By P Gosselin on 15. February 2022
Charts by Kirye
Text by Pierre
The January mean temperature data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA )are now available for Sweden and Ireland. Also below we look at Antarctic sea ice extent.
We begin by looking at the trends from 5 stations in Sweden, for which the JMA has enough data to allow adequate plotting. since 1988:
Data: JMA
All five stations show a cooling trend for the month of January, thus contradicting earlier claims that winters would be getting increasingly milder. Next month we’ll be looking at the February data, which means we will have the opportunity to look at the D-J-F winter trends.
Little temperature change in Ireland
What follows are the mean January temperature trends for Ireland since 1999 using the (unaltered) JMA data:
Data source: JMA.
The six stations plotted going back to 1988 taken together show no significant warming taking place, with some stations in fact showing a modest cooling trend for January.
Antarctic sea ice extent
Finally, Klaus-Eckart Puls of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) brought my attention to a plot of Antarctic sea ice extent, from Climate4you.
Chart: Climate4you
There’s been no sea ice extent trend change since 1978, when satellite measurement began.
But we are all gonna die right soon now, just ask Greta.
And Accusatory Occasional-Cortex, don’t be leaving her out, will hurt her feelings!
Don’t worry it’s all the fault of the Democrats failing to fully endorse communism.
Commitment issues, that sums up the Democrat Party nicely.
You’d better hurry up and ask her. After all, she is supposed to lead the way, isn’t she?
Where Greta lives is cooling and sea level is falling
The Al Gore effect
” Where Greta lives is cooling and sea level is falling… ”
Aha.
1) AFAIK, sea level in Scandinavia is falling only when you forget to add the glacial isostatic rebound to the tide gauge data 🙂
E.g. Furuögrund without correction: -8 mm/yr; with correction: +2 mm/yr.
*
2) And about ‘no January warming in Sweden since 1988’:
Here is a chart showing all months in all stations for Sweden, out of raw GHCN daily data:
Trend since 1988: 0.25 ± 0.09 °C / decade…
And she knows… how?
So, more inconvenient truths to be hidden and lied about.
True.
An Inconvenient Truth | Bread on the water
BTW
regarding the ice
This was also picked up by Phin Zoe
Global Sea Ice Area – Zoe’s Insights (phzoe.com)
as referred to in my report
This is simply BS.
Here is the data
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
And here is a chart showing you how global sea ice extent does look like
Trend per decade since 1979: -0.46 ± 0.10 Mkm²
Can we get graphs that don’t look like it was done by a 6 yrear old with crayons?
And labelled axes about twice as wide as tall, with 1 and 2 standard deviation shading, and in this case a “best fit” line about half an inch wide….this graph could fill a whole chapter in a book “ How NOT to do statistical graphing”.
This graph is a great illustration of the complexity of gathering, analyzing, and interpreting this beast we call climate change. Whether you come down on the man made or natural variability side of it. We know 3 things as certainties:
Oh wait. There is a fourth:
How Dare You!
Take the sun away and it takes 35,000 years for the top 2000m of the ocean to form ice.
Not much climate without sun or water. These are the dominant drivers of Earths climate along with the orbital mechanics of Earth’s wobbling orbital path around the sun.
But agreed there are many factors that are challenges to understand.
One certainty is that climate models are incapable of predicting the future climate or even climate trends.
Please provide somekind of proof/link/explanation on the 35,000 yrs statement. I get it – that it would take time, that the water stores a lot of heat, and the Earth has internal heat, and that your example involves 2 km of solid ice, but STILL – 35,000 yrs?
Allow me to remove my tongue from cheek. Of course the sun is the primary driver of our climate as well as life on earth. Without the latter there would be no Governments to cobble together misinformation about the former, which was my point but I do indeed take yours Rick.
As for the amount of time for ice to form on the oceans, nobody will be around to concern themselves over it. 35 years 35,000 years mox nix.
I’m not particularly upset by the graphics, but I am concerned by the editorial policy of NTZ, although may be this ‘Kirye’ guy is to blame. These snippets mean nothing unless it is explained why the particular data is chosen, and what other data was available at the same time which was not chosen The guy who runs NTZ is very vulnerable to challenge of ‘cherry picking’ and I’d give up checking his site if it wasn’t for the occasional posts by Kenneth Richard, who appears to be admirable, and spends time and trouble assembling and defending his data.
“The guy who runs NTZ is very vulnerable to challenge of ‘cherry picking’ “
Indeed so. Here (from here) is a map of the larger region, showing trend since 1990.. There are plenty of high trend areas, but NW Europe does stand out as being zero or negative trend. So of course, Kirye selects Sweden, Ireland etc.
So it’s not global, then?
As with any geo data, there is spatial variability. And so, yes, in short term trends, you can find regions that dip below zero. Here is a map of trends there over the last 60 years, pretty much positive everywhere. NTZ cherry picks in both time and space.
60 years is cherry-picking as well, Nick. How about trying for 1,000 years? That would include the MWP and the LIA. Even that could be construed as cherry-picking.
30 years is supposed to be good enough according to the climate “experts”.
“30 years is supposed to be good enough according to the climate “experts”.”
No, it isn’t. 30 years is chosen as an anomaly base period, and by extension as a period for climate normals. Despite what is often claimed here without citation, it is not said to have any special merit as a period over which to base trends.
The point of periods like 60 years is that it encompasses a time over which CO2 was rapidly rising. Finding a much lower trend over a thousand years doesn’t tell you much.
The real issue here is what counts as a true ‘trend’ versus true randomness. The irony of true randomness is that it doesn’t actually “look very random”. That might sound ridiculous but anyone who understands probability will know exactly what I mean.
