By P Gosselin on 11. May 2022
Fritz Vahrenholt: The transition to green energies and the missing warming
By Kalte Sonne
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, things have gotten quieter about the supposedly imminent climate emergency. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent.
.
The temperature curve of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama UAH has been oscillating between -0.2 and 0.4 degrees for 20 years and seems to have remained stable since 2015, as shown in the next graph in the enlargement. (Source: woodfortrees). The mean value is drawn in green- it shows a slightly decreasing trend since 2015. Why hasn’t this been reported?
What are the reasons for this stagnation?
CO2 concentrations in the air have continued to rise unabated. It is true that global annual CO2 emissions have been more or less constant for some years now, at 40 billion tons of CO2. Slightly more than half is absorbed by the oceans and plants, so that currently each year the equivalent of about 2.5 ppm CO2 is added to the air concentration. In 2015, there were 401 ppm of CO2 in the air; in 2021, there were 416 ppm. At this rate, by the way, we would never reach the IPCC’s scary scenarios of 800 to 1000 ppm in 2100.
No, the lack of warming must have other reason
What has been the amount of natural warming in the last 30 years?
And how big is the natural cooling in the next 30 years?
A change in global temperature can also happen naturally. We know that clouds have decreased by about 2% after the turn of the millennium, and that for the last ten years cloud cover has been stable at a low level. Second, there are oceanic temperature cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation AMO, which increased sharply from 1980 to the beginning of this millennium (by 0.5 degrees, after all), has remained at maximum since then, and is now weakening slightly again (see next graph).
The United States Weather and Oceanographic Administration, NOAA, writes that the AMO can amplify anthropogenic warming in the warm phase and make it disappear in the cold phase. According to NOAA, the AMO is a naturally occurring change in North Atlantic temperatures that has occurred for at least 1000 years with alternating warm and cold phases of 20-40 years. Add to this the weakening solar radiation since 2008, and further significant warming beyond 1.5 degrees is unlikely in the next 30 years.
Sea ice melt has stalled
The stagnant trend of temperatures that has been observed for several years can also be seen in the halted decline in Arctic sea ice extent reported by the European Copernicus program in March (see next graph
This is actually good news.
Wouldn’t it be time for climate researchers to bring these trends to the attention of politicians and the public? After all, politicians are currently readjusting the priorities of energy supply. While until last year’s price explosion and the aftermath of the Ukraine war it was apparently taken for granted that climate impacts would be the sole determining factor for energy policy, we are all now being made aware of the importance of security of supply and price trends.
However, German policymakers are still reacting inadequately. They believe they can solve the problem of self-generated energy shortages due to the double phase-out of coal and nuclear energy by simply building more wind farms and solar plants. It must always be remembered that in 2021 the share of wind and solar energy was just over 5% of primary energy supply (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables). Even in a good windy year, it would not be much more than 6%.
Politicians do not have the necessary courage to repeal the coal phase-out law, to stop the nuclear phase-out, to lift the natural gas fracking ban and the ban on CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Not yet.
Gas-fired power plants like the one in Leipzig are still being built to replace coal-fired power plants with domestic lignite. Industry is already further ahead. Volkswagen has postponed the conversion of two of its own coal-fired power plants into gas-fired power plants indefinitely. This statement by CEO Diess was not widely reported in Germany, but it was abroad.
The U.S. government is also repositioning itself. John Kerry, the U.S. government’s climate envoy, for whom the 1.5-degree target was previously the sole political guideline, is now putting things into perspective and, in view of skyrocketing energy prices, saying that 1.8 degrees should be quite sufficient as a target. China, India and Southeast Asia, whose growth path is threatened by the price explosion, are practicing a renaissance of coal production.
That’s where we should listen when Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg says: “It’s unrealistic to bring global emissions to zero by 2050… a 2.5 degree world is still better than a 3.5 degree world.”
Let us reassure Mr. Marotzke: a 2.5 degree world will not be achieved in this century because natural variations in climate dampen anthropogenic warming. Had this been adequately accounted for in climate models, we would all have been spared much public panic and flawed policy decisions.
With best wishes
Fritz Vahrenholt
The roller coaster is slowing for some reason.
Must be the cooling affects of increasing CO2.
The effects of the AMO fit temperatures over the past 170 years better than CO2 levels.
The R^2 of AMO and BEST (Berkeley Earth) is 0.10.
The R^2 of log2(CO2) and BEST (Berkeley Earth) is 0.89.
log2(CO2) is a far better fit than AMO over the last 165 years.
Nice hockey stick!
We’re all doooooooomed!
The chart has greater emaphetic effect when perturbations attributed in faith are perceived through the cumulative noise floor.
If the reality and nature are perceived through the ever cumulative noise stereotyped tendency;
then what actual meaning ‘noise’ has or holds really in reality!
cheers
And now a word from Mikey Mann…..
Mickey! Long time, dood!
Nice chart. It looks like increasing temperature pushes more CO2 out of the oceans. Thanks.
The ocean is a net sink of CO2. It is pulling mass from the atmosphere; not pushing it into the atmosphere.
In other words, the oceans aren’t warming. Thank you for agreeing that warming is not a problem.
The ocean is warming too. [Schuckmann et al. 2020]
Would monsieur like some spaghetti with his hockey stick today?
If the oceans were warming, then they would be releasing CO2.
BTW, when you convert joules to degrees C, the alleged warming works out to about 0.03C. Less than 1/0th what the instruments are capable of measuring.
In other words, the claims of warming are also made up.
MarkW said: “If the oceans were warming, then they would be releasing CO2.”
That is true only when all other things are equal. One significant factor in play today is that there is a significant overpressure in the atmosphere as a result of CO2 concentration increase. The overpressure caused by the 140 ppm increase more than offsets the decrease in buffering capacity which is about 17 ppm at a surface ΔT = 1 according to Takahashi 1993.
MarkW said: “BTW, when you convert joules to degrees C, the alleged warming works out to about 0.03C. Less than 1/0th what the instruments are capable of measuring.”
