Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
As with many of my meanderings through scientific landscapes, this one starts with “I got to wondering …”.
In this case, I got to wondering how well the Central England Temperature (“CET”) matches up with the temperature of the planet.
In part, I was wondering because I keep reading that the Little Ice Age, which bottomed out in about 1700AD, was just a European phenomenon. I’ve often wondered if just a part of the world could cool as much as it did in the Little Ice Age without the rest of the world cooling as well.
The CET is one of the longer temperature records. It’s a curious record in that it’s made up of a combination of temperature records of a changing variety of stations in the general area of Central England. It stretches from 1659 to the present. Here’s the more recent part of the CET record (seasonality removed) and the Berkeley Earth global temperature record.
Figure 1. Monthly Central England Temperature (CET) and Berkeley Earth global temperature.
Hmmm … looking at that it seems that there is very little relationship between the two. The R^2 (lower left corner) is a measure of the closeness of the relationship, varying from R^2 = 0 (no relationship) to R^2 = 1 (total agreement). Pondering the question, I realized that the problem is that over a short period of time, months or years rather than decades or centuries, the temperature in a small area of the planet like Central England varies a lot more than the temperature of the globe.
So what I needed to do was to adjust the short-term variance of the CET to match that of the Berkeley record, while leaving the long-term variations intact.
To do that I first took a LOWESS smooth of the CET data. That gave me Figure 2.
Figure 2. Full Central England Temperature record, along with a LOWESS smooth of the CET. You can see the coldest part of the Little Ice Age around 1700AD.
Then I subtracted the LOWESS smooth from the recent CET data (from 1850 to the present to match the period of the Berkeley Earth data). This left me with just the short-term (months to years, not decades or centuries) variations in the CET data.
I also did the same to the Berkeley Earth temperature data, to determine the short-term variations in that data.
Once I had both sets of short-term variations, I adjusted the average size of the CET short-term variations to match the average size of the corresponding Berkeley Earth short-term variations. Finally, I added the LOWESS smooth back in to reconstruct the original CET data, but with much less short-term variations.
I then used a simple linear regression on the CET data to give the best overall fit to the Berkeley Earth data. Figure 3 shows that result.
Figure 3. Central England Temperature, variance adjusted, compared to the Berkeley Earth global temperature.
This was a big surprise to me, and surprises like this are what keep me doing science. I did not expect the temperature of a small part of England to be in such good agreement with the global temperature. The R^2 is 0.67, much larger than the previous R^2 of 0.07 shown in Figure 1. And since the Little Ice Age is clearly visible in the earlier part of the CET record shown in Figure 2, this greatly ups the odds that the Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon.
Now, I’ve also heard the claim about US temperature records, that the US is only ~ 2% of the global area and thus we shouldn’t expect it to be similar to the global record. So I used the same technique to compare the Berkeley Earth US record with the Berkeley Earth global record. Figure 4 shows that result:
Figure 4. US temperature, variance adjusted, compared to the Berkeley Earth global temperature.
Now, the US is much larger than Central England, and thus as we might expect, the agreement with the global temperature is even better than that of the CET. The R^2 is now up to 0.76. Over the last 170 years, the US temperature has been doing very close to what the global temperature has been doing. Who knew? Certainly not me.
Next, here is the correlation of individual 1° latitude x 1° longitude gridcells, variance-adjusted as described above, with the global average temperature.
Another surprise. The land masses generally correlate well with global average temperature, as does much of the ocean … except the North Atlantic, which is negatively correlated with the global mean.
Finally, with all of the above in mind, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Little Ice Age was most likely a global phenomenon.
And that was my scientific surprise for today … how was your day?
My very best to all,
“ the previous R^2 of 0.7 shown in Figure 1″
Should be 0.07
Thanks, Leif, fixed.
Tip o’ the hat, Leif Svalgaard, good to read you here.
There’s a typo just under figure 3 – the CET to Berkeley original correlation should be 0.07 not 0.7 I think.
I am an electronics guy – I assume a Lowness filter is basically a low pass filter. One pole, 2 pole or what? (I confess I am being lazy in not looking it up).
LOWESS is a rather complicated curve fit method. A sort of a piecewise curve fit with a lot of little pieces I think. It requires a lot of computation power (relative to pre-2000’s PC throughputs I suppose) and the curve generally cannot be conveniently expressed in equation form.
Lowess is not that difficult to explain and is based on very easy to understand logic.
It is an elegant way of doing local regression.
However, as Menace correctly points out, it requires a lot of computational power as you need to do hundreds of simple calculations. That used to be a problem, processing and data storage.
Luckily, with modern PCs that is not an issue anymore.
John, you are missing out by not diving into the theory of this method.
The fact that Willis is aware of this method and used it gives me IMHO greater confidence in his analysis.
The Little Ice Age was already known to have been global from many studies on every continent and in all oceans. So were the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian and Holocene Optimum Warm Periods and intervening cool intervals.
While that’s certainly true, it seems useful to show a new piece of evidence. I don’t recall seeing any papers from Mann or comments from griff acknowledging their prior error and repudiating the Hockey Stick. Or did I miss that?
Why would you care what griff says in any way?
The only reason to care about the rubbish that griff spews is that it is propaganda that has proven effective in deceiving millions. He and his ilk—(my reference to griff should be understood as the entire stable of donkeys who troll here)—still maintain that the historical warm and cold periods were all regional and that the hockey stick graph is a valid depiction of the global average.
Yes, Willis’ analysis is surely worthwhile, although BEST is largely rubbish. CET is also questionable, being based upon three sites which have changed over time, amid forest destruction and urbanization since the 17th century.
The CET reflects how the climate of a small, well the 9th largest in the world, island with a maritime climate changes as a result of industrialisation and population increase, deforestation, more intensive agriculture,land and water management. This is known as UHI but is more complex than that.
It’s interesting to reflect that coal saved what was left of British forests as charcoal was no longer needed in metal smelting and glass making. Coal was a better source of byproducts such as tar.
The Met has also been “adjusting” CET to cool the past and warm the present.
Yes, two bastardized “temperature” records are used here.
I thought all that temperature variation had been beaten into submission with a hockey stick.
Yes, the Hockey Stick Lie got rid of all those variations in the past.
Not to mention Hippos in the Thames river in England during the Eemian period. Pretty sure all the worlds coal and fossil fuels were still in the ground then. So if CO2 is in fact the world’s thermostat it must have been turned way up during the Eemian 140,000 years ago. Yet ice core records don’t show that, as 280 ppm is claimed to be the static CO2 level for over 400,000 years. So something about the claims does not add up.
What, you didn’t know about the Neanderthal industrial age?
The Eemian interglacial lasted from about 127 to 106 Ka. Others date it from 130 to 115 Ka. In any case, it was hotter than the Holocene, and lasted longer than has our present interglacial so far. Greenland’s southern dome melted an estimated 25% more than it has in the past 11,400 years.
According to the HALO world human timeline, humans were in fact a space faring civilization 150,000 years ago. Until they messed up and were driven back to the neolithic age.
The Neolithic, ie New Stone Age, is much more recent than that. You’re talking Middle Paleolithic, ie mid-Old Stone Age, at that date. No space-faring. Not even yet any Modern humans out of Africa, except possibly the Levant, where it’s possible that proto-Moderns first interbred with Neanderthals some 220 Ka.
Here is the long term Capetown South Africa temperatures before ‘homogenization’. Note that it is a remarkable fit to the US temperature with the same warming and cooling periods by date ranges. Note also the 20th Century high stand before the middle of the century. This graph not only statistically corroborates the US temperature pattern as a global one but is also evidence that warming and cooling periods decadally and even less than that are matched globally.
Reinforcing this, Paul Homewood noted the same pattern in Paraguay and Ecuador where there are sufficiently long records and Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, etc. Australia’s pre-BOM criminal vandalism of the temperature record had the 20th Century high also in the late 1930s.
And here is what GISS and co-conspirators’ homogenization of Capetown’s temprtature now looks like: !!!
Shame on the vile subversion of climate science for ill gains and political gamesmanship. They do know what they do.
What is your source for the Australian data? It does not resemble much of what I have seen at numerous individual sites throughout the land; and it stops a decade ago.
The RAW data for hundreds of Australian sites is easily accessed.