In simple terms this means you can find supposed ‘trends’ in virtually any data set — hence accusations of cherry picking are rife on both sides of the argument.
The point about a lower trend over a thousand years “not telling you very much” is precisely because there isn’t that much to tell. The plain truth is that what we’re seeing now falls well within the bounds of natural probability and true randomness.
We simply do not have enough reliable data going back long enough to be making the sort of claims now being made.
You got it right. Throw a coin 1,000,000 times and you will quite likely find “trends” where you get 100 heads or maybe 75 tails. They are spurious trends in the whole scheme of things. You can’t say that after the 99th toss of all heads you are bound to get a tails, that just doesn’t work on random throws.
Correct in principle. But you almost certainly won’t get 100 or 75 heads in a row in 1,000,000 tosses with a fair coin. That’s why you need to look at the statistical significance.
Chances of getting 75 tails in a row, in 1,000,000 attempts is around 1 in 4 X 10^16.
You missed the point entirely. EACH throw is random. You can’t predict the next throw from the one before or even from a TREND of the last several. Trends can simply be spurious results of randomness. Why do you think even the IPCC says predictions can’t be made on climate?
But my point is your coin tossing example is strongly suggesting the coin tosses are not random.
If you’ve tossed 100 heads in a row, it’s reasonable to suspect that the next toss will also be a head. This follows from the fact that it is virtually impossible for a random coin toss to give that result. The logical conclusion is that it’s almost certain the tosses are not random, and in all likelihood it’s a double headed coin.
If you’ve tossed 100 heads in a row, it’s reasonable to suspect that the next toss will also be a head. This follows from the fact that it is virtually impossible for a random coin toss to give that result.
Completely missing the point.
Given a sufficient number of tosses, 100 heads in a row is a virtual certainty*. That still doesn’t change the fact that the 101st toss is 50/50.
Just because the odds of something happening are infinitesimally small doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
If you get 3 heads in a row, does that mean it’s more likely the next toss will be heads?
What about 4 in a row? 5? 10? 20? At what point do the previous tosses begin to impact the chances of the next?
* Yes, I am aware of how many tosses that would have to be. The example is an illustration, which you seem to be missing.
The point Bellman is making is that given 100 consecutive heads you can falsify the hypothesis that the tosses were random at 50/50 and conclude that there is a significant heads bias in the tosses. And that given the significant heads bias one would expect the 101st toss to also yield heads.
No, 100 heads can occur with no bias. Each throw is independent and you can not assume that a previous throw influences the next one.
100 heads of a fair coin can still occur…theoretically. In practice it is a statistical impossibility. If the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between heads and tails ever then an experiment in which 1,000,000 tosses contains a sequence of 100 consecutive heads would falsify the null hypothesis at about p = 1e-26. That is about as certain as anything can be. To put this into perspective you’d have to toss the coin 7e30 times to even have a 50% chance of seeing 100 heads. Even if you could manufacture 1 billion coin tossing machines operating at 5 tosses/min it would take 2.6e15 years or 188000x longer than the universe has existed to even get a 50% chance of this happening. So no…assuming it is a fair coin 100 consecutive heads cannot happen…in practice.
Yes, it can occur, just not with any probability in this universe. Your claim is that you would “quite likely” get 100 consecutive heads in 1000000 throws. I’m saying that not only is this not quite likely, it’s not even quite unlikely. It’s so unlikely that even you might have to question your assumption that the throws are independent.
I know you despise mathematical thinking, but please understand that 2^100 is around 10^30 is a very very large number, and that the chances of getting 100 heads in a row assuming a genuinely unbiased coin is 1 in 10^30. The chances of getting that in 1000000 attempts is around 1 in 10^24, which is a very very unlikely result – by which I mean virtually impossible. As I pointed out below, you could keep trying for the entire history of the universe and you will still be very unlikely to get it.
Given a sufficient number of tosses 100 heads is a virtual certainty, in the same way that given sufficient monkeys they could type the complete works of Shakespeare. It’s never going to happen in reality.
You say you know how many tosses that would be, so why pick such a ridiculous number as 100? As I said you are looking at close to 10^30 tries to have a reasonable chance, let alone a virtual certainty. Make 1000 tosses a second and you’d need a few million times the history of the universe so far to even have a 50% chance of getting your hundred heads in a row.
To your point, the assumption is you have a fair random coin, but that’s something you need to test. Just assuming it’s fair, and ignoring a highly improbable string of heads on the assumption that it must be random is precisely why you need statistical analysis.
“What about 4 in a row? 5? 10? 20? At what point do the previous tosses begin to impact the chances of the next?”
That depends on your priors. How much confidence did you have to start with that the coin was fair? How many trials are you running. The odds of 10 heads in a row in a single trial is about 1 in 1000, not impossible but if someone just presented you with the coin, tossed it 10 times all heads and asked you to bet on the next toss being a tail, would you take the bet? What if it had come up 20 times in a row, odds of around 1 in 1000000. Are you going to bet your live savings on the next toss having a 50% chance of a tail?
Each throw is independent, that is the previous throw doesn’t affect the next one. 100 in a row is just as likely on the first 100 throws as the 1,000,000 throws.
Why is it hard for you to understand what independent means? It means EACH time you flip there is a 50/50 chance of a head OR a tail.
Shirley the probability of 100 heads In a row is pretty small. In fact ((1/2)^100).
But, and it’s a large but, the probability can not tell you when it will happen. You are trying to interpret a small number into a result of it never happening. That isn’t what the probability tells you.