According to Cheng et al. 2022 from 1986-2021 the ocean took up 318e21 ± 11 joules. That is 318e21 j * (1/3900) kg.C.j-1 * (1/0.6e21) kg-1 = 0.13 ± 0.005 C. The ARGO era pulls the uncertainty down to ± 0.002 C.
+/- 0.002C is better than the uncertainty of the Argo sensors let alone the floats. There is simply no way to measure temps or energy down to that level of uncertainty. Total uncertainty simply can’t be less than the uncertainty of individual measuring devices, systematic error makes it impossible.
He doesn’t care about reality—because he saw something in a paper, it must be correct.
”The ocean is warming too”
No it isn’t. Not since 2015 anyway. Just stop lying.
Mike said: “No it isn’t. Not since 2015 anyway. Just stop lying.”
I’m not lying. Schuckmann et al. 2020 really does say the ocean is warming. And the more recent Cheng et al. 2022 publication extends that warming through 2021.
”I’m not lying. Schuckmann et al. 2020 really does say the ocean is warming. And the more recent Cheng et al. 2022 publication extends that warming through 2021.”
Ok, so then you are repeating the lies of others.
Oceans CANNOT be warming (as in GAINING heat) if the surface is not warming.
Look up inertial lag….again.
Mike said: “Ok, so then you are repeating the lies of others.”
I’ve not seen any evidence that Schuckmann et al., Cheng et al., countless authors from other publications, etc. know the oceans are not warming, but conspired to say they were anyway. I’ve not even seen any evidence that the ocean hasn’t warmed in recent decades to begin with.
Mike said: “Oceans CANNOT be warming (as in GAINING heat) if the surface is not warming.”
That’s not true at all. The 2LOT says that two bodies will tend toward a high entropy state. That means if the two bodies are not in equilibrium then the hot body will cool and the cold body will warm.
Here is an experiment I want you to try. Fill a cake pan halfway with water and put it in the freezer. After the water is frozen take the pan out and fill the remaining volume with luke warm water. The water in the bottom of the pan will begin warming and melting even though the water in the top of the pan begins cooling!
This is conceptually what happens with ENSO cycles. During La Nina the atmosphere begins cooling while the heat uptake rate in the ocean increases due to the reduction in the transfer rate from ocean to atmosphere. The opposite happens with El Nino. You can see this pretty well in figure 1b of the Cheng et al. 2022 publication I cited above.
Mike said: “Look up inertial lag….again.”
There’s no need to look it up. I’m pretty familiar with it already.
“That’s not true at all. The 2LOT says that two bodies will tend toward a high entropy state. That means if the two bodies are not in equilibrium then the hot body will cool and the cold body will warm.”
did you actually read this after you wrote it?
That’s not true at all. The 2LOT says that two bodies will tend toward a high entropy state. That means if the two bodies are not in equilibrium then the hot body will cool and the cold body will warm.
Why is the ”hot body” cooling when it’s claimed reason for warming has not ceased?
That honestly is the question to be answered. Using averages means every square meter on earth receives the same insolation from the sun. Is that correct. If so, explain ice caps. The average insolation is also over 24 hours, so as you say, why does the “hot” body ever cool? If it didn’t it would accumulate heat arriving from the sun and we would burn up. Since it does, using averages, some really funky radiation balance amounts must be calculated.
Zettajoules, in amounts well below instrumentation capability.
One of the main reasons NOAA converted tiny fractions of a degree Celsius to Zettajoules.
The other main reason is because they can make scarier charts with misused Zettajoules.
The reason joules is used is because it is the SI unit for energy and because it can be applied equally among heat reservoirs with different specific heat capacities. There is nothing scary about a zettajoule. It’s just a unit of energy.
Again, conservation of energy must be maintained. If the surface cools and the depths warm there is no gain in energy. So where is the energy increase coming from?
Tell us exactly how this energy gain was measured. I’m sure you have heard of latent heat. How do you measure that in a body of water?
Maybe by temperature gain? 0.002 is well beyond the uncertainty in an ARGO float. It is a guess as to what the real value is. Remember, uncertainty has both a plus and minus. The temp could just as likely be a -0.002.
So how many zettajoules to 1C again? 😂
For the troposphere it is 1000 j/kg.C * 1 C * 3.86e18 kg = 3.9 ZJ.
For the ocean it is 3900 j/kg.C * 1 C * 1.4e24 kg = 5500 ZJ.
Once again, badwaxjob posts his fatuous graph of total ocean heat content.
It is not my graph. It comes from Schuckmann et al.
You are correct bdgwx. The oceans have been a heat sink since the end of the last ice age and will continue to warm until we plunge into the next glacial. Nothing to do with man’s piddly CO2 emissions.
Do you have a hypothesis as to what caused the ocean warming since 1960? How did you test the hypothesis?
Try this experiment. Warm a glass of beer and see if it goes flat from out-gassing Carbonation. CO2 concentration FOLLOWING temperature change.
Next, chill a glass of beer and see if it holds its flavor longer and does not out-gas Carbonation as quickly.
That demonstration has nothing to do with this conversation other than to illustrate that CO2 concentration FOLLOWS temperature change, but it teaches you how to prepare a glass of beer for maximum enjoyment.
It is a fine experiment. Once everyone agrees with the trivial ceteris paribus case we can move on to the more complicated case where there is an overpressure of CO2 in the head space that is significantly larger than the outgassing rate caused by the warming of the beer.
See Mark W’s post above.
Kindly explain how the alleged increase in ocean heat content corresponds to an increase in temperature of less than 0.03C, well below the instrumental resolution.
I responded to MarkW’s post here. The increase is actually 0.13 ± 0.005 C. 0.13 is a lot higher than 0.005.
Thanks. So smaller than the resolution of the sensors.
0.13 is greater than 0.005.
You genuinely believe the ARGO temperature sensors can be calibrated to +- 0.005C?