If you wish to combine it all into a national average, it is customary to apply area weights to the data, which tends to affect the outcome by putting more emphasis on remote sites that speak for large areas. And, these areas change over time as new stations are added. It is not an easy exercise for those like me with an old PC and no area-based numbers for weighting.
So, I cannot produce a graph to compare with yours. Geoff S
As far as I am aware, that data is NOT raw data. That is the data the BOM deems fit for public consumption and has been heavily manipulated. Back in 2013 when Abbott became PM there were high hopes he would force the BOM to release the raw data. They screamed blue murder and the Minister for Science, Greg Hunt, was a LINO, and he did BOM’s bidding. Abbott, as in so many things, proved too weak to override him.
I haven’t looked at this problem. I do remember in one of Jennifer Marohasy’s fine GBR essays, I believe, a mention of the 20th century high being in the late 1930s. Perhaps she has something. Among global climateers, I would say your BOM (and Kiwi neighbors) is one of the worst manipulators. I’ve been led to a strong suspicion that station closures, moves, ‘legitimate’ homogenizations, exclusions from and inclusions in, various climate network sets are all in the temperature fiddlers tool box. They have enormous computing power at their service to allow grand trials to select what they want for their networks optimally. Even the changing and weighting are purely manipulative.
Here’s something to try. Make a set only of stations that have been in operation and used for a long time to do your evaluation. My review supports the idea that patterns are global, so such a set should display this. If they have destroyed this continuity, you have a story of diabolically deliberate obliteration of the truth.
If the same pattern shows up globally, then it is global.
One pattern that shows up globally is that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
The only place this doesn’t show up is in the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts.
Sorry mate, but we are miles ahead of your thinking here. Following are graphs of Australian Tmax and Tmin in the BOM adjusted ACORN-SAT data sets, from 1910 onwards. The graphs cover the 100+ stations used by BOM for national views.
There is little sign of a big blip upwards in the 1930s.
Thanks for work done by Chris Gillham, waclimate web site.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/1930s blip not here.docx
Oh bother, old software playing up.
There are a plethora of papers concerning the MWP collated and categorised here
The large majority of the scientific research does not support your claim that “The Little Ice Age was already known to have been global”. In fact, the more research that comes in, the more this claim has been shown to be false.
The large majority of research shows that the well-supported and long recognized warm and cold fluctuations of the Holocene were global.
You cite one study attempting to analyze “spatial coherence” for 2000 years in the 11,400 year-old Holocene.
Read just the studies I posted here out of hundreds supporting the global extent of centuries-long warm and cool periods.
Start with the Fuegian peat bogs, using the same procedures as in Europe. The patterns are the same.
re: “You cite one study attempting to analyze spatial coherence … Garbage.”
Once again, supposedly “garbage” merely “because Tillman says so”.
re: “The large majority of research shows that the well-supported and long recognized warm and cold fluctuations of the Holocene were global.”
Tillman, with regard to the HCO itself, the two graphs of Greenland and Antarctic temperatures that you posted yourself elsewhere in these comment threads did not even support this claim. Although yes, the HCO was seen in both Greenland and the Antarctic, it appeared at those locations at different times.
The HCO occurred simultaneously in both polar regions, and its peaks mirror perfectly.
Go back and look at your own posted charts, son. The maximum temperature peak for Greenland during the HCO was around 7800 years ago; the maximum temperature peak for Antarctica during the HCO was around 11,000 years ago. They don’t match at all.
The HCO was way after 11 Ka.
At its maximal definition, it was 5.2 to 9.0 Ka. But that’s off, because of the 8.2 Ka cold snap. Peak HCO warmth was around 8.0 Ka, but also subsequent high points at about millenial intervals, with the last at 5.2 Ka.
Please don’t presume to comment upon topics about which you are totally ignorant.
Tillman, your comment is self contradictory and makes zero sense.
The HCO cannot be both “way after 11 Ka” and also “5.2 to 9.0 Ka”.
You also ignored the point that the maximum HCO temperature peaks seen in the Greenland and Antarctic ice core records do not match each other with regard to timing. They are over 3000 years apart.
Please don’t presume that the kind of nonsensical gibberish you’ve posted is a valid “response” to a legitimate scientific question.
Once again we get the dribbling musings from our resident climate cult zombie…
New Zealand Glaciers mirrored the movements of Glacier Bay in Alaska
A revised Little Ice Age chronology of the Franz Josef Glacier, Westland, New Zealand Krista M. McKinzey1 *, Wendy Lawson1 , Dave Kelly2 , and Alun Hubbard3 Abstract A reassessed Little Ice Age chronology of the Franz Josef Glacier is presented. Diameter at breast height of 1340 southern rata (Metrosideros umbellata) and kamahi (Weinmannia racemosa) was measured within 50, 150-m2 quadrats in the Waiho Valley. Age-size relationships based on 60 tree-ring counts and associated diameter at breast height measurements were constructed, although the unknown shape of growth curves beyond the realm of tree-ring data rendered extrapolation unreliable. Thus, the revised chronology is interpreted from mapped tree-ring counts and measured diameter at breast height of the largest rata and kamahi within moraine limits and trimlines to determine the minimum time elapsed since deglaciation. The Franz Josef Glacier’s Little Ice Age (LIA) maximum culminated before AD 1600, when it terminated c. 4.5 km down-valley of its 2001 position. Subsequent, but lesser magnitude, re-advances culminated by c. AD 1600 and 1800. This pattern is strongly corroborated by other New Zealand proxy climate data. Evidence from this reassessment provides increasing support for an earlier LIA maximum of the Franz Josef Glacier than is often cited.
Would you like to see evidence from the south pole as well? Maybe you can look it up for yourself…..
If the LIA, and various cold and warm periods were local and not global, then that would seem to demonstrate the absurdity of combining all measurements into a global temperature and suggesting that any up or down movement was an indication of something happening globally.
Yes, you are correct, they were all global, and they were all for the same reason: the presence or absence of volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere. Cooling when there many eruptions, and warming when there were few..
See: The Definitive cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”.
Brilliant as ever Willis.
Quick question though, why would you be surprised if something of the magnitude and duration of the European LIA was mirrored world-wide? After all, doesn’t the Earth keep turning and the fluids and gases keep mixing?
Or was there perchance a touch of sarcasm there?
LIA on Tierra del Fuego:
And in Queensland:
Tian Shan glaciers:
And on Southern Alps:
Yeah, modern glacial retreat in many places is showing trees that were overrun by glacial advances during the LIA.
The same is true of the Siberian treeline:
Did you bother reading your references? They do not support your claim. All of them simply say the climate has changed over time, not that the Little Ice Age was a single region event.
They most certainly do support my claim. For instance, Fuegian peat bogs show exactly the same pattern as European bogs.
Clearly, you didn’t read a single one of the links.
Be cautious about that paper on ti tree leaves from Stradbroke Island. The lead illustration shows a leaf that is NOT Melaleaca quinquenervia, the study subject. It lok more like a Canadian maple leaf. Might not be important, but why? Geoff S
The leaves don’t have to be of the same species. The analysis was chemical.
I always enjoy reading your posts. This one has a typo here:
The R^2 is 0.67, much larger than the previous R^2 of 0.7 shown in Figure 1.
I think you meant to repeat the 0.07 from the previous R^2.
I love how your analytical skills shine a light on what the data is able to tell us. At some point the data will trump the alarmist fog – but it’s taking a horribly long time. Thank you so much for your dedication and data based approach.
“…At some point the data will trump the alarmist fog …”
CAGW is a narrative. It cares not one whit for truth or data. It is merely a bullhorn with which to stampede the herd.
As a bonus (if you want to call it that), a lot of people make a lot of money from it. Don’t count on it going away anytime soon.
“I love how your analytical skills shine a light on what the data is able to tell us.”
The data is bogus. The result is bogus.
I have noticed there is a striking relationship between the density of observations for a geography and the amount of variability in temperature recorded over time.
Sparsely sampled areas tend to resemble CO2 curves quite closely, while heavily sampled areas have less resemblance to CO2 curves.
The best predictor of temperature to CO2 correlation seems to be the number of weather stations operating (inversely).
