Canada is Warming at Only 1/2 the Rate of Climate Model Simulations

Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

January 21st, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

As part of my Jan. 19 presentation for Friends of Science about there being no climate emergency, I also examined surface temperature in Canada to see how much warming there has been compared to climate models.

Canada has huge year-to-year variability in temperatures due to its strong continental climate. So, to examine how observed surface temperature trends compare to climate model simulations, you need many of those simulations, each of which exhibits its own large variability.

I examined the most recent 30-year period (1991-2020), using a total of 108 CMIP5 simulations from approximately 20 different climate models, and computed land-surface trends over the latitude bounds of 51N to 70N, and longitude bounds 60W to 130W, which approximately covers Canada. For observations, I used the same lat/lon bounds and the CRUTem5 dataset, which is heavily relied upon by the UN IPCC and world governments. All data were downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer.

First let’s examine the annual average temperature departures from the 1981-2010 average, for the average of the 108 model simulations compared to the observations. We see that Canada has been warming at only 50% the rate of the average of the CMIP5 models; the linear trends are +0.23 C/decade and +0.49 C/decade, respectively. Note that in 7 of the last 8 years, the observations have been below the average of the models.

Fig. 1. Yearly temperature departures 1991-2020 from the 1981-2010 mean in Canada in observations (blue) versus the average of 108 CMIP5 climate model simulations (red). The +/-1 standard deviation bars indicate the variability among the 108 individual model simulations.

Next, I show the individual models’ trends compared to the observed trends, with a histogram of the ranked values from the least warming to the most warming, 1991-2020.

Fig. 2. Ranked Canada surface temperature trends (1991-2020) for the 108 model simulations and the observations.

Note that the 93.5% of the model simulations have warmer temperature trends than the observations exhibit.

These results from Canada are generally consistent with the results I have found in the Midwest U.S. in the summertime, where the CMIP5 models warm, on average, 4 times faster than the observations (since 1970), and 6 times faster in a limited number of the newer CMIP6 model simulations.

Implications

The Paris Climate Accords, among other national and international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, assume warming estimates which are approximately the average of the various climate models. Thus, these results impact directly on those proposed energy policy decisions.

As you might be aware, proponents of those climate models often emphasize the general agreement between the models and observations over a long period of time, say since 1900.

But this is misleading.

We would expect little anthropogenic global warming signal to emerge from the noise of natural climate variability until (approximately) the 1980s. This is for 2 reasons: There was little CO2 emitted up through the 1970s, and even as the emissions rose after the 1940s the cooling effect of anthropogenic SO2 emissions was canceling out much of that warming. This is widely agreed to by climate modelers as well.

Thus, to really get a good signal of global warming — in both observations and models — we should be examining temperature trends since approximately the 1980s. That is, only in the decades since the 1980s should we be seeing a robust signal of anthropogenic warming against the background of natural variability, and without the confusion (and uncertainty) in large SO2 emissions in the mid-20th century.

And as each year passes now, the warming signal should grow slightly stronger.

I continue to contend that climate models are now producing at least twice as much warming as they should, probably due to an equilibrium climate sensitivity which is about 2X too high in the climate models. Given that the average CMIP6 climate sensitivity is even larger than in CMIP5 — approaching 4 deg. C — it will be interesting to see if the divergence between models and observations (which began around the turn of the century) will continue into the future.

4.8 22 votes
Article Rating
125 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
griff
January 22, 2021 6:15 am

Hmmm… but what about ARCTIC Canada?

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 7:11 am

What about Arctic Canada?

tree-stump-climate.jpg
Gerald Machnee
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 7:14 am

Good question, Griff. I thought you had it solved.
First, it is not warming 2-3 times as fast as the rest of the world that the fear mongers say but cannot prove.
Now, Griff, where is your analysis??????

LdB
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 22, 2021 7:35 am

The starving polar bear ate his analysis … besides one does not need evidence you just have to feel the eco guilt.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  LdB
January 22, 2021 8:28 am

That’ right. With the increase in Polar Bears, you cannot leave your work in the igloo.

Max Dupilka
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 22, 2021 9:13 am

I do wild land fire weather forecasting for the Northwest Territories. I am always interested in what the temperatures are doing. I used the UAH satellite data and masked out the mainland NWT area. I found the since 1980 the NWT temperature trend is 0.13 deg/decade, very similar to the global trend.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 7:47 am

70°N is about 450km inside the Arctic circle. There’s a lot of arctic Canada included in this analysis.