The sensors themselves might be calibrated to that level. The issue is how long they stay at that calibration. Even better the float itself contributes to the uncertainty of the float temperature result yet all you ever see quoted is the theoretically possible calibration of the sensor itself.
Also ignored is the fact that the electronics used to read the sensor has its own uncertainty. The components themselves can never reach the +/- 0.005C level, their uncertainty will mask the uncertainty of the sensor itself!
It’s why the float itself has an uncertainty somewhere between +/- 0.2C and +/- 0.5C.
It’s why the float itself has an uncertainty somewhere between +/- 0.2C and +/- 0.5C.
And despite that, our friend badwaxjob continues to insist that ocean temperatures can be measured by ARGO to thousandths of a degree Celsius.
Maximum enjoyment comes from Jack Daniels, or, as an excellent alternative, Beefeaters w/tonic and lime.
I tried that experiment but drank all the beer before it warmed up and went flat – that is an even better experiment!
Instead, I prefer Earth-scale experiments, where you eliminate scale-up errors AND you get to drink the beer while it’s cold and still has some (!!!WARNING: Deadly CO2!!!) carbonation!
Question: Do Al Gore and Michael Mann only drink nasty warm flat beer? That would explain a lot. Warm flat beer makes people dishonest, stupid and bad-tempered. Look it up!
Ole Humlum: State of the Climate 2021 (pdf) An excellent report.
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales. (MacRae 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion. Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature.
IF CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would LEAD temperature changes but they do NOT – CO2 changes LAG temperature changes.
For decades, alarmists have ignored that reality and wasted trillions of dollars and millions of lives with their false climate crisis.
Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is very small, so there is NO real fossil-fuel-caused climate crisis. The only measurable impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is improved crop yields – hugely beneficial to feed the world.
The proof is in my 2008 paper – the close correlation of the rate-of-change dCO2/dt vs Lower Tropospheric air temperature*:
The lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after atmospheric temperature changes is ~9 months, as confirmed by Humlum Figure 20. That observation disproves the alleged Global Warming crisis, which ASSUMES that increasing CO2 drives dangerous warming. “The future cannot cause the past.”
Global Cooling is happening now, as we correctly predicted in 2002 – another disproof of the false global warming climate crisis.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of humanity. The failure of intermittent wind power generation caused the disastrous electrical energy shortfall in Britain and Germany in recent years.
All this is happening just as we predicted 20 years ago, in 2002 publications.
* Snarky footnote:
One of my friends published that the close correlation of dCO2/dt with atmospheric temperature T could be “spurious correlation”. I can only accept his comment if he thinks “spurious” means “damned near perfect”! 🙂
My understanding is that “adjustments” to temperature vs [CO2] has a linear correlation coefficient of 0.98.
The only problem is that BEST is a poor match for the actual temperature record.
Anyone can see at a glance that BEST shows more warming than UAH. BEST has 0.8 deg of warming since 1980, UAH has 0.4 DEGREES. Badwaxjob is choosing a temperature index that’s heavily “adjusted”, weighted to land temperatures, and polluted by UHI to show his high correlation. That’s either ignorant or dishonest.
I wouldn’t describe BEST as heavily adjusted since they use the scalpel method. I would, however, describe UAH as both heavily adjusted and heavily infilled They’re adjustments include satellite calibration, annual heating cycle, linear diurnal drift, hot target variations, orbital decay, non-linear diurnal drift, and more. They’re infilling in particular is rather liberal allowing empty cells to be populated by a simple linear interpolation up to 15 grid away. On a 2.5 degree grid that is 4000 km at the equator and far more than any of the other datasets I’m aware of. Don’t take my word for it. Read through the literature yourself.
Rhode et al. 2013
Spencer et al. 1990
Spencer & Christy 1990
Spencer & Christy 1992a
Spencer & Christy 1992b
Christy et al. 1995
Christy et al. 1998
Christy et al. 2000
Christy et al. 2003
Spencer et al. 2006
Spencer et al. 2017
You’re an idiot. A complete idiot. Comparing satellite coverage to surface station on infilling. Wow. Full of shi+, right up to the top of your head.
That’s exactly what I’m doing. The WUWT audience is hyper critical of NASA for infilling using data 1200 km away, but commends UAH even though they do it up to 4000 km away and is arguably more invasive with adjustments as well given that they total +0.307 C/decade and that doesn’t even count the effect of the unquantified adjustments documented in their earlier works from 1990-1992. Don’t take my word for it. I invite you to read the literature.
LIAR.
Again, UAH doesn’t “adjust” measurements. They adjust the calculation algorithm they use to convert the measurements into temperature. A far different thing from “adjusting” thermometer temperatures 2 decades in the past because current calibration might be off. No one knows what the calibration error was 20 years ago unless it was measured at that point in time. And if it *was* measured 2 decades ago then why change it now?
Nor does UAH “infill” anything. Their system is a “metric”, it is a snapshot in time. It is not a measure of “global” temperature because there is no such thing.
Data sets like BEST use infilling and homogenization to try and supposedly make their global average more representative of the Earth’s “global temperature”. It’s a losing battle. Not only do they use mid-range daily values when don’t actually represent “climate” they use that incorrect base data to average an average – again a losing battle.
They would be much better off to just admit that their measurements are a metric and not a true measurement and stop with all the infilling and homogenization.
UAH data correlates with the Weather Balloon data.
Got anything bad to say about the Weather Balloon data?
Tom Abbott said: “UAH data correlates with the Weather Balloon data.”
No it doesn’t.
Thanks for keeping the discussion academic and elevated. Comments like your are so tremendously useful!
You have a fan.
What some realists don’t understand is that many alarmists routinely make stuff up. Like claiming that satellites routinely infill data over 4000 km distances, but that’s greater than the poleward distance that the satellite doesn’t cover. Like BadWaxJob’s flat lie that UAH shows a trend of .307 degrees per decade, a cherry picked number over an inappropriately short period made up by Bellend (probably the same guy as BadWaxJob). The actual trend is 0.13 deg per decade averaged over the whole satellite record – right on Roy Spencer’s homepage. It’s pointless to challenge a person with actual facts who endlessly makes up lies. In this case, calling him out is warranted.