State of Arkansas USA (well sampled):
Country of Mali, in Africa (poorly sampled):
Greenland (well sampled?):
Country of Bolivia, South America (poorly sampled):
Berkely Earth data
I concede the plots are somewhat cherry-picked, but it is meant to highlight the point. It would require a spatial analysis for robust statistics. Maybe it has been done. I suggest infilled data always bears more resemblance to CO2 than non-infilled data. Aggregated globally, this significantly impacts our view of the data.
It looks like your well-sampled charts all show it was just as warm in the Early Twnetieth Century as it is today.
Take a look at the rate of warming for 40 years or so in the CET from 1700 – 1740.
I have a graph overlaying that section of the record on the present warming (data CET annual mean and graph was generated in 2019 so latest data cuts off then).
It seems that CO2 emissions from burning witches are particularly potent as far as warming is concerned, especially for the witches.
Nice analysis, although already known (the correlation). It would be very interesting to see the temperature anomaly plot for the small blue area of the North Atlantic.
Maybe compared to the global temperature anomalies, like in figures 3 and 4.
Nice post, WE. Your surmise is almost certainly correct.
When the issue of Mann’s hockey stick flat handle was first raised (he had eliminated both the historically verifiable European MWP and LIA), his supporters argued they were local and the hockey stick was global and ‘correct’. Then a number studies showed they were both at least the entire northern hemisphere. Then further studies showed them present in the Southern Hemisphere, even finding evidence for the MWP on the Antarctic peninsula. Showing how utterly wrong Mann was, never mind his ‘Nature trick’ with the blade.
Absolutely correct. The motivation to say the LIA was only in Europe has the same genesis as the need to get rid of the MWP. I’ve read uncountable peer reviewed papers indicating conditions in accord with the LIA from all over the globe. We might never know the exact temperatures involved in those other continents. But it’s almost irrelevant because even today regions have their own trends that diverge from the global trends. At some point the establishment will have to admit there was a global MWP and a global LIA. It’s nothing more than returning to some common sense.
Yes. And the reason the Mann’s of the climate debate won’t recognize them is that if they did, they would be admitting to significant natural variability. And that admission would ruin their CO2 attribution to warming since about 1975.
And screw up future grants, international travel and cash awards, Rud. Assuming paleo climatologists are corrupt is a good bet.
And Nobel prizes.
Mann-kind has been extremely grateful for what one bristlecone pine tree on the remote Yamal Peninsula has revealed.
Just think how much richer in knowledge we would all be if all pine trees gave up their historic temperature secrets as willingly and unselfishly as that Yamal specimen did.
(sheds a tear . . . )
LIA data from the Ross Sea show Antarctic surface 2 degrees C colder:
The hockey stick is an obvious climate change denial.
As a point of clarification, Rud, IIRC Mann’s two original hockey sticks (MBH98 and MBH99) covered only the Northern Hemisphere, not the globe. As usual, the evidence shows that the CliSciFi paleo climatological community spin and misrepresent everything; their global argument was crap.
And if European LIA and MWP were regional events then to arrive at the handle of the hockey stick there must have been other NH regions with unusual warmth during the LIA and unusual cooling during MWP to average things out. Has Mann or anyone else ever identified where these were?
I’ve read 97% of the WUWT posts since fall of 2008 when DSL arrive at my house and to 2017, and 80% of the posts in the last 5 years. There are several other sites with fewer postings, but about the same % reading for me.
I agree completely with Rud’s comment.
Per the clipboard click, yours is the 3,512,724th comment. If the comments came in at a constant rate (I realize that they didn’t), and if you took 45 seconds for each, then you would have spent ~8 hours a day, every day for the last 14 years reading just them. Then, you read from the “several other sites with fewer postings, but about the same % reading for me”.
So, you either a government “worker”, or you are incarcerated in a Hotel Fed with wifi, or you have resided in a nice assisted living facility since the aughts, or I made an arithmetic error.
blob goes into Rant Mode.
Got me. I should have expanded on my assumptions.
I assumed that from 2008 to 2017, Mr. Hultquist opened up 41% of the links and fully read 28%. From 2017 to present he opened up 37% of the links and read 24% of them. In February of 2016 I assumed that he took an on line speed reading course, but he only retained that ability until September of that year.
Of course these assumptions were part of my calculation of 45 seconds/comment. Actually a hair over 45 seconds/comment, but I’m trying to use the interesting, malleable rules that posters have claimed here w.r.t. significant figures….
Oleaginousbob, proves that John Hultquist‘s statement is correct, before getting into Hultquist’s actual reading speed.
Many people read the entire page, not individual letters and letter groups (words).
Making Oleaginousbob’s spurious strawman, i.e., “45 seconds” completely fictional.
Not to mention that more than a few people in the world are able to read extremely at very fast rates.
Posts, not comments.
Hey Cliffie Clavin. It’s WUWT’s term, not mine….
Is it possible that BEGT is not an accurate estimate of historical global temps? That BEGT is biased? Why should BEGT be the gold standard?
And what is global average temperature anyway? The Earth has wide ranges in temperature from place to place. The average (or any other smooth of a smooth) is meaningless.
And btw, if it wasn’t so unseasonably cold here today, I’d be out in the garden instead of trolling WUWT and depositing comments. Warmer Is Better.
Mother Nature finally turned the heat on this past week in the Midwest. It’s what we’ve been waiting
for all winter long. It feels soooooo good!
Retired physics prof Muller, founder of BEGT, claimed he was a sceptic before launching this program, but there is no record of such skepticism, and he has been a Climate Change crusader ever since. He has testified before congress, saying that the slight increase in global temperature proves the rise is entirely human-caused.
NO global temp guess is correct … all are simply grant funding proposals
“I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Little Ice Age was most likely a global phenomenon.”
Out on a limb. A nice big strong one close to the ground.
Remember Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas and that whole fiasco?
Soon and Baliunas wrote a paper showing the MWP was in fact global. This enraged the Global Warming Alarm community and set it on fire and they launched the now notorious campaign to destroy the two. As we recall this campaign consisted of lies, defamation, character assassination and professional harassment. That must have been one heck of a paper to have caused all that much fuss.
A reader here, new to the affair might ask, what was this really all about?
Well, at the time the Warmists were at the height of their efforts to erase the MWP as it was devastating to the theory of AGW. Shortly before the Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas published their paper, Michael Mann (yes, him) had published work purporting to show the MWP was local to Europe. The paper accomplished two big goals.
1) Made the assertion that the MWP was local.
2) Gave a big name to the new “fact”.
So Soon and Baliunas committed two grave sins when they published.
1) They demolished the “MWP was local” argument.
2) They directly contradicted one of the High Priests of Global Warming Alarm.
Neither heresy could be tolerated.
Foe those interested in this sordid mess the paper is:
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas
Climate Research (Clim Res)
Vol. 23: 89-110, 2003
Published January 31
I have the paper saved as a .pdf, so I know it is, or was, available.
After fig3, previous R^2 is mentioned as 0,7 vs 0,07. Thanks for all the articles. Stan
How was my day? It got better as soon as I read your post. Thanks again Willis.
But… there is no global temperature. It’s a fantasy.
Here’s the real U.S. temperature chart.
The Berkeley Earth data is crap. Quit refering to it as a legitimate “temperature” record. It is a bastardization of the temperature record, and here you are using it like its real.
It’s no wonder that so many people are confused.
While the dog barks, the caravan moves on.
As you can see. The “real US temperature chart” shown here goes up to 1995.
Yeah, Nick, its real easy to change history if you run the Ministry of Truth. After 1997, however, it becomes more difficult for them to dick with the numbers. They’ve spent some real effort at that without significant results; its clear the 21st Century is not a repeat of the late 20th Century.
My comment was directed to the fact that the government keeps the official records. There is no point in complaining if nobody listens. If you do complain it helps the new people if you are very clear about your complaint. The powers that be, however, aren’t going to change their modus operandi.
I’d love for the down-voter to tell me where I err in my various statements. If you’ve gotten out of your 30’s without realizing all governments are corrupt you haven’t been paying attention. Climate hysteria is the official U.S. Government policy and all agencies’ work products must support that end, factual or not.
Mark Twain said something like: “If you don’t read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed.” It will get worse when the U.S. Government’s Disinformation Board gets to really rolling. It was around for a few months before we learned about it. I wonder if all the media outlets were given their marching orders during that period.