Survey area canada.png
Loydo
Reply to  Climate believer
January 22, 2021 1:15 pm

I wonder why Roy chose Canada?

Dale S
Reply to  Loydo
January 22, 2021 1:40 pm

If you had followed the links to the Friends of Science that Dr. Spencer provided, you could’ve learned that it was located in Alberta, Canada. What choice could possibly be more relevant to the listeners?

What I don’t wonder is why you aren’t pointing at all those countries that are warming much faster than the models predict. I don’t think you know of any.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 22, 2021 2:06 pm

One of MANY places that is no warmer now than in the 1940s,

You KNOW that Loy.. so don’t be so dumb.

And do you have ANY evidence what so ever, that the SLIGHT but HIGHLY BENEFICIAL global warming since the LIA has any human causation at all, except for UHI smearing and data adjustments?

Here’s two simple questions for you.

Try not to continue as a complete and utter failure. !

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 22, 2021 2:08 pm

Perhaps you would like to try to answer this question as well

Why are there SO FEW people living in the darker grey areas on this map?

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
January 22, 2021 2:33 pm

Why not? If you’d actually read the article, you would have found out that Canada isn’t the only place he’s analyzed.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
January 22, 2021 3:02 pm

If you were actually keeping abreast of the climate alarmist NEWS, you’d know that the Canadian media, Canada’s socialist Prime Minister as well as his past “climate change minister”, Climate Barbie have been loudly claiming that Canada has been warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.

Lrp
Reply to  Loydo
January 22, 2021 7:40 pm

Would Townsville would be better?

Mathieu Simoneau
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 7:50 am

I’m sure you can find some places in Canada you can cherry pick to show how the models are real.

Political Junkie
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 7:57 am

One of the frauds perpetrated by the “Canada in a Changing Climate” report is that the Canadian Arctic is warming three times as fast as the globe.

This is a comparison of Canada’s Arctic LAND temperature to the global LAND/OCEAN average.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 8:10 am

It’s warming, but not as fast as the models predict.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
January 22, 2021 11:43 am

No, its been cooling since the effects of the 1998 El Nino

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
January 22, 2021 2:35 pm

The article covers the last 40 years.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
January 22, 2021 2:58 pm

Yes, but the trend comes from the El Nino event.,

…. not from gradual warming.

Editor
Reply to  fred250
January 22, 2021 4:53 pm

I went to the KNMI website and put in the lat/lons that Roy Spencer used, and it gave me this chart
http://jonases.org/Misc/KNMICanadaTemperature1880-2020.png
There appears to be no warming since 1990. The sudden drop around 1990 looks very suspicious, but even if you remove it by shoving up the later part of the chart, the overall warming of the last 140 years is approximately stuff all.

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 8:21 am

Hi Griff I just elsewhere onthis post uploaded a DropBox link with every Temperature record I could find on the GISS Website a couple of years ago. Have a look and give me the benefit of your learned opinion

Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 8:22 am

griff, why not suggest that Mikey Mann be called on to propose a solution?

Derg
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 8:29 am

Griff why do you want people to be cold?

All the Canadian climate refugees are in FL right now.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Derg
January 22, 2021 9:39 am

Not this year, their insurance isn’t valid in the US so they mostly stayed up north this year. I will be staying in a condo in February and March normally rented by a Canadian (relative of a friend).

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 22, 2021 11:58 am

But that hasn’t stopped those from NY, CT, OH, ILL, MI from infesting our warm comfortable area.

Fight Climate Fear. Warmer is Better.

Tomsa
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 22, 2021 2:53 pm

False. Our out of country insurance covers Covid. My wife is flying tomorrow to KS for the arrival of our ninth and last grandchild.

Richard M
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 9:12 am

A better question would be to wonder why all of the warming happened before 1997. Put your finger over the part of the graph before 1997. Now, what does the trend look like? Kind of hard to see any warming at all and most likely would show 100% of climate models produce more warming.

So, what happened around 1997? Oh yeah, that would be after the AMO index went positive.

Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 9:27 am

Look at your record 😀

Redge
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 10:36 am

According to the Arctic Council, 40% of Canada is in the Arctic Circle, but surely you knew that before you posted!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Redge
January 22, 2021 11:59 am

He did, but you shouldn’t call him Shirley.

fred250
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 11:38 am

If you start after the El Nino step in 1998, Canada has been COOLING

comment image

fred250
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 11:42 am

Sea ice in the Canadian Archipelago has been been above normal basically all of the sea ice growth period.