A lot of betters have bet red because the last three spins have been black and ended up losing. Ask me how I know!
The probability of winning the lottery is pretty small. The probability of 100 heads in a row is equivalent to everyone on the planet winning the lottery every day of the year for the net 35 trillion years.
All I’m saying is that someone claims to have an independent random coin and then trows 100 heads in a row, I wouldn’t bet on the net toss being tails.
I’m really not sure why or what you are arguing at this point. Either you are making some abstract argument about probability an independence, but spoiling it by insisting on using an absurd example. Or you are trying to make an argument about statistical inference and unintentionally illustrating why you have to change your assumptions based based on observation.
I believe mutually exclusive and independent are the correct terms.
Nick,
As you obviously do know far more than I do about weather/climate etc, could you please tell me what is ideal temperature of the earth?
BTW did anyone notice that three out of five Irish sites are airports?
heeem!
But CO2 keeps rising
Kirye a guy?
Quick and rough graph of the GissV4 temperature data for the same locations in Sweden.
I think the longer timeframe helps put things in context.
Now go find a place with 2C warming over the period so you can “average” a 1C change.
No. Climascientologists are 6 year olds.
No January warm up here in New England. It’s been a cold one so far. Yet, read the Bah-stin Globe and it’s all about the planet will soon be burning up.
Our weekly 4-10 inches of global warming is due to hit this afternoon.
We’ve had a very mild winter here in the UK. We must have stolen all the CAGW. Maybe we can lend it to you next year.
Yes it has been mild so far buy my snowdrops are about 10 days late. Maybe they know something …… .
The snowdrops in my street near Glasgow have been out for about a fortnight.
I’m trying to find the goalposts. Anyone seen them lately?
I think the Lefty alarmists sent them over to Hollywood so Dr. Pepper could use them in commercials.
They moved.
The timing of this article is laughably ironic considering that on Feb. 15th, 2022 Antarctic sea ice reached a new record low minimum beating out the previous record set on Mar. 1st, 2017. This occurred on the exact same day NTZ wrote “Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Now More Than 40 Years Stable!”
Source: NSIDC
Are you really that dim?
Maybe. I make more than my fair share of mistakes so it is definitely possible that I’m mistaken now. If I am I’m not currently seeing it at the moment though. Perhaps you can help me out.
From this file on the SH-Daily-Extent tab in cell AU47 I see 2.034e6 km2. That is Feb. 15th, 2022. In scanning the sheet for the next lowest value I found 2.08e6 km2 in cell AP62 which is Mar 1st, 2017.
Are you seeing something different?
“Perhaps you can help me out.”
It is definitely a record low. Here (from here) is a polar plot of Antarctic Sea Ice in recent years, with an enlargement in the middle and 2022 in black.
I’d say your post is laughably ironic considering Antarctica has just had a record cold winter.
“Antarctica just logged its coldest winter on record, with average temperatures hitting a blustery -78 degrees Fahrenheit. Individual temperatures hit as low as -144 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the coldest South Pole winter since records began in 1957.
Scientists said that Antarctica’s winter was so cold because of a polar vortex, a region of cold air that encircled the continent.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, called the cold winter “an anomaly.””
https://spectator.org/a-freezing-antarctic-winter-shatters-records/
Even the WaPo admits it. Why don’t you?
I think you must have me confused with someone else. I’m not challenging the WaPo article or the fact that Antarctica experienced a record cold winter last year. I do agree though that my post itself is ironic in this context since despite a record cold winter that should have primed high sea ice extents the summer melt out still resulted in a new record low minimum. It is a testament to the fact that winter air temperatures are not the only factor modulating Antarctic sea ice extents in the summer.
Aren’t there underwater volcanoes near Antarctica? If so, wouldn’t they affect sea ice extents down there? And, wouldn’t they render the area out of bounds for CAGW discussions?
Yes. There are volcanoes both under water and under ice near Antarctica. Yes. They would modulate ice extents especially if they erupt. There is also geothermal activity down there not unlike the activity over parts of the world as well. I’m not sure what is in or out of bounds for CAGW discussions. I don’t even know what delineates CAGW from AGW.
To your final comment. AGW indicates Anthropogenic (Man Made) Global Warming. C informs us that it is Catastrophic, insinuating that we are all going to die because of it.
You see Bdgwx, early in the 21st Century ALGORE, a “Gentleman C” average Ivy league educated silver spoon elite (and Ex-Vice President Barnacle), narrated a documentary, that is still being shown to school kids today, informing all the worlds children, that the C part meant the world was burning up “irreversibly” in the next _20-50_ years and they we’re all going to die if we don’t turn all control over our lives to the Central Authoritarian Government (CAG) run by the Faceless Cultural Elite (FCE) and their silver spoon children like ALGORE.
The result of that herculean effort, using taxpayer money to gather the data, is a world full of Greta Thunbergs, absolutely certain that their world is coming to end despite the stability of the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent and other metrics such as the very nebulas Global Surface Temperatures which is a whole other discussion for another day.
P.S. The CAG is the employer, btw, of those NOAA people with the data set that you linked us back to. They have a vested interest in preventing word getting back to young miss Greta that the world might not be coming to end in her lifetime, after all. And that she should go on and live a full and free life complete with fossil fuel to improve the quality of said life for all young boys and girls. Not just the young boys and girls born with a silver spoon up their bums like ALGORE.
Bill Powers said: “that the C part meant the world was burning up “irreversibly” in the next _20-50_ years and they we’re all going to die”
And just like that after years of asking I get two answers in the same day. Down below Oldseadog defines it has the death of everyone within one week. You define it as the death of everyone in 20-50 years. I have no idea which one is more accepted. They seem rather different at least in terms of timing.