Again, downvoter, tell me where I err.
“Yeah, Nick, its real easy to change history if you run the Ministry of Truth. After 1997, however, it becomes more difficult for them to dick with the numbers. They’ve spent some real effort at that without significant results;”
Yes, the Data Manipulators are having a harder time mannipulating the temperatures now that the UAH satellite is available.
They have managed to manipulate the record since the beginning of the 21st Century so that they could claim that 10 of those years were the “hottest year evah!”, but if they used the UAH chart, they couldn’t make any of those claims.
Here’s the UAH chart. See how many years between 1998 and 2016 that you can find that could be claimed to be the hottest year ever. None of them are even as warm as 1998 on the UAH chart.
NASA Climate and NOAA are lying to us.
Tom Abbott said: “Yes, the Data Manipulators are having a harder time mannipulating the temperatures now that the UAH satellite is available.”
UAH is one of the most adjusted datasets in existence. They perform similar adjustments as everyone else plus some that the surface station datasets don’t even need to worry about. And they do grid cell infilling as well just like NASA does except UAH does it up to 37.5 degrees away which is equivalent to 4000 km at the equator and using only simple linear interpolation at that.
This isn’t really pertinent since they are actually measuring different things other than actual temperature and for varying sections of the atmosphere rather than at one altitude only.
Yes, past that point the graph gets nostalgia for the 1930s.
As usual Nick always misses the important point and throws out a diversion.
Its how he earned the moniker “Nitpick Nick”.
Come on Nick, can’t you read? It goes to 1999. That’s why it is referred to as Hansen 1999. This chart includes 1998, the warmest year in the U.S. since the 1930’s and equal in warmth to the year 2016, which the Temperature Data Manipulators claim is the “hottest year evah!”
2016 is not the hottest year ever in the United States, the year 1934 is the hottest. The United States has been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. CO2 is an afterthought.
The Hansen 1999 U.S chart blows up your CO2 crisis theory. Along with all the other regional historical, written temperatue charts from around the world that show the very same temperature profile where it was just as warm in the Early Twintieth Century as it is today.
You know this is true, yet you promote the bogus Hockey Stick Lie.
You say that the United States has been in a temperature down-trend since the 1930’s..
No, there is NO temperature” down-trend”, then, or at any other time in Earth’s history.
ALL of our climate is driven by the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from the presence or absence of random volcanic eruptions or Industrial activity.
Here are a couple of papers you should read:
“The Definitive cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”
“Stalled High Pressure Weather Systems”
Both show the role of SO2 aerosols in our climate
The first link should be:
Still not right:
(wish I could check before sending)
While the does support the hypothesis that SO2 is a significant player in climatic change and was likely a contributing factor to the LIA it does not support the hypothesis that it is the only thing that drives the climate.
For more on the effects of SO2 aerosols, Read “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
In it, the cause of each anomalous temp. change of ~0.1 deg. C. or more, 1850-2019, was determined, and ALL were found to be due to changing amounts of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere
I’m pretty familiar with the effects of SO2. And I agree that more SO2 means more negative radiative forcing. But you haven’t shown there is “complete correlation”. In fact here is a pretty glaring problem here. You are saying that SO2 has been on a secular decline for the last 170 years since since the global temperature has increased over that period and when American business and industrial activity has increased. There is no attempt to explain the timing and magnitude of the Quaternary Period glacial cycles or the secular decline in temperatures over the last several million years.
No, I am NOT saying that SO2 has been on a secular decline for 170 years.
You need to re-read “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
ALL increases or decreases in average anomalous global temperatures were due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, of either RANDOM volcanic or industrial origin. This is not a secular decline.
With respect to industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, they began to decrease after 1979 due to global Clean Air efforts (after peaking at 136 Megatons), and, as a result temperatures began to rise. The amount of temp. increase due to Clean Air efforts matches the amount of warming that has occurred so precisely that there is no room for any additional warming from “greenhouse gasses”
Volcanoes have been erupting for millions of years, and their SO2 aerosol emissions have to have caused the previous Ice Ages. What I cannot explain at this time is what triggers what appears to be the cyclic occurrence of increased volcanic activity . My best guess is some large celestial body on an extremely elongated orbit that visits our solar system from time to time, but who knows.
If ALL increases and decreases in the global average temperature are caused by SO2 then the expectation is that SO2 has been on a secular decline for the last 170 years since temperature has been on a secular increase. Can you show that SO2 has declined and by what amount since the pre-industrial period? In fact, do you have any SO2 data by which we can do an objective Pearson Correlation Coefficient test on several time scales ranging from a million years down to monthly?
Temperatures have been increasing because of Earth’s gradual recovery from the LIA (fewer volcanic eruptions since about 1900) See the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set (Fig. 1 in “The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures)
(There has undoubtedly also been a small amount of warming due to albedo changes since the LIA, due to melting glaciers exposing darker soil, etc. etc).
With respect to changing levels of Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, they are shown on Fig. 2 of “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”, the data being from The Community Emissions Data System, of the University of Maryland.. Their gridded data extends from 1750 to 2019. Industrial SO2 aerosols did not exceed 1 Megaton annually, until 1850.. There is no earlier SO2 data available, except for that obtained from ice cores, where only the VEI5 and higher eruptions are generally detectable.
Oh…I didn’t see the black line in figure 2 until you said something. That actually proves my point. You are showing a secular increase in SO2. If SO2 were “completely correlated” then 1) the global average temperature would have moved in lockstep with it only in the opposite direction and 2) it would be cooler today than it was in the preindustrial period.
“ALL of our climate is driven by the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from the presence or absence of random volcanic eruptions or Industrial activity.”
Just when you thought that all of the crazy crackpot pseudo-scientific denier theories had already been put out there, along comes another one, LOL!
The data that bdgwx discusses further down in this thread demonstrates beyond any doubt whatever that this “ALL climate driven by SO2” claim is nothing but utterly ridiculous nonsense.
Tom, I fear your claim is not well-founded. Here’s your graph of the old NOAA data you show above (red) and the Berkeley Earth data (yellow). Not seeing that much difference.
Best to you,
“Not seeing that much difference.”
I see a full 0.5 deg diff. from ~1970 to the end. The corresponding warming trend looks to be just about doubled.
And no, I am not going to bother digitizing it and statistically measuring.
Changing the trend?????????
Yes indeed!!!!!!!!!! We often see this “lower the past” and “jack up the present” don’t we?????
A large enough difference in degree represents a difference in kind. A breeze and a hurricane are similar / different like house cats and tigers.
Change the slope between 1930 and 2020 enough and you change ho hum to House On Fire!
BE cooler in the earlier period and warmer in the later. What’s not to like, Willis? Especially at the end there.
What, down-voter!?! Your eyeballs fall out?
Willis, I apologize for being a little short with you in my opening remarks. I appreciate your forbearance.
In your chart above I see a definite temperature downtrend from the 1930’s to today in the red, and almost the same for the yellow with the execption of the large uptick at the end.
It still looks like it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
That being the case, any instrument-era temperature chart that does not show the Early Twentieth Century as being just as warm as today has to be a misrepresentation of the temperature record, imo.
If it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, and it was, then that means CO2 is a minor player as far as the Earth’s temperatures are concerned. So minor that we shouldn’t worry about it and shouldn’t spend money trying to control it.
Willis, I don’t suppose you could combine that old NOAA data with the UAH chart data, could you? That, imo, would be close to the real temperature profile of the globe since the Early Twentieth Century.
It would show we have nothing to fear from CO2.
Then the argument would be: Is that global? I say, yes.
Tom Abbott, why do you hold UAH up as gold standard and dismiss the others? You do realize that UAH uses very similar adjustment procedures like everyone plus some in addition to the some that even the others don’t have to worry about? And you’re also aware that they do grid cell infilling as well right?
Tom, the problem is that the UAH data only starts in 1979, so there’s only 20 years overlap, which tells us almost nothing.
This graph does not contain the corrections for the time-of-observation bias, instrument/station change bias, etc. therefore it cannot possibly be a “real” representation of the US temperature timeseries because we know it is contaminated with biases.
And the adjustments aren’t contaminated with biases, bdgwx? Data are, adjustments aren’t. Excuse me if I take into account prior government lies when I question government statistics.