“The actual trend is 0.13 deg per decade averaged over the whole satellite record – right on Roy Spencer’s homepage.”
You keep agreeing with me, and don’t realize it. Yes, we should be preferring the warming rate over the last 40 years to short term cherry-picked trends. I just hope you tell Monckton next time he announces the current length of the pause.
Monckton’s observations are legitimate, Bellend. What they tell you is CO2 is not the sole control knob on the climate, there are other drivers that are just as significant because, obviously, these other factors completely compensated for the CO2 increase over the length of the pause.
Although you haven’t disagreed you still (irrationally) attack Monckton.
Infantile name calling aside, why do you think Monckton’s observations are legitimate, but my observation about the rate of warming since 2012 are not?
“What they tell you is CO2 is not the sole control knob on the climate, there are other drivers that are just as significant because, obviously, these other factors completely compensated for the CO2 increase over the length of the pause.”
Nobody said CO is the only factor that has a short term effect. You only have to look at any graph of the last few decades to see the effect that ENSO and other’s have. And these factors more than compensate for the rise in CO2 over a few years – that’s why you have to look at the longer term picture to see if CO2 is having an effect.
Whether that makes ENSO a “control knob” depends on how you see the analogy. To me it isn’t becasue we cannot control ENSO, but also because ENSO is, in the long term, neutral. Suggesting El Niños can make the world permanently hotter seems infeasible. All they can do is temporarily move the heat around.
Meab said: “Like claiming that satellites routinely infill data over 4000 km distances”
Spencer & Christy 1992a pg 850 column 1 paragraph 3. Note that 1 degree at the equator is 111.3 km. So with 2.5 degree grid a 15 grid units of movement is 2.5 * 15 * 111.3 = 4174 km.
Meab said: “but that’s greater than the poleward distance that the satellite doesn’t cover. “
Spencer at al. 1990 pg 1150 figure 4. The poleward distance that the satellite doesn’t cover on a daily basis is huge.
Meab said: “Like BadWaxJob’s flat lie that UAH shows a trend of .307 degrees per decade,”
I didn’t say that. What I said is that adjustments total +0.307 C/decade and that doesn’t even count the effect of the unquantified adjustments documented in their earlier works from 1990-1992. Here is breakdown.
Year / Version / Effect / Description / Citation
Adjustment 1: 1992 : A : unknown effect : simple bias correction : Spencer & Christy 1992
Adjustment 2: 1994 : B : -0.03 C/decade : linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 1995
Adjustment 3: 1997 : C : +0.03 C/decade : removal of residual annual cycle related to hot target variations : Christy et al. 1998
Adjustment 4: 1998 : D : +0.10 C/decade : orbital decay : Christy et al. 2000
Adjustment 5: 1998 : D : -0.07 C/decade : removal of dependence on time variations of hot target temperature : Christy et al. 2000
Adjustment 6: 2003 : 5.0 : +0.008 C/decade : non-linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 2003
Adjustment 7: 2004 : 5.1 : -0.004 C/decade : data criteria acceptance : Karl et al. 2006
Adjustment 8: 2005 : 5.2 : +0.035 C/decade : diurnal drift : Spencer et al. 2006
Adjustment 9: 2017 : 6.0 : -0.03 C/decade : new method : Spencer et al. 2017 [open]
Meab said: “a cherry picked number over an inappropriately short period made up by Bellend (probably the same guy as BadWaxJob)”
Bellman had nothing to do with +0.307 C/decade worth adjustments UAH applied. Nor is it cherry-picked. It is what Spencer & Christy are reporting.
Meab said: “The actual trend is 0.13 deg per decade averaged over the whole satellite record – right on Roy Spencer’s homepage. It’s pointless to challenge a person with actual facts who endlessly makes up lies.”
Nobody is challenging the overall +0.13 C/decade trend here.
A swing and a miss. Not even close, a complete whiff. “Adjustments” don’t combine linearly in absolute value. The only significant positive correction was for orbital decay, actually found by RSS.
I’m not sure what you mean here exactly, but it is awfully close to a mischaracterization of what I’m saying so let me make sure something is clear right off the bat. I’m not saying or implying that the UAH trend would be 0.13 – 0.307 = -0.18 C/decade without adjustments. I’m only saying that there is 0.307 worth of adjustments. The net effect of those adjustments is -0.03 + 0.03 + 0.10 – 0.07 + 0.008 – 0.004 + 0.035 – 0.03 = +0.039 C/decade. I also want to make it clear that the descriptions of the adjustments are not my own. They come from Christy. And I actually take issue with the 1st in which it is described as “simple bias correction”. According to their own publications it is anything but “simple”. I’d be happy to discuss their methods with you if want.
Request DENIED.
“They’re adjustments include satellite calibration, annual heating cycle, linear diurnal drift, hot target variations, orbital decay, non-linear diurnal drift, and more.”
Since these are applied equally across all data it doesn’t affect the overall trends, only the absolute values.
That is different than the adjustments that are made willy-nilly in BEST with very little actual proof that the adjustments need to be made.
As we’ve discussed in the past, Berkeley Earth assumes the uncertainty in their data is the base uncertainty in the sensor and not the uncertainty in the measuring station. If they used actual uncertainties, the uncertainties would overwhelm the differences they are trying to identify.
I’ve not seen the uncertainties for UAH specified anywhere. And there *are* uncertainty factors in each measurement, uncertainties caused by things like atmospheric humidity, cloud cover, and terrain. At least with UAH they are not calculating mid-range values and assuming that value is representative of the climate at a location.
I personally will not put my trust in either of them until they properly propagate uncertainty into their results.
A scalpel the size of a semi trailer.
Yes.
Provided, that scalpel is 1,200 kilometers long.