Anyway, assuming everyone else accepts that CAGW means the death of everyone between now and 50 years I can definitively say that the hypothesis is about as alarmist and devoid of scientific truth as it gets. I can also say that no reputable scientist or institution advocates for that hypothesis.
So where did the hypothesis that everyone is going to die within 50 years come from? And more importantly why did you believe them?
“So where did the hypothesis that everyone is going to die within 50 years come from? And more importantly why did you believe them?”
Panic-mongers in politics and media.
WE don’t believe them, but many do, because there is nobody in mainstream discourse pushing back on that narrative. I see you, for example, say things about it HERE, but where is anyone in the mainstream media pushing back against AOC’s 12-year fearmongering, for example?
I’ve said this many times. Media and politicians have a long history of misrepresenting science in all disciples not the least of which is climate science. Peer reviewed science isn’t infallible, but it is orders of magnitude more suited to the persuit of truth. Instead of wasting time discussing CAGW, a theory falsified by the abundance of evidence and which science never advocated for, we should be discussing things that are actually plausible. Just my two cents…
“I’ve said this many times.”
Which I acknowledged. But you didn’t address my question. Where are the scientists, or anyone else, calling out the media and political distortions? By remaining silent, they become complicit.
Instead of wasting time discussing CAGW, a theory falsified by the abundance of evidence and which science never advocated for,
Except that it’s the fear mongering of CAGW that is driving public policy.
BTW I don’t downvote you when we disagree, I would appreciate the same courtesy.
TonyG said: “BTW I don’t downvote you when we disagree, I would appreciate the same courtesy.”
I’ve never once downvoted any post on the WUWT site. Like, literally never. I don’t know who is downvoting you, but I do know it definitely was not me. Honestly I can’t imagine any reason why your posts should be downvoted. You seem like a respectable person. We might disagree on climate stuff but I’d be willing to bet if we met up for coffee we’d get along just fine.
Go on to Reddit and tell them they are all bonkers…my guess is you think C02 is bad. I could be wrong.
I don’t think CO2 is bad.
You only hear and see what you want bdgwx. I, personally, don’t believe them but Greta and millions of school children do. Why are you, a seeming intelligent individual, so incapable of understanding that point?
Are you not aware that ALGORE’s documentary, proven to be full of falsehoods by British courts, was mandatory viewing for public school children here in the States as well as other countries?
Are you unaware that Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Primary Media Outlets have been sounding end of days alarms with alarming regularity since ALGORE’s documentary was released in 2006 as he promoted it on every network morning show? Have you been living under a rock for the past 16 years?
In the grand scheme of things it matters not what I believe about climate, which is that I don’t think it is going to end mankind. What I do know is that millions, likely billions, believe we are on a doomsday course if we don’t abandon fossil fuel because of the message from the people in control of the narrative.
Their forced abandonment of fossil fuel (for the great unwashed not the Faceless Cultural Elite and their minions) will put a lot more people in danger than global warming. But try and convince Greta and most Millennial/GenZ of that reality.
Yes and a few years ago researchers measuring seismic vibrations discovered it was a volcanic eruption under the ice of the W Antarctica sheet.
https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/volcano-under-antarctic-ice-may-erupt-accelerate-melting-2D11603371
Which document on that page please?
Refer to my post here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/16/ireland-sweden-show-no-january-warming-since-1988-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-now-more-than-40-years-stable/#comment-3455116
Got it now. The record low minimum of 2017 coming so quickly after the record highs of 2014/15 should give you a clue but obviously doesn’t.
What clue should it have given me?
How might that clue change my position that the timing of the NTZ claim that “Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Now More Than 40 Years Stable!” is laughably ironic?
How does that clue and the record highs of 2014/15 in conjunction with the record lows of 2017 and 2022 support NTZ’s claim that “Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Now More Than 40 Years Stable!”?
Antarctic sea ice changes rapidly over the period of months to years. That’s called weather, badwaxjob. When you look for trends over decades, (climate) you don’t find anything of significance. Not recognizing this simple fact is why you are thought of as a dim bulb.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’ve never challenged the fact that sea ice extents ebb and flow. I’ve never challenged the fact that the Antarctic sea ice extent trend is statistically equivalent to zero. It’s still laughably ironic that NTC said “Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Now More Than 40 Years Stable!” on the same day that it it was the lowest it has been over the period of record. It is also interesting because the IPCC predicted that summer SH sea ice extents should be relatively stable except for perhaps a slight uptick in extents until about 2030. And yet here we are with a record low.
You just admitted that sea ice extents ebb and flow despite showing no long term trend up or down (which IS long term stability) yet you tried to make something of the fact that sea ice just experienced an ebb. You conveniently left out the fact that it had grown dramatically from 2002 to it’s all-time recorded peak in 2014 and has previously experienced several similar short term gains and losses. Either you didn’t know (doubtful) or you’re dishonest. In either case, you’re dumb as a bag of rocks to think that you were scoring points for the Alarmist cabal.
Oh I definitely know. In fact, I post here quite frequently with the trends of sea ice in both hemispheres. I also bring up the point about cherry-picking brief declines in temperature or brief increases in sea to declare a new era of cooling. That’s what NTZ does. That’s why this particular article from them is laughably ironic. They had no problem pointing out the record high in 2014 and insinuating that this trend of higher sea ice extents would continue while the planet embarked on a new era of cooling. And here we are with 2 record low minimums since then the latest of which occurred on the very day they claim it is “stable”. Context. That is why this is laughably ironic.
