We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time. According to the main hypothesis, warming since 1951 has been due almost exclusively to the increase in GHGs (greenhouse gases), of which CO_{2} is the most important one. The IPCC does not find anything else that has contributed to the observed warming.

Figure 1. IPCC attribution of warming. AR5 SPM.

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO_{2} change (the atmospheric increase in CO_{2} every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

Figure 2. Mauna Loa rate of increase in CO_{2} (ppm/year). Thin line, 12-month increase. Thick line, gaussian smoothing. Red line, 2nd order polynomial least-squares fit to the yearly increase.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO_{2} is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO_{2} is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO_{2} is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations. The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing. In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO_{2} levels increasing at the same rapid rate.

Figure 3. HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year). Thin line, 12-month rate of change. Thick line, gaussian smoothing. Red line, 2nd order polynomial least-squares fit to the yearly increase.

Since 2017, the rate of temperature change has become negative.

Figure 4. Zoom of the HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year). The best fit polynomial (black line) shows the long-term evolution in the rate of temperature change.

The global warming deceleration since 1994, and cooling since 2017 are incompatible with the hypothesis that the increase in CO_{2} is driving global warming. Other factors must be more important than CO_{2}.

The Mauna Loa CO2 data can be downloaded here and the HadCRUT 4 global temperature data can be downloaded here.

Besides which, for the first 32 years after WWII, Earth cooled dramatically despite steadily rising CO2. That’s why so many scientists, later on the catastrophic AGW bandwagon, were worried about dangerous global cooling until the PDO shift of 1977.

The 1988 CACA hypothesis thus was hatched falsified.

The Arrhenius equation is logarithmic. Therefore, the rate of radiative forcing should decrease as a function of temperature, so I don’t think this argument is valid.

The logarithmic effect means that the gain in CO2 from ~285 ppm in 1850 to ~311 in 1940 should have warmed Earth more than the increase from ~334 in 1977 to ~361 in 1995 (maybe it did, but NOAA’s and HadCRU’s cooked books don’t show that). And the planet should have gotten balmier from 311 ppm in 1940 to 334 in 1977, but it didn’t. Just the opposite happened.

And the run from ~361 in 1995 to over 400 ppm now should have heated us up a lot more than actually observed, or even than lied about in the corrupt gatekeepers’ pretend “data”. The book cookers are restrained by the watching satellites, or they’d have cooked the books extra crispy.

What does the Arrhenius equation have to do with atmospheric physics? this calculates the reaction rate! who has no idea here ……, notice, not everywhere where arrhenius appears is also climate inside. Dissociation does also not take place in the air.

Trebla is correct, you’re wrong. See my post below. Even if CO2 were increasing at an EXPONENTIAL rate, wattage would be increasing at a LINEAR rate, and temperature increase would be increasing at a rate of X^0.25, i.e., the rate of temperature increase would be DECREASING.

stob February 6, 2019 at 5:28 pm
What does the Arrhenius equation have to do with atmospheric physics? this calculates the reaction rate! who has no idea here ……, notice, not everywhere where arrhenius appears is also climate inside. Dissociation does also not take place in the air.

I don´t know, the Arrhenius equation I know about is this one:

It deals with reaction rates, as you said. It is the equation found on Wikipedia named after the chemist.

I don´t know what this has to do with absorption, but disproves NASA when they say that stratospheric ozone depletes faster at lower tempetatures. That statement requires a negative reaction rate, and given the equation, reaction rates approaches to zero when T approaches to 0 kelvin, but cannot be negative.

We must be living in a different universe, or something.

“The Arrhenius equation is logarithmic. Therefore, the rate of radiative forcing should decrease …”

Correct. But for some reason the IPCC and its minions project an accelerating temperature increase. Perhaps this is due to their assumption of a positive feedback effect.

You’re right, the blog post is wrong. IF the rate of increase in CO2 was exponential, the rate of change would be proportional to
e^x.
FORCING in wattage would be proportional to the logarithm of e^x, or x.
Temperature would be proportional to the fourth root of x, so even if the rate of increase in CO2 were EXPONENTIAL, and it’s less than that, the RATE of change in temperature would be going down. Example,
x =1 wattage =1 temperature =1
x=2 wattage=2, temperature =1.1892 with an 18.92% increase over the prior period.
x=3 wattage=3, temperature=1.3161 with a 10.67% increase over the prior period.
x=4 wattage=4, temperature=1.4142 with a 7.45% increase over the prior period.,

That logarithmic effect DOES show that the IPCC figure of 3 C warming for doubled CO2 is fearmongering nonsense.

Basically, each doubling of CO2 concentration will have the same radiative forcing effect. Radiative forcing is linearly associated with temperature change.

This assumes that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. in practice it is not, and you cannot simply add the effects of greenhouse gases. Thus, the real world effect of CO2 will be less than Arrhenius predicts.

Willard put your argument up at ATTP.
“This means that the radiative response (or, the amount of warming) is the same for every doubling of atmospheric CO2.”
However .
No.
This statement is not correct.
It is correct for a doubling of CO2 from where we were 1950’s to were we are going 2100 and that is all.
Proof is very simple.
You look at the effect of halving the CO2 say 10 times to see why.
But it is a commonly held and made statement.
Science of Doom might be able to explain why better than I.

More importantly, modern warming began in 1910 and rapid increases of fossil fuel usage began around 1950. Unless you own a DeLorean or an oldstyle police call box, an effect cannot start before its cause.

John Tillman

February 6, 2019 1:17 pm

Besides which, there was no statistically significant global warming between the 1997-98 and 2015-16 super Los Ninos. And since February 2016, the planet has cooled.

And it warmed without benefit of large amounts of human-generated plant food in the air from the end of the Little Ice Age Cool Period c. AD 1850 until the 1940s, during the naturally occurring Current Warm Period.

Brian

February 6, 2019 1:18 pm

This is terrible news. My heating bill is killing me and I actually had to drive through snow to get to work the other day, and I live in California. Do you mean to actually tell you my children and grand-children actually won’t die in an apocalyptic runaway warming scenario? Do I have your permission to buy that V-8 Dodge Charger I’ve been dreaming of?

Snow all over the SF Bay Area is described by the local weatherman (who loves his own reflection) as EXTREME weather caused by your sinful use of fossil fuels. My furnace is working overtime … pushing me into PG&E’s punishing 3rd rate tier. My wife and I have NO disposable income during the winter, and we have no AC … so we can barely spend a few extra dollars in the sweltering summer. Thanks Global Warming PIMPS at the PUC and State Govt. Eco-bureaus.

Hi Kenji, I’m from Slovakia and I have lived 4 years in California, so I can compare living style in California with much colder country.
PG&E tiers were killing me too, paying 300+ $ monthly during winter is very inconvenient, while my summer rate was around 40$.
In Slovakia I have flat monthly payment all year, it hurts much less, easier to keep my budget balanced.
Insulation and efficient heating are unknown in California. Heating directly by electricity is throwing money out of window.
Buy AC with heat pump heating option. In Europe it is standard for all AC’s. My AC in Mountain View had only direct electric heating – wrong. By heat pump heating you can get 3-4 times more heat than consumed electricity. For every kilowathour of electricity you can get 3-4 kilowathours of heat taken from outside air. This is basically reducing your electricity bill more than 3-4 times. Can be 6 times if you are taking PG&E tiers into account.
If you are heating by gas, search for efficient condensing gas furnace. Older gas furnaces have 80-95% efficiency, while condensing have 107%. So difference can be up to 33% in gas consumption for same heat.
Insulation: Normal is very bad insulation in California. Single paned glass, spare or none insulation in walls.
I understand it is very inconvenient to add additional insulation into walls, but adding insulation into ceiling is usually simple. 3-6 inches of mineral wool above your ceiling can save you up to 50% of heating and cooling expenses.
Change windows to new with good thermal coefficient. Windows with 1W/m2K and less can save you up to 30% of your heating and cooling costs. Personally I did not see it in California at all. Like this market is not existent. Window frames are same bad everywhere. At least you could change your glass for double paned argon filled.

With the long box. Then give yourself about a year to learn how to back into a parking spot, none of which are really big enough, without being crooked. AND be very careful about which parking ramps you drive into!

I know from experience. Loved the sound of the 7.3l diesel though. (I have a newer F250 Super Duty.)

“The global warming deceleration since 1994, and cooling since 2017 are incompatible with the hypothesis that the increase in CO2 is driving global warming.”

Ok, that is in global…what about Tropical?
Can the same be stated, as per global?!

The tropics essentially haven’t warmed at all, despite the modelled but never observed tropical tropospheric hotspot.

So-called “global” warming is mainly in the Arctic, where “data” are mostly made up. The Antarctic hasn’t warmed, and the north and south temperate zones only slightly, chiefly during winter nights.

Jeff in Calgary: Your post inspired me to dig deeper into something that has piqued my curiousity, namely the locations of “thermometers” with respect to the urban heat island effect. So I did a little research and found this VERY useful tool: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS_Map/

This map shows all NOAA CORS stations nationwide, is “zoomable”, and provides detail about where stations are located, including photos of the actual installation. Using this map I reviewed all CORS stations in New York State (my native State), and found the following. There are 51 stations in NY State, with all but 11 located at NY State Dept of Transportation facilities used for road maintenance. These facilities are generally large with large office buildings/garages, fleets of trucks/snow plows, with large stores of salt, cold-patch blacktop, and large blacktop parking lots. What I found MOST interesting is that all but seven “thermometers” (86%) were attached to the sides of these (mostly brick) buildings and extending above the roof by ~ 3 to 6 feet, thus able to measure the heat absorbed/emitted by the roof. Some were attached on or near chimneys, with one head directly above the flue! Some were located near large spinning roof ventilators, roof-top a/c units, above large security lights (very warm at night), etc… – not exactly ideal locations for obtaining “clean” measurements. I wouldn’t have believed it had I not seen it for myself.

I’ve read there are corrective “adjustments” for this, which just introduces more variables into the equation, facilitating both inaccuracies and manipulation. Being large, “ugly”, industrial-type facilities, most (especially upstate) are located in relatively remote locations (i.e., not in urban centers) having lawn areas and/or nearby wooded areas, so I’m puzzled why they located the thermometers in the hottest spots possible, namely on rooftops! Why not locate them away from these obvious hot spots? It makes me very suspicious of the national temperature records.

Mike Lowe

February 6, 2019 1:37 pm

So no need to kill all those coal-fired power generating plants after all! Now let’s chase those lying scaremongerers Gore, Mann, etc. And while we are at it, let’s cancel all subsidies for solar, wine, and EVs – t’ hey must try to survive on their own merits!

Um…this has been demonstrated many, many, times to be a canard. By the definition used to support the claim, counting reduced taxes and depreciation of assets as “subsidies”, every person and company in this country is subsidized.

Not a tax expert, but I’d suggest a more meaningful definition of subsidized would be based on whether taxes paid are greater than costs incurred by the taxpayers. Pretty sure by this measure there’s no reasonable claim that the oil/coal/gas industry is subsidized.

rip

Neville

February 6, 2019 1:38 pm

I can’t wait for Nick to give us his two bobs worth about this post from Javier and his assessment of the data.
BTW how does HAD Crut 4 compare to UAH V 6 or Balloon data or GISS or BEST or RSS etc? Or perhaps compared to the average of all these data-sets?
Any ideas?

Well, it is pretty primitive curve fitting. Fig 4 sums it up. The differences are so noisy that they don’t come close to fitting in the plot, but a neat parabola is fitted, which just happens to dip below zero in 2018, hence the headline.

But the shape of the parabola is determined by all the data since 1959, not just recent years. It has just three parameters determined by all that data. Since 1959-1975 was cool, that pulls one end of the parabola down, and so the other end has to come down too. It’s little to do with recent warming.

“has nothing to do with end points”
Of course it does. The headline among other things is based on the fact that the parabola in Fig 4 dips below zero at the end.

That argument falls flat on its face when a 3rd order polynomial fit is used, that forces another inflection point in the data and should not result in a parabola.

The result is an extraordinarily similar curve that indicates a 3rd order polynomial fit is not an improvement and therefore a 2nd order polynomial fit should be used.

I know it is hard for you to accept that the planet is no longer warming, and that all these years you have been at the wrong side of the debate. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Javier,
No, the result depends on what happens at the other end. If you start at 1959, your analysis says that “warming has stopped”. The quadratic fitted trend drops to -0.00053 °C/year in Dec 2018.

But if you start in 1969, with the same data, the quadratic fitted trend is 0.00018 °C/year in Dec 2018. No change in recent circumstances. Warming restored. The result just changes because of what happened in the 1960’s.

What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.

The problem for you is that since the quadratic fit identifies 1994 as the peak, we can run a linear trend from 1994 to better identify when it cuts the X axis and the warming turns into cooling. With the linear trend since 1994 the planet is cooling since early 2016.

Any way you look at it your thesis is a failure and picking dates won’t change that.

Nick, Nick, Nick…
You’re a nice guy and you’re very polite here, which we all appreciate, but you’ve become a classic example of the climate ‘scientist’ oxymoron. Here’s why:

Temperatures are NOT measured to a hundred thousandth of a degree. So 0.00018 °C/month or /year or /whatever is meaningless. It’s complete crap!

But take solace in the fact that many of us here are pulling for you, as we recognize your potential. We don’t mind you pretending to be a scientist as long as you follow the rules: USE SIGNIFICANT FIGURES!!

Louis “Temperatures are NOT measured to a hundred thousandth of a degree”
I am not quoting temperatures. I am quoting a rate in °C/month (just like Javier). And to 2 significant figures.

Javier, “What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.”
No. The discovery is that your headline number, the trend at the end, can be made positive or negative as you wish by deciding when to start the period. Which says that your number is not actually determined by recent temperatures, warming or otherwise.

The Keeling net CO2 in atmosphere curve is approximated mathematically by the formula:

ppm = 0.013 t^2 + 0.518 t + 310.44 where t = the time in years since 1950

The UK workplace safety law for ppm CO2 is 5000 ppm.
setting the equation = 5000 and using the quadratic formula of (-b +/- ( (b^2 -4ac)^ 1/2)) / 2a

gives t= 580. Adding that to 1950 gives the year 2530. That is only 511 years away where we would choke to death on CO2 according to the UK workplace safety laws. I know that some places have long term limit exposure up to 8000 ppm but you get the point. Now we can worry about this or we can say 511 years is so far into the future that who in the hell cares. Howeverthe alarmists will not let this go aftertheir warming theory completely falls apart. This does bother me because the thought of mankind choking on his/her prosperity is a worry even if it is 511 years away. however some skeptics say that we will never be able to burn that much fossil fuels because we will run out way before then. I am not so sure.

However I still have a feeling in my gut that the CO2 numbers will either level off or they are fraudulent in the 1st place. Why arent more government agencies measuring the CO2 in the atmosphere? I wish Denmark would do it. I trust the Danes.

No. The discovery is that your headline number, the trend at the end, can be made positive or negative as you wish by deciding when to start the period. Which says that your number is not actually determined by recent temperatures, warming or otherwise.

Precisely. The declining trend in temperature rate of change is a very long one with over two decades. It does not depend on recent temperature changes.

If your point is that the precise time when the warming turned into cooling cannot be yet determined with trends because trends depend on starting and ending point, you are correct. But you are ignoring the elephant in the argumentation. We know warming rate has been declining for over 20 years, and we know that is close to zero. We know temperature has been decreasing since February 2016 in the longest, most profound cooling since 1973. The decline in temperature plus the decline in warming rate show that the planet is no longer warming. Your main argument for all these years, that CO2 controls temperature change is wrong. Arguing about a minutia about how to best determine the trend that shows you (and IPCC) are wrong might be satisfying to you, but it is pointless.

The article is correct. Long term changes in the temperature rate of change show that the planet is no longer warming. They do not depend on the recent change of temperature, but the temperature change for the past 16 years confirms it, and the cooling since 2016 is the final nail in IPCC’s hypothesis coffin.

I checked the uncertainties on the endpoint value. I did this by setting the time value to zero in Jan 2019, so the value there becomes the intercept. Starting in 1959, the slope at Jan 2019 was -0.0068°C/year, with uncertainty ±0.14 °C/year. IOW, conclusions based on the sign of that fitted trend are absolutely meaningless. And that is with OLS, not even allowing for autocorelation.

But what about my sophisticated iterative smoothing of the temperature data (using a binary filter). Until it gave the best match to a LOESS curve based on a 30-year local linear regression.

My article confirms that this article is correct. See my article called “A climate fairy tale”.

Sheldon,
Yes, the humour was tiresome, and it would have been better to explain more what you were doing. But AFAICS, you have only one fitted result, the 30-year (or is it 10?) LOESS, and that shows a decidedly positive warming rate. I can’t see any point in subtracting that from the data to get a supposed short-term.

I fitted 2 curves. One to match a 30-year LOESS curve, and one to match a 10-year LOESS curve.

I first used iterative smoothing with a binary filter, to get the best match to a LOESS curve based on a 30-year local linear regression. This is the first fitted curve. It shows the long-term warming rate.

I then used iterative smoothing with a binary filter, to get the best match to a LOESS curve based on a 10-year local linear regression. This is the second fitted curve. It shows the total warming rate.

If you are going to talk about the “long-term” warming rate, then that implies that there is a “short-term” or “medium-term” warming rate. Alarmists don’t want to acknowledge these other warming rates. But they like to draw attention to the “long-term” warming rate, when it matches their agenda.

Yes, my graph shows a “decidedly positive warming rate”. But it has been “decreasing” since about 2000. It has dropped from about +1.8 degrees Celsius per century (in 2000), to about +1.2 degrees Celsius per century (in 2018).

A 33% reduction in the long-term warming rate, while we have had record levels of CO2, and record emissions of CO2. Doesn’t something seem slightly strange about this, Nick. Or do you just interpret everything as evidence of accelerating global warming.

Sheldon,
You said “My article confirms that this article is correct”. The article is headed “The planet is no longer warming”. Then you say that “Yes, my graph shows a “decidedly positive warming rate””. Something doesn’t add up there.

Are you going to ignore the 33% reduction in the long-term warming rate, while we have had record levels of CO2, and record emissions of CO2. Doesn’t something seem slightly strange about this, Nick. Or do you just interpret everything as evidence of accelerating global warming.

“The global warming deceleration since 1994, and cooling since 2017 ”
Deceleration judgement over around 30 years period is acceptable, but any trend up or down over period of couple of years is meaningless on the multidecadal scale.

That’s just when the 24 year trend in decelerating temperature rate of change crossed the zero line.

DaveKeys

February 6, 2019 1:43 pm

Worldwide CO2 emissions are accelerating yet CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at the same rate, not accelerating. Implies the world is able to sink all this extra CO2.

Yes. The airborne fraction, the fraction of emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere, has been decreasing. This is for industrial emissions (fossil fuels + cement). There is a fudge factor with land use change emissions.

Yes, one of the fundamental, yet often unstated, tenets of global warming alarmism is that the CO2 removal rate from the atmosphere is too slow for us to wait and maybe change our emissions behavior in the event that things really did become serious.

If they admitted that we really can afford to wait and see, then the whole scam is dead in the water. Hence we get the continuous “must act now, only 5 years to save the planet” screeching. It is the universally-recognized approach of the untrustworthy salesman who want’s you to buy now and think later.

I prove the same thing, but with the GISTEMP monthly global Land and Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI).

I calculate the long-term warming rate, by smoothing the temperature data iteratively (using a binary filter), until it gave the best match to a LOESS curve based on a 30-year local linear regression.

A warning – you may not like my “lame” sense of humour. Skip over the humour if you don’t like it, and look at the graph. It is VERY interesting.

My article has 2 copies of the same graph. This proves that it is a high quality article. Because high quality articles usually have 2 or 3 graphs (The articles which only have 1 graph, are usually “cheap and nasty”).

Of course correlation does not prove causation, but this article seems to be arguing something different: that lack of correlation implies lack of causation. In other words, the argument seems to be that, since the increase in CO2 is uncorrelated with the change in temperatures, then CO2 change cannot be driving temperature change.

Problems:
-Picking a period since 1994, or 1960., when the temperature record goes back to the XIX century. Choose a longer timeframe and the correlation becomes clear.
-There are forcings other than CO2

I don’t have time right now to do a plot of forcing vs temperature since 1870, but if you do one you’ll see a very strong correlation: the more forcing, the more temperature. In fact you can see a strong correlation even if you exclusively look at CO2, though that’s not the right way to do it. It should be forcing in w/m2, not any version of ppm or (heaven forbid) emissions.

Of course the relationship is not exactly linear – even if climate sensitivity happened to be linear over time, you wouldn’t expect temperatures to increase exactly at the same pace as forcing. There are natural ups and downs, but whether these ups and downs contribute anything to the long-term warming is unknown.

Picking a period since 1994, or 1960., when the temperature record goes back to the XIX century. Choose a longer timeframe and the correlation becomes clear.

CO2 data goes only back to 1959 unless one is prepared to accept a lot of assumptions about how CO2 is recorded in ice cores.
Temperature records are increasingly unreliable as we go back in time. I would not trust any global temperature data prior to 1900, and global temperature data prior to 1950 has a great uncertainty.

There are forcings other than CO2

Exactly my final point.

And yes, lack of correlation implies lack of causation. Particularly since the rate of increase in CO2 keeps accelerating and the rate of change in temperature keeps decelerating. There is no way to explain that as CO2-caused.

The CO2 record goes far into the past with direct measurement using a well-known chemical method. The 1959 record commenced with “real time” measurements because of the availability of a new (NDIR) technology which was not as good as the chemical method (lower resolution) but was continuous.

The suggestion that CO2 was only measured starting in 1959 is literally fake news. Don’t believe it even though it appears on multiple websites.

Consider: how did Arrhenius know what the CO2 concentration was in the atmosphere to make his (erroneous) calculations of potential warming in 1895?

He used the well known chemical method that had already been in use for seventy-five years. No proxies involved.

There is no explanation required for the differences, which I would not describe as “vast”. The chemical method is very accurate – certainly more accurate by two or three orders of magnitude than the first NDIR instruments.

One doesn’t challenge the results of a set of accurate measurements on the basis that someone else measured somewhere else and got different numbers. That is interesting, not wrong.

Javier feels that the measurements were more reliable because they were far away and high. This is not strictly correct. One can argue they are more representative of the global average, but certainly not that the other measurements were in any meaningful sense less valid. In 1959 the chemical methods were well understood and in all likelihood the instrument was calibrated using gases tested using chemical methods. It was the standard, not the primitive NDIR readings.