I think there is some confusion. The scalpel method does not have any concept of distance. The method is to treat changepoints caused by station moves, instrument changes, procedural changes, etc. as if it they were a completely separate and independent station. See Rhode et al. 2013 for details.
All the way back to 1701?
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-surface-temperatures-best-berkeley-earth-surface-temperatures
Only select areas are available back to 1701. The global average only goes back to 1850.
I’ll use a different dataset if you want. Give me a link to a dataset with monthly values going back to at least 1856 and I’ll plug the data and post the graph and R^2 values.
Bdg here is a temperature record that has an R² correlation with CO² of over 95%! The graph is of government adjustments to observed thermometer station readings you can replicate yourself. So how can one logically be okay with this?
Probably this curve has an R² 95% correlation with with gasoline and food prices, too!
USHCN is not a global average temperature dataset.
BadWaxJob,
Please try to keep up. Willis just recently showed that the USHCN closely tracks the global data sets. You’re being dishonest suggesting that it doesn’t.
That means, and you’ve been schooled on this before, that since the USHCN “adjustments” are responsible for a significant part of the US trend, the same MUST be true for GHCN, the global temperature dataset.
You also know that the “adjustments” continued AFTER the need was obviated by moving to computerized measurement stations in the 1980s. During the most recent period, the main correction should have been downward for the UHI effect but that wasn’t what happened, was it? Don’t try to mislead by bringing up the other corrections – they should have been random and should have averaged out to zero.
meab said: “Willis just recently showed that the USHCN closely tracks the global data sets.”
The R^2 between USHCN and the BEST record is 0.49. Interestingly this is lower than the R^2 of 0.89 between log2(CO2) and the BEST record. In other words, CO2 provides a significantly better fit to the global average temperature than does the US temperature record.
That’s the problem, there are no good datasets that go that far back.
That’s why you warmists are forced to make up the data you use.
If there are no good datasets that go that far back then we cannot eliminate an even higher R^2 fit than 0.89 or that the global average temperature trend is significantly higher than even the raw-unadjusted data suggests.
The AMO and the written temperature record tells the story. We don’t need your bastadized temperature data. There is no runaway warming going on.
Pretending to be able to accurately adjust temperatures in the decades past is a joke. You don’t have enough information to make any such adjustments, so the data mannipulators are just making it up to suit their politics.
I don’t see how anyone can support a Hockey Stick profile when the written record is available and the written record refutes the Hockey Stick temperature profile. There is a disconnect here somewhere, or politics is involved.
Can you post a link to a global average temperature dataset going back 170 years that you feel is not bastardized?
Link this.
You simply cannot apply calibration error today to measurements taken decades ago. You have no idea what the calibration error was in the past. But that *is* what the data manipulators do.
<blockquote>or that the global average temperature trend is significantly higher than even the raw-unadjusted data suggests.</blockquote>
…or lower?
I guess blockquote does not work any more!
Mark,
Here is why it is a poor match:
The WORST Data Set | Real Climate Science
AMO is just a detrended North Atlantic SST. AMO, just like any other local temperature on the globe, does not affect global temperature. It’s nonsense. However, just like it’s widely known and Willis showed in his article few days ago, most local temperatures do correlate very well with the global one. It would be strange if they didn’t. So, if we detrend a global temperature and compare it with the so-called (and already de-trended) AMO, of course it looks almost exactly the same.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/hadcrut4gl/detrend:0.92/plot/hadcrut4gl/detrend:0.92/trend
The pattern is not only Atlantic and not only multidecadal. It’s Global Temperature Oscillation (GTO). And CO2 has got nothing to do with it.
I don’t disagree. But Tom Halla said “The effects of the AMO fit temperatures over the past 170 years better than CO2 levels.” He was not talking about the variation in the temperature. He was talking about the temperature itself.
And Tom Halla was correct. The written temperature record backs up the AMO profile and Tom Halla.
What R^2 do you get when you compare the AMO with the global average temperature?
Nice strawman. Where did the author say the AMO was the only climate driver? Oh wait, he didn’t. That was your completely dishonest interpretation.
The point is the AMO has been driving up the temperature for the past 25+ years and is due to start working in the opposite direction and work against future warming for decades.
Now, if you really want to derive a meaningful correlation to natural climate effects you need to add in the influence of the sun, the PDO, etc. Then add in plastic pollution, contrails, etc. Since we really don’t know how all these pieces fit together, it is almost impossible to say. However, together they do appear to have been providing a warming influence for the last 200 years. Hence, the correlation with temperature would be fairly high.
Richard M said: “Where did the author say the AMO was the only climate driver?”
He didn’t.
Richard M said: “That was your completely dishonest interpretation.”
No it wasn’t. You and you alone are the one that brought up AMO being the only climate driver is this subthread. If you think bringing up that topic is dishonest then you need to do your own introspection here. Just don’t expect me to defend strawmen I didn’t create.
I’m responding to Tom Halla’s statement “The effects of the AMO fit temperatures over the past 170 years better than CO2 levels.” and nothing more.
The chart shows no rise in temperature from the mid-1880’s until 1914, from 1944 until 1975 and from 2004 through the present. During these periods of no temperature rise, the CO2 level rose continuously. This an indication of no cause or effect of CO2 level upon the temperature.
Bill Everett said: “This an indication of no cause or effect of CO2 level upon the temperature.”
No it isn’t. It is an indication that CO2 cannot be the only thing modulating the global average temperature; nothing more.
CO2 has zero measured effect on the real global temperature.
You are regurgitating baseless, anti-science mantra.
The abundance of evidence is consistent with a doubling of CO2 raising the near surface temperature by 2.6 – 3.9 C (1σ). [Sherwood et al. 2020] But that is not relevant to this discussion since any range of sensitivity would not invalidate the fact that over the last 170 years the bit between CO2 and global average temperature is better than the fit of AMO and global average temperature.
Your article looks to be entirely based on computer models and probabilities.
Perhaps you could explain how temperatures rose very suddenly and rapidly at the end of the last glaciation, at a time when CO2 was about 180 ppm.