It is stable as it shows no long term trend. That’s what stable means. You truly are as thick as a brick.
The point is that Antarctic sea ice is a climate measure that shows no evidence of a human caused climate crisis but numpties like you and your ilk keep doing your Chicken Little impressions.
I don’t disagree. A timeseries with a trend that is close to zero could reasonably be called stable. I’ve used such language to describe both the history and prediction of Antarctic sea ice myself. Let me be perfectly clear on my point. NTZ does not suggest in anyway that record highs are consistent with a stable trend. Instead they insinuate that it necessitates a flaw in modern climate science understanding, that sea ice is rising long term, and that there is no long term warming. Yet when two record lows followed soon after all of sudden the trend is now described as “stable” with long term warming still precluded. I don’t know how to make that any more clear.
BTW…the IPCC predicted Antarctic sea ice would remain stable and perhaps even increase into at least 2030. Yet here we are with a record low minimum. As is the case with most their sea ice predictions the SH prediction may be subpar as well. This would be legitimate avenue of criticism to go down. That is, why does the IPCC consistently underestimate sea ice extents?
Let’s not cherry pick!! If we are so quick to accuse alarmists of cherry picking, let’s not be “pots calling the kettle black”. Yes, I’m sure many parts of the globe have failed to warm but the overall global trend is upward. No matter which dataset is used – NOAA, UAH or any of them, the trend over the past several decades is upward – granted, maybe less so with some than with others….but still upwards.
Lets not focus on individual parts of the globe or short sections of recorded data but let’s just do honest science. The trend is upward,,,,for now (let’s say since 1979). When/if this upward trend starts to significantly decline (on a global scale), then we can begin to argue in earnest! Until then, any focus on individual regions or on just a few years of pause is pointless. The fact of the matter is that there will be fluctuations in global temperature as well as regions that are observed to go against the flow. So what? Let’s just keep on observing the overall, long term trend.
My belief is that this trend will reverse within the next few decades but until observations begin to support that view, it remains nothing more than an guess – albeit a reasonably educated one!!
There are > 30 climatic zones around the world, and hundreds more regions within them.
Each doing their own thing within their own cycles.
What’s the point of lumping them all together and creating some averages constructs?
I agree. It’s something that is lost on NTZ though. They latch onto the variability of monthly temperature changes and declare an end to the warming era and the commencement of a long term cooling era at the first site of a downward trend regardless of the brevity. That’s what makes this article laughably ironic. That is they declared Antarctic sea ice extent “stable” the same day it hits a record low yet had no issues with declaring that it was increasing upon seeing the record high of 2014.
It’s lost on the IPCC
“the trend over the past several decades is upward”
The key here is “several decades”.
Several decades do not make up a climate cycle. It makes up about half a climate cycle. The half you forgot about is the one from 1940 to 1980 where it cooled 2.0C during that period. From 1980 to the present it has warmed about 2.0C. And now we are 0.7C cooler than that.
So are we warming or cooling now? The shorterm trend says warming, but is that all there is to tell? No, it’s not.
Here’s the U.S. regional surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999):
A full cycle is a couple of decades of warming and then a couple of decades of cooling and then the cycle repeats. Talking about one leg of the cycle, the one from 1980 to the present, as though that is all there is, distorts reality.
It might be good if you informed Ben Kellet where that graph came from and the biases that are contaminating it. Because I have personally filled you in on the details multiple times I know that you understand the history of the graph and how much it is underestimating the warming and why it was underestimating it. Would you mind sharing those details with the WUWT audience?
I agree, it’s ironic.
You didn’t claim it meant that CAGW was true, you should get bashed for pointing out a truth.
I wish I knew what CAGW is. I’ve asked the WUWT audience several times for the objective criteria to delineate CAGW from AGW. Not that it matters in this context since neither a record low nor record high Antarctic sea ice extent can be used to falsify AGW. I’m assuming this is true for CAGW as well for most reasonable definitions whatever they may be.
I always thought that the C meant catastrophic, i.e. we’re all gonna die from it by the middle of next week.
Also, are you discussing Antarctic Ice area or volume? I would hazard a guess that the volume might have increased while ocean current variations might have had an effect on area.
CAGW is basically AGW but with the hypothesis that everyone will die by next week?
Extent. That is what NTZ is discussing so that is what I’m responding to.
I seem to recall it being explained several times. It’s about the proclamations like “12 years until it’s too late” or “New York will be underwater” like that Statue of Liberty picture, or that there will be widespread famine and tens of millions will starve.
The meaning is pretty simple: CATASTROPHIC AGW means AGW that will cause a worldwide catastrophe.
Somehow I don’t think you’ll accept that explanation though.
“I seem to recall it being explained several times. It’s about the proclamations like “12 years until it’s too late” or “New York will be underwater” like that Statue of Liberty picture,”
CNN had someone on their channel yesterday showing the computer-generated Statue of Liberty on screen and then showing the sea level rise around the Statue if the temperatures increased in the future by 3.0C from here.
I think that is what CNN would call CAGW.
It kind of reminds me of “The Ice Age Cometh!” scare.
Computers and dishonest climate scientists are a dangerous combination.
The 12 year figure comes from IPCC SR15. It is the subtraction 2030 – 2018 based on the text in D.1.1 and D.1.3 of the SPM. It is the amount of time that can elapse with the current emission pathway in which the temperature rise can be constrained to 1.5 C with a reduced emission pathway. No where is 1.5 C described as catastrophic or life ending.