So yep, what about ARCTIC Canada? Nothing untoward.. just NORMAL COLD.

fred250
Reply to  griff
January 22, 2021 1:21 pm

Tell us all griff, oh great know-nothing fool….

Why are there basically NO PEOPLE on most of the grey area on this map of Canadian population density ?

comment image

Kpar
January 22, 2021 6:22 am

It figures, the folks who really COULD use some Global Warming aren’t getting it…

Scissor
Reply to  Kpar
January 22, 2021 6:38 am
Derg
Reply to  Scissor
January 22, 2021 8:30 am

That is so sad…what a stupid decision.

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
January 22, 2021 9:09 am

It’s gonna get a whole lot worse in the next few years.

Ron Long
Reply to  Kpar
January 22, 2021 10:35 am

Right, Kpar, 80% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the southern border with the USA. If it warmed up some they could spread out. However, I am not sure the wheat farmers in Alberta think this is a good idea and would Canadians stay south in the big cities.

Tomsa
Reply to  Ron Long
January 22, 2021 2:58 pm

And don’t forget we have less than the population than California so of course we don’t want to spread out across a vast area of nearly 6 million sq. km. CA is about 424,000 sq. km. Yes we also like it warmer like most people so stay fairly close to the US border.

Dave-E
January 22, 2021 6:23 am

Another model prediction trashed by reality. I was surprised to read recently that a different climate change prediction used 27 models to get it wrong. One would think, in light of the absolutism and claimed certainty coming the climate crisis crowd, that given such “consensus” models would start to consolidate. Instead proliferation seems to be the rule.

Scissor
Reply to  Dave-E
January 22, 2021 6:40 am

What happens if the models are backcast by 90 years or so?

Richard Page
Reply to  Scissor
January 22, 2021 7:31 am

Then they’re 90 years behind the times and equally worthless for that reason. Models are only useful if they can project an accurate analysis of what will happen. There’s no point to a model that has been running for a few years and has already diverged wildly from real world observations.

Scissor
Reply to  Richard Page
January 22, 2021 9:12 am

One could argue they’re worse than worthless.

fred250
Reply to  Scissor
January 22, 2021 1:25 pm

Being CONSISTENTLY WRONG in the same direction.

I guess they do tell us something, 😉

Editor
Reply to  Dave-E
January 22, 2021 4:56 pm

If the science was settled, there would only be one model.

Len Werner
January 22, 2021 6:46 am

There’s something a bit odd about starting at 51N, seeing as 95% of Canadians live south of that latitude.

Also–someone might do an analysis of Siberia this winter; there are large areas that have been below -50C, and some below -60C, for extended periods of time. All it would take is a few changes in circulation patterns for that to shift over to Canada. I hope it stays where it is. But the plight of permafrost in Siberia seems to be just fine.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Len Werner
January 22, 2021 7:17 am

Since there is a nice straight line at 49 for a good bit, that would seem to be the place to start.

Editor
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
January 22, 2021 5:02 pm

I did the KNMI chart again using 49N instead of 51N. It started a little bit higher and ended a little bit lower. Seems odd. Maybe someone else would like to take a look at KNMI?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 23, 2021 11:54 am

I assume you are using your own program to do the calculation summary?

MarkW
Reply to  Len Werner
January 22, 2021 9:10 am

I would guess that he’s trying to minimize the impact of UHI, by excluding most of the population from the study area.

Richard M
Reply to  Len Werner
January 22, 2021 9:16 am

Avoiding the higher population centers keeps UHI from contaminating the results. A very smart move on Dr. Roy’s part.

Len Werner
Reply to  Richard M
January 22, 2021 6:35 pm

Okay, I can accept that–but then if ‘Canada’ has moveable borders such that UHI centres can be avoided or rejected, and then is compared with other parts of the world where UHI is included…someone might start to see strange colours of orange in what should be a cherries-to-cherries comparison of how fast Canada is or is not warming. Is cherry-picking areas any different than cherry-picking dates?

To my other point–please do have a look around Siberia these days–if the planet is warming, where did the thermal energy go that those poor folks should be enjoying? It’s the same atmosphere, and CO2 has long been claimed to homogenize around the planet in 4 hours (sarc) of being produced anywhere; why is there so large an area below -40C, even -50, and some spots below -60?