I have made surface air measurements myself using very good instruments and have not yet found numbers as low as the low 400’s. Never. There is a ground station at Cape Point which I have visited that monitors CO2, mercury and other gases 24/7. The readings are downloadable. The air (mostly) blows there from the deep south, very pure and clean – no industry. There is another in the high Arctic in Canada. CO2 and mercury and other trace gases are not all that well distributed. Proof? Readings taken around the world. Do they agree with the ones in Hawaii?

As for CO2, there is no reason to assume that “high” readings taken in the 1940’s were made using an in accurate method. That is just not so. And the readings were what they were. They don’t need correcting. They may have been unrepresentative of the global average, but it is unjustifiable to say they were “wrong”. Not liking the numbers, or finding them inconvenient, or wishing other numbers were also available does not impugn the good work of earlier scientists.

Such work can be very valuable. Consider how the seasonal ozone fluctuations over Antarctica were missed because of the presuppositions of scientists as to what constituted acceptable numbers. The numbers are what they are. Explain them.

The OCO satellite shows what the measurements on the ground already demonstrated: that CO2 is not all that well mixed especially lower in the atmosphere. *Yawn* Well-read people already knew that.

Such work can be very valuable. Consider how the seasonal ozone fluctuations over Antarctica were missed because of the presuppositions of scientists as to what constituted acceptable numbers. The numbers are what they are. Explain them.

The seasonal ozone fluctuations over Antarctica were not missed. The first season of measurements (1957) yielded a different behavior than observed with the same instruments in the Arctic (a sudden rise in November). As a result it was suspected that there may be a problem with the instrument which was returned to Oxford to be debugged. There was found to be no problem and subsequent readings were accepted and it was recognized that the seasonal behavior was different in the Antarctic. In the late 70s it was observed that the springtime O3 levels were starting to drop dramatically and it was realized that something different was happening. It’s true that the first satellite results that NASA got in the early 80s weren’t immediately recognized because of the lack of previous data, when the BAS results were pointed out to them they were reevaluated.

Crispin,
The problem with the chemical method is that the measurements were not done properly. In most places there are huge variations in CO2 in a matter of an hour. The genius of Keeling was to establish very high on an island far from the continents where at night with the air coming from above he was taking near global measurements. Nobody had accomplished that before him. The record we can trust starts in 1959.

Here is Ernst-Georg Beck thesis, in which he explains how CO2 air concentrations has been measured since 1812 with chimical methods and shows that those measurements gave similar or higher concentrations in the past (1850, 1940) than now :

I have read one other paper by Beck on chemical atmospheric CO2 determinations over the last two centuries. It has always puzzled me why his studies are ignored when they document the long-term evidence for higher CO2 contents in the atmosphere more than a century ago than currently are accepted as gospel.

I also wonder why this issue has not received more attention at WUWT.

The argument is at the bottom of good sense: Picking “1870”, whereas global warming started out from the Little Ice Age, back in the 17 Cty. It is even better to go further back into the MedWarmperiod and start out from there with the temp decrease since 1000 AD.
…really bad.

Any estimated climate forcing in w/m2 for CO2 is an invalid assumption built on more assumptions. CO2 is primarily produced by the warming and cooling action of the solar-warmed ocean. It lags ocean temperature change at a 99.5% significance by 10-12 months, so therefore is not participating in the warming of the ocean. UAH global correlates at 97% to the ocean, and UAH land at 77% with the ocean, both at 99.5% significance.

The ocean drives the atmosphere and CO2. The sun warms/cools the ocean via high/low TSI-insolation.

Alberto, you do understand the caution that correlation with a variable does not NECESSARILY reflect causation? But, you do need to in fact have correlation with its causation to have a legitimate case for it. In other words, if you have corelation between two variables it may not indicate a causal relation. However if you DON’T have a correlation between variables, then that means the variables fail the test of a causal relation.

I’ve noted some confusion on this point, perhaps by non scientists. It is a bit like the lobsided over-stressing of “our rights” with nary a nod to “our responsibilities” the other half of the balanced understanding of the societal obligation.

It’s not a “strong correlation”. It’s just two series that happen to be going in the same direction on average, but not very closely aligned in general. Having two series go in the same direction is merely a coin toss – a 50/50 proposition.

I find it one of the most irritating facets of the media’s treatment of the subject, that having one ‘hot’ year followed by another is somehow noteworthy or exceptional.

The hottest day of the year is quite likely to be next to the second hottest day of the year.

A new stock market all-time-high likely had another, slightly lower, all-time-high the day before or the day after.

If you find yourself on the highest mountain summit on earth (Everest North Summit) it is quite likely that you also climbed the second highest mountain summit on earth shortly before hand (Everest South Summit).

When the climate charlatans realized they couldn’t persuade anybody with actual science, they decided to go the way of claiming “records” instead. It’s fine for click-baity sports reporting, but it’s really no way to try and direct the course of the world’s economy.

And how long are the records ? About a 100 years like Australia’s most likely when we had a reasonable Stevenson Screen rollout around 1910 after Federation. What year is it by the way and why?

Krishna Gans

February 6, 2019 1:57 pm

[GHG] of which CO2 is the most important one

Certainely not. H2O vapor is the most important. Other claims stay wrong (beside CH4, but not involved in “the Cause”)

You forget these climatologists actually come from and study Venus, where CO2 *IS* the most important greenhouse gas. They just can’t wrap their collective Venusian minds around this vapor called H2O.

Mark Twain observed, “The trouble with most of us is that we know too much that ain’t so.”
Adding to the “Δ33C without an atmosphere” (see other article) that completely ain’t so is the example of Venus.

Venus, we are told, has an atmosphere that is almost pure carbon dioxide and an extremely high surface temperature, 750 K, and this is allegedly due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE. But the only apparent defense is, “Well, WHAT else could it BE?!”

Well, what follows is the else it could be. (Q = U * A * ΔT)

Venus is 70% of the distance to the sun so its average solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense as that of earth, 2,615 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,368 W/m^2.

But the albedo of Venus is 0.77 compared to 0.31 for the Earth – or – Venus 601.5 W/m^2 net ASR (absorbed solar radiation) compared to Earth 943.9 W/m^2 net ASR.

The Venusian atmosphere is 250 km thick as opposed to Earth’s at 100 km. Picture how hot you would get stacking 1.5 more blankets on your bed. RGHE’s got jack to do with it, it’s all Q = U * A * ΔT.

The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.

Put the higher irradiance & albedo (lower Q = lower ΔT), thickness (greater thickness increases ΔT) and conductivity (lower conductivity raises ΔT) all together: 601.5/943.9 * 250/100 * 0.0240/0.0146 = 2.61.

So, Q = U * A * ΔT suggests that the Venusian ΔT would be 2.61 times greater than that of Earth. If the surface of the Earth is 15C/288K and ToA is effectively 0K then Earth ΔT = 288K. Venus ΔT would be 2.61 * 288 K = 748.8 K surface temperature.

All explained, no need for any S-B BB RGHE hocus pocus.

“Adding to the “Δ33C without an atmosphere” (see other article) that completely ain’t so is the example of Venus.”

Who cares what the Earth’s surface temperature would be if “there was no atmosphere”? That is simply not relevant. You are discussing the effect of a GHG in an atmosphere. So…talk about the effect of the GHG in that atmosphere, not about a planet with no atmosphere.

The atmosphere is heated directly by the surface and by GHG’s intercepting and reradiating energy. You have discussed the effect of the radiative component of the total heating but not considered the surface heating (convective heat transfer).

We can all agree that the radiative component of the total heating is zero when the GHG are zero, but the atmosphere would still be heated by the surface in that condition. What the equilibrium temperature would be in that condition is yet to be determined but solar heating of the surface doesn’t stop when the GHG are present or not.

No matter how much heating is caused by GHG’s the surface heating is always part of the total. It is missing from your calculations above.

288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with the atmosphere is rubbish. 288 K is a WAG pulled from WMO’s butt. NOAA/Trenberth use 289 K. The 255 K is a theoretical S-B temperature calculation for a 240 W/m^2 ToA (w/ atmosphere!!) ASR/OLR balance (1,368/4 *.7) based on a 30% albedo.

By definition no atmosphere includes no clouds, no water vapor, no oceans, no vegetation, no ice, no snow an albedo perhaps much like the moon’s 0.15. 70% of the lit side would always be above freezing, 100 % for weeks due to the seasonal tilt, not that it matters since there would be no water to freeze.

Without the atmosphere the earth will get 20% to 40% more kJ/h depending on its naked albedo. That means a solar wind 20 to 30 C hotter w/o an atmosphere not 33 C colder. The atmosphere is like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.

The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.
That is the value of thermal conductivity at 20ºC, the value at the surface of Venus (T=~750K) would be more like 0.05 W/m-K, double that of air.
In any case what controls the temperature of the planet is the heat loss to space which is not by conduction but by radiation so your calculation is meaningless..

Venus has NO internal Dynamo, which creates magnetism, to protect it from the solar wind. Earths first line of resistance (the bow shock) is some 56,000 miles from the surface . Venus has NO magnetic reconnection on the night side to hold on to an atmosphere.

Rich Davis

February 6, 2019 2:03 pm

I think that it has to be obvious to 98% of the regular commenters here that something else “must be more important than CO2.”

It’s a strange master control knob that sometimes lowers the output as you turn it up and other times raises the output as you turn it up, and still other times doesn’t do anything at all when you turn it up. One thing we have been doing for a century or more is turning up the supposed control knob, but we’ve seen cooling, warming, and the pause. It’s like the master control knob is just there so that we think we have some control, but actually it isn’t even connected.

“It’s a strange master control knob that sometimes lowers the output as you turn it up and other times raises the output as you turn it up, and still other times doesn’t do anything “
It is just like the control (non-thermostat) knob on a home heater. You can turn it up, but if the weather outside got colder, the house may too, and conversely. That doesn’t mean the heater doesn’t have a warming effect.

My thoughts exactly! And with an analogy that I couldn’t have come up with myself. We need Nick to spread the news where ever he goes. Thanks in advance, Nick!

More like the control knob on a busted home heater. You can pretend that the knob is actually doing something all you want, but the reality is, you’re gonna freeze.

“More like the control knob on a busted home heater.”
No, on a working home heater. Sometimes it may get colder even when you’re trying to get the temperature up, if it is very cold outside. But it’s still warmer with the heater than without. You wouldn’t want to be without it in winter.

But you’d like to be able to turn it down in summer.

“…It is just like the control (non-thermostat) knob on a home heater. You can turn it up, but if the weather outside got colder, the house may too, and conversely. That doesn’t mean the heater doesn’t have a warming effect…”

Yeah, it’s “just like” that…CO2 tries to keep making things warmer, but if outer space gets colder, CO2 may be unsuccessful, lol.

Nick,
You realize that you just made my point don’t you? (well Javier’s point really)

Temperatures are fluctuating up and down practically oblivious to CO2, because the CO2 tail can’t wag the atmospheric dog. There are other factors that are more important.

And yes, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (as they never are), more CO2 in the atmosphere should produce some weak warming. If the natural factors are cooling, it would theoretically cool less, and if those more powerful factors are warming then it would tend to enhance the warming. You never saw me deny this.

“And yes, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (as they never are)”

No because we all know the sun is burning up and getting cooler so the CO2 is slowing down our date with the great big global Vortex so Nick doesn’t want anxious folk to worry so much about that. Trust CO2 as it’s putting off our date with destiny.

Nice going, Nick! So given the fact that you also defend the notion that CO2 is the control knob for earth temperature and therefore Global Warming, you should also acknowledge the fact that there are other influences far stronger than that.

It’s connected, but it forces (controls) in opposite ways at different altitudes. CO2 warms the boundary layer (surface) temperature, particularly on land. CO2 also cools the stratosphere. According to MODTRAN 3.14 W/m2 of CO2 radiance goes to space above the tropical tropopause. This is virtually the same as CO2 downwelling radiance at the surface. According to CERES net radiation to space is flat or slightly increasing as a result of this offset.

Gravity creates the lapse rate. Entropy insures that cold air at altitude and warm air at the surface will mix.

Yooper

February 6, 2019 2:18 pm

Copied this from Ryan Maue’s Twitter feed:
I have plotted the last 60-years of actual global temperatures for every month (JRA-55) reanalysis:

You can calculate the average each year (Jan – Dec) to confirm the rankings:

2019 might be warmer than 2018 given the positive Niño index and atmospheric situation, but I expect 2020-22 to be cooler than 2018 on account of low solar activity, East QBO and La Niña.

By then we probably will be looking at 20 years without warming and a highly unusual 5-6 year cooling trend. All of that no doubt caused by our emissions.

One might well object that three years aren’t significant. But under growing CO2, if the magic gas be the control knob on climate, this observation would require some explaining.

But let’s consider more climatically meaningful time frames. Earth has cooled for three years, but probably warmed for the past 30. It has definitely warmed for the past 300 years, since the end of the Maunder Minimum during the depths of the Little Ice Age. But it has cooled drastically and dangerously for over 3000 years, since the Minoan Warm Period. The planet has however warmed since 30,000 years ago, during a less cold interval in the last frigid ice age, before descent into the Last Glacial Maximum.

Three hundred thousand years ago was also a middling phase of the ice sheet advance before the one before the last one. But three million years ago, toward the end of the Pliocene Epoch, Earth was toastier than now or since that time. Thirty million years ago, the Oligocene planet was already in its present Ice House, with an ice sheet on Antarctica, but still even balmier than during the Pliocene. As it so happens, 300 million years ago Earth was also in an ice age in an Icehouse climatic mode. But the clement Mesozoic Era intervened.

CO2 follows these fluctuations. It’s much more an effect of climate than its cause.

Actually it doesn’t.
CO2 disagrees with temperatures between 2002 and now
CO2 agrees with temperatures between 1976-2002
CO2 disagrees with temperatures between 1945-1976
CO2 agrees with temperatures for the past 600 years.
CO2 disagrees with temperatures for the previous 10,000 years.
CO2 agrees with temperatures for the Pleistocene, but we know temperatures in the Pleistocene respond to Milankovitch.
CO2 disagrees with temperatures in the past 50 million years during the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene.
For the previous 500 million years CO2 only agrees with temperatures during the Late Carboniferous and Permian.

It is surprising how much deception there is regarding past temperature-CO2 correlation. CO2 has been decreasing over time, with very low values during the Karoo and Cenozoic Ice Ages. Temperature is cyclical, with a c. 140 million years period. They both coincide essentially during Ice Ages, when both are low.

Javier,
CO2 obviously isn’t exclusively driven by ocean temperature. There are other factors that can temporarily overcome the basic rule that CO2 solubility in water is temperature dependent and most of the CO2 in the “system” is in the ocean. For example, burning fossil fuels can drive concentration above equilibrium. Sequestering in carbonate rock over eons means that the equilibrium concentration drops independent of temperature. Unusual volcanism, significant changes in land use, etc.

But wouldn’t you agree that when the total amount of CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere system is stable, CO2 follows (lags behind) temperature change? As we see in the seasonal variation of the MLO CO2?

To the extent that we see rising CO2 at the onset of a stadial or decreasing CO2 during some warming periods demonstrates that the warming effect of CO2 is weak compared to other factors and certainly not the master control knob on climate. Temperature can vary independent of CO2 and often has.

I think that John’s point was that where we see a correlation between temperature and CO2, it is generally temperature driving CO2 and not the other way around as commonly believed by the CAGW faithful.

Yes, Javier, that is consistent with what I said. My limited point is that in the short term, CO2 usually increases when ocean temperature increases, and usually decreases when ocean temperature decreases. Just glance at the Mauna Loa data to see that.

Long term it cannot be driven solely by temperature because the total amount of CO2 is changing. (But it is always required that the partial pressures are balanced at equilibrium).

You surely recall Al Gore’s chart showing CO2-temperature correlation. Much virtual ink has been spilled here on how he showed accurate data but ignored the fact that CO2 rose and fell after temperature rose or fell.

Temperature controls the variation around the trend in increasing CO2 even today. This control is not primarily the oceans, which despite enormous bidirectional fluxes, yields a small net to the atmosphere with increasing temperature and appear to currently be a small net Carbon sink. Soils, on the other hand yield a 60 Gt unidirectional flux that increases with temperature.

CO2 fell as temperature fell from its mid-Eocene high to its Pleistocene low. Dunno why you say it didn’t.

The shorter periods don’t signify. It takes time to equilibrate, and human emissions skewed the natural process in the past century.

Of course more volcanism releases more CO2. That can swamp the effects of outgassing from the oceans. But that doesn’t change the fact that warmer seawater releases more CO2. Same as beer.

The deception appears to be yours in this case.
CO2 fell as temperature fell from its mid-Eocene high to its Pleistocene low. Dunno why you say it didn’t.

Because I downloaded CO2 proxy data from Foster et al., 2017, and Beerling & Royer, 2011, and compared it to temperature proxy data from Zachos et al., 2001.

You probably haven’t done this so you don’t know what you talk about. Between 50 Ma and 3 Ma temperature and CO2 show a decline, but there is no correlation between them. They decline at different times and often show opposite trends for millions of years.

Before talking about deception take the time to study the data. Otherwise, shut the f**k up.

Robert of Texas

February 6, 2019 2:32 pm

“The planet is no longer warming”

Saying “the planet is no longer warming”, or that “it hasn’t warmed since 1994” are not the same thing. If you take a more long term view, the planet is very likely still warming, on average over enough time – like 100 or 1,000 years. It is possible we just happen to live at the exact right time to observe a flip in temperature change, but not likely.

This really has little to do with the hypothesis that “CO2 is the main controlling factor of temperature change”. We can still be warming, and warming a lot, and that hypothesis still wrong. It is almost certainly wrong in my opinion. I accept that CO2 likely contributes to temperature change, and I will go so far as to accept that CO2 produced by man’s burning of fossil fuels likely contributes (that is, it increases by some amount the CO2 in the atmosphere), but it likely plays only a small role.

The problem is that so many people in the climate studies are so certain they have already discovered the answer that they are no longer looking for any other contributors – they leave that to the skeptics.

It may be that the acceleration of temperature change has decreased… If CO2 plays only a minor role, than that is possible and CO2 can STILL contribute to overall warming. I am pleased that within the next 10 years or so we should know better the effects of a “quiet” Sun on the climate. By then it should be obvious to the most dense of people that CO2 is NOT the control knob that is claimed – unless of course warming accelerates and CO2 turns out to be more important than I realize (so I turn out to be the most dense of people instead, I accept that as a possibility too).

My only fear is not global warming, but the poisoning and contamination of the scientific process and the collected climate data used to study these effects – this scares me. One may not come to a correct conclusion if one is given only tainted data and fed politically correct explanations. The politics involved in this “science” possesses the capability to cause great suffering if we allow it – the diversion of wealth to political aims, creating a “fair” playing field to replace capitalism’s survival of the fittest, etc.

One has to set a time frame for consideration. Over the past 540 million years Earth’s temperature has been constrained quite narrowly between 12 and 30°C. Now at 14.5°C it is in a very cold state.

The average period considered for a variable to constitute climate is usually 30 years. That is what most people also consider as long-term view. People are not motivated much by what is going to pass in 100 years, and not at all for what is going to happen in 500 years.

If we are looking to two decades of cooling, that is highly significant, even if the temperature just returns to what it was in the early 1980s, that was not so different from the present, despite all the noise from alarmists.

30 years is too short. We have identified various cyclical climatic drivers of 60+ years. It has been argued that the UN IPCC climate models were tuned to a natural temperature upswing period.

30 years is too short. We have identified various cyclical climatic drivers of 60+ years.

30 years is not too short to tell whether it’s warming or not.

If there are cyclical drivers that change the degree of warming or cooling over longer periods, that’s a different thing. But you can still get a solid snapshot of whether the Earth is warming or cooling by just looking at 30 years of surface temperature data.

If you take a more long term view, the planet is very likely still warming, on average over enough time – like 100 or 1,000 years.

I don’t think you need to go that long; a period of ~30 years pretty much averages out the natural internal surface temperature fluctuations well enough to get a picture of whether the Earth is warming or not. Or, if you look at the ocean heat content, you could just average over a decade.

The OP is a good example of “down the up-escalator”. Even while the multidecadal uptrend continues, there will of course be variations around that, and the “skeptics” will claim every downward wiggle as proof that warming has stopped. When it warms, they quiet down for a while, until the next downward wiggle commences, generally from a higher base.

The fact that this continued through 2013, with so many people on this forum saying “it’ll be cooling soon!” and then, after hitting higher record temperatures for several years, it started again… man, this is plainly motivated reasoning. It doesn’t pass scientific muster. You can’t just cherry-pick the short-term trends that fit your views and ignore the rest.

Like, imagine asking Javier to put error bars on his polynomial trendline. Do you think you’d really be able to make any conclusions about whether warming had slowed or not? Hahahaha, of course not. The data is far too noisy to draw conclusions about the second derivative of the temperature. But Javier plowed ahead regardless, sans uncertainty estimates.

This is simply bad science, and it’s because of stuff like this that the skeptics are ignored by the mainstream scientific community. This work is bad, non-rigorous.

Sara

February 6, 2019 2:43 pm

“In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing at the same rapid rate.” – article.

You mean – all that hysterical pointing and shouting and protesting was much ado about nothing? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Two hot days in July when the defrost switch in my fridge quit and had to be replaced on the circuit board do NOT constitute a hot summer!!!! Not NOHOW!!!

The summer of 1953 was subject to a heat wave in central Illinois. I was 6YO and remember it well because we had an icebox instead of a fridge (don’t get me started!) and spent a good deal of time on the front porch swing after the sun went down, just cooling off. But it was nice to have an icebox because the guy who delivered the ice would break chunks off the blocks for us kids to enjoy. Good times!

People that have lived long enough to have memories expanding >60 years have experienced an entire 60-year oscillation and can call their bluff on dangerous global warming. The youngsters however are accepting what they are told unquestioningly.

Admad

February 6, 2019 2:51 pm

But… but… but… CO2 does EVERYTHING!

RonR

February 6, 2019 2:52 pm

“According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.”

I’m not tracking this. If a refrigerator removed 120% of the heat inside, would it not both, violate The Law of Conservation and basic Arithmetic?

Their rationale is that GHGs caused more warming than is observed, but human-caused aerosols cooled what is not observed. With that neat little trick they can assign CO2 any climate sensitivity they want, and project future warming to infinity and beyond.

The sum of the causes (water vapor, proxy quantified by SSN anomaly time-integral, SST trend 64 year cycle) stopped increasing. CO2 effect, if any, is not one of them.