The prediction that New York will be under water came from Suzy Hansen (no relation to James Hansen) and disseminated by Anthony Watts and Tony Heller.
https://youtu.be/WTRlSGKddJE?t=1134
If the definition of catastrophic is “we are all going to due next week”, then I hope you can see how useless that C is. You are setting a very high bar for something to be “catastrophic”. If net week only 90% of the population die, you can say, “see, I said the warming wouldn’t be catastrophic”.
Well, Obama told the word that climate change was “dangerous”.
Did you or anyone else you know of question the leader of the free world what he meant by “dangerous”?
Catastrophic – involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering. Things like sea level rise where Florida and New Orleans disappear under water. Where San Antonio becomes beach front property. Great human suffering from starvation because it is too hot to grow food. At least half of all birds, mammals, fish, and insects go extinct because of too high a temperature.
AOC said that could happen in 12 years. Algore said it would have already happened. Look at all the hockey stick graphs being tossed around. They never show a leveling off, only increases. That means we will BURN UP at some point in time.
That should read “you shouldn’t get bashed for pointing out a truth.”
AFIAK, Oldseadog is right, the ‘C’ stands for catastrophic. And for the fear-mongers and grifters, all AGW is CAGW.
Thanks. I knew what you meant.
I get that C stands for catastrophic but no one will provide the objective criteria to delineate from non-catstrophic. Is it 12C of warming? 6C? Something else? I just don’t know.
I think CNN said it, catastrophic, was about 3.0C warmer than now. At least they were showing the Statue of Liberty flooding at that temperature (computer generated) yesterday. I assume they think that is catastrophic. They presented it as such.
The climate change scaremongers claim to see AGW in everything and then go on to claim that this makes things “worse than ever”, so they are really saying AGW is CAGW.
So CAGW is 3 C of warming?
Here are the definitions I’ve gotten so far.
CAGW is the theory that all people will die next week.
CAGW is the theory that all people will die within 50 years.
CAGW is the theory that the planet will warm 3 C.
Which one is right?
So CAGW is 3 C of warming?
Here are the definitions I’ve gotten so far.
You’ve answered your own question.
I think most of us would agree that 3C is NOT catastrophic.
So why, then, is it being presented as such, and why are there no climate scientists or IPCC reps SAYING SO?
The details of the different scenarios you lay out are irrelevant: It’s the claims of future catastrophe if we don’t “DO SOMETHING” that makes it “catastrophic”.
Where’s the pushback on that?
” And for the fear-mongers and grifters, all AGW is CAGW.”
Yes.
The article’s point is that global warming’s finger print is that most of the warming occurs “Arctic Enhancement in the winter evenings in the temperate zones and virtually no warming in the tropics . I was in Nigeria for several years in the mid 1960s and Lagos at N4°LAT was aroun 30C, the same as today (recall that max open sea SST is 30C! ).
The colored trend maps of Nick Stokes are purely artifacts of massive adjustments. The late 1930s-early 1940s were pushed over 0.5C downwards to make 1998 higher than the Dust Bowl highstand and the depths of the very real, deep 35 yr cooling that followed was raised up 0.5C. The fiddling of this was done in 2007 by NASA ‘s Hansen, just before taking retirement!
Y’all understand that hot house climate worriers couldn’t make their case if we had most of the warming before mid century and then a frightening cooling following, all the while CO2 was accelerating upwards. No temperature “Control Knob” in that.
“The colored trend maps of Nick Stokes are purely artifacts of massive adjustments.”
The trend maps are of the original unadjusted station data.
It’s clear that these graphs need “adjustments”.
Some 16 yrs of following climate science in detail, one thing stands out concerning climate data. Climate is a ‘Whack a Moley’ science. In every critique of this kind, if it appears to cause a problem for the climateers, they simply change the data.
The red flags are: 1)there is always a year or more delay in adding data to the charts while they are working on the fiddle to disappear the problem. 2) the scientist who does the fiddle, does it on the eve of his retirement.
Before Hansen’s goodbye in 2007, the 1998 super el Niño did not break a record in the US or anywhere else – 1936 to 1938 was the 20th century T high stand.
When sea level appeared to be leveling off ‘they’ added an elastic rebound factor that makes the ocean basin larger. It was small, but who knows if they aren’t adding to it in tiny amounts. Oddly, adding a volumetric factor means our sealevel is now somewhat above the actual sea surface.
Then in 2014, B. Santer erased an 18yr ‘Pause’ in temperature rise and promptly retired. So make a list of “team” members near retirement for the next moley whacking.
Ben Santer is only 66 and I think is still working. I think that you are confusing him with Thomas Karl.
Correct. Karl made the ”adjustment” just in time for the Paris chin wag.
I stand corrected! I was the author of the term “Karlization” of temeratures at the time. Santer was also a fiddler, but of conclusions in IPCC’s TAR (if I now recall correctly). He changed ‘no detection of Human caused’ to certainty of human cause.
Here’s UAH data over the same period, for land, north of 20°.
Trend is 0.28°C / decade.
Misleading unsourced incomplete chart, how charming.
I said it was UAH data. I assume people here know where to find UAH data as it’s the only data trusted here, but here’s the source if you want to check it out.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
The chart is incomplete becasue, as I said I was covering the same period as used in this head post. I.e. starting in 1988 and only showing January.
It is a bad idea to make assumptions and it is good idea to post the source to the chart for copyright issues.
Better fit to this specific set: warming to 2005, then flat to 2020
Trend since 2005 is 0.34°C / decade.
So in 1000 years the temperature will have gone up by 28 degrees? If you don’t think so, tell us when it levels off. You can’t just make a piece of a forecast, you have to do the whole thing. Or, is 2.8 degrees going to kill us all?