The forecast low tonight for Yakutsk is -53C. Its population is over 300,000; there will be an UHI effect included in that temperature. Anyone who proposes that humans should survive in those temperatures without conventional fuels should be sent there–tonight–with a tent, a solar panel and a windmill. I would like to see at that temperature how long it takes the greenest individual from southern California to embrace a hot oil or gas furnace.

And I’d be most interested, after a couple of winter meetings there, to see what a Yakutsk Climate Agreement would look like.

ResourceGuy
January 22, 2021 6:54 am

Half-speed warming will not do when you need full-speed emergency for full-carbon tax revenue lust. It also strains the media story line themes and political talking points.

ResourceGuy
January 22, 2021 7:04 am

Maybe climate science needs to learn curvilinear fitting.

fred250
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 22, 2021 1:30 pm

More like just looking at EVENTS and their effect on the temperature data

Curve fitting won’t help with that.

Climate is NOT LINEAR, nor is it CURVILINEAR.

There is no reason to assume either.

Yes, there are sections that could be described as pseudo linear, pseudo-cyclic or maybe fit a polynomial, but it is also heavily affected by “events” such as strong El Ninos which cause step-like changes over a few years.

Putting linear trends across these events is not sensible.

Last edited 1 month ago by fred250
Political Junkie
January 22, 2021 7:12 am

Looking at the broadened uncertainty range in the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity estimate in AR6, I calculated the probable impact of the Canadian Federal Carbon Tax on global temperatures.

The governments predicts a 80 – 90 megatonne reduction in emissions by 2022. A questionable assumption that will be impossible to verify.

The optimistic case will result in a global temperature reduction of 0.00027⁰C / year.

The pessimistic case is 0.000077⁰C / year.

These are equivalent to one degree Celsius in 3,729 and 13,021 years respectively.

Who’s going to tell the Canadian taxpayers?

K. McNeill
Reply to  Political Junkie
January 22, 2021 10:01 am

The smarter ones have already figured this out.

Gerald Machnee
January 22, 2021 7:17 am

Thanks, Roy.
Now to see what the warmistas will say here.
The Environment Canada analysis starts in 1948 during a cooler period. They ignored the warmer 1930’s and 1940’s so they get a higher fictional warming. That is what was presented to Trudeau right after the election in 2015 before they sent 300 people to Paris.

EdB
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 22, 2021 7:40 am

That report (Canada’s Changing Climate Report 2019), is a travesty to science, and a big con on Canadians. Once you see the cherry pick, you know they are lying to you. That takes 30 seconds.

Gordon A. Dressler
January 22, 2021 7:33 am

Bad Canada! . . . bad, bad Canada!!

Richard Page
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 22, 2021 8:24 am

I just have this image now of Celine Dion being spanked!

Scissor
Reply to  Richard Page
January 22, 2021 9:20 am

That could be be deadly or at least it could break some bones.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Scissor
January 22, 2021 10:31 am

In the hand, or in the buttocks?

Richard Page
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 22, 2021 11:28 am

That’s between me and my imagination! Butt out of my fantasy please!

Lance
January 22, 2021 7:35 am

I have been recording Temps for environment Canada for over 30 years, just south of a large urban area. My station has risen .1C during that time….the town i live in, population has risen from 3000 to 30,000 during that time frame…draw your own conclusions

RickWill
Reply to  Lance
January 22, 2021 8:51 am

There appears to be a spec of dust in front of the 1C rise you have recorded.

I put much greater faith in local temperature measurements than those that get homogenised by people paid to find warming or come from complex inferences from satellite observations deployed also to find warming.

I am very suspicious of any warming trend over 3 or 4 decades to centuries. My first thought is to find the fault in the measurement system because I know the surface temperature on Earth is under automatic control.

The climate models are wrong for sure – they are pure fantasy based on nonsense. I would really like to look under the hood of the trend that shows some warming over 3 decades as it is most likely flawed.

Scissor
Reply to  Lance
January 22, 2021 9:21 am

So cold there, even a 0.1C rise is attractive.