NASA/RSS have been measuring the ghg water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988. WV was rising with a trend of about 1.5% per decade which is about twice that calculated by vapor pressure increase of the warming surface water. The WV rise correlates with rising irrigation.

Discounting the aberration of the el Nino that peaked in Jan, 2016, it appears water vapor trend has settled at about 29 kg/m^2 which is about 7% more than it was in 1960.

Water vapor (TPW) increase leads lower troposphere temperature increase and both ignore CO2.

Jeff

February 6, 2019 3:00 pm

NOAA have finally update the the US-CRN temperature data, after the shutdown.
This is a reliable, high quality temperature recording network in pristine locations.

For the yearly average jan-dec, 2018 was cooler than 2006. 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017
and about the same a 2005 and 2007.

Of course you play with Cowtan’s HAD Crut 4 data and find little warming from 1930 to 1990 ( co2 then 350ppm). About 0.02 c /decade, so doesn’t seem to respond much over that longer period of time either.
There must be any number of OTHER control knobs like the Sun, Ocean oscillations, more/less clouds day or night etc, etc.
Also Antarctica seems to miss out on their so called CAGW for a very long time as well. Why is it so? http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

2nd order polynomial fit because the 3rd order gives the same curve and a lower order is always preferred.
1959 because it is when CO2 data becomes available so both can be compared.

Any order polynomial is a joke, sorry. It’s sinuous.

Patrick MJD

February 6, 2019 4:31 pm

Maybe the world *IS* cooling!

“Hupman is part of a team studying leopard seals, an Antarctic species increasingly being seen further north in New Zealand. The researchers are trying to find out why.”

“But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations. The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing. In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing at the same rapid rate.”

Javier:
There are other anthro GHG’s affecting GMTs.
How about CH4?
Which happened to have a sig fall in it’s rate of rise in the early 90’s
and was vitually flat from circa ’98 to ’08

So we are talking of a near 2:3 ratio here.
If you must have your “Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing”

How about …. “Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years because CH4 levels have been increasing more slowly” ?

“…Methane concentrations in the atmosphere were pretty stable in the 2000s,” says Rob Jackson, an earth scientist at Stanford and co-author on both studies. “But in the last decade they’ve gone up ten times faster than they did in 2000-2006, and they’ve gone up faster still in 2014-15…”

A “pretty stable” decade doesn’t account for 20 years.

All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no change in average global temperature since about 2002.
CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002
1800 avg. Lawdome, Neftel, Friedli = 281.6 ppmv
2002 avg. Mauna Loa/Keeling = 373.3 ppmv
Nov, 2018 Keeling = 410.0 ppmv
Given this latest flat temperature and two previous 30+ year downtrends in temperature with relentlessly rising CO2, demonstrate that CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature.

What then, if not CO2?

NASA/RSS have been measuring the ghg water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988. WV was rising with a trend of about 1.5% per decade which is about twice that calculated by vapor pressure increase of the warming surface water. The WV rise correlates with rising irrigation.

Discounting the aberration of the el Nino that peaked in Jan, 2016, it appears water vapor trend has settled at about 29 kg/m^2 which is about 7% more than it was in 1960. Water vapor (TPW) increase leads lower troposphere temperature increase and both ignore CO2.
IMO the human contribution (via increased irrigation) to warming has ended but the increased risk of precipitation related flooding will continue.

Graph, reference links and detailed calculations are in Section 9 of my blog/analysis (click my name)

JoeG

February 6, 2019 5:37 pm

We still have the same four seasons here in New England. Each still lasts about 91.25 days. It’s been that way since anyone can remember.

Climate is good, no change. Check. 🙂

Alan Tomalty

February 6, 2019 6:22 pm

The Keeling net CO2 in atmosphere curve is approximated mathematically by the formula:

ppm = 0.013 t^2 + 0.518 t + 310.44 where t = the time in years since 1950

The UK workplace safety law for ppm CO2 is 5000 ppm.
setting the equation = 5000 and using the quadratic formula of (-b +/- ( (b^2 -4ac)^ 1/2)) / 2a

gives t= 580. Adding that to 1950 gives the year 2530. That is only 511 years away where we would choke to death on CO2 according to the UK workplace safety laws. I know that some places have long term limit exposure up to 8000 ppm but you get the point. Now we can worry about this or we can say 511 years is so far into the future that who in the hell cares. Howeverthe alarmists will not let this go aftertheir warming theory completely falls apart. This does bother me because the thought of mankind choking on his/her prosperity is a worry even if it is 511 years away. however some skeptics say that we will never be able to burn that much fossil fuels because we will run out way before then. I am not so sure.

However I still have a feeling in my gut that the CO2 numbers will either level off or they are fraudulent in the 1st place. Why arent more government agencies measuring the CO2 in the atmosphere? I wish Denmark would do it. I trust the Danes.

Gordon Dressler

February 6, 2019 6:25 pm

Uhhhh . . . help! I am at a complete loss to understand the meaning of this single sentence that comprises the second paragraph of Javier’s article above:
“According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.”

For any given observation and postulated cause of such (e.g., Earth’s daylight sky appears to be blue as the result of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight), how can the postulated cause explain more that 100% of the observation.

The statement defies logic, so I’m hoping it is directly attributable to the IPCC instead of to Javier.

Javier, I saw the previous comment and read your response to that, but it did provide and clarification.

Something is either “observed” or it is not. It does not matter how many different “forcings” lead to the observation and how many of these were “positive” versus “negative” (thereby offsetting one another to some degree), the net combination provides the end observation. IMHO, there is simply no logical way to explain something being 120% or 200% of the cause of anything, but it being less than 100% of the cause is a completely rational condition.

Such a statement does not even merit being called a “trick.”

Establishing a budget from positive and negative contributions that cannot be properly measured is an exercise in hypocrisy. Yet climatologists do it all the time. For temperature using climate forcings in W/m2. For sea level rise using unknown contributions from underground waters, surface waters, glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica, with a fudge factor for steric rise.

All that has zero value as it is all based on suppositions. They use it to justify the final observation any way they want by adjusting positive and negative contributions and the only criterion is the consensus. They need to do it because it is all based on models. But they then act as if their models had merit, when they not.

No trafamadore. The temperature rate of change has been decreasing since 1994. This has nothing to do with El Niño. I think your last phrase refers to yourself as you cannot get the right information from the article and figures 3 and 4.

You are confusing the rate of change (first derivative of temperature) with the acceleration (second derivative). From 1994 to now the average rate of rise in temperature is 0.01788 degrees per year.

But, we’re happy to use a Super El Nino at the end of a temperature trend?

Antero Ollila

February 6, 2019 10:00 pm

I have challenged people to find out what is the IPCC model calculated temperature of AR5, but nobody has ever found it. Now I see the first time a graphical presentation in Figure 1 showing that the observed temperature in 2011 (the reference year of AR5) has been 0.65 °C and the anthropogenic effect on the temperature increase would have been 0.7 °C (estimated from Figure 1). I checked one again once again SPM, but I could not identify a Figure 1 of this blog. So, on which page we can find it in SPM or in AR5?

What we can easily find in SPM/AR5 is Figure SPM.5 “Radiative forcing relative to 1750”. It is the summary of radiative forcing (RF) elements according to the IPCC. It shows that the total anthropogenic RF is 2.29 W/m2 and the only non-anthropogenic RF is an increase 0.05 W/m2 of the solar irradiance, together 2.34 W/m2. The IPCC has used huge efforts to find out these RF values, but they do not show, what is the temperature effect of this RF value? Why not? What is the problem? Maybe they do not know how to transform RF values into temperatures? If they do not know, why to carry out so much work?

They know quite exactly how to do this final step. The problem is that the result is a piece of very bad news to the IPCC. The IPCC has a simple climate model, and it is dT = CSP * RF, where CSP is climate sensitivity parameter and its IPCC value is 0.5 K/(W/m2). This value means that the positive water feedback has been applied duplicating the anthropogenic radiative forcing values.
So, the temperature change from 1750 to 2011 is 0.5 * 2.34 = 1.17 °C. What is the observed temperature change from 1750 to 2011? This is also a figure you cannot find in AR5. It is one of those ways how the IPCC muddles the water by changing all the time the reference years. This is what you can find in SPM/AR5: “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.

Finally, we get the difference between the IPCC model calculated temperature and the observed temperature and it is 1.17 °C – 0.85 °C meaning an error of 37.7 %. Today this error is even greater. That is the simple reason, why you cannot see these figures anywhere. I have noticed that the journalists of the media never ask this simple question: What is the present observed temperature change since 1750 and what is the model calculated temperature? They are interested in temperatures of 2030, 2050 or 2100.

Antero, figure 1 for this article is figure SPM.3 of AR5 Synthesis Report – Summary for Policymakers, page 6.

If you search internet for figures using its figure caption you will find it multiple times.

“Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for warming trends over the 1951–2010 period from well-mixed greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings (including the cooling effect of aerosols and the effect of land use change), combined anthropogenic forcings, natural forcings and natural internal climate variability (which is the element of climate variability that arises spontaneously within the climate system even in the absence of forcings).”

Nylo

February 6, 2019 11:56 pm

“If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.”

Not really. The IPCC hypothesis considers ALL of the observed warming in the ~70 years since 1950, and says that natural causes, if any, had a very small impact in the overall. This doesn’t mean that they cannot have an impact in the last, say, 10 years. What it says is that in the longer term, any effects must have cancelled out., but you can of course get short periods with faster or slower warming without it being because of changes in CO2 concentration rise.

And of course I am playing devil’s advocate here. For me IPCC is wrong. But the way to fight IPCC’s wrongness shouldn’t be to misrepresent their position.

The IPCC hypothesis considers ALL of the observed warming in the ~70 years since 1950, and says that natural causes, if any, had a very small impact in the overall.

For the past 24 years the rate of warming has been decreasing, and that includes the last 16 years of their analysis. If natural causes didn’t cause that, what did? And if it was natural causes, they cannot be insignificant. Anyway their hypothesis is wrong.

Curve fitting is nice an can provide valuable insights.
But it should always be provided with confidence intervals, otherwise it can induce a false sense of certainty.

John Tiltman mentions “Cooled books”. Can we of WUWT prove that, and if so can we force the Politicians to look at the two sets of figures, plus a demand for punishment against those who are Cooking the books.

After all ” Fraud is a criminal offence.

MJE

G A Keen

February 7, 2019 4:11 am

Javier always works in “rates of change” of temperature , and even defines “warming” in terms of “rates of change” .
Right at the start , he opens with this definition :-
“We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time “.
Surely “warming” must mean a simple rise in temperature between two points in time , which is NOT the same as Javier’s definition .

Even if a “rate of change “ decreases , the globe can still be warming , but slower so .

Even a “ negative rate” could still have a globe warming but below an arbitrary “zero” value set by the arbitrary choice of where you start (and finish) , ie still warming but at a rate below a selected value you have chosen for whatever reason (in Javier’s case , the selection of a start point was .1959 when CO2 started being accurately measured in real time) .
As Nick Stokes says , you can move that start point around to vary the zero value , which thus becomes arbitrary .

Thus , is it possible the globe was still warming but even more slowly in 2018 , when Javier’s “rate-of-change” curve becomes negative ?

Does Javier’s conclusion still hold if you work in actual temperature values rather than in “rates of change “ ?

“a simple rise in temperature between two points in time” necessarily implies a positive rate of temperature change between those two points in time.

This is really simple yet most people get it wrong. Temperature and temperature rate of change are equivalent to distance and velocity. Forces act on velocity not on distance, distance is the result. Forcings act on temperature rate of change, temperature is the result. Comparing forcings to temperature only leads to confusion. A reduction in velocity indicates braking, yet distance continues to increase. A reduction in temperature rate of change indicates a decrease in warming, yet temperature continues to increase until the rate of change becomes negative.

No, his conclusions are incorrect. To avoid confusion I prefer to talk in terms of derivatives wrt. time.

The points on his plt 3 are estimates of the first derivative. If you do a linear trendline, it rises, showing that the second derivative is positive, i.e. the rate of temperature increase is increasing. If you look at his red line with curvature, the curvature represents the third derivative. This has no statistical significance. Javier uses the third derivative (negative) to argue that the second derivative (positive) is negative. I suggest he stands back and contemplates his work.

If you do a linear trendline, it rises, showing that the second derivative is positive, i.e. the rate of temperature increase is increasing.

The linear fit gives you the overall result. Warming overall increased, which we already know since temperature increased. But it doesn’t tell you what it has been doing recently, so you are incorrect that the rate of temperature change is increasing. It is not.

This has no statistical significance. Javier uses the third derivative (negative) to argue that the second derivative (positive) is negative. I suggest he stands back and contemplates his work.

Things only acquire statistical significance once they are in the past. Statistics is usually inconclusive about things that are happening in the present. Plenty of things that were not statistically significant ended up being real. A lot of people have a poor understanding of statistics. It is not the final arbiter of what is real and what is not.

Regarding the meaning of iterative derivation, I think you need to go back and study more.

G A Keen

February 7, 2019 4:21 am

Of course , I do appreciate that even a possible reducing rate of “warming” (my definition) still permits Javier’s basic conclusions .

OMG. Every semi-stable oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected system, every “greening” measure, every orbital metric condition, every long term paleo-proxy ice core, every receding glacier, and the wonderful CO2 metric that confirms our pleasant conditions, says we are in a wonderful interstadial warming plateau. It will continue to be at this slightly wriggly plateau till these systems get played out and Earth not only stops staying warm, but begins its jagged fall to large scale death and destruction as we all battle the ever decreasing conditions to the bottom of the stadial cold trough.

Looking for the little wriggles up and down during the pleasant, warm plateau just makes you look silly.

Expand that out, and you could honestly say we have been in an ice age for the past two million years, with brief respites every hundred and twenty thousand years or so. The previous inter-glacial warm period to our current one was much warmer at it’s peak than anything humans have seen in the past 10K years.

Dan DaSilva

February 7, 2019 7:31 am

We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time”. Is that a nature trick or is it a trick for clicks?

That’s a superficial observation. The rate of warming has been decreasing for decades and the planet is no longer warming. Whatever caused the warming could not have been CO2 as it has kept increasing.
You would do well in being more skeptic yourself. You are being taken.

It is obvious that if the planet has been warming the latest years are the warmest. That simple fact appears to be sufficient for simple minds.

More complex minds ponder about why the warming is decelerating, and what that tells us about the causes of the observed warming.

A simple answer, like CO2 did it, would have appeal to simple minds. More complex minds know that the evidence contradicts that simple answer. If CO2 had done it, warming and sea level rise should be accelerating. The opposite is being found.

Yeah, so? The world’s been warming since the depths of the little ice age (long before man invented the dreaded SUV). One would expect the warmest years at the top of the curve (IE closer to present day) and not at the bottom (IE long ago, when frost fairs on the Thames was a thing).

Irrelevant. What this article shows (along with general observation) is that we are or have entered a plateau with regards to temperature increase and this fact flies right into the face of the co2 hypothesis. Measuring temperatures at the peak of the plateau is merely academic.
If you what to talk facts, look at all of them, not just your favourites.

Don’t use the NetCDF links, use the links to the right of them.

Max

February 7, 2019 8:19 pm

It’s not easy with a tablet !

Anyway, I will pray god tonight for it to order you to do some copy past.

Is there an “official” explanation for the actual gap between sea surface temperature and land temperature ?

It’s seems that when they talk about global mean tamperature they average land+ocean even if 90% of the heat are in oceans; so the actual land temperature could be a momentum discrepencie and could stop increasing for a very long times or even drop sharply (with a big la niña?).
If the heat content have been inverse between ocean and land, they would have apply GT=0,9*X+0,1*Y !

Sea Surface Temperature and Ocean Heat Content are two very different things. With reanalysis there is a tendency to define surface temperature as temperature 2 meters above the surface, skipping the problem of sea surface temperature all together.

Frank

February 8, 2019 8:43 am

Javier: Before you draw any conclusions about whether the rate of warming is slowing or increasing in your Figure 3, you need to calculate a confidence interval around the coefficient for the quadratic (t^2). You are likely discussing noise in the data. You know how to do better work than this.

Frank,
As I noted here, the endpoint value (Jan 2019) can be assigned an uncertainty, just by making it the zero point of time, so its value is the intercept. That is, -0.0068°C/year, with uncertainty ±0.14 °C/year. Yes, the uncertainty is 14 °C/Century. The conclusion is worthless.

The second derivative is -4.5e-5 ± 1.7e-4 °C/yr/yr/yr. There is little confidence even about its sign.

No. The uncertainty is much lower if we use the information obtained to look at the decline in temperature rate of change since mid 1997. At the 90% confidence level the range is from -0.041 to +0.028°C/year for 2018, with the central value at -0.007°C.

And the point is not how statistically significant is that the world is cooling now, but how statistically significant is that the rate of warming has been decelerating since 1997, and that is significant.
Your hypothesis cannot explain that.

“but how statistically significant is that the rate of warming has been decelerating since 1997, and that is significant”
No it isn’t. The significance is given in that second derivative. -45 ± 170 °S/Century³. Even the sugn is very uncertain. It could well have been accelerating.

You are not getting to the right answer.
Temp rate of change follows the same 65-yr periodicity as temp, and so many other climate indices, as the 30-year rate of change reveals clearly.
And it is already going down.

This time solar activity and the 65-yr oscillation are down. It didn’t happen since the early 20th century. That’s why we are having a record cooling period in 40 years that everybody is trying to ignore. It will get worse in just 3 years with the effects of La Niña that is coming in 2021. The dissociation between the catastrophic message and the reality is going to reach such a level that climate change will become an irrelevant issue. Are you going to continue in the wrong side of the debate through all that?

Of course the temperature rate of change is very noisy data. The yearly average changes quickly from -0.4 to 0.4°/year over one year (that’s 8°/decade difference in just a year). By contrast the decadal average changes very little, between -0.15 and 0.15°/year, and the multidecadal average falls to -0.02 to 0.02°/year.

With such noisy data for so little long-term variation the confidence interval becomes useless. Statistics have been developed to confirm something after it has happened, not while it is happening. By the time statistics confirm at 95% confidence that the world is cooling, everybody and their dog would have known it long before just by looking at temperature change. The same happened with the pause and scientists are still split about if it was statistically significant or not.

The news is that a linear regression for the annual temperature rate of change since 1997 (21 years), has crossed the zero line. The decline is significant at the 95% confidence, the crossing obviously not.

But if one knows what causes climate to change and is able to project those causes, then one is one step ahead of statistics that can only look at the past. That is why I projected an Arctic sea-ice September melting pause a few years ago, to the horror of statistician Tamino, and year after year the pause is being confirmed by more data.

So yes, I am jumping the gun and projecting that the observed end of global warming will be statistically confirmed by more data over the next years. 10 more years of data should be sufficient for that. By then global temperature should have declined by around 0.2°C. I’ll write another article then.

Meanwhile I’ll try to convince people that the main factor affecting the rate of temperature change over the long term is long term changes in solar activity. That ought to be fun.

No you are completely wrong, The curves you show are the third derivative of the temperature. The second derivative, which indicates whether temperature change is accelerating or not, is positive. The headline is completely wrong. See my post below.

You fail to understand that finding a best fit whether second, third, fourth, or fifth polynomial is not the same as derivating the data three, four, five, or six times. In every case it represents an approximation to how the first derivative changes over time. They represent the same as a linear fit, except that they indicate that the acceleration must change over time instead of being constant and being the slope of the linear trend.

Exactly. Moreover, the quadatic is a fit to the rate of change, so the curvature indicates the third derivative of the temperature. Nothing useful here.

A curious opinion. The curvature of the fit, regardless of the order of the polynomial used for the fit, represents how the acceleration of the warming has been changing over time. It represents how the foot pressure is being applied over the gas pedal and the brake pedal of the warming car over time. More pressure braking that accelerating over time and we first get decelerating warming and when crossing the zero line cooling.

Not useful for the IPCC that postulates constant acceleration by CO2.

Heat content from 1960 to 1990 = 10
Heat content from 1990 to 2020 =20+

It’s seems to match the rate of change of CO2. Even the 1980-1990 flatening …

But reassure yourself Javier, I have also the impress that the land temperature will drop in the next years. OHC hits NEW record will be the next worldwide headlines I guess…
But oceans have almost 4 km deep by mean, so there is some margin to ‘cool’ all the new heat but it will be a long process; catastrophic long term temperature increase seems to forget.

If we have trouble measuring global surface temperature in which we live, are adapted and have instruments for hundreds of years, imaging measuring the ocean’s temperature, that changes a minimal part of the surface temperature, and thus requires a higher precision. Then displaying it in huge numbers of small units of energy, because temperature looks ridiculous. And the ocean is so much larger than the surface that we would require what, 10,000 times more instruments?

Ocean Heat Content is all fantasy. It means what they want it to mean.

Nigel Goodwin

February 10, 2019 11:54 am

This article makes two fundemental errors. If you ook at fig. 3, each point represents the difference in monthly temperature between years. I have reproduced this plot myself. So each point represents an estimate of the first derivative of temperature wrt. time. The slope of a linear trendline would show the second derivative. I have done this, and the slope is poisitive. this means that the rate of warming is increasing. The red line represents a second order trendline, so the curvature represents the third derivative. The curvatire is negative, but this means that the thrid derivative is negative (the rate of change of the rate of change of the rate of change of temperature is negative, or something like that). So the aryicle does not understand the derivatives and what the red line represents.
Second, the statistical significance of the trendlines is very small, R^2 of almost zero, so any conclusions about the rate of change of global warming as represented by fig. 3 have very little statistical significance.
In summary, the article is nonsense and makes me sceptical about the quality of science performed by amateur climate scientists.

I have done this, and the slope is poisitive. this means that the rate of warming is increasing.

If you do the same for the period 1997.5 to 2019.0 the slope is negative. This means that the rate of warming is decreasing.

Then you mistake the meaning of fitting a trendline to the data. The trendline is always the way the first derivative is changing over time. If we equate temperature to position, first derivative of temperature to velocity, and second derivative of temperature to acceleration, any fit to the first derivative represents acceleration. It doesn’t matter that the best fit is a straight line, a parabola, or a more complex function, like a polynomial. It always represents the acceleration. The difference is that if it is a linear function the slope equals the acceleration, that is constant, while in a more complex function the acceleration also changes over time.

So you should distinguish the difference between deriving the data over time over finding the function that best fits that derivation. The function is not the data. It is an abstract representation that approaches the data.