“The abundance of evidence is consistent with a doubling of CO2 raising the near surface temperature by 2.6 – 3.9 C”
What evidence? Hockey Stick charts? Don’t make me laugh.
“ near surface temperature “
Do you ever wonder why no one ever runs a long term dataset on subsoil temperature? We don’t live on “near surface”, we live on the ground. The ground temps have much more impact on us than does the “near surface” temps. Soybeans never get much of 2ft above the ground, neither do rice or milo. Corn does but the temps at the top of the stalk aren’t much of a factor in kernel growth, in fact the corn shades the ground making it cooler!
I keep asking what it is on the actual ground that absorbs “back radiation” but I never get an answer. Gypsum and silicon are the two most common materials on the ground but their absorption spectrum doesn’t cover CO2 emission spectrum. So what is it?
What is the correlation factor between air temp at 6ft and sub-soil temps at 4″ deep?
Not only that but the solid earth has much more mass than the atmosphere. The mass of CO2 (that is, the number of molecules) doesn’t radiate sufficient energy to raise the temp of the solid earth to a +3 degrees. Remember, part of GHG theory is that the sun only warms the solid earth and not the atmosphere.
Tom Abbott said: “What evidence?”
[Sherwood et al. 2020]
You are quite correct in saying CO2 cannot be the only thing modulating temperature. Now kindly present evidence that CO2 has any measurable effect on temperatures.
I’ll give you the same response I gave you the last time. IPCC AR5 WG1 pg 721-730. It’s by no means an exhaustive list of evidence, but it is reasonably comprehensive. I encourage you read the whole report as well. It is only 1500 pages and is pretty easy read (relatively speaking) so it won’t take much time to get the high level overview. You can then spend a lifetime (or as much time as you want) taking the deep dive into the 9200+ direct lines of evidence and the hundreds of thousands of 2nd and 3rd order lines of evidence at your discretion.
So, you are saying the people who have made a lucrative career of global warming alarmism, have thousands of pages of bullshit to support their bullshit?
Why should that surprise anyone?
What else would one expect grifters to say?
I’m sure you could summarize here in a few lines the main pieces of physical evidence cited by the IPCC.
At the most fundamental level the 2 most important lines of evidence are the laws of thermodynamics and the spectroscopy and related data showing that CO2 (and other polyatomic gas species) impede the transmission of energy in the outgoing terrestrial radiation spectrum.
Still waiting for verifiable, empirical evidence.
Why do temperatures always rise when CO2 levels are at their lowest?
Graemethecat said: “Still waiting for verifiable, empirical evidence.”
That has been given to you at least 3 times already.
Graemethecat said: “Why do temperatures always rise when CO2 levels are at their lowest?”
They don’t always rise or fall in tandem in with CO2. But generally speaking any positive correlation of the variables X and Y will be can be described as falling when either X or Y is high and rising when they low.
That has been given to you at least 3 times already.
Where? Sherwood et al is computer-games drivel.
They don’t always rise or fall in tandem in with CO2. But generally speaking any positive correlation of the variables X and Y will be can be described as falling when either X or Y is high and rising when they low.
Indeed they do. Unfortunately for you, on all timescales temperatures always change BEFORE CO2 concentrations
bdgwx: Looks like you just might have discovered the BEST temperature adjustment algorithm. Congratulations.
Hockey stick away
H/T JoNova
US Postal rates drive global warming
HIDE THE DECLINE…Climate Change over the past 1000 years per the IPCC
URGENT CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!
US postal charges must be kept down to prevent a climate catastrophe!
Yellow line is a total fabrication of urban heat and data mal-manipulation.
Reality of global temperatures is much closer to the blue line.
b.nice said: “Reality of global temperatures is much closer to the blue line.”
Would you mind posting a link to a global average temperature dataset which publishes monthly values that you prefer? I’ll plug them into my spreadsheet and we’ll see what happens.
Is it just me b.nice or is budgerigarwx’s commenting remarkably similar to belledman and mgc’s posting these last few days?
An astonishing level of similarities. Perhaps a posting method suggested by their alarmist masters?
Of course BEST matches CO2. That is what happens when data sets are adjusted according to how much CO2 is in the air!
But when we use the temperatures as they were measured, suddenly everything makes sense again…almost as if the measurements recorded the actual temperature, and the adjustments are all 100% bogus and fraudulent and done for the sole purpose of propping up a failed hypothesis.
Imagine that.
If you cannot imagine it, that is OK too…because we have it all clearly documented.
All Temperature Adjustments Monotonically Increase | Real Climate Science
That graph was supposed to post as a GIF animation.
This is the other part that did not post:
Nicholas McGinley said: “But when we use the temperatures as they were measured,”
We can certainly do that, but on a global scale it only makes the warming trend higher. If you are interested in details regarding why the adjustments bump up the warming trend in the US while simultaneously decreasing it globally we can discuss that. And if you have any questions please ask. [1].
You must have me confused with one of the gullible uneducated rubes you are accustomed to having discussions with.
Literally every scrap of warmista “evidence” is made up, phony, fake, wrong, and obvious & deliberate fraud.
Every.
Single.
Bit.
You should be ashamed of yourself, supporting this outrage.
It is impoverishing the world, causing an extinction catastrophe for birds and bats, and has done nothing, can do nothing, to lower that one thing which you claim., without evidence, needs to be lowered in order for human beings to control the weather of a planet.
No wonder you do not dare use your actual name.
Nicholas McGinley said: “You must have me confused with one of the gullible uneducated rubes you are accustomed to having discussions with.”
On the contrary I have no reason to think you are anything but a smart educated critical thinker.
Anyway, I’m still very much willing to discuss the adjustments with you. I have large archive of relevant publications that are key in understanding what the adjustments are, why they are needed, and why they cause a bump up in the US and a bump down globally.
Nicholas McGinley said: “No wonder you do not dare use your actual name.”
My name is Brian Gideon. I’m always happy to provide it for those who ask.