MarkW
January 22, 2021 7:35 am

Is there anyplace on the planet that is warming as fast as the models predict? Much less faster.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
January 22, 2021 11:29 am

The inside of my oven? Hey, I’m just trying to be helpful!

alastair gray
January 22, 2021 8:16 am

It is always instructive to look at data as close to source as possible. A couple of years ago I downloaded from GISS all the thermometer plots for the following areas as a set of PDF files

1) All Arctic thermometers
2) All Antarctic Thermometers
3) All Canada Thermometers
4) All North Sea Thermometers
5)All Alpine thermometers

They can be viewed at the following link

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mszpqay4vl9d3mn/AADYnvNvnHy7_vlYkYada6FHa?dl=0

Surprising how few hockey sticks one sees and lots of warm 1930s stuff all over the polar regions

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  alastair gray
January 22, 2021 4:36 pm

Re 3) All Canada Thermometers. There are still some missing such as Winnipeg.

ScienceABC123
January 22, 2021 8:19 am

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating…

“The biggest problem with computer models is getting them to match-up with reality.” – ScienceABC123

MarkW
Reply to  ScienceABC123
January 22, 2021 9:13 am

but it bears repeating

Would that be Polar Bears?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  ScienceABC123
January 22, 2021 10:56 am

Never fear, the Data Adjustment Bureau is on the case.

Gerald Machnee
January 22, 2021 8:35 am

When I just look at the chart posted by Roy, something obvious pops up. Roy used 30 years in coming up with a straight line which suggests temperatures are increasing.
However, if you chop off the first 5-7 years, you get a curve which suggests temperatures peaked 10-15 years ago. So we are actually COOLING!!!

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 22, 2021 8:53 am

That would be declared as cherry picking 😀

Richard M
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 22, 2021 9:20 am

I made the same observation in my comment to griff. What’s even more interesting is that jump at 5-7 years correlates perfectly with the AMO changing states.

fred250
Reply to  Richard M
January 22, 2021 1:10 pm

See my graph in a few other places

Yes, COOLING since 1998 El Nino.

It is that El Nino event that causes Roy’s graph to have a positive trend

Since CO2 does not cause El Ninos, there is no CO2 warming signal in the data, AT ALL !

Nelson
January 22, 2021 8:57 am

Is the CRUTem5 data “adjusted” If so, I would like to see the analysis using raw data.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nelson
January 22, 2021 1:08 pm

All analysis should be compared to raw (actual written temperature records) data.

Rob_Dawg
January 22, 2021 9:14 am

We need to take our climate emergency medicine. The doctor hands you a pill explaining; “This $400 trillion pill contains 108 noxious ingredients. At best one of them is correct. They may all be incorrect. Now pay up and swallow.”

Richard Page
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
January 22, 2021 11:32 am

And by the way, I’m not sure you’re even ill in the first place.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Richard Page
January 22, 2021 12:02 pm

We’re not “ill” now, but we will be when the climate policy poison pill goes down.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
January 23, 2021 3:17 pm

Uh, sadly, its not a pil. It is a suppository.

Ari Okkonen
January 22, 2021 9:22 am

Somehow that temperature graph seems to have some similarity with the latest peak of North Atlantic surface temperatures. I guess the temperatures in Canada are going down in few years.

Atlantic_SST_1812_X.png
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Ari Okkonen
January 22, 2021 11:33 am

Your graphical analysis is what I believe GISS boss James Hansen knew in the mid-1980’s. That climate was on ~65 to 70 year cycle of warming and cooling, and about 1980 he had 35 year run of warming global temperatures as an opportunity.

Hansen, being a Noble Environmentalist before scientist, turned GISS away from a space weather charter and put it primarily on a path of climate modeling to further the anti-coal environmental scam. So he started the climate scam along with Tim Wirth and Al Gore in his June 1988 Senate testimony. Coal for electricity generation was their main target. They knew then the US has a 150-200 year supply of that fossil fuel energy for electricity and they had to break that first and foremost. Strip mining, mountain top removal coal mining, sulfur-dioxide emissions, and fly ash disposal were what the environmentalists were focused on stopping in 1980’s and 90’s. Then they weren’t worried about oil and natural gas as they saw those conventional resources as rapidly depleting with “peak oil” projections by 2000-2010.

Of course they never saw coming the shale gas fracking and unconventional oil re-birth of the oil and gas industry. Hence the #ExxonKnew strategy was dredged up from tort bar litigation firms as a way to throttle oil and then natural gas. Alberta tar sands oil extraction was another of their targets, now they are working on keeping it from getting to refineries.