Before you go too far, be aware I have a degreem Master of mathematics and PhD in theoretical physics from Cambridge. I have also been using statistics since about 1985. So I think i do know what I am talking about when it comes to derivatives and acceleration. But I also enjoy a debate, so let me try to break this down.

1. Do you agree that the points in Fig. 3 represent an estimate of rate of change in temperature? I.e. the derivative of temperature?

When we have agreed on that, I will move to the next point.

While you are thinking about that, why have you changed from 1960 – 2019 to 1997.5 – 2019? Cherry picking?

For the data in your graph, 1960 – 2019, the slope is positive. Adjusted R^2 is negative!

For 1970 – 2019, the slope is positive.

For 1950 – 2019 the slope is positive

The slope for 1997.5 – 2019 is negative. The adjusted R^2 is 0.004

Now, my next question, what does the slope represent? Let me help you, it represents the acceeration in the rate of change in temperature. Since 1950 the rate of increase in temeprature has been rising. Since 1960 (your graph) the rate of increase in temperature has been rising.

Now, first point, the R^2 of these trendlines is tiny, so there is enormous uncertainty.

I am happy with uncertainty, my career is built around uncertainty quantification, it is only the stupid who are certain (as Russell said).

1. Sure. The slope between two temperature (T) points after a time interval (t(b)-t(a)) is T(b)-T(a)/t(b)-t(a), which is essentially the geometrical definition of a derivative as the limit of that quotient when t(b)-t(a)->0.

While you are thinking about that, why have you changed from 1960 – 2019 to 1997.5 – 2019? Cherry picking?

No. A gaussian smoothing of the temperature rate of change identifies 1997.5 as the highest peak in the rate of warming for the 1900-2020 period. It automatically follows that the decrease in temperature rate of change started then.

what does the slope represent? Let me help you, it represents the acceleration in the rate of change in temperature.

Actually that is not correct. The slope represents a constant acceleration that would result in a linear temperature increase that fits best the observed warming. Obviously the acceleration has not been constant over the time, so it is just an approximation.

Now, first point, the R^2 of these trendlines is tiny, so there is enormous uncertainty.

That is correct. However the temperature increase has taken place, so we know for a fact that the acceleration has taken place. What we don’t know is the distribution of that acceleration over time to give the fixed result.

Perhaps you will get a clearer idea of what I am talking about if you see a gaussian smoothing of both temperature and temperature rate of change.

The curve showed obtained from the gaussian smoothing constitutes a better fit than the parabola I used, but it essentially confirms what I said. The decline in rate of change has taken place. We know that for a fact regardless of data uncertainty because the change in temperature says so.

Nigel Goodwin

February 11, 2019 3:53 pm

You say:

However the temperature increase has taken place, so we know for a fact that the acceleration has taken place.

No. The temperature increase has taken place because the average of the points in fig. 3 is above zero. We know acceleration has taken place overall because the trendline slop is positive.

I am sure you knew, and I certainly did, lots of very batty cranky people at Cambridge.

Actually, it’s late, i am tired, you clearly did not do a master of stats, but one thing is quite clear.

The linear regression slope in fig. 3 has a very wide confidence interval, i.e. a very low R^2, so the only thing we can say about the acceleration of temperature rise is that we do not know. There may or may not have been an acceleration in the rate of temperature rise, and there may have been a deceleration. we don’t know.

very different to the headline in the article. indeed, the headline says ‘the planet is no longer warming’. a better headine would be ‘the planet is warming (i.e. the temperature is increasing), but we dont; know whether this process is accelerating or decelerating or roughly constant’.

However, that would not have been such good click bait.

Now when you start using a second order curve fit to fig. 3, i repeat you are looking at the third derivative of the temperature (think of the MacLauren series) and if the second derivative is uncertain, the third derivative is away with the fairies. You make great play on the fact that the curve is concave (negative third derivative of temperature) but the data provides no evidence for this, even for the second derivative you have a tiny R^2.

So your lines in the article such as

Since 2017, the rate of temperature change has become negative.

and the whole of fig. 4 are ludicrous.

If you plotted the uncertainty around the solid line in fig. 4 it would go wild. Try looking at the variance in the beta coefficient for the second order term.

I repeat, but you are not listening, that the second order term in the polynomial curve fit represents the third derivative of temperature wrt. time. The second derivative is the acceleration in the rate of temperature rise. the third derivative, the acceleration (or deceleration) in the acceleration in the rate of temperature rise.

It is ludicrous.

Think again of MacLauren series.

Then you start to do third order polynomials, the fourth derivative of the temperature wrt. time.

Cambridge is full of people who can do the equations but have zero common sense.

I’m not the only one who has suggested you provide a more cautious conclusion based on a better understanding of statistics and what the data represents. You may understand it, ut you are not communicating it, and you are misleadingt the less well informed public who focus on pictures and headlines.

Anybody taking a casual glance at fig. 4 and the headline would conclude that temperatures are starting to fall, or at least that the rate of increase in temperatures is starting to fall dramatically. Both completely false.

My experience of Cambridge was very positive. The best place to do science I’ve ever been, an I’ve been in a few. I just didn’t like the weather.

More than one statistician doesn’t realize that statistics doesn’t say anything about the reality of things. It only gives an informed opinion about if some observation could be due to chance.

Let’s take a new drug test. If the group of patients taking the drug is small, statistics will tell us that the improvement observed could be due to chance. It doesn’t tell us that it is due to chance. It doesn’t tell us that it is not due to the drug. And it doesn’t tell us that the improvement of the patients is not real.

Let’s go to temperature. The cooling registered since February 2016 is –0.3°C in annualized data. It is real because our uncertainty is ±0.1°C. So you cannot tell me that the cooling is not real, because it has happened. The only thing that you can tell me is that statistics doesn’t rule out that it could be due to chance.

In the same way the decrease in the rate of warming since 1997.5 is equally real. You cannot tell me that it hasn’t happened. There are hundreds and hundreds of articles on the pause in global warming. Thousands of scientists, many smarter than you and me, know that the pause (i.e. reduction in the rate of warming) took place. The UK Met Office published a series of three synopsis reports on the pause, the second one entitled:
The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes? https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/i/s/pause_paper2_what_are_the_potential_causes_archive_csc_02_tagged.pdf
In one of its pages is this graph
Where they plot the decrease in global warming rate, labeling in grey the recent decline (since 1997.5) and consider it real.

So as you see you have a problem distinguishing reality with its cause. The decline in temperature change of rate is a fact. You cannot say it hasn’t happened. And the cooling since February 2016 is a fact. You cannot say that it hasn’t happened.

What are we then discussing? We are discussing whether it has been due to chance or not. That is all. If you say that statistics doesn’t rule that it has been due to chance I agree. But my article doesn’t say that it hasn’t been due to chance. It says that it hasn’t been due to CO2. As long as we don’t rule out chance, statistics doesn’t have anything to say about the causes of the last two decades deceleration in global warming and the recent cooling.

I think our dispute arises from two points, one is your inability to understand what statistics tells us about the reality of things, which is nothing. Things are real or not regardless of their chances. The 3-year cooling is real regardless of it statistical significance. Statistics only speaks about its possible causes.

The second point is your inability to see that a best fit is not a mathematical operation on the data. If I trace a best fit to the data by hand, what derivative of the data does it constitute? the answer is none. It is just a curve that approaches the data, and how I got it is irrelevant to it being a good or a bad fit. Obviously we look for a mathematical procedure to gives us the best fit, but in any case we are not altering the data. The third derivative would be if I calculate the change in the second derivative over time, but that is a different plot that I haven’t made.

So, to summarize in case it is necessary. The warming deceleration since 1997.5 is real. The cooling since 2016.2 is real. Their cause is unclear and we cannot rule out that they are due to chance. Statistics doesn’t tells us what is going to happen next, but apparently neither does CO2.

Nigel Goodwin

February 11, 2019 3:59 pm

Final message – one side of the argument accuse climate scientists of underestimating uncertainty and pushing too robust a view. They say ‘you have not proved this or proved that’. However, you are doing exactly the same, or even worse.

Hold yourself to the standards you expect in others.

My own view is that there is considerable uncertainty, so we need to take caution based on a probabilistic estimate of the possible outcomes. Some of those outcomes have a serious consequence – the probability of which may or may not be small. Some of those outcomes may be able to be assuaged by human intervention.

Hold yourself to the standards you expect in others.

Again you mistake cause and observation. The alarmists say that “it is extremely likely that most of the observed warming is due to anthropogenic causes.” They obviously underestimate the uncertainty and their claim is not robust.

As long as I talk about observations: the global warming deceleration and recent cooling, I have no such problem. Statistics cannot say that what has happened has not happened.

Nigel Goodwin

February 11, 2019 4:01 pm

Oh, I forgot. Ever heard of overfitting? It plagues most naive attempts at statistics. I see it all the time.

Ever heard of some doctors using jargon to appear more knowledgeable than they actually are about the patient’s problem? It also afflicts some statisticians that like to thrown names of specific tests even if they don’t know how to spell them correctly, like the Maclaurin (not MacLauren) series.

Markus Kreer

February 11, 2019 4:41 pm

Myself coming from statistical physics and having worked for nearly 20 years as a quant in the finance sector I think the argument of Javier could be made more catchy as follows:

(1) Assuming equilibrium thermodynamics being applicable here, the change of heat $$Q$$ is proportional to the change of temperature $$T$$ or as formula

$$ \Delta Q = c \Delta T$$

with some appropriate positive specific heat capacity $$c$$, depending on the material to be warmed up (water, air, soil).

(2) Take the HadCRUT4 monthly temperature set and compute the first difference of this time series, i.e. $$Delta T$$. Doing a statistical analysis of this, we obtain for the entire data set (starting January 1850 and ending December 2018) the expectation of $$Delta T$$ to be approx. 0.000645 (i.e. 0) and the standard deviation approx. 0.138482. It seems that a random walk without drift is a good proxy for the stochastic process describing $$Delta T$$. (I have not done the further statistical tests yet to confirm this with a statistical significance of 6 sigma, say.)

As a consequence from (1) and (2) we conclude that also $$Delta Q$$ follows a random walk without drift, i.e. it is not getting warmer over the observed time horizon. Interestingly, this result also holds if we only look at the time interval from January 1950 until December 2018. If this time series was a stock chart, the trend would be so insignificant that one could not benefit from it as an investor .

The mathematicians amongst the readers may recall the famous reflection principle for Wiener processes: at any time a driftless random walk can be reflected on a horizontal line going through the “last point” and the continuation of the mirror image is equally likely as the original random path.

A final caveat: it is not clear if methods of equilibrium thermodynamics for such a complex system can be applied so far away from equilibrium.

modelling the temperature $$T$$ (actually the anomaly) by a stochastic process whose first difference seems to be a random walk without drift (meanwhile I have done Dickey-Fuller unit root test for stationarity and a t-test for the mean -it appears the hypothesis that the drift is zero cannot be rejected within the usual confidence levels), then the actual trajectory of the stochastic process for $$T$$ is increasing to the current levels. However, the expectation of $$T$$ is unchanged because the expectation of $$Delta T$$ is zero. In other words, rather then going up from where we actually are, in the next time steps $$T$$ could equally go down – it follows a Martingale process where the best estimate for the expectation is the last observed value!

In finance it is likewise difficult to find out whether a stock goes up because there really is a trend significantly different from zero (and positive) or whether the stock price is there where it actually is due to a sequence of random fluctuations which happened to go up. In finance we call it the search of “alpha”.

As a consequence of my reasoning I expect $$Delta T$$ equal zero and thus the expectation of heat change would be also zero (provided the heat capacity is a nonstochastic function or at least cadlag and in the natural filtration of the stochastic process for $$T$$). Thus my statement would be ‘it is not getting warmer’.

Best regards, Markus

P.S.: I have only looked at the problem from a stochastic process viewpoint. A theory which models the time-change of a physical observable such as a temperature by a stochastic process is not as “good” as a theory modelling the observable starting ab initio from first principles. But then again non-equilibrium thermodynamics or even non-equilibrium quantum statistical physics to derive some forecasting formulae for any macroscopic observable is still quite a challenge.

Thank you for trying to see through this mist. My only comment is that the first difference is pretty random, but there is a small upwards drift. Whether that drift is rising or falling is very debateable, the data simply does not provide the information.

I guess it’s the same in the finance world – short term it is a random walk, but over a 20 year period you expect to see an upward drift.

I agree entirely, it is much better to have an underlying model of the physics and look at the uncertainty in that. Actually, now i mention it….let me post something….

Nigel Goodwin

February 15, 2019 5:28 am

I’m sorry for the slow response, I have been doing some real work….

I don’t think Javier has made a substantive response to any of my concerns. Overfitting is a very real concern, it plagues many areas of statistics and data science. Making conclusions based on minute R^2 for data which is almost pure noise is another very common mistake.

But, let us try this. Let us assume that the plots in fig 3 and 4 had data to which a second degree polynomial had an excellent fit, with an R^2 of around 0.8 rather than the actual 0.001 or so. What would our conclusions be?

Before 1969 the temperature was falling (the first derivative was negative). However, the upwards acceleration was very large, so much so that if the behaviour in 1960 continued we would now be in a situation where the temperature increases (the first derivative of temperature) would be very high, reaching maybe around 0.2 degrees C per year by 2019, and hence the actual temperatures would be so high that disaster would be imminent.

By 1994 the acceleration (second derivative of temperature) had fallen to zero, but the temperature was still rising at a rate of 0.02 degrees C per year.

By 2019, the acceleration had reversed enough that the temperature rise (first derivative of temperature) had fallen to zero. Temperatures were no longer rising.

However, if the behaviour continues, the reversal of acceleration will be so great that by 2015 temperatures will be falling at a disasterous rate, and the rate of falling temperatures will be accelerating in a downward spiral at ever more precipitous rates.

Overall in the period 1960 – 2019, on average the rate of temperature rise was positive, the acceleration in temperature rise was positive (the rate of temperature rise was increasing) and the temperature in 2019 was significantly higher than in 1960.

I’m sorry, a typo, I meant 2050, not 2015. Hell has not yet frozen over.

Nigel Goodwin

February 15, 2019 1:07 pm

Let me go off slightly from the track, but it may bring some intuition.

In my day job I am an expert in probabilistic uncertainty quantification of oil and gas reservoirs, where you use historical data as an input to a Bayesian prodeiction. You have to construct an ensemble of models, using a likelihood function and applying full Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. random walk methods are hopeless, so I use Hamiltonian methods.

Some of the early work I did on history matching was based on work done by Durham University. History matching of climate is, in principle, no different to history matching of oil and gas resevrvoirs, but climate models are much more complex. My [battle the last 20 years has been to convince reservori engineers that they need to include realistic uncertainty, and a good match does not necessarily mean a good prediction.

Good stuff you are working on! A first and maybe naive analysis of the data using first-order differences to obtain a stationary time series and modelling this by a random walk (a valid hypothesis not rejected by a suit of tests) does not provide the desired insight. Maybe a Bayesian approach is more appropriate – but then I must confess I am a frequentist…

Nigel Goodwin

February 15, 2019 1:26 pm

Some of the people I worked with have worked on climate models. Here are some references. You will see they are not gullible, and somewhere they talk about IPCC as a beauty parade.

Hmmmm – lots of reference, I have some of the papers, but most seem to be for purchase only.

No matter. The point is that some serious statisticians are looking at climate change, and they, being statisticians, are very comfortable with uncertainty and very uncomfortable with certainty.

Thanks for the reference to Rougier 2007. He estimates a covariance structure for the Gaussian process which is quite tricky. I shall look into the details of this paper over the week-end. From EM algorithms applied on Gaussian correlated data I recall lots of problems (the MLE sometimes converges to a singular covariance matrix and special constraints need to be introduced to obtain a feasible solution).

In my own work I use Matern correlation functions i the covariance matrix, and have two orthogonal directions and different correlations lengths for the two directions. I then estimate the hyperparameters by optimising the restricted likelihood function. I use a combination of BOBYQA and GA to do this, but it is also possible to use quasi Newton methods if one can be bothered to go through all the algebra. My own work is univarariate, but Jonty did some work us on multivariate methods, where the covariance matrix takes account of correlations in time – but the matrix gets much bigger depending on how many points you choose. I preferred to have good univaraiate approximations rather than weaker multi variate.

ps. I can easily be found on LinkedIn, where I have my email address if you want some papers which may be of interest. I am also looking at Weibull. Have you come across

The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration is trending exponentially and at the rate we are going, we will hit 100,000 ppm in < 140 years. Plot it out yourself in Excel. OSHA exposure tables indicate convulsions and death within minutes at that level. We will probably all notice we can't breathe so good a bit earlier than that, but if there's a plus side, it's that it will affect everyone equally and there won't be a debate about climate change anymore. Hopefully we get our shit together and prevent that scenario if possible.

In fig 2 I can see that the rate of increase in CO2 is increasing – i.e. the amount of CO2 is accelerating, the second derivative is positive.

But I don’t see any exponential increase?

I am going to be critical of hyperbole on both sides !

I make no apology for preferring to use derivatives in my posts, I find when others talk about increase in CO2 or temperature the language can quickly become sloppy, as can be seen by the headline which is completely incorrect (the global temperature IS increasing, the planet IS warming’.

Definitely no criticism coming from me regarding your work. I came to my conclusions based on my personal efforts to model CO2 projections which I genuinely hope are wrong. I’m getting a year to year % growth rate in CO2 that tracks the exponential function F(x) = c^(0.01524x) where x is year. This is all from my own analysis on data from Mauna Loa. It’s been tracking on target since I stopped looking at the data in 2015. I understand the aversion to hyperbolic statements, and fear mongering. Panic is not helpful for anyone. There just shouldn’t really be “sides” or “debate” in math or science – that’s a symptom of other issues.

PS: second derivative is rate of change of the rate of change i.e “acceleration” in physics and “curl” in mathematics (dy/dx is slope and d2y/dx2 is curvature of slope). That would also support the crude Excel extrapolation.

I’m wrong about calling the 2nd derivative “the curl”. That’s from vector calculus which is not applicaple at all here. I don’t know what the 2nd derivative property is called in normal math, it may just be called the 2nd derivative.. also the calc for year over year co2 % change should be: F(x) = c exp(0.01524x).

Thanks. If I am doing anything, it is just provoking clarity. You are saying that the growth rate is exponential. That means that the first derivative of CO2 is growing exponentially. Because the derivative of an exponential is an exponential, that also means that CO2 is growing exponentially.

If you had said the CO2 growth rate fitted a second order polynomial, then that would mean the actual CO2 fitted a third order polynomial.

In any case, i think everybody agrees it is rising! The issue is simply how rapidly it is rising, and whether the rate of rise is also increasing. I haven’t downloaded CO2 data, but my guess is that the data won;t give a clear answer on those.

Besides which, for the first 32 years after WWII, Earth cooled dramatically despite steadily rising CO2. That’s why so many scientists, later on the catastrophic AGW bandwagon, were worried about dangerous global cooling until the PDO shift of 1977.

The 1988 CACA hypothesis thus was hatched falsified.

For “later”, please read, “some of whom later jumped”.

The Arrhenius equation is logarithmic. Therefore, the rate of radiative forcing should decrease as a function of temperature, so I don’t think this argument is valid.

Sure it is.

The logarithmic effect means that the gain in CO2 from ~285 ppm in 1850 to ~311 in 1940 should have warmed Earth more than the increase from ~334 in 1977 to ~361 in 1995 (maybe it did, but NOAA’s and HadCRU’s cooked books don’t show that). And the planet should have gotten balmier from 311 ppm in 1940 to 334 in 1977, but it didn’t. Just the opposite happened.

And the run from ~361 in 1995 to over 400 ppm now should have heated us up a lot more than actually observed, or even than lied about in the corrupt gatekeepers’ pretend “data”. The book cookers are restrained by the watching satellites, or they’d have cooked the books extra crispy.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt

Jim “Boiling Oceans on the Venus Express” Hansen’s 1988 GIGO spew thus was born falsified.

Sure trebla.

Logarithmic means that increasing CO₂ will have less and less effect, allowing temperature to drop?

What is clear is that you do not understand logarithmic.

What does the Arrhenius equation have to do with atmospheric physics? this calculates the reaction rate! who has no idea here ……, notice, not everywhere where arrhenius appears is also climate inside. Dissociation does also not take place in the air.

Trebla is correct, you’re wrong. See my post below. Even if CO2 were increasing at an EXPONENTIAL rate, wattage would be increasing at a LINEAR rate, and temperature increase would be increasing at a rate of X^0.25, i.e., the rate of temperature increase would be DECREASING.

I don´t know, the Arrhenius equation I know about is this one:

It deals with reaction rates, as you said. It is the equation found on Wikipedia named after the chemist.

I don´t know what this has to do with absorption, but disproves NASA when they say that stratospheric ozone depletes faster at lower tempetatures. That statement requires a negative reaction rate, and given the equation, reaction rates approaches to zero when T approaches to 0 kelvin, but cannot be negative.

We must be living in a different universe, or something.

“The Arrhenius equation is logarithmic. Therefore, the rate of radiative forcing should decrease …”

Correct. But for some reason the IPCC and its minions project an accelerating temperature increase. Perhaps this is due to their assumption of a positive feedback effect.

You’re right, the blog post is wrong. IF the rate of increase in CO2 was exponential, the rate of change would be proportional to

e^x.

FORCING in wattage would be proportional to the logarithm of e^x, or x.

Temperature would be proportional to the fourth root of x, so even if the rate of increase in CO2 were EXPONENTIAL, and it’s less than that, the RATE of change in temperature would be going down. Example,

x =1 wattage =1 temperature =1

x=2 wattage=2, temperature =1.1892 with an 18.92% increase over the prior period.

x=3 wattage=3, temperature=1.3161 with a 10.67% increase over the prior period.

x=4 wattage=4, temperature=1.4142 with a 7.45% increase over the prior period.,

That logarithmic effect DOES show that the IPCC figure of 3 C warming for doubled CO2 is fearmongering nonsense.

An explanation of the Arrhenius greenhouse effect equation, and also a simple computer model which confirms its effect: https://iwrconsultancy.co.uk/science/co2maths

Basically, each doubling of CO2 concentration will have the same radiative forcing effect. Radiative forcing is linearly associated with temperature change.

This assumes that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. in practice it is not, and you cannot simply add the effects of greenhouse gases. Thus, the real world effect of CO2 will be less than Arrhenius predicts.

Willard put your argument up at ATTP.

“This means that the radiative response (or, the amount of warming) is the same for every doubling of atmospheric CO2.”

However .

No.

This statement is not correct.

It is correct for a doubling of CO2 from where we were 1950’s to were we are going 2100 and that is all.

Proof is very simple.

You look at the effect of halving the CO2 say 10 times to see why.

But it is a commonly held and made statement.

Science of Doom might be able to explain why better than I.

More importantly, modern warming began in 1910 and rapid increases of fossil fuel usage began around 1950. Unless you own a DeLorean or an oldstyle police call box, an effect cannot start before its cause.

Besides which, there was no statistically significant global warming between the 1997-98 and 2015-16 super Los Ninos. And since February 2016, the planet has cooled.

And it warmed without benefit of large amounts of human-generated plant food in the air from the end of the Little Ice Age Cool Period c. AD 1850 until the 1940s, during the naturally occurring Current Warm Period.

This is terrible news. My heating bill is killing me and I actually had to drive through snow to get to work the other day, and I live in California. Do you mean to actually tell you my children and grand-children actually won’t die in an apocalyptic runaway warming scenario? Do I have your permission to buy that V-8 Dodge Charger I’ve been dreaming of?

Snow all over the SF Bay Area is described by the local weatherman (who loves his own reflection) as EXTREME weather caused by your sinful use of fossil fuels. My furnace is working overtime … pushing me into PG&E’s punishing 3rd rate tier. My wife and I have NO disposable income during the winter, and we have no AC … so we can barely spend a few extra dollars in the sweltering summer. Thanks Global Warming PIMPS at the PUC and State Govt. Eco-bureaus.

So leave, Kenji. If it wasn’t for my son’s mother is be the heck out of Colorado.

Collectivists ruin everything individualist build

The question is where to go. Most states are going the way of California.

They’re filling up with Kalifornians who bailed and brought their stupidity with them.

You mean ‘Calizuela.’

Hi Kenji, I’m from Slovakia and I have lived 4 years in California, so I can compare living style in California with much colder country.

PG&E tiers were killing me too, paying 300+ $ monthly during winter is very inconvenient, while my summer rate was around 40$.

In Slovakia I have flat monthly payment all year, it hurts much less, easier to keep my budget balanced.

Insulation and efficient heating are unknown in California. Heating directly by electricity is throwing money out of window.

Buy AC with heat pump heating option. In Europe it is standard for all AC’s. My AC in Mountain View had only direct electric heating – wrong. By heat pump heating you can get 3-4 times more heat than consumed electricity. For every kilowathour of electricity you can get 3-4 kilowathours of heat taken from outside air. This is basically reducing your electricity bill more than 3-4 times. Can be 6 times if you are taking PG&E tiers into account.

If you are heating by gas, search for efficient condensing gas furnace. Older gas furnaces have 80-95% efficiency, while condensing have 107%. So difference can be up to 33% in gas consumption for same heat.

Insulation: Normal is very bad insulation in California. Single paned glass, spare or none insulation in walls.

I understand it is very inconvenient to add additional insulation into walls, but adding insulation into ceiling is usually simple. 3-6 inches of mineral wool above your ceiling can save you up to 50% of heating and cooling expenses.

Change windows to new with good thermal coefficient. Windows with 1W/m2K and less can save you up to 30% of your heating and cooling costs. Personally I did not see it in California at all. Like this market is not existent. Window frames are same bad everywhere. At least you could change your glass for double paned argon filled.

Go for the double cab diesel engine long box pickup truck. That’ll — really — steam up the Climate Change!! fanatics in the Prius next to you.

My crew cab diesel Super Duty F-250 is long enough without the long box. It eats a tiny Prius for breakfast.

Go for dual rear wheel F 350 Super Duty.

With the long box. Then give yourself about a year to learn how to back into a parking spot, none of which are really big enough, without being crooked. AND be very careful about which parking ramps you drive into!

I know from experience. Loved the sound of the 7.3l diesel though. (I have a newer F250 Super Duty.)

Better get the AWD model.

“The global warming deceleration since 1994, and cooling since 2017 are incompatible with the hypothesis that the increase in CO2 is driving global warming.”

Ok, that is in global…what about Tropical?

Can the same be stated, as per global?!

cheers

The tropics essentially haven’t warmed at all, despite the modelled but never observed tropical tropospheric hotspot.

So-called “global” warming is mainly in the Arctic, where “data” are mostly made up. The Antarctic hasn’t warmed, and the north and south temperate zones only slightly, chiefly during winter nights.

Oddly, the same warming that is observed due urban heat island. Most of the temperature stations being located within these heat islands.

Jeff in Calgary: Your post inspired me to dig deeper into something that has piqued my curiousity, namely the locations of “thermometers” with respect to the urban heat island effect. So I did a little research and found this VERY useful tool: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS_Map/

This map shows all NOAA CORS stations nationwide, is “zoomable”, and provides detail about where stations are located, including photos of the actual installation. Using this map I reviewed all CORS stations in New York State (my native State), and found the following. There are 51 stations in NY State, with all but 11 located at NY State Dept of Transportation facilities used for road maintenance. These facilities are generally large with large office buildings/garages, fleets of trucks/snow plows, with large stores of salt, cold-patch blacktop, and large blacktop parking lots. What I found MOST interesting is that all but seven “thermometers” (86%) were attached to the sides of these (mostly brick) buildings and extending above the roof by ~ 3 to 6 feet, thus able to measure the heat absorbed/emitted by the roof. Some were attached on or near chimneys, with one head directly above the flue! Some were located near large spinning roof ventilators, roof-top a/c units, above large security lights (very warm at night), etc… – not exactly ideal locations for obtaining “clean” measurements. I wouldn’t have believed it had I not seen it for myself.

I’ve read there are corrective “adjustments” for this, which just introduces more variables into the equation, facilitating both inaccuracies and manipulation. Being large, “ugly”, industrial-type facilities, most (especially upstate) are located in relatively remote locations (i.e., not in urban centers) having lawn areas and/or nearby wooded areas, so I’m puzzled why they located the thermometers in the hottest spots possible, namely on rooftops! Why not locate them away from these obvious hot spots? It makes me very suspicious of the national temperature records.

So no need to kill all those coal-fired power generating plants after all! Now let’s chase those lying scaremongerers Gore, Mann, etc. And while we are at it, let’s cancel all subsidies for solar, wine, and EVs – t’ hey must try to survive on their own merits!

Hey, I didn’t know wine was subsidised. Why would anybody want to cancel that? 🙁

Yeah, I know, it was a typo but I just couldn’t resist. 😉

Lol. Coal and oil have received huge subsidies for many decades.

Um…this has been demonstrated many, many, times to be a canard. By the definition used to support the claim, counting reduced taxes and depreciation of assets as “subsidies”, every person and company in this country is subsidized.

Not a tax expert, but I’d suggest a more meaningful definition of subsidized would be based on whether taxes paid are greater than costs incurred by the taxpayers. Pretty sure by this measure there’s no reasonable claim that the oil/coal/gas industry is subsidized.

rip

I can’t wait for Nick to give us his two bobs worth about this post from Javier and his assessment of the data.

BTW how does HAD Crut 4 compare to UAH V 6 or Balloon data or GISS or BEST or RSS etc? Or perhaps compared to the average of all these data-sets?

Any ideas?

Well, it is pretty primitive curve fitting. Fig 4 sums it up. The differences are so noisy that they don’t come close to fitting in the plot, but a neat parabola is fitted, which just happens to dip below zero in 2018, hence the headline.

But the shape of the parabola is determined by all the data since 1959, not just recent years. It has just three parameters determined by all that data. Since 1959-1975 was cool, that pulls one end of the parabola down, and so the other end has to come down too. It’s little to do with recent warming.

Misdirection, Nick? The graph shows rates of change and has nothing to do with end points.

“has nothing to do with end points”Of course it does. The headline among other things is based on the fact that the parabola in Fig 4 dips below zero at the end.

Sorry, Nick.

That argument falls flat on its face when a 3rd order polynomial fit is used, that forces another inflection point in the data and should not result in a parabola.

The result is an extraordinarily similar curve that indicates a 3rd order polynomial fit is not an improvement and therefore a 2nd order polynomial fit should be used.

I know it is hard for you to accept that the planet is no longer warming, and that all these years you have been at the wrong side of the debate.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”Well at least he is generally polite and adds reasonable discourse, unlike nearly the lot of the others who support the official narrative.

Javier,

No, the result depends on what happens at the other end. If you start at 1959, your analysis says that “warming has stopped”. The quadratic fitted trend drops to -0.00053 °C/year in Dec 2018.

But if you start in 1969, with the same data, the quadratic fitted trend is 0.00018 °C/year in Dec 2018. No change in recent circumstances. Warming restored. The result just changes because of what happened in the 1960’s.

Nick, OMG! 0.00018 deg/year! We’re all going to die!

Sorry, units wrong. It is °C/month. But 1969 I chose as the year in which the quadratic fitted trend for 2018 just became positive.

What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.

The problem for you is that since the quadratic fit identifies 1994 as the peak, we can run a linear trend from 1994 to better identify when it cuts the X axis and the warming turns into cooling. With the linear trend since 1994 the planet is cooling since early 2016.

Any way you look at it your thesis is a failure and picking dates won’t change that.

Nick, Nick, Nick…

You’re a nice guy and you’re very polite here, which we all appreciate, but you’ve become a classic example of the climate ‘scientist’ oxymoron. Here’s why:

Temperatures are NOT measured to a hundred thousandth of a degree. So 0.00018 °C/month or /year or /whatever is meaningless. It’s complete crap!

But take solace in the fact that many of us here are pulling for you, as we recognize your potential. We don’t mind you pretending to be a scientist as long as you follow the rules: USE SIGNIFICANT FIGURES!!

Louis

“Temperatures are NOT measured to a hundred thousandth of a degree”I am not quoting temperatures. I am quoting a rate in °C/month (just like Javier). And to 2 significant figures.

Javier,

“What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.”No. The discovery is that your headline number, the trend at the end, can be made positive or negative as you wish by deciding when to start the period. Which says that your number is not actually determined by recent temperatures, warming or otherwise.

The Keeling net CO2 in atmosphere curve is approximated mathematically by the formula:

ppm = 0.013 t^2 + 0.518 t + 310.44 where t = the time in years since 1950

The UK workplace safety law for ppm CO2 is 5000 ppm.

setting the equation = 5000 and using the quadratic formula of (-b +/- ( (b^2 -4ac)^ 1/2)) / 2a

gives t= 580. Adding that to 1950 gives the year 2530. That is only 511 years away where we would choke to death on CO2 according to the UK workplace safety laws. I know that some places have long term limit exposure up to 8000 ppm but you get the point. Now we can worry about this or we can say 511 years is so far into the future that who in the hell cares. Howeverthe alarmists will not let this go aftertheir warming theory completely falls apart. This does bother me because the thought of mankind choking on his/her prosperity is a worry even if it is 511 years away. however some skeptics say that we will never be able to burn that much fossil fuels because we will run out way before then. I am not so sure.

However I still have a feeling in my gut that the CO2 numbers will either level off or they are fraudulent in the 1st place. Why arent more government agencies measuring the CO2 in the atmosphere? I wish Denmark would do it. I trust the Danes.

Precisely. The declining trend in temperature rate of change is a very long one with over two decades. It does not depend on recent temperature changes.

If your point is that the precise time when the warming turned into cooling cannot be yet determined with trends because trends depend on starting and ending point, you are correct. But you are ignoring the elephant in the argumentation. We know warming rate has been declining for over 20 years, and we know that is close to zero. We know temperature has been decreasing since February 2016 in the longest, most profound cooling since 1973. The decline in temperature plus the decline in warming rate show that the planet is no longer warming. Your main argument for all these years, that CO2 controls temperature change is wrong. Arguing about a minutia about how to best determine the trend that shows you (and IPCC) are wrong might be satisfying to you, but it is pointless.

The article is correct. Long term changes in the temperature rate of change show that the planet is no longer warming. They do not depend on the recent change of temperature, but the temperature change for the past 16 years confirms it, and the cooling since 2016 is the final nail in IPCC’s hypothesis coffin.

I checked the uncertainties on the endpoint value. I did this by setting the time value to zero in Jan 2019, so the value there becomes the intercept. Starting in 1959, the slope at Jan 2019 was -0.0068°C/year, with uncertainty ±0.14 °C/year. IOW, conclusions based on the sign of that fitted trend are absolutely meaningless. And that is with OLS, not even allowing for autocorelation.

Your “factiness” will bring you undone!

Look at the scale of the fit curve. Even multiplied across decades it comes to less variation than realistic instrument error.

Nick Stokes,

But what about my sophisticated iterative smoothing of the temperature data (using a binary filter). Until it gave the best match to a LOESS curve based on a 30-year local linear regression.

My article confirms that this article is correct. See my article called “A climate fairy tale”.

https://agree-to-disagree.com/a-climate-fairy-tale

I prove the same thing, but with the GISTEMP monthly global Land and Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI).

A warning – you may not like my “lame” sense of humour. Skip over the humour if you don’t like it, and look at the graph. It is VERY interesting.

Sheldon,

Yes, the humour was tiresome, and it would have been better to explain more what you were doing. But AFAICS, you have only one fitted result, the 30-year (or is it 10?) LOESS, and that shows a decidedly positive warming rate. I can’t see any point in subtracting that from the data to get a supposed short-term.

Nick Stokes,

I fitted 2 curves. One to match a 30-year LOESS curve, and one to match a 10-year LOESS curve.

I first used iterative smoothing with a binary filter, to get the best match to a LOESS curve based on a 30-year local linear regression. This is the first fitted curve. It shows the long-term warming rate.

I then used iterative smoothing with a binary filter, to get the best match to a LOESS curve based on a 10-year local linear regression. This is the second fitted curve. It shows the total warming rate.

If you are going to talk about the “long-term” warming rate, then that implies that there is a “short-term” or “medium-term” warming rate. Alarmists don’t want to acknowledge these other warming rates. But they like to draw attention to the “long-term” warming rate, when it matches their agenda.

Yes, my graph shows a “decidedly positive warming rate”. But it has been “decreasing” since about 2000. It has dropped from about +1.8 degrees Celsius per century (in 2000), to about +1.2 degrees Celsius per century (in 2018).

A 33% reduction in the long-term warming rate, while we have had record levels of CO2, and record emissions of CO2. Doesn’t something seem slightly strange about this, Nick. Or do you just interpret everything as evidence of accelerating global warming.

Sheldon,

You said

“My article confirms that this article is correct”. The article is headed“The planet is no longer warming”. Then you say that“Yes, my graph shows a “decidedly positive warming rate””. Something doesn’t add up there.Ok, Nick.

So I wasn’t totally clear about what I meant, when I said “My article confirms that this article is correct”.

My article partly supports this article.

I suggest that you start legal action against me. Isn’t that what Alarmists do when people question their views?

Nick,

Are you going to ignore the 33% reduction in the long-term warming rate, while we have had record levels of CO2, and record emissions of CO2. Doesn’t something seem slightly strange about this, Nick. Or do you just interpret everything as evidence of accelerating global warming.

“The global warming deceleration since 1994, and cooling since 2017 ”

Deceleration judgement over around 30 years period is acceptable, but any trend up or down over period of couple of years is meaningless on the multidecadal scale.

That’s just when the 24 year trend in decelerating temperature rate of change crossed the zero line.

Worldwide CO2 emissions are accelerating yet CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at the same rate, not accelerating. Implies the world is able to sink all this extra CO2.

Yes. The airborne fraction, the fraction of emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere, has been decreasing. This is for industrial emissions (fossil fuels + cement). There is a fudge factor with land use change emissions.

Yes, one of the fundamental, yet often unstated, tenets of global warming alarmism is that the CO2 removal rate from the atmosphere is too slow for us to wait and maybe change our emissions behavior in the event that things really did become serious.

If they admitted that we really can afford to wait and see, then the whole scam is dead in the water. Hence we get the continuous “must act now, only 5 years to save the planet” screeching. It is the universally-recognized approach of the untrustworthy salesman who want’s you to buy now and think later.

“The airborne fraction, the fraction of emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere, has been decreasing.”Nah. The remainder from anthropogenic emissions was just never large to begin with. But, I assume you know my stance on that.

For confirmation that this article is correct, see my article called “A climate fairy tale”.

https://agree-to-disagree.com/a-climate-fairy-tale

I prove the same thing, but with the GISTEMP monthly global Land and Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI).

I calculate the long-term warming rate, by smoothing the temperature data iteratively (using a binary filter), until it gave the best match to a LOESS curve based on a 30-year local linear regression.

A warning – you may not like my “lame” sense of humour. Skip over the humour if you don’t like it, and look at the graph. It is VERY interesting.

My article has 2 copies of the same graph. This proves that it is a high quality article. Because high quality articles usually have 2 or 3 graphs (The articles which only have 1 graph, are usually “cheap and nasty”).

[SNIP off-topic, pet project -MOD]

Oh, jeeze. You’re no fun anymore.

Thank you, Mod!

Of course correlation does not prove causation, but this article seems to be arguing something different: that lack of correlation implies lack of causation. In other words, the argument seems to be that, since the increase in CO2 is uncorrelated with the change in temperatures, then CO2 change cannot be driving temperature change.

Problems:

-Picking a period since 1994, or 1960., when the temperature record goes back to the XIX century. Choose a longer timeframe and the correlation becomes clear.

-There are forcings other than CO2

I don’t have time right now to do a plot of forcing vs temperature since 1870, but if you do one you’ll see a very strong correlation: the more forcing, the more temperature. In fact you can see a strong correlation even if you exclusively look at CO2, though that’s not the right way to do it. It should be forcing in w/m2, not any version of ppm or (heaven forbid) emissions.

Of course the relationship is not exactly linear – even if climate sensitivity happened to be linear over time, you wouldn’t expect temperatures to increase exactly at the same pace as forcing. There are natural ups and downs, but whether these ups and downs contribute anything to the long-term warming is unknown.

Alberto,

CO2 data goes only back to 1959 unless one is prepared to accept a lot of assumptions about how CO2 is recorded in ice cores.

Temperature records are increasingly unreliable as we go back in time. I would not trust any global temperature data prior to 1900, and global temperature data prior to 1950 has a great uncertainty.

Exactly my final point.

And yes, lack of correlation implies lack of causation. Particularly since the rate of increase in CO2 keeps accelerating and the rate of change in temperature keeps decelerating. There is no way to explain that as CO2-caused.

Javier

The CO2 record goes far into the past with direct measurement using a well-known chemical method. The 1959 record commenced with “real time” measurements because of the availability of a new (NDIR) technology which was not as good as the chemical method (lower resolution) but was continuous.

The suggestion that CO2 was only measured starting in 1959 is literally fake news. Don’t believe it even though it appears on multiple websites.

Consider: how did Arrhenius know what the CO2 concentration was in the atmosphere to make his (erroneous) calculations of potential warming in 1895?

He used the well known chemical method that had already been in use for seventy-five years. No proxies involved.

How has anyone been able to explain the vast difference between the chemical method results and the NDIR results? Something fishy.

Alan T

There is no explanation required for the differences, which I would not describe as “vast”. The chemical method is very accurate – certainly more accurate by two or three orders of magnitude than the first NDIR instruments.

One doesn’t challenge the results of a set of accurate measurements on the basis that someone else measured somewhere else and got different numbers. That is interesting, not wrong.

Javier feels that the measurements were more reliable because they were far away and high. This is not strictly correct. One can argue they are more representative of the global average, but certainly not that the other measurements were in any meaningful sense less valid. In 1959 the chemical methods were well understood and in all likelihood the instrument was calibrated using gases tested using chemical methods. It was the standard, not the primitive NDIR readings.

I have made surface air measurements myself using very good instruments and have not yet found numbers as low as the low 400’s. Never. There is a ground station at Cape Point which I have visited that monitors CO2, mercury and other gases 24/7. The readings are downloadable. The air (mostly) blows there from the deep south, very pure and clean – no industry. There is another in the high Arctic in Canada. CO2 and mercury and other trace gases are not all that well distributed. Proof? Readings taken around the world. Do they agree with the ones in Hawaii?

As for CO2, there is no reason to assume that “high” readings taken in the 1940’s were made using an in accurate method. That is just not so. And the readings were what they were. They don’t need correcting. They may have been unrepresentative of the global average, but it is unjustifiable to say they were “wrong”. Not liking the numbers, or finding them inconvenient, or wishing other numbers were also available does not impugn the good work of earlier scientists.

Such work can be very valuable. Consider how the seasonal ozone fluctuations over Antarctica were missed because of the presuppositions of scientists as to what constituted acceptable numbers. The numbers are what they are. Explain them.

The OCO satellite shows what the measurements on the ground already demonstrated: that CO2 is not all that well mixed especially lower in the atmosphere. *Yawn* Well-read people already knew that.

Such work can be very valuable. Consider how the seasonal ozone fluctuations over Antarctica were missed because of the presuppositions of scientists as to what constituted acceptable numbers. The numbers are what they are. Explain them.The seasonal ozone fluctuations over Antarctica were not missed. The first season of measurements (1957) yielded a different behavior than observed with the same instruments in the Arctic (a sudden rise in November). As a result it was suspected that there may be a problem with the instrument which was returned to Oxford to be debugged. There was found to be no problem and subsequent readings were accepted and it was recognized that the seasonal behavior was different in the Antarctic. In the late 70s it was observed that the springtime O3 levels were starting to drop dramatically and it was realized that something different was happening. It’s true that the first satellite results that NASA got in the early 80s weren’t immediately recognized because of the lack of previous data, when the BAS results were pointed out to them they were reevaluated.

Crispin,

The problem with the chemical method is that the measurements were not done properly. In most places there are huge variations in CO2 in a matter of an hour. The genius of Keeling was to establish very high on an island far from the continents where at night with the air coming from above he was taking near global measurements. Nobody had accomplished that before him. The record we can trust starts in 1959.

Crispin,

And what level of atmospheric CO2 did Arrhenius determine chemically in 1895 (if you know it offhand)? Just curious.

Arrhenius used the value of 0.03% by volume in the paper as the current value and calculated the consequences of its variation with time..

Here is Ernst-Georg Beck thesis, in which he explains how CO2 air concentrations has been measured since 1812 with chimical methods and shows that those measurements gave similar or higher concentrations in the past (1850, 1940) than now :

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/180_yrs_Atmos_CO2_Analysis_by_chemical_methods_Beck_2007.pdf

Petit-Barde,

I have read one other paper by Beck on chemical atmospheric CO2 determinations over the last two centuries. It has always puzzled me why his studies are ignored when they document the long-term evidence for higher CO2 contents in the atmosphere more than a century ago than currently are accepted as gospel.

I also wonder why this issue has not received more attention at WUWT.

The argument is at the bottom of good sense: Picking “1870”, whereas global warming started out from the Little Ice Age, back in the 17 Cty. It is even better to go further back into the MedWarmperiod and start out from there with the temp decrease since 1000 AD.

…really bad.

Any estimated climate forcing in w/m2 for CO2 is an invalid assumption built on more assumptions. CO2 is primarily produced by the warming and cooling action of the solar-warmed ocean. It lags ocean temperature change at a 99.5% significance by 10-12 months, so therefore is not participating in the warming of the ocean. UAH global correlates at 97% to the ocean, and UAH land at 77% with the ocean, both at 99.5% significance.

The ocean drives the atmosphere and CO2. The sun warms/cools the ocean via high/low TSI-insolation.

And cloud cover.

Alberto, you do understand the caution that correlation with a variable does not NECESSARILY reflect causation? But, you do need to in fact have correlation with its causation to have a legitimate case for it. In other words, if you have corelation between two variables it may not indicate a causal relation. However if you DON’T have a correlation between variables, then that means the variables fail the test of a causal relation.

I’ve noted some confusion on this point, perhaps by non scientists. It is a bit like the lobsided over-stressing of “our rights” with nary a nod to “our responsibilities” the other half of the balanced understanding of the societal obligation.

It’s not a “strong correlation”. It’s just two series that happen to be going in the same direction on average, but not very closely aligned in general. Having two series go in the same direction is merely a coin toss – a 50/50 proposition.

Bart, they have a stronger correlation because they jiggered the temperature series to match the CO2 rise.

Javier

Congrats.

You figured it out.

There is no AGW

Here are the headlines …

Past Five Years Were Hottest on Record, Scientists Say

2018 Was Fourth-Hottest Year in Modern Records, U.S. Government Scientists Say

https://www.wsj.com/articles/2018-was-fourth-hottest-year-in-modern-records-u-s-government-scientists-say-11549471691?mod=hp_lead_pos9

2016 was Peak Warmth. It might be decades before we see those temperatures again.

When they say that 2017 was top 3, and 2018 was top 5, they are actually describing a cooling trend. In a funny way.

I find it one of the most irritating facets of the media’s treatment of the subject, that having one ‘hot’ year followed by another is somehow noteworthy or exceptional.

The hottest day of the year is quite likely to be next to the second hottest day of the year.

A new stock market all-time-high likely had another, slightly lower, all-time-high the day before or the day after.

If you find yourself on the highest mountain summit on earth (Everest North Summit) it is quite likely that you also climbed the second highest mountain summit on earth shortly before hand (Everest South Summit).

When the climate charlatans realized they couldn’t persuade anybody with actual science, they decided to go the way of claiming “records” instead. It’s fine for click-baity sports reporting, but it’s really no way to try and direct the course of the world’s economy.

And how long are the records ? About a 100 years like Australia’s most likely when we had a reasonable Stevenson Screen rollout around 1910 after Federation. What year is it by the way and why?

Certainely not. H2O vapor is the most important. Other claims stay wrong (beside CH4, but not involved in “the Cause”)

OK, well-mixed, non-condensing greenhouse gases. I think most people understand that after three decades of the IPCC blaming CO2.

You forget these climatologists actually come from and study Venus, where CO2 *IS* the most important greenhouse gas. They just can’t wrap their collective Venusian minds around this vapor called H2O.

Did you say Venus??

Mark Twain observed, “The trouble with most of us is that we know too much that ain’t so.”

Adding to the “Δ33C without an atmosphere” (see other article) that completely ain’t so is the example of Venus.

Venus, we are told, has an atmosphere that is almost pure carbon dioxide and an extremely high surface temperature, 750 K, and this is allegedly due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE. But the only apparent defense is, “Well, WHAT else could it BE?!”

Well, what follows is the else it could be. (Q = U * A * ΔT)

Venus is 70% of the distance to the sun so its average solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense as that of earth, 2,615 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,368 W/m^2.

But the albedo of Venus is 0.77 compared to 0.31 for the Earth – or – Venus 601.5 W/m^2 net ASR (absorbed solar radiation) compared to Earth 943.9 W/m^2 net ASR.

The Venusian atmosphere is 250 km thick as opposed to Earth’s at 100 km. Picture how hot you would get stacking 1.5 more blankets on your bed. RGHE’s got jack to do with it, it’s all Q = U * A * ΔT.

The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.

Put the higher irradiance & albedo (lower Q = lower ΔT), thickness (greater thickness increases ΔT) and conductivity (lower conductivity raises ΔT) all together: 601.5/943.9 * 250/100 * 0.0240/0.0146 = 2.61.

So, Q = U * A * ΔT suggests that the Venusian ΔT would be 2.61 times greater than that of Earth. If the surface of the Earth is 15C/288K and ToA is effectively 0K then Earth ΔT = 288K. Venus ΔT would be 2.61 * 288 K = 748.8 K surface temperature.

All explained, no need for any S-B BB RGHE hocus pocus.

Simplest explanation for the observation.

Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE

Nick

“Adding to the “Δ33C without an atmosphere” (see other article) that completely ain’t so is the example of Venus.”

Who cares what the Earth’s surface temperature would be if “there was no atmosphere”? That is simply not relevant. You are discussing the effect of a GHG in an atmosphere. So…talk about the effect of the GHG in that atmosphere, not about a planet with no atmosphere.

The atmosphere is heated directly by the surface and by GHG’s intercepting and reradiating energy. You have discussed the effect of the radiative component of the total heating but not considered the surface heating (convective heat transfer).

We can all agree that the radiative component of the total heating is zero when the GHG are zero, but the atmosphere would still be heated by the surface in that condition. What the equilibrium temperature would be in that condition is yet to be determined but solar heating of the surface doesn’t stop when the GHG are present or not.

No matter how much heating is caused by GHG’s the surface heating is always part of the total. It is missing from your calculations above.

The fact that the atmospheric pressure on Venus is 90 times that of Earth certainly plays a part and probably a great part

Bryan A,

So better consider the temperature on Venus where the air pressure is 1 bar.

That is about 330 K, altitude 50 km.

OK re: earth’s atmosphere

288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with the atmosphere is rubbish. 288 K is a WAG pulled from WMO’s butt. NOAA/Trenberth use 289 K. The 255 K is a theoretical S-B temperature calculation for a 240 W/m^2 ToA (w/ atmosphere!!) ASR/OLR balance (1,368/4 *.7) based on a 30% albedo.

By definition no atmosphere includes no clouds, no water vapor, no oceans, no vegetation, no ice, no snow an albedo perhaps much like the moon’s 0.15. 70% of the lit side would always be above freezing, 100 % for weeks due to the seasonal tilt, not that it matters since there would be no water to freeze.

Without the atmosphere the earth will get 20% to 40% more kJ/h depending on its naked albedo. That means a solar wind 20 to 30 C hotter w/o an atmosphere not 33 C colder. The atmosphere is like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6473732020483743744

No GHE + no GHG warming

The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.That is the value of thermal conductivity at 20ºC, the value at the surface of Venus (T=~750K) would be more like 0.05 W/m-K, double that of air.

In any case what controls the temperature of the planet is the heat loss to space which is not by conduction but by radiation so your calculation is meaningless..

Venus has NO internal Dynamo, which creates magnetism, to protect it from the solar wind. Earths first line of resistance (the bow shock) is some 56,000 miles from the surface . Venus has NO magnetic reconnection on the night side to hold on to an atmosphere.

I think that it has to be obvious to 98% of the regular commenters here that something else “must be more important than CO2.”

It’s a strange master control knob that sometimes lowers the output as you turn it up and other times raises the output as you turn it up, and still other times doesn’t do anything at all when you turn it up. One thing we have been doing for a century or more is turning up the supposed control knob, but we’ve seen cooling, warming, and the pause. It’s like the master control knob is just there so that we think we have some control, but actually it isn’t even connected.

Great paragraph!

The broken knob set on warming is useful for climate change policy crusades though. Never let a modeled crisis go to waste.

“It’s a strange master control knob that sometimes lowers the output as you turn it up and other times raises the output as you turn it up, and still other times doesn’t do anything “It is just like the control (non-thermostat) knob on a home heater. You can turn it up, but if the weather outside got colder, the house may too, and conversely. That doesn’t mean the heater doesn’t have a warming effect.

Nick I think you’ve just had an unbidden sceptical yhought here!

My thoughts exactly! And with an analogy that I couldn’t have come up with myself. We need Nick to spread the news where ever he goes. Thanks in advance, Nick!

What a great day this is.

More like the control knob on a busted home heater. You can pretend that the knob is actually doing something all you want, but the reality is, you’re gonna freeze.

I like Nick’s explanation better. Sometimes there are other, more powerful factors that create the results we observe.

Hoarse rays to blame.

=================

“More like the control knob on a busted home heater.”No, on a working home heater. Sometimes it may get colder even when you’re trying to get the temperature up, if it is very cold outside. But it’s still warmer with the heater than without. You wouldn’t want to be without it in winter.

But you’d like to be able to turn it down in summer.

“…It is just like the control (non-thermostat) knob on a home heater. You can turn it up, but if the weather outside got colder, the house may too, and conversely. That doesn’t mean the heater doesn’t have a warming effect…”

Yeah, it’s “just like” that…CO2 tries to keep making things warmer, but if outer space gets colder, CO2 may be unsuccessful, lol.

Nick,

You realize that you just made my point don’t you? (well Javier’s point really)

Temperatures are fluctuating up and down practically oblivious to CO2, because the CO2 tail can’t wag the atmospheric dog. There are other factors that are more important.

And yes, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (as they never are), more CO2 in the atmosphere should produce some weak warming. If the natural factors are cooling, it would theoretically cool less, and if those more powerful factors are warming then it would tend to enhance the warming. You never saw me deny this.

“And yes, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (as they never are)”

No because we all know the sun is burning up and getting cooler so the CO2 is slowing down our date with the great big global Vortex so Nick doesn’t want anxious folk to worry so much about that. Trust CO2 as it’s putting off our date with destiny.

Nice going, Nick! So given the fact that you also defend the notion that CO2 is the control knob for earth temperature and therefore Global Warming, you should also acknowledge the fact that there are other influences far stronger than that.

You heretic! Welcome to my world.

Comparable to the button on the elevator that is supposed to close the doors.

We have one at my office building that works!

Dang it. Should’ve read down farther before posting.

“It’s like the master control knob is just there so that we think we have some control, but actually it isn’t even connected.”Sort of like the “close doors” button on an elevator. It’s just there to fidget with if you get anxious.

It’s connected, but it forces (controls) in opposite ways at different altitudes. CO2 warms the boundary layer (surface) temperature, particularly on land. CO2 also cools the stratosphere. According to MODTRAN 3.14 W/m2 of CO2 radiance goes to space above the tropical tropopause. This is virtually the same as CO2 downwelling radiance at the surface. According to CERES net radiation to space is flat or slightly increasing as a result of this offset.

Gravity creates the lapse rate. Entropy insures that cold air at altitude and warm air at the surface will mix.

Copied this from Ryan Maue’s Twitter feed:

I have plotted the last 60-years of actual global temperatures for every month (JRA-55) reanalysis:

You can calculate the average each year (Jan – Dec) to confirm the rankings:

2018: 14.84°C

2017: 14.92°C

2016: 15.06°C

2015: 14.88°C

2014: 14.73°C

It sure looks like the recent trend is down, 2018 is below 2015.

2019 might be warmer than 2018 given the positive Niño index and atmospheric situation, but I expect 2020-22 to be cooler than 2018 on account of low solar activity, East QBO and La Niña.

By then we probably will be looking at 20 years without warming and a highly unusual 5-6 year cooling trend. All of that no doubt caused by our emissions.

Javier,

You could well prove right about 2019, but the NH has recently suffered record-breaking frigidity, leading to deaths from cold and avalanche.

However, as the next WUWT post shows, January was warm, thanks mainly to the SH.

But then, about 90% of humans live in the NH. Tbe opposite is true of penguins, and then some.

Thousands of sensible penguins live near Cape Town. Perhaps this is the beginning of their plan to take over the world one continent at a time.

Perhaps, thanks mainly or wholly to BOM Australia!

PERHAPS!

The trend is down since February 2016.

One might well object that three years aren’t significant. But under growing CO2, if the magic gas be the control knob on climate, this observation would require some explaining.

But let’s consider more climatically meaningful time frames. Earth has cooled for three years, but probably warmed for the past 30. It has definitely warmed for the past 300 years, since the end of the Maunder Minimum during the depths of the Little Ice Age. But it has cooled drastically and dangerously for over 3000 years, since the Minoan Warm Period. The planet has however warmed since 30,000 years ago, during a less cold interval in the last frigid ice age, before descent into the Last Glacial Maximum.

Three hundred thousand years ago was also a middling phase of the ice sheet advance before the one before the last one. But three million years ago, toward the end of the Pliocene Epoch, Earth was toastier than now or since that time. Thirty million years ago, the Oligocene planet was already in its present Ice House, with an ice sheet on Antarctica, but still even balmier than during the Pliocene. As it so happens, 300 million years ago Earth was also in an ice age in an Icehouse climatic mode. But the clement Mesozoic Era intervened.

CO2 follows these fluctuations. It’s much more an effect of climate than its cause.

Actually it doesn’t.

CO2 disagrees with temperatures between 2002 and now

CO2 agrees with temperatures between 1976-2002

CO2 disagrees with temperatures between 1945-1976

CO2 agrees with temperatures for the past 600 years.

CO2 disagrees with temperatures for the previous 10,000 years.

CO2 agrees with temperatures for the Pleistocene, but we know temperatures in the Pleistocene respond to Milankovitch.

CO2 disagrees with temperatures in the past 50 million years during the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene.

For the previous 500 million years CO2 only agrees with temperatures during the Late Carboniferous and Permian.

It is surprising how much deception there is regarding past temperature-CO2 correlation. CO2 has been decreasing over time, with very low values during the Karoo and Cenozoic Ice Ages. Temperature is cyclical, with a c. 140 million years period. They both coincide essentially during Ice Ages, when both are low.

Javier,

CO2 obviously isn’t exclusively driven by ocean temperature. There are other factors that can temporarily overcome the basic rule that CO2 solubility in water is temperature dependent and most of the CO2 in the “system” is in the ocean. For example, burning fossil fuels can drive concentration above equilibrium. Sequestering in carbonate rock over eons means that the equilibrium concentration drops independent of temperature. Unusual volcanism, significant changes in land use, etc.

But wouldn’t you agree that when the total amount of CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere system is stable, CO2 follows (lags behind) temperature change? As we see in the seasonal variation of the MLO CO2?

To the extent that we see rising CO2 at the onset of a stadial or decreasing CO2 during some warming periods demonstrates that the warming effect of CO2 is weak compared to other factors and certainly not the master control knob on climate. Temperature can vary independent of CO2 and often has.

I think that John’s point was that where we see a correlation between temperature and CO2, it is generally temperature driving CO2 and not the other way around as commonly believed by the CAGW faithful.

No. Long term CO2 is controlled by tectonic production and chemical weathering.

Yes, Javier, that is consistent with what I said. My limited point is that in the short term, CO2 usually increases when ocean temperature increases, and usually decreases when ocean temperature decreases. Just glance at the Mauna Loa data to see that.

Long term it cannot be driven solely by temperature because the total amount of CO2 is changing. (But it is always required that the partial pressures are balanced at equilibrium).

You surely recall Al Gore’s chart showing CO2-temperature correlation. Much virtual ink has been spilled here on how he showed accurate data but ignored the fact that CO2 rose and fell after temperature rose or fell.

That’s all we’re saying.

I agree with that, Rich.

Temperature controls the variation around the trend in increasing CO2 even today. This control is not primarily the oceans, which despite enormous bidirectional fluxes, yields a small net to the atmosphere with increasing temperature and appear to currently be a small net Carbon sink. Soils, on the other hand yield a 60 Gt unidirectional flux that increases with temperature.

It is the direct correlation with human experience…as human experience and knowledge increase, the effect of CO2 decreases relatively

Javier,

The deception appears to be yours in this case.

CO2 fell as temperature fell from its mid-Eocene high to its Pleistocene low. Dunno why you say it didn’t.

The shorter periods don’t signify. It takes time to equilibrate, and human emissions skewed the natural process in the past century.

Of course more volcanism releases more CO2. That can swamp the effects of outgassing from the oceans. But that doesn’t change the fact that warmer seawater releases more CO2. Same as beer.

Because I downloaded CO2 proxy data from Foster et al., 2017, and Beerling & Royer, 2011, and compared it to temperature proxy data from Zachos et al., 2001.

You probably haven’t done this so you don’t know what you talk about. Between 50 Ma and 3 Ma temperature and CO2 show a decline, but there is no correlation between them. They decline at different times and often show opposite trends for millions of years.

Before talking about deception take the time to study the data. Otherwise, shut the f**k up.

“The planet is no longer warming”

Saying “the planet is no longer warming”, or that “it hasn’t warmed since 1994” are not the same thing. If you take a more long term view, the planet is very likely still warming, on average over enough time – like 100 or 1,000 years. It is possible we just happen to live at the exact right time to observe a flip in temperature change, but not likely.

This really has little to do with the hypothesis that “CO2 is the main controlling factor of temperature change”. We can still be warming, and warming a lot, and that hypothesis still wrong. It is almost certainly wrong in my opinion. I accept that CO2 likely contributes to temperature change, and I will go so far as to accept that CO2 produced by man’s burning of fossil fuels likely contributes (that is, it increases by some amount the CO2 in the atmosphere), but it likely plays only a small role.

The problem is that so many people in the climate studies are so certain they have already discovered the answer that they are no longer looking for any other contributors – they leave that to the skeptics.

It may be that the acceleration of temperature change has decreased… If CO2 plays only a minor role, than that is possible and CO2 can STILL contribute to overall warming. I am pleased that within the next 10 years or so we should know better the effects of a “quiet” Sun on the climate. By then it should be obvious to the most dense of people that CO2 is NOT the control knob that is claimed – unless of course warming accelerates and CO2 turns out to be more important than I realize (so I turn out to be the most dense of people instead, I accept that as a possibility too).

My only fear is not global warming, but the poisoning and contamination of the scientific process and the collected climate data used to study these effects – this scares me. One may not come to a correct conclusion if one is given only tainted data and fed politically correct explanations. The politics involved in this “science” possesses the capability to cause great suffering if we allow it – the diversion of wealth to political aims, creating a “fair” playing field to replace capitalism’s survival of the fittest, etc.

Well, why not 5,000 or 8,000 years? Whoops, long term cooling trend! Can’t win them all, I suppose.

One has to set a time frame for consideration. Over the past 540 million years Earth’s temperature has been constrained quite narrowly between 12 and 30°C. Now at 14.5°C it is in a very cold state.

The average period considered for a variable to constitute climate is usually 30 years. That is what most people also consider as long-term view. People are not motivated much by what is going to pass in 100 years, and not at all for what is going to happen in 500 years.

If we are looking to two decades of cooling, that is highly significant, even if the temperature just returns to what it was in the early 1980s, that was not so different from the present, despite all the noise from alarmists.

30 years is too short. We have identified various cyclical climatic drivers of 60+ years. It has been argued that the UN IPCC climate models were tuned to a natural temperature upswing period.

30 years is

nottoo short to tell whether it’s warming or not.If there are cyclical drivers that

changethe degree of warming or cooling over longer periods, that’s a different thing. But you can still get a solid snapshot of whether the Earth is warming or cooling by just looking at 30 years of surface temperature data.I don’t think you need to go that long; a period of ~30 years pretty much averages out the natural internal surface temperature fluctuations well enough to get a picture of whether the Earth is warming or not. Or, if you look at the ocean heat content, you could just average over a decade.

The OP is a good example of “down the up-escalator”. Even while the multidecadal uptrend continues, there will of course be variations around that, and the “skeptics” will claim every downward wiggle as proof that warming has stopped. When it warms, they quiet down for a while, until the next downward wiggle commences, generally from a higher base.

The fact that this continued through 2013, with so many people on this forum saying “it’ll be cooling soon!” and then, after hitting higher record temperatures for several years, it started again… man, this is plainly motivated reasoning. It doesn’t pass scientific muster. You can’t just cherry-pick the short-term trends that fit your views and ignore the rest.

Like, imagine asking Javier to put error bars on his polynomial trendline. Do you think you’d really be able to make any conclusions about whether warming had slowed or not? Hahahaha, of course not. The data is

fartoo noisy to draw conclusions about the second derivative of the temperature. But Javier plowed ahead regardless, sans uncertainty estimates.This is simply bad science, and it’s because of stuff like this that the skeptics are ignored by the mainstream scientific community. This work is bad, non-rigorous.

“In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing at the same rapid rate.” – article.

You mean – all that hysterical pointing and shouting and protesting was much ado about nothing? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

I’m even more shocked that Accuweather has declared 2018 the FOURTH HOTTEST YEAR on record:

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/2018-becomes-fourth-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-noaa-report/70007362

I think they must be desperate for attention. They are standing by their extended forecasts, despite being criticized by meteorologists for it.

Two hot days in July when the defrost switch in my fridge quit and had to be replaced on the circuit board do NOT constitute a hot summer!!!! Not NOHOW!!!

The summer of 1953 was subject to a heat wave in central Illinois. I was 6YO and remember it well because we had an icebox instead of a fridge (don’t get me started!) and spent a good deal of time on the front porch swing after the sun went down, just cooling off. But it was nice to have an icebox because the guy who delivered the ice would break chunks off the blocks for us kids to enjoy. Good times!

People that have lived long enough to have memories expanding >60 years have experienced an entire 60-year oscillation and can call their bluff on dangerous global warming. The youngsters however are accepting what they are told unquestioningly.

But… but… but… CO2 does EVERYTHING!

“According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.”

I’m not tracking this. If a refrigerator removed 120% of the heat inside, would it not both, violate The Law of Conservation and basic Arithmetic?

Their rationale is that GHGs caused more warming than is observed, but human-caused aerosols cooled what is not observed. With that neat little trick they can assign CO2 any climate sensitivity they want, and project future warming to infinity and beyond.

Why did the warming stop?

https://holoceneclimate.com/why-did-global-warming-stop.html

The sum of the causes (water vapor, proxy quantified by SSN anomaly time-integral, SST trend 64 year cycle) stopped increasing. CO2 effect, if any, is not one of them.