Paraphrase of Dave Fair’s comment:
“Excuse me if I take into account the gigantic plethora of prior WUWT lies when I question WUWT conclusions.”
Wow, MGC. Why don’t you pick out a few of the prior WUWT lies and enlighten us. And people commenting on the site are not the site. WUWT doesn’t censor comments like the alarmist blogs are wont to do.
I love the anonyms down-voter. Never a refutation.
Dave says: “Why don’t you pick out a few of the prior WUWT lies and enlighten us”
Sure thing, Dave. Here are just a few recent ones:
1- WUWT published a guest blog two weeks ago entitled “Why Is CO2 Rising?” which attempted to pretend (i.e. LIE) that the CO2 increase in the air is “not” because of human greenhouse gas emissions … even though this has long been known to be proven scientific fact and can be demonstrated with little more than grade school arithmetic.
2- In an article posted on WUWT just this past week, “The New Pause Grows by Another Month to 7 Years 7 Months” Monckton of Brenchley claimed “There has been no global warming – none at all – for 7 years 7 months”. The “none at all” claim is false because he is considering only warming of the air. Most of the greenhouse warming goes into the oceans, which are part of our globe, and they have not stopped warming at all.
Monckton also falsely claimed that the CO2 increase since the 1970s has been constant, a “linear” increase, and then used this false claim in order to “support” further false conclusions. Reality: the rate of CO2 increase is now more than double what it was prior to the 1970s.
3- Two weeks ago, in an article entitled “Is ‘Climate Change’ science or pseudoscience?” Andy May used media reports about climate science that are not always accurate as his “evidence” to disingenuously claim that genuine science was actually “pseudo-science”. But mere inaccurate media reports about science are not the science itself.
4- Anthony Watts recently touted his latest book “Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students” here on WUWT. This book is itself riddled through and through with lies. Here’s just one of many I noticed: the booklet claims that “the NYC Battery tidal gauge data shows ‘little if any acceleration’ “. But in reality, the rise rate there thus far this century is well over double what it was back in the 19th century. How is that “not” acceleration? He’s lying.
And there’s a brand new set of distortions, half-truths, and just plain old outright lies posted practically every week in articles on this website.
MGC, clearly you don’t understand what WUWT is. It is NOT a place that publishes only gold-standard, 100% verified truth. Instead, it is a place for public peer-review of a variety of ideas. Please read my post A New Years Look At WUWT, it explains what WUWT is and is not.
Hello Willis –
Parts of your explanation of “what WUWT is and is not” strike me, unfortunately, as just a handwaving rationalization for improper behavior.
Specifically, you say:
“WUWT publishes some things that are obviously false”, as though that were a bad thing. That’s true, and it’s not a bad thing. It is a good and necessary thing.”
C’mon now. You and I both know very well that many readers, probably even the majority, imagine that “if it’s published on WUWT, it is the gospel truth”. As such, WUWT’s practice of sometimes publishing distortions, half truths, and obviously false content represents, to my mind, a disservice to a proper public understanding of climate science information.
You also say: “The more that incorrect ideas get exposed to critical review, the sooner they will be shown to be incorrect.”
Hmm. You just admitted that WUWT at times publishes content that is obviously false. Therefore, it is already known that those ideas are incorrect. There is therefore no need whatsoever to publicly publish them so that “they can be shown to be incorrect”; they’re already known to be incorrect. And again, you are publishing them to an audience who will often be led to believe that those ideas are not incorrect, but true.
Lastly, let me ask you this, Willis: is it also a “good thing” that the latest book by Anthony Watts, “Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students” contains distortions, half truths, and obviously false content? Is it?
MGC, clearly you are laboring under the illusion that after all of your laughably wrong characterizations of Mann, of Climategate, and of the whitewashes you call “investigations”, and after all your handwaving claims without a link or a scrap of evidence to back them up, that I give a rat’s fundamental orifice about your ignorant opinions.
At this point, I see your name at the top of a comment and I laugh and move on. Go bother someone else. I’m tired of your puerile banality.
I’m sorry, Willis, but these are legitimate, serious questions I’ve raised here, not in any way “puerile banality”.
I wonder if folks who run websites about other scientific topics would also consider it a “good thing”, as you do, to publish material that they know is obviously false. Say, a website about health and medicine.
Should they also, as you admit that WUWT does, publish information to the public on their website that they know is obviously false?
Boy, miss the point much?
WUWT is unlike the sites you mention that publish on other scientific topics. Instead of claiming to be able to determine the validity of a given paper, WUWT is a site for public peer-review of all kinds of papers, both good and bad.
Exposing false claims to the harsh glare of public scrutiny is important because otherwise, fools such as you are likely to believe them.
But once they are picked apart by the public peer-review process that goes on here, people can understand what is wrong with them. And when someone tries to push the same claims in the future, they can be referred to the post here where those claims were completely falsified.
And then, in all likelihood, the only person still believing them will be … you. You are impervious to facts, logic, math, computer code, observations, and every other type of scientific evidence.
Fortunately, you’re in a very small minority …
Sorry Willis, but from where I sit, I still think that you’re the one who is missing the point.
For starters, you sidestepped the point about WUWT publishing what is obviously false material, which you have already admitted goes on here. There is no need whatever for any “harsh glare of public scrutiny” of such content. It is already known to be false. WUWT has no valid reason to be publishing such material.
You also sidestepped the point about the fact that lots of readers will most certainly not understand what is wrong with that material, but will naively assume that if WUWT published it, then it must be true.
Furthermore, I also take exception to your suggestion that once false information has been published here and scrutinized, then it has effectively been taken care of. This is not what I’ve seen.
Here is a direct example of what I’m talking about:
Just recently, WUWT published an article claiming that human fossil fuel emissions were “not” responsible for the current rapid CO2 increase in the air. Now there’s an obviously false claim if ever there was one! This was put to bed as false decades ago, and requires little more than grade school arithmetic to do so. Yet, gauging from the comments to that article, most WUWT readers still swallowed this phony baloney hook, line, and sinker.
I hope you can see then, why I still maintain that WUWT’s practice of publishing material that is obviously false is most certainly a disservice to public understanding of climate science.
MGC –> I have not been addressing any of your posts because you are a troll. Never a reference or any math whatsoever. I will answer you post just this once. Don’t bother with another ad hominem little troll since you won’t get another rise.
Funny how so many scientific papers by PhD’s are dedicated to this “simple arithmetic” isn’t it? That kinda refutes your assertion without any references by you to prove your assertion.
Funny how all the GAT (Global Average Temperature) proclamations are also “air” temperatures and don’t include “ocean heat”. You apparently don’t understand enthalpy or you would not make this assertion because temperature is not a determinant for enthalpy (heat). Here is some simple arithmetic for you, convert the “heat” you are talking about into an ocean temperature rise.
All you are doing here is denigrating both reporters and many, many so-called scientific papers. The pseudoscience referred to is both the constant reference to Global Warming occurring everywhere at the same rate and that it always affects everything negatively without any reference to what the subject’s temperature reaction to varying temperatures actually is.
You do realize that photos of the Statue of Liberty do not show what you are claiming. You could prove your ad hominem of AW lying easily if you would post photos proving your assertion.
Again, no references time after time make you look like a troll. Ad hominem attacks prove nothing but that you are a troll with no knowledge whatsoever.
re: “Never a reference or any math whatsoever”
Gorman, why you have started your overly long screed with such a blatant LIE? My posts have contained numerous references, and the math to back my statements. Go back and look.
re: “so many scientific papers by PhD’s are dedicated to this “simple arithmetic”
Gorman, blog articles posted on propaganda websites are not “scientific papers”, LOL.
re: “Here is some simple arithmetic for you, convert the “heat” you are talking about into an ocean temperature rise.”
I’ve already done so, long ago. It is a pretty small ocean water temperature increase. Now, here is some simple arithmetic for you: if that accumulated ocean heat increase were released to the air, convert that into an air temperature increase. Hint: it is a very large number.
re: “the constant reference to Global Warming occurring everywhere at the same rate”
Really? Why are you babbling this utterly ridiculous LIE again? This is not at all what is being stated.
re: “You do realize that photos of the Statue of Liberty do not show what you are claiming.”
The NYC Battery Tidal Gauge Records show exactly what I have stated. Stop playing the intentionally ignorant fool for just once and go look for yourself.