But back to your graph – Hansen left GISS in 2013 when he knew the global temp curve would start flattening and eventually dipping thus making data adjustments, as being demanded by the Obama WH, increasingly difficult. The only thing that save their butt was the 2015-2016 Big El Nino, but now that has faded and the inevitable La Nina series has started. The scam is running on fumes temperature-wise as the models projections continue to race upwards (CMIP6 craziness) and the temps stagnate. So the race is on to cross the socialism finish line before the climate clock runs out on the scam.

Ari Okkonen
Reply to  Ari Okkonen
January 22, 2021 12:22 pm

Background of that graph is explained behind the link to a full analysis paper on North Atlantic surface temperatures: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339274895_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentration_in_Atmosphere_Has_Negligible_Effect_on_North_Atlantic_Sea_Surface_Temperature

RickWill
Reply to  Ari Okkonen
January 22, 2021 1:17 pm

I have grave doubts about the accuracy of any data from NOAA over such a long time span. There needs to be allowance for the density of readings as well as the location of readings.

I put more faith in the moored buoys and they have not been around for very long. But the Pirata set in the Atlantic do not show any warming over this century..

Screen Shot 2021-01-23 at 8.13.50 am.png
Dave Fair
Reply to  Ari Okkonen
January 22, 2021 12:52 pm

Unless my aging Mk 1 eyeballs fail me, it appears there has been an estimated approximately 0.4C increase in Atlantic Ocean SST over an approximately 130 year period, with 75 year sinusoidal ups and downs. What conclusions should one draw considering that the graph starts roughly about the end of the Little Ice Age?

MarkW
January 22, 2021 9:32 am

proponents of those climate models often emphasize the general agreement between the models and observations over a long period of time, say since 1900.

Of course there is good agreement. The models were tuned to match the past record.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  MarkW
January 22, 2021 11:48 am

CMIP5 models “future” projections started in 2006. Which is exactly where the divergence starts on Dr Spencer’s chart of Canadian temps.

fred250
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 22, 2021 12:52 pm

Its funny how they keep resetting the start point so as to hide the massive divergence of the models from reality. 🙂

Patrick B
January 22, 2021 9:41 am

Please, a vertical line marking the year the models are run would help establish which part of a graph is potentially a result of “tuning” and which part was actually a test of the model.

Joel O'Bryan
January 22, 2021 10:49 am

After the FoS had shown Dr Spencer’s pre-recorded 30 minute presentation, he was on live with the FoS host via Skype for about 90 minutes. Dr Spencer’s Skype connection kept freezing and dropping audio. At one point the call video call dropped and the FoS folks had to re-dial to Dr Spencer.

I suspect some Libtard on the Skype back-end was trying to throttle his Skype bandwidth to the FoS host and Cancel Dr Spencer’s live Q&A since they couldn’t do anything about the FoS streaming of his pre-recorded presentation.

fred250
January 22, 2021 11:47 am

We could also look at Canadian maritime temperatures

comment image

COOLING from 1947 to 1990

fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 22, 2021 11:55 am

And we know the Arctic in general was as warm or warmer in the mid 1940s

comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
January 22, 2021 1:16 pm

What CO2 problem? 🙂

The evidence that CO2 is not a problem is right in front of our eyes, but the Alarmists want to distract us with the bogus Hockey Stick charts that distort the temperature record.

It was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today which means CO2 is a minor player in the atmosphere and is not a problem that needs to be regulated.

J Savage
January 22, 2021 11:51 am

If you removed the first 5 years of that trend, the best fit line would be horizontal or downward sloping I reckon.

fred250
Reply to  J Savage
January 22, 2021 12:01 pm

Post 1998 Canadian temperatures.. COOLING !!

comment image

fred250
January 22, 2021 12:04 pm

And over the longer term

comment image

SMC
January 22, 2021 12:51 pm

This is obviously flawed! Canada is supposed to be Warming Twice as Fast as the rest of the world!! What ever happened to staying on message?!? How dare you!!!

/sarc

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  SMC
January 22, 2021 2:28 pm

Everywhere is warming twice as fast as the average!

Joseph Zorzin
January 22, 2021 1:06 pm

Off subject- sorry- but a new MSNBC news clip stars 2 of our favorites: Saint Thunberg and Mickey Mann: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/thunberg-time-will-tell-if-biden-administration-fulfills-climate-promises/vi-BB1d0vhS

Jean Parisot
January 22, 2021 1:18 pm

How does Canada have a temperature, the land mass is so diverse and large?