BTW…I can read between the lines. I recognize that I must have offended you in some way. It is never my intention to offend comments on the WUWT blog or any forum for that matter. Please accept my sincere apology
Unadjusted HADCRUT, UHA, and AMO, on one graph, below.
It seems that when we remove all of the manufactured warming, IOW, when we assume that the people who have been caught lying and committing fraud, are lying and committing fraud when they alter historical data, it seems that everything is just as it appears in the proxy data, and just as it was reported by everyone in the world prior to the era of global warming alarmism.
Beautiful graph!
Notice how all three datasets (before debasement to impose a trend) show a clear cooling between 1940 and 1980. This alone punctures the central Alarmist hypothesis that CO2 drives temperatures.
Yes, the bogus Hockey Stick charts not only cooled the 1930’s into insignificance, they also downplay the cold of the 1970’s. They have to do that, I understand, in order to cool the 1930’s. It’s a consequence of the bastardization process.
That graph shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century (ETC) as it is today.
That means that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s temperatures since CO2 has been increasing since the ETC yet it is no warmer now than then. Going by the temperatures, you can’t see any extra effect CO2 has on temperatures. More CO2 does not mean higher temperatures.
And currently the temperatues have cooled 0.4C from the 2016 highpoint, all the while, more CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere with no visible effect.
Now give us the correlation coefficients for a split test ie for the first half and second half of the time series.
Then while you are at it give us the correlation coefficient between the first order increments of BEST and logCO2. Otherwise your R^2 is grossly inflated by the trends. You could do a split test on that too.
Using your logCO2 as a predictor, predict the temperature and then show us the residuals. I strongly suspect post-1965 they will appear random but pre-1965 they will be structured and the AMO signal will be apparent.
Finally, explain why the warming approx. 1910 to 1945 doesn’t fit with CO2
ThinkingScientist said: “Now give us the correlation coefficients for a split test ie for the first half and second half of the time series.”
pre-1965
AMO: 0.28
log2(CO2): 0.39
post-1965
AMO: 0.71
log2(CO2): 0.93
ThinkingScientist said: “Then while you are at it give us the correlation coefficient between the first order increments of BEST and logCO2.”
For Δlog2(CO2) the R^2 is 0.02.
For ΔAMO the R^2 is 0.38
ThinkingScientist said: “Otherwise your R^2 is grossly inflated by the trends.”
Δlog2(CO2) does not have a lot of skill in predicting the yearly ΔT. However, ΔAMO does have limited skill in predicting the yearly ΔT. This is why a model that incorporates both AMO and log2(CO2) have been skill in predicting T than just AMO or log2(CO2) alone. Since AMO is a cyclic process that is known to modulate the variability of temperature it does a decent job of explain the variability. But it does a terrible job at explaining the long term trend. The opposite is true for CO2. It is a non-cyclic process with small but persistent modulating effect so it does a good job of explaining the temperature and its long term job. But it does a terrible job at explaining the variability.
ThinkingScientist said: “Using your logCO2 as a predictor, predict the temperature and then show us the residuals.”
The model is T = 2.5 * log2(C/C0) – 0.4. This yields an RMSE of 0.13 C.
The mean and sd of the residual before 1965 is -0.02 C and 0.14 C.
The mean and sd of the residual after 1965 is 0.00 and 0.10 C.
ThinkingScientists said: “Finally, explain why the warming approx. 1910 to 1945 doesn’t fit with CO2″
It does fit. Just not as well. The R^2 is 0.68. Notice that the residuals during this period show a high bias. Contrast this with the low bias from 1865 to 1900. Remember CO2 is not the only thing modulating the global average temperature. There will be periods of deviation in which the residuals can be partially explained by cyclic modulators.
No warming 1920-1940, no cooling 1940-1980. Why does this temperature series differ so much from the temperature series posted above by Nicholas McGinley?
The graph shows warming from 1910-1945 and cooling from 1945-1980. It is very close to the graph Nicholas McGinley posted despite his being monthly and for the NH only from the discontinued HadCRUTv3.
Why does it show the 1930’s to be cooler than than present day?
Yikes. I apologizes for all of the typos and grammatical errors in that post. I usually proof read, but I had to submit and move on quickly after this one.
Well done, the result for the split test is:
pre-1965
log2(CO2): 0.39
post-1965
log2(CO2): 0.93
R or R^2? if those are R then CO2 is fail pre-1965. As I would expect.
Note the huge difference in fit for the two periods – over fitting post-1965 anyone?
On the increments the R^2 with CO2 is 0.02. Hmmm….bit worrying eh?
As for the period 1910-1945, the forcings over this period in GCMs are 3x smaller than in the period 1970-2005, yet the rates of warming observed are almost identical. The models and CO2 are a poor fit pre-1950 (epsecially on warming rates) but superb from the 1960s. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, the null hypothesis would be that natural processes have stationary properties. Therefore CO2 would be expected to fit about as well over any period, as would natural processes. However, the difference in fitting is huge. That’s a bad sign for the models, classic symptom of overfitting. And of course the IPCC AR5 and AR6 models have basically no natural in them at all of any magnitude other than volcanos, which simply give short period cooling impulse functions. None of this other stuff, including AMO, is any AR5 or AR6 forcings.
Finally note in your picture the residuals are structured per-1965 and my Mark 1 eyeball thinks they may be trending down post-1965. But I know what the answers to these points are already having looked at these matters previously with various AR5/AR6 to temp series comparisons.
I always use R^2.
No. The R^2 between Δlog(CO2) and ΔT is not expected to be high since no one seriously entertains the hypothesis that CO2 can explain the variation in T. Because CO2 is a well-mixed non-condensing gas it does not itself vary a whole lot. And it’s modulation on the global average temperature on monthly and yearly timescales relatively small compared to other modulating factors like heat fluxed to/from the ocean and atmosphere. The importance of CO2 is that it’s effect, though small relatively speaking, is always positive and persistent. In other words, the effect accumulates over decadal and higher time scales.