They probably are. In fact we know that some of the bias still remains with USHCN even with the corrections, but the correct data is still closer to USCRN than the raw data. .
Still fraudulent, dr. adjustor.
bzx is a government-approved adjustocrat.
Adjustments to data are direct admissions that there are significant error bounds.
Adjustments increase, not decrease error bounds.
Error bounds tracking and calculation, that are ignored by alarmists.
Do you know of a dataset that is immune from the time-of-observation bias, station/instrument/shelter change bias, etc. that goes back to 1880 for the United States and which does not require adjustments since there are no systematic errors with it?
Why do you insist on fraudulently changing other peoples’ data, dr. adjustor?
I think trying to coax 2 decimal place anomalies out of integer records is done by pure mathematicians that think you can divide any interval into smaller and smaller chunks without increasing uncertainty. Values this small are so far within the measurement uncertainty interval that anyone saying they know temperatures to that kind of accuracy has no experience in physical measurements whatsoever.
I think temperatures today are likely to be similar to temperatures yesterday and tomorrow such that any “errors” introduced by TOBS will wash out in any temperature trends, both absolute and anomaly, if proper Significant Digit rules are followed.
I adhere to the proper rule of physical measurements that portraying measurements to more precision than actually measured is adding unwarranted precision and can only be done by creating information that is not available in the original measurements.
I think I should frame this comment as an example to the kids when I’m asked what a “brain fart” is.
Adjustments introduce bias.
Are you thinking the adjustments made the known biases worse? Can you post peer reviewed evidence supporting that hypothesis?
MBH98 and MBH99 were both “peer reviewed”, keep this in mind the next time you spew your “can you post peer reviewed evidence” mantra, dr. adjustor.
Numerous research studies over the past quarter century, using a wide variety of techniques, have found quite similar results to MBH98 and MBH99. It is hard to believe that after all this time, you delusional deniers are still clinging to your laughably false “Mann-tra” fairy tales.
So, you are just another dry-labbing fraud.
Yet another ad hominem “Nuh Uh because I say so” response, utterly devoid of any real content.
Apparently, budgerigarwx ignored WUWT posts regarding egregious “peer review” abject fallacious approvals and rejections…
So much of research has been buggered by the “publish or perish” mantra and the money grasping publishers of most journals, that a significant founder of medical ethics stated:
Bolding and underline added to highlight the statement.
Keeping in mind that alarmist climate research is worse than medical research.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I’m not suggesting that peer review implies truth. Far from it. There are plenty of instances where a publication was accepted and later found to have egregious mistakes. The reason I usually ask for peer reviewed literature is because it usually (not always) means at least a minimum of review has taken place to check for egregious mistakes and to filter out the spam. It is an acknowledgement by me that there are people far smarter than I that can do a far better job of identifying egregious mistakes that would otherwise compromise my understanding of the science. I’m certainly willing to look a informal literature as well as long it cites peer reviewed literature that has been checked for egregious mistakes.
bdgwx May 8, 2022 11:13 am
BWA-HA-HA, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that credulous about climate “science” in 2022 and yet here you are …
It has how I feel about science in general. That is you submit your research for review. If small sample of peers cannot find egregious mistakes it gets published notifying the entire world (even non experts like me) that they should now look for mistakes, try to replicate it, do the calculations themselves, etc. The longer it survives worldwide review the more credibility it will earn. It’s not a perfect system, but it is self correcting and our scientific knowledge and understanding has increased by leaps and bounds with it over the last few hundred years.
Any paper that includes model’s as “data” should be suspect. The models have very well known problems with how they handle various aspects of the climate as well as a lack of adequate data in many instances.
I will include here an excerpt from Mototaka Nakamura’s book “Confessions of a climate scientist“, available on Amazon. Please note the reference to uncertainty. This scientist obviously has a firm grasp on what it means.
I don’t trust one damn bit of climate research until I run the numbers myself.
bdgwx May 8, 2022 6:59 pm
Sadly, these days, in the field of climate far too often it runs like this.
That is, of course, unless as in my case the reviewers are pals with the man whose work you are reviewing, and he steals my idea and publishes it as his own. Coincidence? You be the judge.
The problems with peer-review are huge. About half of the peer-reviewed papers turn out to be fatally flawed. I’ve proposed a better system here. However, I suspect there’s too much money and privilege in play for it to get taken seriously.
I have no fundamental issue with your idea. It sounds like a good idea to me. It’s at least worth trying.
You do realize that adjustments do create uncertainty, right? The biases you discuss are not constant each and every day so a constant correction also introduces bias.
Do you realize that the NWS expected the uncertainty of coop stations using LIG thermometers to be ± 1 degree. If you don’t believe me, look it up.
That is an interval of 2 whole degrees. That’s on each and every recorded data point. Any bias adjustment within that interval is just playing with numbers and has no purpose.
Can anybody show that the procedures for addressing the time-of-observation bias or instrument/shelter bias actually make those biases worse?
For those interested in TOBS errors, there’s an excellent explanation along with very good data at the old John Daly site here.
All the adjectives used on the sample data would lead one to think these temps are all messed up to begin with. Makes you a believer in the NWS uncertainty ranges of LIG thermometers.
The academic literature is by far the best place to get information on the time of observation bias. Some of the key works include Ellis 1890, Donnell 1912, Ruambaugh 1934, Michell 1958, Baker 1975, Shaal & Dale 1977, Blackburn 1983, Head 1985, Karl et al. 1985, Vose et al. 2003, and many more. The bias has been known for at least 130 years. I think the best publications to start with are Mitchell 1958 and Vose et al. 2003 and then branch out from there.
If the “biases” are inside the uncertainty intervals, you’ll never know if what you are looking at is true or not. If they lie somewhere outside the uncertainty interval you need to evaluate just how much bigger than the closest uncertainty point the value is. It may be a very small value.
Tell it to Hansen.
Hansen already knows.
This is weird.
A couple of days ago while reading the latest “Yes, Minister” script from Edinburgh, I looked at the CET graph and thought ” Where is The Little Ice Age? Someone like Willis needs to have a look at this.”
Thanks, Willis, all is now explained.
( And what happened to “i” before “e”, except after “c” ?)
” I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Little Ice Age was most likely a global phenomenon”
Based on correlation with the CET? But according to Fig 2, the CET itself shows very little LIA. Yes, there is a dip (about 1C, Lowess) around 1700, with the anomaly returning to zero (relative to 1961-90) within a couple of decades either side. I don’t think that rates the descriptor of an Ice Age.
Uh, yeah, Nick: The world was beginning to come out of the LIA about then. And also please note the 1961-90 period was a low point in the 20th Century. You are tripping over your stats as well as your timeline.
“The world was beginning to come out of the LIA about then.”
The argument here is that global LIA can be inferred from the CET record. But if you can’t see LIA in the CET record (for whatever reason), you can’t make that inference.
Come on you just define it don’t you … that should do the trick you use it all the time. This is the problem you are never consistent you bend the standards to suit your argument and get called out on it time and time again.
OK, how about somebody actually defines the LIA?
I don’t think anyone would have been taking a dip anywhere during the LIA.
The folks livin’ the dream back then didn’t need no thermometers to tell them that either.
CET correlates to current global temperatures so it is a reasonable assumption that it correlated with global temperatures back around 1700. Who knows? But it is supported with some verifiable analyses.
People often have contradictory definitions of the LIA. Sometimes it’s referring to the entire period up to the late 19th century, other times it’s just to the cold period around the end of the 17th century, blamed on the Maunder Minimum.
There does appear to be something happening in CET around this time, with temperatures steadily dropping and the 1690s being the coldest decade on record by some way, followed by rapid warming up to 1739.
I have always believed what happens in England finds itself elsewhere.
When Dr Roger Pielke, Sr. was still running his blog, his focus was directed at the thermal capacity of oceans because the amount of NRG there’s >> in the atmosphere. In essence, global T’s just a sideshow. Since you’ve focused a lot of effort on the Pacific Ocean, is that a correct analysis at least to some extent? With the oceans having >> NRG, how much does the global T reflect heat being transferred from the massive heat sink to it? (This is one time °K adds perspective.) When talking about CET, almost no one ever thinks to ask what the total ocean heat content was before the temperatures were recorded & then afterward, too.