It looks like he has now amended his prediction to 34 deg in 1,000 years, based on a sample of 16 Januarys.
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” Mark Twain
“It looks like he has now amended his prediction to 34 deg in 1,000 years, based on a sample of 16 Januarys.”
Another person who is incapable of reading my comments in context. I was responding to Gary Pearse, saying the trend was flat since 2005. I did the boring skeptical thing of checking the data and found that far from being flat the trend was larger than the trend since 1988.
In no way am I making a prediction about what the climate will be like in 1000 years, or even the next year. It’s simply a meaningless statistic to contradict an incorrect claim.
“So in 1000 years the temperature will have gone up by 28 degrees?”
What a ridiculous thing to say. Why would you think such a thing? You cannot assume a trend will continue at the same rate into the future indefinitely. It’s mainly to show you what has happened, not to make predictions outside the data.
Maybe I’m too subtle and over rate the intelligence of people here, but the whole point of my graph was to highlight the inadequacy of the No Tricks Zone cherry-picks. Every month they find a place which shows a cooling trend in that one specific month, if you choose the correct starting date, but you only have to look at a wider region to see how misleading this is. The trend looking at just the land area in the Northern Hemisphere (the area Sweden is in), and looking at exactly the same month and starting date shows a statistically significant warming trend.
Answer my question! When will your prediction level off? The graph you are showing is continued increase – forever. Where does it stop? In order to make a prediction you must have some idea of what is the controlling factor in your trend.
What prediction? It’s difficult to answer a question about something I’ve not done.
The graph you are taking issue with, is just showing what’s happened over the last 34 years. It’s illustrating how misleading it is to only focus on the trend for Sweden. I don’t try to predict how much warming there will be in the future, I’ll leave that to those who understand the climate better than me.
Yes you do. By ending a graph with a continuing rise (0.28/”decade), you illustrate that it will never stop. If you were being honest you would say that PAST rise has been 0.28/decade and not hint that it will continue forever.
I said the trend “is”. I’m not sure hoe that hints it will continue to be that for all time.
When Dr Spencer says “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade” is he implying it will continue like that forever?
When Lord Monckton says “there has been no global warming for 7 years 3 months”, is he implying that trend will continue indefinitely?
When Pierre says “All five stations show a cooling trend for the month of January”, is that meant to imply these five stations will keep cooling for the next 1000 years?
Not to worry; NOAA said January was the 6th warmest on record. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202201
Jan 2022 was ‘warmer’ than Jan 2021. It was a cold January worldwide, but sure, it’s getting hotter every year. As long as NOAA fudges the numbers.
Magnificent cherry picking.
It is still warming…
It’s always warming when the data’s adjusted. Funny how that works.
Are you saying that UAH is adjusted as well – I think not….yet it too has a warming trend….! Let’s not pick cherries!!!!
UAH makes several adjustments. This includes the drift and orbit decay adjustments. There may be others. It’s been awhile since I’ve read their methods paper. The UAH TLT values also use a one-size-fits-all weighting function to model the LT temperatures using the MT, TP, and LS products.
And the UAH satellite data correlates with the Weather Balloon Data, so the UAH adjustments must be right on the money.
Here are the warming trends.
UAH = +0.135 C/decade
RSS = +0.214 C/decade
RATPAC = +0.212 C/decade
But the unadjusted data shows more warming than the adjusted.
And the Russia colluuuusion clown appears. Did you laugh when Trudeau said Russia was behind the truckers?
I immediately thought of you…still believing 🤓
So once again I am going to assume your moronic comment means you have nothing intelligent to say about the topic.
Lol you are a moron so I ensure readers know it. Russia colluuuusion 😉
Hey Derg what do you make of the fact the company who prepares Trumps financial statements (from 2011-2020) has just retracted all of their work saying it cannot be relied on? They are also saying they will no longer work for him. No matter who you are, you can’t think that is good for Donnie.
Trump lives in your head just like Russia colluuuusion. You truly are an idiot. My job is to remind all of your stupidity.
Yes, yes…. but what do you think of this latest news? Do you think Trump was involved in tax fraud? And if he was, would it still make him a hero in your eyes?
Trump uses Turbo Tax…you really are stupid.
Russia colluuuusion indeed
Turbo Tax you say. Is that this year…. coz up until this week it was Mazars
In your koolade-guzzling la-la land, it is always “warming”.
There’s no “la-la land” with UAH data – it shows a clear warming trend since its humble beginnings….!
No one here disputes the Satellite data showing a warming trend, heck THIS blog regularly posts the newly updated UAH chart nearly every month.
I think you misunderstood what Bruce and iflyjetzz meant.
I’m not suggesting anyone here is disputing satellite data. However, if we do indeed agree that it too shows a clear warming trend (albeit not as extreme as others), let’s not cherry pick the “where or how” of how we view the evidence. Let’s be honest, if we look hard, we’ll find glaciers that are growing, places that are cooling and relatively short periods of time that even show global cooling. But the overall global trend is one of warming. Let’s be objective about this…..and not pick and choose how we present the evidence. That way, we maintain a much more balanced, dispassionate and scientific agenda.
Again, for the second time no one here is disputing the warming trend since 1979 and even earlier back to around year 1700 when it began.
I am agreeable with you however the IPCC and many warmist/alarmists did use the argument that a climate trend is meaningful when it is 30 years long or more, now that seems to have vanished in recent years.
Sure, the article picked just ONE month January to show no warming trend for 35 years however you and others here seemed unhappy with it does this mean YOU have condemned the hottest day, week, year on record claims calling it proof of climate change in forums and blogs?