Loydo
January 22, 2021 1:33 pm

“But this is misleading.”
“I continue to contend that climate models are now producing at least twice as much warming as they should”

Yes it is, given you’re comparing the cherry-picked Canada region with global.
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Loydo
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 22, 2021 1:59 pm

That is ADJUSTED and FRAUDULENT temperatures, Loy-dumb

They have absolutely NO RESEMBLANCE to what was actually measured

SH data on those FAKE graphs of yours is a complete JOKE.

Only Australia and South Africa had any data.. ocean data is totally FABRICATED (ask Phil Jones)

Australian peak temperatures, well above current, were in the 1880 -1910 period.

And South Africa.. Warmer or similar to now in the 1940s

comment image

Your graphs ARE A LIE, loy-dumb !!

———-

This topic is about Canadian temperatures, which are mostly Arctic.

STAY ON TOPIC, mindless twerp. !

Let’s see what Hanson has to show about the Arctic

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
January 22, 2021 2:42 pm

Climate science is the only field of science where you can combine dozens of wrong answers and have them average out to a correct answer.

If you can point to a place in the world where temperatures are rising faster than the models have predicted, you will be the first to have done so.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
January 22, 2021 2:49 pm

Choke on this, Loy’DOH!

tree-stump-climate.jpg
David Kamakaris
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 22, 2021 3:01 pm

BTW, Loy’DOH. Have you figured out how long your record is?

Richard Page
Reply to  Loydo
January 23, 2021 6:45 am

Right. Loydo gets 0/10 for accurate information but he does get an “attaboy” for supporting his comments with something. If he could just start supporting them with something relevant we might be getting somewhere. Btw – Griff needs to start learning the same practice.

fred250
January 22, 2021 1:48 pm

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/eureka.gif

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/resolute.gif

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/inukjk-2.gif

Absolutely NO WARMING in isolated places in Canada last century.

And as the graph I showed elsewhere attests.. no COOLING since 1998 El Nino

fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 22, 2021 3:07 pm

correction

And as the graph I showed elsewhere attests..COOLING since 1998 El Nino

Tom Abbott
January 22, 2021 3:49 pm

From the article: “We would expect little anthropogenic global warming signal to emerge from the noise of natural climate variability until (approximately) the 1980s. This is for 2 reasons: There was little CO2 emitted up through the 1970s, and even as the emissions rose after the 1940s the cooling effect of anthropogenic SO2 emissions was canceling out much of that warming.”

“That is, only in the decades since the 1980s should we be seeing a robust signal of anthropogenic warming against the background of natural variability, and without the confusion (and uncertainty) in large SO2 emissions in the mid-20th century.”

end excerpts

This seems to be contradictory. The claim is SO2 emissions were cancelling out warming after the 1940’s, and then says there is uncertainty about SO2 emissions during this period. So I assume there is also uncertainty in claiming SO2 cancelled out warming.

I would love to see a detailed discussion of SO2’s effects on the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures. I know a large volcano can lower the temperature about 0.5C for a year or two, but that requires a huge volcanic eruption, and the effects only remain in the atmosphere for a couple of years.

In order to reduce temperatures after 1940, human-derived SO2 concentration would have to equal a huge volcano’s emission and would need to do that continuously for decades.

Explain to me how human-derived SO2 can affect the temperatures more than just incidentally.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 22, 2021 3:51 pm

I feel like I’m back in the 1970’s arguing Human-Caused Global Cooling. 🙂

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 23, 2021 6:51 am

Wasn’t everyone with a power station desperately trying to scrub out the SO2 from their emissions during the 80’s, after the acid rain scaremongering of the late 70’s? As different countries brought in different regulations and different ways to tackle it at different times, that might make for a confused signal in the 80’s. Can’t help you with the rest though.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 26, 2021 7:27 am

Here’s the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999). Let’s look at this chart in relation to temperature changes over the decades.

comment image

The world’s largest volcanic eruption to happen in the past 100 years was the June 15, 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.

This eruption lowered the global temperatures by about 0.5C and this effect lasted for about two years before the atmosphere cleared itself (the volcanic emissions reflect sunlight in the upper atmosphere which cools the Earth).