Secondly, is there any way to get the conversation redirected to where the most important factors lie? It’s foolish to major in minors when so much is unknown- the opposite of Pareto analysis.
Thanks in advance!
OOPS- Line 5, “sink” s/b “ballast”. Brain belch- no evil CH4 released! 😉
Winter, what is “NRG”?
(PS—I reformatted your post.)
energy- N-R-G my bad!
Very diplomatic of you Willis, addressing OLM as “Winter”, not “Old Man” 🙂
Hey, I’m in my middle youth myself …
Without going back and verifying, I think that ocean sediments track other paleo reconstructions. Except tree rings, of course.
What about all of the temperature stations from Europe/Japan etc. that made the news recently whcih showed a declining temp trend over the last 30 or so years? Would they also show this pattern?
Really, really interesting analysis of current correlations, Willis.
I’m not exactly sure why you found the results of your analysis so surprising, because the phenomenon you discuss here has already been well explored in the scientific literature.
A multitude of studies have already pointed out that one attribute which greatly distinguishes current climate changes from prior changes is that current trends are significantly more global in nature, with much more significant correlations of local trends, than other changes in recent history, such as the Little Ice Age. Perhaps the surprise is just how high the current correlation actually is?
To elaborate further, the study Neukom et al, Nature 2019 for example, states that they find strong evidence that current climate change trends are “unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.”
One of that research study’s authors, Juan Jose Gomez Navarro, put it this way: “Statistically, the spatial coherence of the warming in the last century is totally different from the spatial coherence of any other period in the past”.
Several other studies, such as the one from the Pages 2K Consortium, have found similar results.
So thank you for providing more supporting evidence confirming the high spatial consistency of current trends.
It was unfortunate that you ended your article by offering the unwarranted hypothesis that similar global coherence may have occurred during the Little Ice Age. That idea has already been contradicted by numerous research studies published in the scientific literature.
Thanks, MGC. You say:
First, I doubt it is a “multitude”. Second, I saw one of those studies (can’t recall the name) and was not impressed. Basically what they said was “Proxy-based temperature sets show more spatial variation than observational-based temperature sets.”
That’s kind of the nature of proxies, no?
Hockey Stick studies, especially those having a paucity of Southern Hemisphere proxies and not recognizing the impact of different percentages of land areas in the Southern vs Northern Hemisphere’s are crap. The paleo climatological community is demonstratively corrupt. You don’t know what your are talking about if you haven’t visited Steve McIntyre’s blog, Climate Audit, nor read:
The Hocky Stick Illusion by Andrew Montfort
Blowing Smoke by Rud Istvan
A Disgrace to the Profession by Mark Stein
Dave, what you are proposing is essentially some kind of massive worldwide scientific conspiracy consisting of scores and scores of researchers, involving a wide variety of different research disciplines, from a multitude of various nations, from all over the world, and this “conspiracy” has been going on for decades now.
I’m sorry, but I find that to be just about the most laughably ludicrous, utterly nonsensical idea imaginable. And I’m truly embarrassed for anyone who would actually believe such a thing.
Have you ever read the unredacted Climategate emails?
Get back to us about ‘conspiracies’ and “the cause” (as M. Mann called AGW) after you’ve read the (uncontested) evidence.
Of course I’ve read the emails, so much of which were deliberately misinterpreted out of context.
Have you read the findings of the eight investigations that were conducted on both side of the Atlantic, which all found no evidence of “fraud”.
Yes I’ve read the “investigations”.
More accurately termed the “ARSE COVERING“.
None of the email exchanges were found to be inaccurate, altered or misrepresented.
They were what they were – actual correspondence detailing the sleazy conspiratorial methods the perpetrators used to manipulate the ways they thought science needed to be “settled”.
Anyone who condones this appalling behavior needs to re-evaluate their principles.
Anyone who still claims after all this time that those emails were “not misrepresented” by so-called “skeptics” is simply not living in reality.
Perhaps the most crucial evidence that the work of those scientists was not “fraudulent” is that numerous other investigators since then, using a wide variety of different methods, have all found similar results.
You really are living in a fantasy world.
Melbourne Ground Cricket,
It does not take an organised conspiracy. It can be triggered by leadership, such as President Biden directing that climate change should be front and centre of government reports; and setting up a disinformation bosy in DHS to silence critics, whic in science is the opposite of what is good. Or schools being told that examples they select to teach math and other subjects should be illustrated with examples from whatever the trendy popular meme at the time is (like here in Australia, aboriginal affairs are ordained to be used as examples, like 1 ab + 1 ab = 2 abs in math classes.
The important observation is that scientists are a motley group of people, some of whom are weak enough to fiddle their findings to maximise grants for more work.You cannot easily legislate against greed when legislators profit from it. Geoff S
You forget that many, many students all the way up to doctorial are taught improper methods in statistics, radiation, and thermodynamics all throughout their education. They simply apply the techniques they have been taught without any further research into what they are doing.
That’s why you see so many studies of biological entities that never show what the temperature reactions of the subjects are to actual temperatures. They just assume increasing temps are a bad thing! That’s what they have been taught.
Despite all your handwaving, your conspiracy theories remain no more than unsupported conjecture, void of substantiating evidence.
Have you read my references, not just the “reviews” of them?
Dave, I did read some excerpts from your references that are available online from booksellers. I have to say, after a perusal of those samples, that they look like garbage to me.
Montfort tried to convince readers that existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were “common knowledge” prior to MBH98 (implying that MBH98 must therefore be “wrong”). But this is simply not the case. The existence of these periods was “common knowledge” only in that they were known to have occurred in Northern Europe and other nearby parts of the Northern Hemisphere. What happened in other parts of the world during those times was, prior to MBH98, largely unknown. The whole point of Mann’s (and others) research was to find out what was going on globally.
I pretty much gave up on Istvan as soon as I saw that stupid, tired old, well worn pseudo-scientific denier canard about temperature rise occurring prior to CO2 rise in the ice core records. Deniers routinely reference that historical fact in order to falsely derive patently incorrect conclusions about CO2’s warming influence.
Finally, as I’ve already noted many times in many posts here, over the past quarter century since Mann’s original hockey stick publication, numerous researchers, from many different disciplines, using a variety of different techniques, from nations all over the world, have found similar results.
In my view, the claims that Mann’s results are “not credible” just do not stand up under the plethora of accumulated corroborating evidence from all these other investigators.
How’s the lawfare going these days?
Some people are horrified that these works of literature have not been burned.
This bloke for example –
One scary looking ping pong paddle!
Why the chip out of the head?
A missing chip of brain matter, which absence indicates a pathological liar and extreme narcissism?
Dubious about even the past 2000 years, given global extent of the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, but the Holocene Climatic Optimum was as spatially coherent as the day is long. As too were the Egyptian and Minoan WPs.
The HCO shows up in both Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. Can’t get much more spatially coherent than that.
Same goes for subsequent warm periods in average of six Antarctic ice cores:
“Same goes for subsequent warm periods in average of six Antarctic ice cores:”
Really? Look carefully at your graph. It drops steeply at the death of Julius Caesar, remains cold through the Roman period, rises with the onset of the MWP, yes, but then stays warm. No LIA.
I did look carefully.
The foundation of Rome, ie 753 BC, is not when the Roman WP began. That was during the Greek Dark Ages Cool Period.
The Roman WP started around 100 BC, lasting until about the Fall of Rome in AD 476, or a bit later. It shows the Roman WP about 2 Ka, followed by renewed cold at the end of the Empire, ie the well-known Barbarian Invasion Cool Period.
It does show the start of the LIA, but then ends hundreds of years ago.
Please go to the paper, look at all six sites and read the analysis.
“The Roman WP started around 100 BC, lasting until about the Fall of Rome in AD 476”
I edited my post; my eye slipped in identifying the downturn. Here is your plot with the RWP marked in red, as you specified, and in blue 1200AD, often set as the start of the LIA. Hard to see it.
The LIA started around AD 1400. AD 1200 was still the MWP.
Lamb said 1550 to 1800, but some now say as early as 1300 and late as 1850 or even later.
AD 1300 is too soon. Weather was bad early in the 14th century, but it warmed up again shortly after the Black Death.