I don’t really think you’re grasping my meaning, as you seem determined to tar me with the same brush as others who you constantly dispute with you. Of course, I am not claiming any recent extremes as evidence of “global warming”.
If you read my posts carefully, I’m actually presenting the very opposite approach. What do you understand by the expression, ” let’s not cherry pick”. What I AM saying however, is that if we are so frustrated by such claims, from alarmists, let’s not be guilty of the same. For example, all too often, I see posts pointing to how long the “pause” or hiatus in warming has extended. The fact that the the said pause is on higher plateau than the previous pause, doesn’t seem to be acknowledged.
There IS climate change but where I certainly agree with most of the science presented by WUWT is that there has ALWAYS been climate change. The warming of of recent times I believe to be just part of natural fluctuations but until this is proven…..let’s not cherry pick?
Ok I see that you don’t like one month “cherry-picking” claims which is understandable since that doesn’t really prove the planetary warming trend has stopped.
However, I did have to say that long pauses in warming trend does have some force because CO2 forcing is supposed to be continuous as claimed many times by warmest/alarmists who make it their top cause for warming. Yet something else easily overcomes the overrated CO2 for years at a time as the IPCC even acknowledge a 12-year run of no warming, and now the current no warming trend over 6 years.
I am one who sees the Sun/Ocean dynamo as the dominant cause of the current warming through El-Nino’ phases which causes the STEP warming jumps in the temperature charts and then no warming to small cooling in between for a few years at a time.
Agreed! CO2, as many here have pointed out is one of the essential building blocks of life. Trace amounts in our atmosphere, I too do not believe to be the major culprit. There are so many possible culprits and complex feedbacks that I suspect the detective work could go on forever.
But, in the meantime, while AGW remains the prevailing science, our approach should be to steer clear of what might be regarded as any form of bias. Let’s not engage in the headline grabbing tactics of alarmists, who for the most part constitute the media. Unlike the media, whose sole mission is to present the sensational, let’s not be tempted to stoop so low!
Sunset, and others, the purpose of choosing Januaries is because global warming is supposed to affect winter (and nighttime)Ts the most! If Januaries are getting colder then there is no sign of global warming of any concern.
Yes, let’s be objective. The past FEW years show a warming. It is another to say that is a continuing trend for as far as the eye can see. I’ll ask you the same thing I asked bellman, when will the warming end? If you truly believe it is a trend, when does the trend end. Is CO2 a control knob and we must eliminate it to solve the problem?
“There’s no “la-la land” with UAH data – it shows a clear warming trend since its humble beginnings….!”
Which does not tell the whole story, only half of it.
Right now, UAH is showing 0.7C of cooling since the highpoint in 2016. A little more cooling and the trend will no longer be up.
It used to be 30 YEARS and longer was an official climate trend according to you warmist/alarmists and your favorite sanatorium The IPCC who pushed this argument for years, now that the same crowd dropped that for the “hottest day on record” proves climate change caused it idiocy sound bites your cherry-picking claims over a 35 year period isn’t surprising at all.
It is evidence that warmists/alarmists have gotten stupider and stupider over time on a topic they long have lied repeatedly on, and continually mixed weather and climate claim vomits regularly on which rational people has to wonder how you can sleep well at night?
You have no credibility with your boring hit and run postings that are devoid of any speck of cogent argumentation.
”It is still warming…”
Compared to when? GAT today is the same as it was in 1958. More than 60 years and more than two climate data points. There is NO GLOBAL WARMING of the ”climate” There are movements in weather. That is what has caused all the hysteria. Nothing more. That is becoming more and more obvious to all but the most clued on climastrology zombies.
Which global average temperature dataset are you looking at?
I have shown you several times.
I don’t remember seeing anything.
Magnificent cherry picking. Go back to around 1000AD, and the earth has been cooling.
Go back 5000 years, and the earth has been cooling a lot.
Which global average temperature reconstruction are you looking at?
Big Climate is not going to be deterred from their mission by a little bit of data here and there; not even if it’s temperature. Climate change is the name of the game, and they can always find climate change and point to the increasing CO2 as the cause.
Whether this is true or not, all I’m saying is let’s just stick to the observed data. As long as even the most unprejudiced data shows a warming trend, then there has to be a recognition that there is at the very least, an extended period of warming ie several decades worth. Whether or not this is a temporary trend within an ever changing climate, remains to be seen. There has always been climate change…..the most glaringly obvious reasoning is that whenever we see the statements…..”hottest since…..driest since……stormiest since”, clearly means that the date “since” is measured from, was by definition at least as extreme as the recent extreme!!!
Maybe so! But there always comes (to use a well known phrase!!) a “tipping point” ! In this context, the tipping point means when the evidence can no longer support the theory. Yes, they will wriggle and squirm and maybe even defraud but in the end, reality will shout the loudest!
We have moved past global warming and climate change…neither of them could stick. Now they have trotted out Climate Extinction.
Much scarier.
You mean the climate is going to ‘go’ extinct? Or that climate is expected to become extinct? Or suffer extinction? What would we do without climate?
I wish I knew Clyde. These dolts have been pushing this CO2 is bad meme for nearly 40 years.
I’d heard that evidence of AGW would be demonstrated in the higher latitudes, quote, “early on.” unquote.
This data suggests no such warming.
Rather, it suggests stability.
And falsifies AGW hypothesis.
Nope, the Arctic has warmed more than other latitudes….. Antarctica much less so…..! So not quite falsified but definitely on a wobbly peg😬