NASA/RSS have been measuring the ghg water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988. WV was rising with a trend of about 1.5% per decade which is about twice that calculated by vapor pressure increase of the warming surface water. The WV rise correlates with rising irrigation.

Discounting the aberration of the el Nino that peaked in Jan, 2016, it appears water vapor trend has settled at about 29 kg/m^2 which is about 7% more than it was in 1960.

Water vapor (TPW) increase leads lower troposphere temperature increase and both ignore CO2.

NOAA have finally update the the US-CRN temperature data, after the shutdown.

This is a reliable, high quality temperature recording network in pristine locations.

For the yearly average jan-dec, 2018 was cooler than 2006. 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017

and about the same a 2005 and 2007.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=ann&begyear=1895&endyear=2018&month=12

Of course you play with Cowtan’s HAD Crut 4 data and find little warming from 1930 to 1990 ( co2 then 350ppm). About 0.02 c /decade, so doesn’t seem to respond much over that longer period of time either.

There must be any number of OTHER control knobs like the Sun, Ocean oscillations, more/less clouds day or night etc, etc.

Also Antarctica seems to miss out on their so called CAGW for a very long time as well. Why is it so?

http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

Javier, this analysis has some weaknesses. Why 2nd order polynomial fit? Why temperatures since 1960? It’s all very arbitrary and your fit would be different for a different period. Your 1994 (and other time points) are the result of the fit and the time period choice. For example, using linear fit you can go back to 1974 to get a decreasing warming rate.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1974/mean:12/derivative/trend

In your figures 3 and 4, y-axis should be °C/month?

Other than that, I generally agree. The short term temperature change rates have been decreasing since the late 1970s.

My bad, °C/year is correct.

2nd order polynomial fit because the 3rd order gives the same curve and a lower order is always preferred.

1959 because it is when CO2 data becomes available so both can be compared.

Any order polynomial is a joke, sorry. It’s sinuous.

Maybe the world *IS* cooling!

“Hupman is part of a team studying leopard seals, an Antarctic species increasingly being seen further north in New Zealand. The researchers are trying to find out why.”

https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/did-a-seal-eat-your-holiday-pics-a-new-zealand-scientist-wants-to-know-20190207-p50w7r.html

“But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations. The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing. In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing at the same rapid rate.”

Javier:

There are other anthro GHG’s affecting GMTs.

How about CH4?

Which happened to have a sig fall in it’s rate of rise in the early 90’s

and was vitually flat from circa ’98 to ’08

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/343/6170/493/F1.large.jpg

In 2011 it was contributing ~1 W/m^2 of forcing when CO2 was at 1.7 W/m2

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/causes-of-climate-change/0/steps/13583

So we are talking of a near 2:3 ratio here.

If you must have your “Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing”

How about …. “Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years because CH4 levels have been increasing more slowly” ?

Nope. Radiative forcing by CO2 is more than 3 times that of CH4 according to IPCC AR5 chapter 8.

Yep seems that graphic was wrong, despite quoting it as …

“Values taken from IPCC AR5, WG1, Supplementary Material Tables 8.SM.6 and 8.SM.7.”

“…Which happened to have a sig fall in it’s rate of rise in the early 90’s

and was vitually flat from circa ’98 to ’08…”

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/12/13915950/methane-atmosphere-rise-agriculture

“…Methane concentrations in the atmosphere were pretty stable in the 2000s,” says Rob Jackson, an earth scientist at Stanford and co-author on both studies. “But in the last decade they’ve gone up ten times faster than they did in 2000-2006, and they’ve gone up faster still in 2014-15…”

A “pretty stable” decade doesn’t account for 20 years.

All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no change in average global temperature since about 2002.

CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002

1800 avg. Lawdome, Neftel, Friedli = 281.6 ppmv

2002 avg. Mauna Loa/Keeling = 373.3 ppmv

Nov, 2018 Keeling = 410.0 ppmv

Given this latest flat temperature and two previous 30+ year downtrends in temperature with relentlessly rising CO2, demonstrate that CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature.

What then, if not CO2?

NASA/RSS have been measuring the ghg water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988. WV was rising with a trend of about 1.5% per decade which is about twice that calculated by vapor pressure increase of the warming surface water. The WV rise correlates with rising irrigation.

Discounting the aberration of the el Nino that peaked in Jan, 2016, it appears water vapor trend has settled at about 29 kg/m^2 which is about 7% more than it was in 1960. Water vapor (TPW) increase leads lower troposphere temperature increase and both ignore CO2.

IMO the human contribution (via increased irrigation) to warming has ended but the increased risk of precipitation related flooding will continue.

Interesting concept. But what is your reference for the rise in irrigation? Sounds like you might be on to something.

http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/didyouknow/index3.stm

Graph, reference links and detailed calculations are in Section 9 of my blog/analysis (click my name)

We still have the same four seasons here in New England. Each still lasts about 91.25 days. It’s been that way since anyone can remember.

Climate is good, no change. Check. 🙂

The Keeling net CO2 in atmosphere curve is approximated mathematically by the formula:

ppm = 0.013 t^2 + 0.518 t + 310.44 where t = the time in years since 1950

The UK workplace safety law for ppm CO2 is 5000 ppm.

setting the equation = 5000 and using the quadratic formula of (-b +/- ( (b^2 -4ac)^ 1/2)) / 2a

gives t= 580. Adding that to 1950 gives the year 2530. That is only 511 years away where we would choke to death on CO2 according to the UK workplace safety laws. I know that some places have long term limit exposure up to 8000 ppm but you get the point. Now we can worry about this or we can say 511 years is so far into the future that who in the hell cares. Howeverthe alarmists will not let this go aftertheir warming theory completely falls apart. This does bother me because the thought of mankind choking on his/her prosperity is a worry even if it is 511 years away. however some skeptics say that we will never be able to burn that much fossil fuels because we will run out way before then. I am not so sure.

However I still have a feeling in my gut that the CO2 numbers will either level off or they are fraudulent in the 1st place. Why arent more government agencies measuring the CO2 in the atmosphere? I wish Denmark would do it. I trust the Danes.

Uhhhh . . . help! I am at a complete loss to understand the meaning of this single sentence that comprises the second paragraph of Javier’s article above:

“According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.”

For any given observation and postulated cause of such (e.g., Earth’s daylight sky appears to be blue as the result of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight), how can the postulated cause explain more that 100% of the observation.

The statement defies logic, so I’m hoping it is directly attributable to the IPCC instead of to Javier.

Read the comments. It was already explained here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/#comment-2618761

Javier, I saw the previous comment and read your response to that, but it did provide and clarification.

Something is either “observed” or it is not. It does not matter how many different “forcings” lead to the observation and how many of these were “positive” versus “negative” (thereby offsetting one another to some degree), the net combination provides the end observation. IMHO, there is simply no logical way to explain something being 120% or 200% of the cause of anything, but it being less than 100% of the cause is a completely rational condition.

Such a statement does not even merit being called a “trick.”

mathematical semantics . Everybody knows what you both mean.

Gordon,

Establishing a budget from positive and negative contributions that cannot be properly measured is an exercise in hypocrisy. Yet climatologists do it all the time. For temperature using climate forcings in W/m2. For sea level rise using unknown contributions from underground waters, surface waters, glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica, with a fudge factor for steric rise.

All that has zero value as it is all based on suppositions. They use it to justify the final observation any way they want by adjusting positive and negative contributions and the only criterion is the consensus. They need to do it because it is all based on models. But they then act as if their models had merit, when they not.

How could the author’s analysis have such drastically different results than this piece of alarmism:

https://www.axios.com/earths-5-warmest-years-have-occurred-since-2014-cc42f4bb-dbc6-40b7-b478-0ce942fab2d0.html

I do find it funny they can’t count years for the headline, but can in the article…

If you see them using 2018 in any assessment of temps you know it’s alarmist bullshit.

“Since 2017, the rate of temperature change has become negative.”

Wow. So after an El Nino, things are negative. Wow. So surprising.

What an idiot.

No trafamadore. The temperature rate of change has been decreasing since 1994. This has nothing to do with El Niño. I think your last phrase refers to yourself as you cannot get the right information from the article and figures 3 and 4.

No it hasn’t.

Yes it has. The linear trend from 1994 is y = -0.0019x + 3.7408. The trend is negative

You are confusing the rate of change (first derivative of temperature) with the acceleration (second derivative). From 1994 to now the average rate of rise in temperature is 0.01788 degrees per year.

But, we’re happy to use a Super El Nino at the end of a temperature trend?

I have challenged people to find out what is the IPCC model calculated temperature of AR5, but nobody has ever found it. Now I see the first time a graphical presentation in Figure 1 showing that the observed temperature in 2011 (the reference year of AR5) has been 0.65 °C and the anthropogenic effect on the temperature increase would have been 0.7 °C (estimated from Figure 1). I checked one again once again SPM, but I could not identify a Figure 1 of this blog. So, on which page we can find it in SPM or in AR5?

What we can easily find in SPM/AR5 is Figure SPM.5 “Radiative forcing relative to 1750”. It is the summary of radiative forcing (RF) elements according to the IPCC. It shows that the total anthropogenic RF is 2.29 W/m2 and the only non-anthropogenic RF is an increase 0.05 W/m2 of the solar irradiance, together 2.34 W/m2. The IPCC has used huge efforts to find out these RF values, but they do not show, what is the temperature effect of this RF value? Why not? What is the problem? Maybe they do not know how to transform RF values into temperatures? If they do not know, why to carry out so much work?

They know quite exactly how to do this final step. The problem is that the result is a piece of very bad news to the IPCC. The IPCC has a simple climate model, and it is dT = CSP * RF, where CSP is climate sensitivity parameter and its IPCC value is 0.5 K/(W/m2). This value means that the positive water feedback has been applied duplicating the anthropogenic radiative forcing values.

So, the temperature change from 1750 to 2011 is 0.5 * 2.34 = 1.17 °C. What is the observed temperature change from 1750 to 2011? This is also a figure you cannot find in AR5. It is one of those ways how the IPCC muddles the water by changing all the time the reference years. This is what you can find in SPM/AR5: “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.

Finally, we get the difference between the IPCC model calculated temperature and the observed temperature and it is 1.17 °C – 0.85 °C meaning an error of 37.7 %. Today this error is even greater. That is the simple reason, why you cannot see these figures anywhere. I have noticed that the journalists of the media never ask this simple question: What is the present observed temperature change since 1750 and what is the model calculated temperature? They are interested in temperatures of 2030, 2050 or 2100.

Antero, figure 1 for this article is figure SPM.3 of AR5 Synthesis Report – Summary for Policymakers, page 6.

If you search internet for figures using its figure caption you will find it multiple times.

“Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for warming trends over the 1951–2010 period from well-mixed greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings (including the cooling effect of aerosols and the effect of land use change), combined anthropogenic forcings, natural forcings and natural internal climate variability (which is the element of climate variability that arises spontaneously within the climate system even in the absence of forcings).”“If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.”Not really. The IPCC hypothesis considers ALL of the observed warming in the ~70 years since 1950, and says that natural causes, if any, had a very small impact in the overall. This doesn’t mean that they cannot have an impact in the last, say, 10 years. What it says is that in the longer term, any effects must have cancelled out., but you can of course get short periods with faster or slower warming without it being because of changes in CO2 concentration rise.

And of course I am playing devil’s advocate here. For me IPCC is wrong. But the way to fight IPCC’s wrongness shouldn’t be to misrepresent their position.

Nylo,

For the past 24 years the rate of warming has been decreasing, and that includes the last 16 years of their analysis. If natural causes didn’t cause that, what did? And if it was natural causes, they cannot be insignificant. Anyway their hypothesis is wrong.

Nylo,

You are right, IPCC is wrong.

One must allways remember that UN is politicians playground and IPCC is their toy.

It´s all in for new taxes. And those we have had more than enough. At least here in Finland.

Nylo, I always ask people why the UN IPCC doesn’t use data beginning in 1945. What about the period 1916-1945 Dr. Judith Curry highlights?

Curve fitting is nice an can provide valuable insights.

But it should always be provided with confidence intervals, otherwise it can induce a false sense of certainty.

Exactly. The R^2 for the redline is roughly zero (just above), so he is trying to fit noise. Moreover he muddles the third and second derivatives.

The signal to noise ratio is extremely low, but that doesn’t mean that there is no information. The information is there.

And the one muddling his derivatives is you.

John Tiltman mentions “Cooled books”. Can we of WUWT prove that, and if so can we force the Politicians to look at the two sets of figures, plus a demand for punishment against those who are Cooking the books.

After all ” Fraud is a criminal offence.

MJE

Javier always works in “rates of change” of temperature , and even defines “warming” in terms of “rates of change” .

Right at the start , he opens with this definition :-

“We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time “.

Surely “warming” must mean a simple rise in temperature between two points in time , which is NOT the same as Javier’s definition .

Even if a “rate of change “ decreases , the globe can still be warming , but slower so .

Even a “ negative rate” could still have a globe warming but below an arbitrary “zero” value set by the arbitrary choice of where you start (and finish) , ie still warming but at a rate below a selected value you have chosen for whatever reason (in Javier’s case , the selection of a start point was .1959 when CO2 started being accurately measured in real time) .

As Nick Stokes says , you can move that start point around to vary the zero value , which thus becomes arbitrary .

Thus , is it possible the globe was still warming but even more slowly in 2018 , when Javier’s “rate-of-change” curve becomes negative ?

Does Javier’s conclusion still hold if you work in actual temperature values rather than in “rates of change “ ?

“a simple rise in temperature between two points in time”necessarily implies a positive rate of temperature change between those two points in time.This is really simple yet most people get it wrong. Temperature and temperature rate of change are equivalent to distance and velocity. Forces act on velocity not on distance, distance is the result. Forcings act on temperature rate of change, temperature is the result. Comparing forcings to temperature only leads to confusion. A reduction in velocity indicates braking, yet distance continues to increase. A reduction in temperature rate of change indicates a decrease in warming, yet temperature continues to increase until the rate of change becomes negative.

G A Keen,

Maybe you should use same language with IPCC?

No, his conclusions are incorrect. To avoid confusion I prefer to talk in terms of derivatives wrt. time.

The points on his plt 3 are estimates of the first derivative. If you do a linear trendline, it rises, showing that the second derivative is positive, i.e. the rate of temperature increase is increasing. If you look at his red line with curvature, the curvature represents the third derivative. This has no statistical significance. Javier uses the third derivative (negative) to argue that the second derivative (positive) is negative. I suggest he stands back and contemplates his work.

The linear fit gives you the overall result. Warming overall increased, which we already know since temperature increased. But it doesn’t tell you what it has been doing recently, so you are incorrect that the rate of temperature change is increasing. It is not.

Things only acquire statistical significance once they are in the past. Statistics is usually inconclusive about things that are happening in the present. Plenty of things that were not statistically significant ended up being real. A lot of people have a poor understanding of statistics. It is not the final arbiter of what is real and what is not.

Regarding the meaning of iterative derivation, I think you need to go back and study more.

Of course , I do appreciate that even a possible reducing rate of “warming” (my definition) still permits Javier’s basic conclusions .

OMG. Every semi-stable oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected system, every “greening” measure, every orbital metric condition, every long term paleo-proxy ice core, every receding glacier, and the wonderful CO2 metric that confirms our pleasant conditions, says we are in a wonderful interstadial warming plateau. It will continue to be at this slightly wriggly plateau till these systems get played out and Earth not only stops staying warm, but begins its jagged fall to large scale death and destruction as we all battle the ever decreasing conditions to the bottom of the stadial cold trough.

Looking for the little wriggles up and down during the pleasant, warm plateau just makes you look silly.

Expand that out, and you could honestly say we have been in an ice age for the past two million years, with brief respites every hundred and twenty thousand years or so. The previous inter-glacial warm period to our current one was much warmer at it’s peak than anything humans have seen in the past 10K years.

We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time”. Is that a nature trick or is it a trick for clicks?

US sceptics live in la la land. Last 5 years have been the 5 warmest since start of modern records: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2019/02/06/global-warming-2018-was-one-of-earths-warmest-years-on-record-cnn/

That’s a superficial observation. The rate of warming has been decreasing for decades and the planet is no longer warming. Whatever caused the warming could not have been CO2 as it has kept increasing.

You would do well in being more skeptic yourself. You are being taken.

Did you read the article I posted? The 5 warmest years ON RECORD! You can’t deny the facts. Facts are facts.

It is obvious that if the planet has been warming the latest years are the warmest. That simple fact appears to be sufficient for simple minds.

More complex minds ponder about why the warming is decelerating, and what that tells us about the causes of the observed warming.

A simple answer, like CO2 did it, would have appeal to simple minds. More complex minds know that the evidence contradicts that simple answer. If CO2 had done it, warming and sea level rise should be accelerating. The opposite is being found.

It isn’t decelerating. Your analysis is flawed.

Your analysis of my analysis is flawed.

The 5 warmest years ON RECORD!Yeah, so? The world’s been warming since the depths of the little ice age (long before man invented the dreaded SUV). One would expect the warmest years at the top of the curve (IE closer to present day) and not at the bottom (IE long ago, when frost fairs on the Thames was a thing).

Ivan Kinsman.

Irrelevant. What this article shows (along with general observation) is that we are or have entered a plateau with regards to temperature increase and this fact flies right into the face of the co2 hypothesis. Measuring temperatures at the peak of the plateau is merely academic.

If you what to talk facts, look at all of them, not just your favourites.

The question is “Whose Records”?

Hi

Interesting stuff Javier.

Could you make the last two graphs with sea and land temperature separately ?

Thanks

Sure. And you can do it too. You just need Excel and you can download the data from here:

Land temperature:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/download.html

Marine surface temperature:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/download.html

Javier, your links don’t work well, but I did find a plot of the NOAA data:

The plot is discussed here:

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/ten-signs-global-warming-and-climate-change-are-happening#.XF2EXvZFyUk

Here is a better location to download the HadCRU global land and sea data separately in a form that loads into Excel fairly easily:

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Don’t use the NetCDF links, use the links to the right of them.

It’s not easy with a tablet !

Anyway, I will pray god tonight for it to order you to do some copy past.

Is there an “official” explanation for the actual gap between sea surface temperature and land temperature ?

It’s seems that when they talk about global mean tamperature they average land+ocean even if 90% of the heat are in oceans; so the actual land temperature could be a momentum discrepencie and could stop increasing for a very long times or even drop sharply (with a big la niña?).

If the heat content have been inverse between ocean and land, they would have apply GT=0,9*X+0,1*Y !

If it is just curiosity, the Met Office did a graph of the temperature rate of change for the three databases back in 2013:

Land temperature is more volatile and displays more warming, but all three databases move essentially together.

The graph was published in the Synopsis Report: The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/i/s/pause_paper2_what_are_the_potential_causes_archive_csc_02_tagged.pdf

Sea Surface Temperature and Ocean Heat Content are two very different things. With reanalysis there is a tendency to define surface temperature as temperature 2 meters above the surface, skipping the problem of sea surface temperature all together.

Javier: Before you draw any conclusions about whether the rate of warming is slowing or increasing in your Figure 3, you need to calculate a confidence interval around the coefficient for the quadratic (t^2). You are likely discussing noise in the data. You know how to do better work than this.

Frank,

As I noted here, the endpoint value (Jan 2019) can be assigned an uncertainty, just by making it the zero point of time, so its value is the intercept. That is, -0.0068°C/year, with uncertainty ±0.14 °C/year. Yes, the uncertainty is 14 °C/Century. The conclusion is worthless.

The second derivative is -4.5e-5 ± 1.7e-4 °C/yr/yr/yr. There is little confidence even about its sign.

No. The uncertainty is much lower if we use the information obtained to look at the decline in temperature rate of change since mid 1997. At the 90% confidence level the range is from -0.041 to +0.028°C/year for 2018, with the central value at -0.007°C.

And the point is not how statistically significant is that the world is cooling now, but how statistically significant is that the rate of warming has been decelerating since 1997, and that is significant.

Your hypothesis cannot explain that.

“but how statistically significant is that the rate of warming has been decelerating since 1997, and that is significant”No it isn’t. The significance is given in that second derivative. -45 ± 170 °S/Century³. Even the sugn is very uncertain. It could well have been accelerating.

You are not getting to the right answer.

Temp rate of change follows the same 65-yr periodicity as temp, and so many other climate indices, as the 30-year rate of change reveals clearly.

And it is already going down.

This time solar activity and the 65-yr oscillation are down. It didn’t happen since the early 20th century. That’s why we are having a record cooling period in 40 years that everybody is trying to ignore. It will get worse in just 3 years with the effects of La Niña that is coming in 2021. The dissociation between the catastrophic message and the reality is going to reach such a level that climate change will become an irrelevant issue. Are you going to continue in the wrong side of the debate through all that?

Frank,

Of course the temperature rate of change is very noisy data. The yearly average changes quickly from -0.4 to 0.4°/year over one year (that’s 8°/decade difference in just a year). By contrast the decadal average changes very little, between -0.15 and 0.15°/year, and the multidecadal average falls to -0.02 to 0.02°/year.

With such noisy data for so little long-term variation the confidence interval becomes useless. Statistics have been developed to confirm something after it has happened, not while it is happening. By the time statistics confirm at 95% confidence that the world is cooling, everybody and their dog would have known it long before just by looking at temperature change. The same happened with the pause and scientists are still split about if it was statistically significant or not.

The news is that a linear regression for the annual temperature rate of change since 1997 (21 years), has crossed the zero line. The decline is significant at the 95% confidence, the crossing obviously not.

But if one knows what causes climate to change and is able to project those causes, then one is one step ahead of statistics that can only look at the past. That is why I projected an Arctic sea-ice September melting pause a few years ago, to the horror of statistician Tamino, and year after year the pause is being confirmed by more data.

So yes, I am jumping the gun and projecting that the observed end of global warming will be statistically confirmed by more data over the next years. 10 more years of data should be sufficient for that. By then global temperature should have declined by around 0.2°C. I’ll write another article then.

Meanwhile I’ll try to convince people that the main factor affecting the rate of temperature change over the long term is long term changes in solar activity. That ought to be fun.

And Cloud Cover.

No you are completely wrong, The curves you show are the third derivative of the temperature. The second derivative, which indicates whether temperature change is accelerating or not, is positive. The headline is completely wrong. See my post below.

You fail to understand that finding a best fit whether second, third, fourth, or fifth polynomial is not the same as derivating the data three, four, five, or six times. In every case it represents an approximation to how the first derivative changes over time. They represent the same as a linear fit, except that they indicate that the acceleration must change over time instead of being constant and being the slope of the linear trend.