If you look at the U.S. surface temperature chart, it shows a drop of about 2.5C from 1934 to 1980, so the way I look at it, it would take numerous Mount Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions over a period of 40 years to equal the cooling that took place during that time.

And then, of course, you have to account for the fact that temperatures actually rose during the 1950’s. SO2 must have taken a break during that period, or maybe CO2 overcame SO2 during that period, or maybe it’s all caused by Mother Nature and humans have nothing to do with it.

Show me that human-derived SO2 can lower the Earth’s temperatures to the extent that is impled in the article. Show me that the production of human-derived SO2 is the equivalent of multiple Mount Pinatubo eruptions. Show me that human-derived SO2 can get high enough in the atmosphere to have an effect.

Those are the kinds of details I would like to see.

Last edited 30 days ago by Tom Abbott
clipe
January 22, 2021 5:35 pm

Spoiler

1611358457261_0_History.png
clipe
Reply to  clipe
January 22, 2021 5:58 pm
Harri Luuppala
January 22, 2021 11:25 pm

When you read the new study of UHI it calculated bias around 60%. Are this and the UHI study prooving each other? I think they might. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/22/a-new-look-at-the-urban-heat-island-effect/

DMacKenzie
January 23, 2021 8:45 am

….And only 1/4 the rate of the Canadian models, which are the high end prediction ones. The Canadian models were developed in a CO2-water-vapor-amplified echo chamber.

January 23, 2021 1:45 pm

weird. that actually looks like NO warming.

Andrew Hamilton
January 23, 2021 3:52 pm

Canada is warming at twice the rate of everywhere else, so everywhere else must be warming at 1/4 the rate of the models.

Chris Gauer
January 24, 2021 3:31 pm

Dr Spencer

Last year working with the Friends of Science, I investigated the Canadian temperature record for 12 major cities across the country. I looked from coast to coast, in locations where good records are available over the long term that capture the earlier periods in the 1920s and 1930s. In a number of locations, good records go back to the 1880s. I used the information available online from the Government of Canada, so it is homogenized which may alter the raw data. However, the results I found were surprising, at least to me.

On average, winters are getting warmer and nights are getting warmer. That makes sense in that the climate effects are to delay cooling by slowing the escape of heat to space. That is why the average temperatures in Canada are increasing. However, the interesting fact is that summer daytime temperatures are not increasing, or increasing only to a very small extent.

In the 12 Cities I looked at, 4 have seen a decreasing Tmax daytime temperature trend over the record, 6 other cities have only seen Tmax minor warming (I defined this as less than 0.5 degrees per century). Only Toronto (0.62) and Victoria (1.57) had increases of daytime Tmax above 0.5 degrees/century.

This is paralleled by the trends in summer Hot Days. Looking at Hot Days in July where Tmax climbs over 30 degrees C, for the 12 locations, one often finds a decreasing trend in July Hot days over the temperature record. Seven cities have seen a decrease in the number of July Hot days over 30 degrees. Four of the cities had only a minor July Hot day increase of less than 1 day per century. Only Toronto exceeded that at 1.23 additional annual hot days in July over the last 100 years.

For four of the Cites investigated, the warmest decades were well in the past: Calgary in 1920s, Ottawa in 1910s. and Saskatoon and Regina in the 1930s. Winnipeg had their warmest decade in the1980s. Only Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City had the warmest decade in the last 10 years.

Looking at temperatures based on averages of a country the size of Canada is misleading. From my investigation, I would say the warming in the locations investigated is positive. The warming is at night or in winter. Given our cold winters and having lived in Winnipeg, Toronto and Calgary, I see that as a good thing as the winters of the past when I was young were cold and severe. More importantly, summer days are not getting significantly hotter and, in many cases, they are getting somewhat cooler. Canada is not heating up or on fire. Our temperature is moderating with less divergence in extremes, day to night and summer to winter. Winters are less cold and summers are still comfortable with nights seeing less cooling, which we also appreciate up here when camping or at the cottage.

Caligula Jones
January 28, 2021 11:42 am

Funny, isn’t it: all of the “evidence” that we are indeed warming very, very fast (i.e., extinctions, floods, dogs and cats living together) is there…but the actual measurement isn’t.

Why, that could lead someone to believe that, perhaps, the International Union of Scaremongers (Climate Division) are deliberately confusing gross and net, which can get you jailed in business…

%d bloggers like this: