same start date.
That’s a nice website for doing calculations. Thanks for the pointer.
My point was that where you start and end is of critical importance. Warmists are cooking the numbers by starting on a cold year and ending on a hot year.
1) If you start in 1999 and go to 2015.5, avoiding the El Nino years of 1997-1998 and 2016-2017, you get warming of 0.056C per decade. Do the math for 100 years.
2) If you include go peak to peak for El Nino years 1997.8 to 2017.0 you get a similar 0.054C/decade
3) If you go about a year before the 1997-1998 (1996.0) El Nino started to the present (about a year after the 2016-2017 El Nino ended (2018.9) you get 0.096C/decade, still under 1C per hundred years.
4) And if I go from the beginning of 2001 to the middle of 2015, the trend is actually negative, -0.005C/decade. (And those are not cherry picked dates – they look to be average years in the middle of a group of average years)
5) Finally, if I look at the UAH for the entire record of 1979-present, I get only .128C/decade.
One would think that the rate of warming would be greater at the higher CO2 levels of the last 2 decades, but that simply does not seem to be the case. Why were temperatures depressed in the 1980’s and early 1990’s? There were at least 3 stratospheric volcanic eruptions (Mt. St. Helens, 1980, El Chichon, 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo 1991 that are known to have depressed temperatures worldwide in their aftermath and definitely should be counted as a factor in the higher per decade rate from 1979 on.
And what caused the temperature rise in the late 1800’s? It must have been natural factors unrelated to CO2. So when we talk about warming, we must investigate natural factors as well the possible affects of CO2. All the data must be considered before rushing into public policy decisions.
Faster than we think….on the downside maybe.
short term cycle view
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-NorthAtlantic%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
long term cycle view
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif
Incredible!
There is no data or analysis. Looking at the figure, in which observations appear to exceed predictions, that directly contradicts reality, I’d just say this.
If the predictions were to follow Taylor’s theorem using prior observations, one couldn’t predict anything. There must be other influences at work, but they don’t say what they are.
When I was a student (50 years ago), Nature had the reputation for being a rigorous gold-standard for science.
While power may corrupt, climate science corrupts absolutely. Why does Nature publish this garbage?
I can’t stand it. If the world is warming why so we have an anomaly where by a heat sink which represents 20% of the world’s fresh water has an impressive cooling trend? Look at the average water temperatures for each of these lakes. Something is wrong here!
https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/compare_years/compare_years_o.html
The earths fever will happen faster than we think ? I sure hope so .
A con job based loosely on demonstrably false and misleading
computer models programmed with intent to spit out what lobbyist’s want . Paid fraud used to rob tax payers
and fulfill a political globalist agenda (Agenda 21 ) .
In real science inaccurate biased results are scrubbed . In science fiction they aren’t .
Attempts to further hollow out the middle class into servitude are apparently not going over well . People have had enough of politicians and crooks shaking them down .
The jig is up . Enablers get out while you can .
Bye bye Macron .