Exactly. Moreover, the quadatic is a fit to the rate of change, so the curvature indicates the third derivative of the temperature. Nothing useful here.

A curious opinion. The curvature of the fit, regardless of the order of the polynomial used for the fit, represents how the acceleration of the warming has been changing over time. It represents how the foot pressure is being applied over the gas pedal and the brake pedal of the warming car over time. More pressure braking that accelerating over time and we first get decelerating warming and when crossing the zero line cooling.

Not useful for the IPCC that postulates constant acceleration by CO2.

Javier,

HadCRUT? The Climategate guys? You should compare CO2 and historical temperature from NCAR (see graph)

How do you explain 1910-1940 warming trend and 1940-1970 cooling trend with CO2?

I don’t use CO2 for that. The 65-yr oscillation is the main explanation for those periods.

Show the evidence for 65-yr oscillation and what’s driving it

Start with:

Schlesinger, M. E., & Ramankutty, N. (1994). An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65–70 years. Nature, 367(6465), 723.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Schlesinger4/publication/274043864_Low-frequency_oscillation/links/596ed0b00f7e9bd5f75f774e/Low-frequency-oscillation.pdf

And follow with the 1236 articles citing them:

https://scholar.google.es/scholar?cites=14414410067387992220&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

Heat content from 1960 to 1990 = 10

Heat content from 1990 to 2020 =20+

It’s seems to match the rate of change of CO2. Even the 1980-1990 flatening …

But reassure yourself Javier, I have also the impress that the land temperature will drop in the next years. OHC hits NEW record will be the next worldwide headlines I guess…

But oceans have almost 4 km deep by mean, so there is some margin to ‘cool’ all the new heat but it will be a long process; catastrophic long term temperature increase seems to forget.

Max,

If we have trouble measuring global surface temperature in which we live, are adapted and have instruments for hundreds of years, imaging measuring the ocean’s temperature, that changes a minimal part of the surface temperature, and thus requires a higher precision. Then displaying it in huge numbers of small units of energy, because temperature looks ridiculous. And the ocean is so much larger than the surface that we would require what, 10,000 times more instruments?

Ocean Heat Content is all fantasy. It means what they want it to mean.

This article makes two fundemental errors. If you ook at fig. 3, each point represents the difference in monthly temperature between years. I have reproduced this plot myself. So each point represents an estimate of the first derivative of temperature wrt. time. The slope of a linear trendline would show the second derivative. I have done this, and the slope is poisitive. this means that the rate of warming is increasing. The red line represents a second order trendline, so the curvature represents the third derivative. The curvatire is negative, but this means that the thrid derivative is negative (the rate of change of the rate of change of the rate of change of temperature is negative, or something like that). So the aryicle does not understand the derivatives and what the red line represents.

Second, the statistical significance of the trendlines is very small, R^2 of almost zero, so any conclusions about the rate of change of global warming as represented by fig. 3 have very little statistical significance.

In summary, the article is nonsense and makes me sceptical about the quality of science performed by amateur climate scientists.

If you do the same for the period 1997.5 to 2019.0 the slope is negative. This means that the rate of warming is decreasing.

Then you mistake the meaning of fitting a trendline to the data. The trendline is always the way the first derivative is changing over time. If we equate temperature to position, first derivative of temperature to velocity, and second derivative of temperature to acceleration, any fit to the first derivative represents acceleration. It doesn’t matter that the best fit is a straight line, a parabola, or a more complex function, like a polynomial. It always represents the acceleration. The difference is that if it is a linear function the slope equals the acceleration, that is constant, while in a more complex function the acceleration also changes over time.

So you should distinguish the difference between deriving the data over time over finding the function that best fits that derivation. The function is not the data. It is an abstract representation that approaches the data.

I think the one making a big mistake here is you.

Before you go too far, be aware I have a degreem Master of mathematics and PhD in theoretical physics from Cambridge. I have also been using statistics since about 1985. So I think i do know what I am talking about when it comes to derivatives and acceleration. But I also enjoy a debate, so let me try to break this down.

1. Do you agree that the points in Fig. 3 represent an estimate of rate of change in temperature? I.e. the derivative of temperature?

When we have agreed on that, I will move to the next point.

While you are thinking about that, why have you changed from 1960 – 2019 to 1997.5 – 2019? Cherry picking?

For the data in your graph, 1960 – 2019, the slope is positive. Adjusted R^2 is negative!

For 1970 – 2019, the slope is positive.

For 1950 – 2019 the slope is positive

The slope for 1997.5 – 2019 is negative. The adjusted R^2 is 0.004

Now, my next question, what does the slope represent? Let me help you, it represents the acceeration in the rate of change in temperature. Since 1950 the rate of increase in temeprature has been rising. Since 1960 (your graph) the rate of increase in temperature has been rising.

Now, first point, the R^2 of these trendlines is tiny, so there is enormous uncertainty.

I am happy with uncertainty, my career is built around uncertainty quantification, it is only the stupid who are certain (as Russell said).

Interesting. I also did a post-doc at Cambridge.

1. Sure. The slope between two temperature (T) points after a time interval (t(b)-t(a)) is T(b)-T(a)/t(b)-t(a), which is essentially the geometrical definition of a derivative as the limit of that quotient when t(b)-t(a)->0.

No. A gaussian smoothing of the temperature rate of change identifies 1997.5 as the highest peak in the rate of warming for the 1900-2020 period. It automatically follows that the decrease in temperature rate of change started then.

Actually that is not correct. The slope represents a constant acceleration that would result in a linear temperature increase that fits best the observed warming. Obviously the acceleration has not been constant over the time, so it is just an approximation.

That is correct. However the temperature increase has taken place, so we know for a fact that the acceleration has taken place. What we don’t know is the distribution of that acceleration over time to give the fixed result.

Perhaps you will get a clearer idea of what I am talking about if you see a gaussian smoothing of both temperature and temperature rate of change.

The curve showed obtained from the gaussian smoothing constitutes a better fit than the parabola I used, but it essentially confirms what I said. The decline in rate of change has taken place. We know that for a fact regardless of data uncertainty because the change in temperature says so.

You say:

However the temperature increase has taken place, so we know for a fact that the acceleration has taken place.

No. The temperature increase has taken place because the average of the points in fig. 3 is above zero. We know acceleration has taken place overall because the trendline slop is positive.

I am sure you knew, and I certainly did, lots of very batty cranky people at Cambridge.

Actually, it’s late, i am tired, you clearly did not do a master of stats, but one thing is quite clear.

The linear regression slope in fig. 3 has a very wide confidence interval, i.e. a very low R^2, so the only thing we can say about the acceleration of temperature rise is that we do not know. There may or may not have been an acceleration in the rate of temperature rise, and there may have been a deceleration. we don’t know.

very different to the headline in the article. indeed, the headline says ‘the planet is no longer warming’. a better headine would be ‘the planet is warming (i.e. the temperature is increasing), but we dont; know whether this process is accelerating or decelerating or roughly constant’.

However, that would not have been such good click bait.

Now when you start using a second order curve fit to fig. 3, i repeat you are looking at the third derivative of the temperature (think of the MacLauren series) and if the second derivative is uncertain, the third derivative is away with the fairies. You make great play on the fact that the curve is concave (negative third derivative of temperature) but the data provides no evidence for this, even for the second derivative you have a tiny R^2.

So your lines in the article such as

Since 2017, the rate of temperature change has become negative.

and the whole of fig. 4 are ludicrous.

If you plotted the uncertainty around the solid line in fig. 4 it would go wild. Try looking at the variance in the beta coefficient for the second order term.

I repeat, but you are not listening, that the second order term in the polynomial curve fit represents the third derivative of temperature wrt. time. The second derivative is the acceleration in the rate of temperature rise. the third derivative, the acceleration (or deceleration) in the acceleration in the rate of temperature rise.

It is ludicrous.

Think again of MacLauren series.

Then you start to do third order polynomials, the fourth derivative of the temperature wrt. time.

Cambridge is full of people who can do the equations but have zero common sense.

I’m not the only one who has suggested you provide a more cautious conclusion based on a better understanding of statistics and what the data represents. You may understand it, ut you are not communicating it, and you are misleadingt the less well informed public who focus on pictures and headlines.

Anybody taking a casual glance at fig. 4 and the headline would conclude that temperatures are starting to fall, or at least that the rate of increase in temperatures is starting to fall dramatically. Both completely false.

Nigel,

My experience of Cambridge was very positive. The best place to do science I’ve ever been, an I’ve been in a few. I just didn’t like the weather.

More than one statistician doesn’t realize that statistics doesn’t say anything about the reality of things. It only gives an informed opinion about if some observation could be due to chance.

Let’s take a new drug test. If the group of patients taking the drug is small, statistics will tell us that the improvement observed could be due to chance. It doesn’t tell us that it is due to chance. It doesn’t tell us that it is not due to the drug. And it doesn’t tell us that the improvement of the patients is not real.

Let’s go to temperature. The cooling registered since February 2016 is –0.3°C in annualized data. It is real because our uncertainty is ±0.1°C. So you cannot tell me that the cooling is not real, because it has happened. The only thing that you can tell me is that statistics doesn’t rule out that it could be due to chance.

In the same way the decrease in the rate of warming since 1997.5 is equally real. You cannot tell me that it hasn’t happened. There are hundreds and hundreds of articles on the pause in global warming. Thousands of scientists, many smarter than you and me, know that the pause (i.e. reduction in the rate of warming) took place. The UK Met Office published a series of three synopsis reports on the pause, the second one entitled:

The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/i/s/pause_paper2_what_are_the_potential_causes_archive_csc_02_tagged.pdf

In one of its pages is this graph

Where they plot the decrease in global warming rate, labeling in grey the recent decline (since 1997.5) and consider it real.

So as you see you have a problem distinguishing reality with its cause. The decline in temperature change of rate is a fact. You cannot say it hasn’t happened. And the cooling since February 2016 is a fact. You cannot say that it hasn’t happened.

What are we then discussing? We are discussing whether it has been due to chance or not. That is all. If you say that statistics doesn’t rule that it has been due to chance I agree. But my article doesn’t say that it hasn’t been due to chance. It says that it hasn’t been due to CO2. As long as we don’t rule out chance, statistics doesn’t have anything to say about the causes of the last two decades deceleration in global warming and the recent cooling.

I think our dispute arises from two points, one is your inability to understand what statistics tells us about the reality of things, which is nothing. Things are real or not regardless of their chances. The 3-year cooling is real regardless of it statistical significance. Statistics only speaks about its possible causes.

The second point is your inability to see that a best fit is not a mathematical operation on the data. If I trace a best fit to the data by hand, what derivative of the data does it constitute? the answer is none. It is just a curve that approaches the data, and how I got it is irrelevant to it being a good or a bad fit. Obviously we look for a mathematical procedure to gives us the best fit, but in any case we are not altering the data. The third derivative would be if I calculate the change in the second derivative over time, but that is a different plot that I haven’t made.

So, to summarize in case it is necessary.

The warming deceleration since 1997.5 is real. The cooling since 2016.2 is real. Their cause is unclear and we cannot rule out that they are due to chance. Statistics doesn’t tells us what is going to happen next, but apparently neither does CO2.Final message – one side of the argument accuse climate scientists of underestimating uncertainty and pushing too robust a view. They say ‘you have not proved this or proved that’. However, you are doing exactly the same, or even worse.

Hold yourself to the standards you expect in others.

My own view is that there is considerable uncertainty, so we need to take caution based on a probabilistic estimate of the possible outcomes. Some of those outcomes have a serious consequence – the probability of which may or may not be small. Some of those outcomes may be able to be assuaged by human intervention.

Again you mistake cause and observation. The alarmists say that

“it is extremely likely that most of the observed warming is due to anthropogenic causes.”They obviously underestimate the uncertainty and their claim is not robust.As long as I talk about observations: the global warming deceleration and recent cooling, I have no such problem. Statistics cannot say that what has happened has not happened.

Oh, I forgot. Ever heard of overfitting? It plagues most naive attempts at statistics. I see it all the time.

Ever heard of some doctors using jargon to appear more knowledgeable than they actually are about the patient’s problem? It also afflicts some statisticians that like to thrown names of specific tests even if they don’t know how to spell them correctly, like the Maclaurin (not MacLauren) series.

Myself coming from statistical physics and having worked for nearly 20 years as a quant in the finance sector I think the argument of Javier could be made more catchy as follows:

(1) Assuming equilibrium thermodynamics being applicable here, the change of heat $$Q$$ is proportional to the change of temperature $$T$$ or as formula

$$ \Delta Q = c \Delta T$$

with some appropriate positive specific heat capacity $$c$$, depending on the material to be warmed up (water, air, soil).

(2) Take the HadCRUT4 monthly temperature set and compute the first difference of this time series, i.e. $$Delta T$$. Doing a statistical analysis of this, we obtain for the entire data set (starting January 1850 and ending December 2018) the expectation of $$Delta T$$ to be approx. 0.000645 (i.e. 0) and the standard deviation approx. 0.138482. It seems that a random walk without drift is a good proxy for the stochastic process describing $$Delta T$$. (I have not done the further statistical tests yet to confirm this with a statistical significance of 6 sigma, say.)

As a consequence from (1) and (2) we conclude that also $$Delta Q$$ follows a random walk without drift, i.e. it is not getting warmer over the observed time horizon. Interestingly, this result also holds if we only look at the time interval from January 1950 until December 2018. If this time series was a stock chart, the trend would be so insignificant that one could not benefit from it as an investor .

The mathematicians amongst the readers may recall the famous reflection principle for Wiener processes: at any time a driftless random walk can be reflected on a horizontal line going through the “last point” and the continuation of the mirror image is equally likely as the original random path.

A final caveat: it is not clear if methods of equilibrium thermodynamics for such a complex system can be applied so far away from equilibrium.

Do you mean ‘it is not getting warmer’ or do you mean ‘the rate at which it is getting warmer is negligible’?

I think you mean the latter – temperatures are rising, but the rate at which temperatures are rising is not increasing.

Nigel,

modelling the temperature $$T$$ (actually the anomaly) by a stochastic process whose first difference seems to be a random walk without drift (meanwhile I have done Dickey-Fuller unit root test for stationarity and a t-test for the mean -it appears the hypothesis that the drift is zero cannot be rejected within the usual confidence levels), then the actual trajectory of the stochastic process for $$T$$ is increasing to the current levels. However, the expectation of $$T$$ is unchanged because the expectation of $$Delta T$$ is zero. In other words, rather then going up from where we actually are, in the next time steps $$T$$ could equally go down – it follows a Martingale process where the best estimate for the expectation is the last observed value!

In finance it is likewise difficult to find out whether a stock goes up because there really is a trend significantly different from zero (and positive) or whether the stock price is there where it actually is due to a sequence of random fluctuations which happened to go up. In finance we call it the search of “alpha”.

As a consequence of my reasoning I expect $$Delta T$$ equal zero and thus the expectation of heat change would be also zero (provided the heat capacity is a nonstochastic function or at least cadlag and in the natural filtration of the stochastic process for $$T$$). Thus my statement would be ‘it is not getting warmer’.

Best regards, Markus

P.S.: I have only looked at the problem from a stochastic process viewpoint. A theory which models the time-change of a physical observable such as a temperature by a stochastic process is not as “good” as a theory modelling the observable starting ab initio from first principles. But then again non-equilibrium thermodynamics or even non-equilibrium quantum statistical physics to derive some forecasting formulae for any macroscopic observable is still quite a challenge.

Thank you for trying to see through this mist. My only comment is that the first difference is pretty random, but there is a small upwards drift. Whether that drift is rising or falling is very debateable, the data simply does not provide the information.

I guess it’s the same in the finance world – short term it is a random walk, but over a 20 year period you expect to see an upward drift.

I agree entirely, it is much better to have an underlying model of the physics and look at the uncertainty in that. Actually, now i mention it….let me post something….

I’m sorry for the slow response, I have been doing some real work….

I don’t think Javier has made a substantive response to any of my concerns. Overfitting is a very real concern, it plagues many areas of statistics and data science. Making conclusions based on minute R^2 for data which is almost pure noise is another very common mistake.

But, let us try this. Let us assume that the plots in fig 3 and 4 had data to which a second degree polynomial had an excellent fit, with an R^2 of around 0.8 rather than the actual 0.001 or so. What would our conclusions be?

Before 1969 the temperature was falling (the first derivative was negative). However, the upwards acceleration was very large, so much so that if the behaviour in 1960 continued we would now be in a situation where the temperature increases (the first derivative of temperature) would be very high, reaching maybe around 0.2 degrees C per year by 2019, and hence the actual temperatures would be so high that disaster would be imminent.

By 1994 the acceleration (second derivative of temperature) had fallen to zero, but the temperature was still rising at a rate of 0.02 degrees C per year.

By 2019, the acceleration had reversed enough that the temperature rise (first derivative of temperature) had fallen to zero. Temperatures were no longer rising.

However, if the behaviour continues, the reversal of acceleration will be so great that by 2015 temperatures will be falling at a disasterous rate, and the rate of falling temperatures will be accelerating in a downward spiral at ever more precipitous rates.

Overall in the period 1960 – 2019, on average the rate of temperature rise was positive, the acceleration in temperature rise was positive (the rate of temperature rise was increasing) and the temperature in 2019 was significantly higher than in 1960.

How does that work for you?

I’m sorry, a typo, I meant 2050, not 2015. Hell has not yet frozen over.

Let me go off slightly from the track, but it may bring some intuition.

In my day job I am an expert in probabilistic uncertainty quantification of oil and gas reservoirs, where you use historical data as an input to a Bayesian prodeiction. You have to construct an ensemble of models, using a likelihood function and applying full Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. random walk methods are hopeless, so I use Hamiltonian methods.

Some of the early work I did on history matching was based on work done by Durham University. History matching of climate is, in principle, no different to history matching of oil and gas resevrvoirs, but climate models are much more complex. My [battle the last 20 years has been to convince reservori engineers that they need to include realistic uncertainty, and a good match does not necessarily mean a good prediction.

Good stuff you are working on! A first and maybe naive analysis of the data using first-order differences to obtain a stationary time series and modelling this by a random walk (a valid hypothesis not rejected by a suit of tests) does not provide the desired insight. Maybe a Bayesian approach is more appropriate – but then I must confess I am a frequentist…

Some of the people I worked with have worked on climate models. Here are some references. You will see they are not gullible, and somewhere they talk about IPCC as a beauty parade.

https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.ba/1340370559

https://people.maths.bris.ac.uk/~mazjcr/

Hmmmm – lots of reference, I have some of the papers, but most seem to be for purchase only.

No matter. The point is that some serious statisticians are looking at climate change, and they, being statisticians, are very comfortable with uncertainty and very uncomfortable with certainty.

Here we go.

http://www.mucm.ac.uk/Pages/Downloads/Reading%20List/Probabilistic%20Inference%20for%20Future%20Climate%20ROUGIER.pdf

I haven;t read it for some years, but as soon as I read ther first paragraph I saw it was relevant to our discussion here.

Thanks for the reference to Rougier 2007. He estimates a covariance structure for the Gaussian process which is quite tricky. I shall look into the details of this paper over the week-end. From EM algorithms applied on Gaussian correlated data I recall lots of problems (the MLE sometimes converges to a singular covariance matrix and special constraints need to be introduced to obtain a feasible solution).

In my own work I use Matern correlation functions i the covariance matrix, and have two orthogonal directions and different correlations lengths for the two directions. I then estimate the hyperparameters by optimising the restricted likelihood function. I use a combination of BOBYQA and GA to do this, but it is also possible to use quasi Newton methods if one can be bothered to go through all the algebra. My own work is univarariate, but Jonty did some work us on multivariate methods, where the covariance matrix takes account of correlations in time – but the matrix gets much bigger depending on how many points you choose. I preferred to have good univaraiate approximations rather than weaker multi variate.

ps. I can easily be found on LinkedIn, where I have my email address if you want some papers which may be of interest. I am also looking at Weibull. Have you come across

https://github.com/ragulpr/wtte-rnn

My current day job involves predictive asset maintenance for Shell.

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/dbs202/publications/2012/stephenson.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.6878 – this paper is great, and almost readable!

The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration is trending exponentially and at the rate we are going, we will hit 100,000 ppm in < 140 years. Plot it out yourself in Excel. OSHA exposure tables indicate convulsions and death within minutes at that level. We will probably all notice we can't breathe so good a bit earlier than that, but if there's a plus side, it's that it will affect everyone equally and there won't be a debate about climate change anymore. Hopefully we get our shit together and prevent that scenario if possible.

In fig 2 I can see that the rate of increase in CO2 is increasing – i.e. the amount of CO2 is accelerating, the second derivative is positive.

But I don’t see any exponential increase?

I am going to be critical of hyperbole on both sides !

I make no apology for preferring to use derivatives in my posts, I find when others talk about increase in CO2 or temperature the language can quickly become sloppy, as can be seen by the headline which is completely incorrect (the global temperature IS increasing, the planet IS warming’.

Definitely no criticism coming from me regarding your work. I came to my conclusions based on my personal efforts to model CO2 projections which I genuinely hope are wrong. I’m getting a year to year % growth rate in CO2 that tracks the exponential function F(x) = c^(0.01524x) where x is year. This is all from my own analysis on data from Mauna Loa. It’s been tracking on target since I stopped looking at the data in 2015. I understand the aversion to hyperbolic statements, and fear mongering. Panic is not helpful for anyone. There just shouldn’t really be “sides” or “debate” in math or science – that’s a symptom of other issues.

PS: second derivative is rate of change of the rate of change i.e “acceleration” in physics and “curl” in mathematics (dy/dx is slope and d2y/dx2 is curvature of slope). That would also support the crude Excel extrapolation.

I’m wrong about calling the 2nd derivative “the curl”. That’s from vector calculus which is not applicaple at all here. I don’t know what the 2nd derivative property is called in normal math, it may just be called the 2nd derivative.. also the calc for year over year co2 % change should be: F(x) = c exp(0.01524x).

Thanks. If I am doing anything, it is just provoking clarity. You are saying that the growth rate is exponential. That means that the first derivative of CO2 is growing exponentially. Because the derivative of an exponential is an exponential, that also means that CO2 is growing exponentially.

If you had said the CO2 growth rate fitted a second order polynomial, then that would mean the actual CO2 fitted a third order polynomial.

In any case, i think everybody agrees it is rising! The issue is simply how rapidly it is rising, and whether the rate of rise is also increasing. I haven’t downloaded CO2 data, but my guess is that the data won;t give a clear answer on those.