The LIA spans at least the Spoerer, Maunder and Dalton Minima. Some would add the Wolf Minimum, 1280-1340, but it wasn’t as deep as the next two, although perhaps worse than the Dalton.
“The LIA started around AD 1400″
Ironically, when I pointed out that it wasn’t much visible (back to 1659) in the CET, I was told that it came earlier. Now, with the anomaly still above 0 in 1500, I’m told that it came later. It seems to be something that if you blink, you could miss.
AS I noted above, we really need a consistent definition of the years for these phenomena.
Can you post a link to the data or publication used to create this graph?
Hmm…I’m not seeing that graph at that link. Is there another link?
Do I have to take you by the hand to get Cambridge Antarctic ice core data?
For crying out loud, it’s all over the Internet. You CACA spewers are pathetically inept. It has to be intentional.
Yes. I want to see where you got the graph so that I can verify the data that was used to create it. And it’s not like I didn’t try to find it myself. I did a reverse image lookup via Google and the only link it found was this very WUWT article.
OK. Pathetic. I’ll help you. although an 11 year old girl could have found it.
There is so much Antarctic data showing CACA to be total bollocks that I’d be here all night displaying it.
I’m sorry but I’m still not seeing it. I’m not even seeing an equivalent graph with the same data but different formatting. I am on my phone right now so maybe I’m getting a different/mobile version of the sites that don’t show it?
You are in no position to whine.
I took a look on my PC and I’m still not finding the graph. Does anyone know who created it?
The British Antarctic Survey.
It’s in Figures. Fig. 7.
I don’t see a figure 7, but I do see figure 5 which is consistent with the graph above. If it is the same data it means the graph above is the EPICA Dom C ice core. Correct?
All you have to do is click on the graph. Add gif to the end:
Do you agree it is Antarctica EPICA Dome C?
That looks like the Alley ice core data from Greenland. Can you post a link to the data or publication used to create this graph?
Of course that’s what it is. Do you have a problem with those data?
Why do CACA spewers object to actual science?
That is indeed the Alley ice core data. It is only for Greenland and specifically the GISP2 site. It’s not a global temperature reconstruction. BTW…the data only goes up to 1855 so you’re not seeing the last 170 years of warming on the graph. You can download the data here. [Alley 2000]
re: “The HCO shows up in both Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. Can’t get much more spatially coherent than that.”
Yes, the HCO shows up in both the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores, but it appears at different times. And I guess you’re not aware that the evidence indicates that the HCO warming was most prevalent at the poles, and there was much less warming in lower latitudes.
This all indicates that the HCO was not nearly as “spatially coherent” as today’s warming trend is.
Those who rely on the PAGES reconstruction should read the several articles by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. Collectively, they reduce to nesr zero the probability that the PAGES reconstructions are correct. They also show what some would describe as academic misconduct. Geoff S
McIntyre himself claims that Pages 2k made revisions that addressed at least some of his objections. Updated reconstructions published by Pages 2k since then still find the same results. As do many other researchers. The fact that so many other researchers, using widely different methods, find similar results, is strong evidence that the Pages 2k reconstructions are correct.
This is very reminiscent of McIntyre’s objections to Mann’s original hockey stick study. The North Report which investigated Mann’s work actually agreed with McIntyre’s criticisms of Mann’s PCA method, yet also concluded that it was only a small influence on end results and Mann’s conclusions remained valid.
Despite McIntyre’s objections this time, Pages 2k conclusions also remain valid.
MGC, the North Report argued that the effect of the PCA error was small since other researchers had produced hockey sticks without using PCA.
True, Kalevi. I can produce hockey sticks out of red noise pseudoproxies.
1) Choose a rising recent temperature to “verify” that the pseudoproxies are “responding to temperature”.
2) Select all those pseudoproxies whose most recent temperatures roughly correlate with the temperature. Call these “temperature-responsive proxies”.
3) Average those pseudoproxies.
I’ll use the 1970-2020 Berkeley Earth temperature to show this. Here’s the R code
WHOA! Tell MGC that I’ve replicated Mann’s hockeystick!
What part of
“the effect of the PCA error was small”
that Kalevi mentioned were you unable to comprehend, Willis?
Ready availability to statistical analysis software packages is a double-edged sword.
It’s really saying that the temperature changes we experience between night and day, from month to month and variations from year to year far exceed that due to global warming. To detect any signal we have to first subtract these huge variations from a mythical “normal” climate.
It is also important to realise that daily temperatures are measured simply based on Max/Min thermometers i.e Tav = (Tmax+Tmin)/2. That is the average of night time and daytime temperatures. Monthly averages use these. In reality warming is occurring at night rather than by day. Minimum temperatures are rising faster than maximum temperatures.
See also: https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9824
Reference your Figure 3. Looks like Berkely Earth has also “cooled the past” and has more warming in current time. Could also mean that England is somewhat more buffered (Gulf Stream?) than the rest of Earth.
The bigger (agenda) they are, the harder they will fall (AMO).
A question, Bob: If CO2 is the global control knob, would not temperatures everywhere show the same relative trends?
w – The scales of the CET and Berkeley Global temperature charts are different, Eyeballing them, if you simply put them both on the same scale (with BG in front of the more variable CET) then I think it’s possible you might see much the same final result, with no manipulation needed.
I had the same thought.
A few years ago, I was looking at how station distance from the equator affected temperature data over time. The Berkely Earth data at the time gave the following result:
File Generated: 16-Mar-2019 19:51:19
Dataset Collection: Berkeley Earth Merged Dataset – version 2
Type: TMAX – Monthly
Version: LATEST – Breakpoint Corrected
It might be interesting to see some peer reviewed global temperature reconstructions so that we can better assess whether or not the MWP or LIA was globally synchronous and with what magnitude.
Hey there bdgwx:
Here are just a couple for starters:
Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
PAGES 2k Consortium
Nature Geoscience May 2013
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”
No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
Neukom et al. Nature 2019
“Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs”
MGC, please read Steve McIntyre’s analysis of the various PAGES2k studies at his Climate Audit. In general, a number of PAGES2k studies are piles of crap. They have over 70 people around the world submitting their various proxy reconstructions at different times. Depending on which proxies they cherrypick (ex post screening) for a particular study they can include upside down proxies, invalid stripbark pine proxies, obsolete proxy series (ignoring those updates by individual proxy developers) & etc. A recurring problem is the use of invalid statistical methods and hiding unfavorable statistical validation results.
If you haven’t read the following you don’t know what you are dealing with:
The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montfort
Blowing Smoke by Rud Istvan
A Disgrace to the Profession by Mark Stein
Thank you. I was not aware of Neukom et al. 2019. I now have it in my stash though.
As soon as anyone cites PAGES2K, I know they can be safely ignored. See McIntyre’s analyses of that rubbish. Go here for links to 19 posts on the subject.
Can you provide a global temperature reconstruction that you do not consider rubbish? Loehle 2007 maybe?
McIntyre himself claims that Pages 2k made revisions that addressed at least some of his objections. Updated reconstructions published by Pages 2k since then still find the same results. As do many other researchers.
This is very reminiscent of McIntyre’s objections to Mann’s original hockey stick study. The North Report which investigated Mann’s work actually agreed with McIntyre’s criticisms of Mann’s PCA method, yet also concluded that it was only a small influence on end results and Mann’s conclusions remained valid.
Despite McIntyre’s objections this time, Pages 2k conclusions also remain valid.
Your vague handwaving is meaningless, tedious, and boring.
McIntyre claims PAGES2K made revisions? To what? Where?
“Pages 2k conclusions also remain valid.”?? Which conclusions? About what?
Not sure why I bother even answering you. The First Rule Of Pig Wrestling is looming larger.
re: “McIntyre claims PAGES2K made revisions? To what? Where?”
Thanks for demonstrating, Willis, that you haven’t even bothered to read for yourself the Climate Audit references that you posted.
YOU made the dang claim, not me. So answer the question or STFU.
Here are few that I’m aware of.
Shakun et al. 2012 – Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Marcott et al. 2013 – A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
Kaufman et al. 2020 – Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach
Osman et al. 2021 – Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum
Does it not excite your curiousity when you disciver that some of these authors have had papers retracted and others asked to retract for clear scientific reasons?
An average reader might conclude that this topic sits in a nest of scientific discontent. Geoff S