I’m not sure where you are seeing that forcings in GCMs are 3x smaller between the two periods. Can you post more information so that I can see the context?
And regarding the GCM fit you can see that CMIP5 is pretty good. Do you know of alternate model that has comparable to skill in terms of RMSE and R^2 that does not include the outgoing terrestrial radiation blocking properties of polyatomic gas species?
Try explaining why sea level and glacier retreat data directly contradict temperature and climate model data. And why they show a steady linear increase since 1850, with a low amplitude periodic oscillation of period approx 60 – 70 years.
Sea level and glacial retreat are, of course, difficult to adjust.
Explain why the rate of warming 1910 – 1945 is almost indistinguishable from the rate of warming 1970 – 2005 but the logCO2 are very different.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
CO2 is not the only thing modulating the near surface temperature.
Then how come the fit to CO2 is so amazing post-1965, such that no other modulating influences could have a role? If other things are modulating surface temperature, and we can see them pre-1965 because CO2 performs poorly as a predictor then, how come we don’t see them after 1965?
Note the rate of warming 1910-1945 is almost indistinguishable from the rate of warming 1970-2005. If other processes are acting, how can the rates over the two periods be the same, but the CO2 influence be 3x different (which is what it is in the GCMs over the two periods)?
Did nature suddenly go on vacation in 1965?
You realize you are never going to get an answer, right?
Oh he’ll get answers. Just think of the ‘answers’ as a series of piles of male bovine feces…
That’s ok. Keep asking questions, TS. I like them. I think you are right on the money with your argument. I think you are moving the curtain aside.
TS said: “Then how come the fit to CO2 is so amazing post-1965, such that no other modulating influences could have a role? If other things are modulating surface temperature, and we can see them pre-1965 because CO2 performs poorly as a predictor then, how come we don’t see them after 1965?“
Why would you conclude that no other modulating influences could have role from this data?
Let me illustrate an important point here. You have variables X, Y, and Z that modulate variable A. Those variables and only those variables can ever modulate A. If you study only variable X and observe a very high R^2 for a period it does not mean that Y and Z went on a vacation. It just means that Y – Z ~ 0 (Y and Z sum to something close to zero).
Understanding this concept what hypothesis can you construct that might explain the pre and post 1965 differences?
TS said: “Note the rate of warming 1910-1945 is almost indistinguishable from the rate of warming 1970-2005. If other processes are acting, how can the rates over the two periods be the same, but the CO2 influence be 3x different (which is what it is in the GCMs over the two periods)?”
You answered your own question. Other processes are acting too. CO2 isn’t the only thing modulating the global average temperature at these time scales. I cannot say and stress this enough.
TS said: “Did nature suddenly go on vacation in 1965?”
Not at all. Total solar irradiance continue to change. ENSO continued to cycle. AMO continued to cycle. Volcanic eruptions continued to wax and wane. It’s the same with humans. Aerosol emissions continued to change. In fact there was a dramatic ramp up of aerosols post WWII that offsets a significant portion of the GHG radiative forcing. None of that stuff and a lot I didn’t mention are not included in this analysis.
Well bdgwx, as a professional geophysicist of nearly 40 years standing I don’t need patronising lectures on X, Y Z variables. My expertise is in forward and inverse modelling and geostatistics and stochastic models.
And having spent over 15 years deconstructing the temperautre, GCM outputs, glacial and sea level data amongst others I think I have a reasonable understanding of what makes these datasets tick and what the limitations are.
The problem you have, and the GCM modellers have, with your line of reasoning is this.
Why is this a problem? Because in order to reconcile those points you have to accept either:
(a) That the models are overfitted to the post-1950s or
(b) Natural process simply stopped post-1950s as the model fit is so good to CO2 and leaves no room for other influences.
Only the first of those two options makes rational sense. An examination of the residuals makes that clear, along with comparison of the rates of warming in the different periods.
And just to reinforce the point about the rate of warming being the same in both periods, but the models are 3x different in forcings.
In the IPCC the natural forcings are basically only volcanos and they are trendless. Only picture to hand shows without and without “anthropogenic” for CMIP3 and 5, but 6 is pretty much the same. Natural only is a flat temperature response over time.
The only thing putting trends in from the model perspective is anthropogenic. But it can’t simultaneously fit the same level of warming 1910-1945 and 1970-2005. Square peg, round hole.
Models have no natural trends and overfit post-1950s. Any idiot can do that. But to fit the entire temperature record properly requires natural variation to be much larger and CO2 effects much smaller.
ThinkingScientist said: “Because in order to reconcile those points you have to accept either:”
Your options are not limited to a or b. I present a 3rd option c in which CO2 combined with natural processes is not the only thing that modulates the global average temperature.
ThinkingScientist said: “n the IPCC the natural forcings are basically only volcanos and they are trendless. Only picture to hand shows without and without “anthropogenic” for CMIP3 and 5, but 6 is pretty much the same. Natural only is a flat temperature response over time.”
“Anthroprogenic” is not equivalent to CO2 and CO2 alone. Anthropogenic includes all agents modulated by human behavior including but not limited CO2, CH4, NO2, O3, CFCs, HCFCs, land use changes, aerosol emissions, etc. Aerosol emissions are a huge component in the anthropogenic category which offsets nearly half of the CO2 forcing.
IPCC AR6 WG1 figure 2.10 helps illustrate the attribution. Notice that tropospheric aerosols increase significantly in the early 20th century and even more than offset the positive RF of CO2 just after WWII. In fact the net anthropogenic RF went down to 0 W/m2 1960. It wasn’t until after 1970 when tropospheric aerosols stabilized and began declining after 1980 that the net anthropogenic force began rapidly increasing again.
Another very important point is that of the lagged nature of the global average temperature (GAT) wrt to the total forcing. One thing that is not immediately obvious from a simple analysis like what I’ve done in this subthread is that the Earth energy imbalance (EEI) responds instantly to these forcing factors whereas the GAT does not. The reason is because the GAT has an equilibration time throttled by the rate of heat uptake in the climate system and the specific heat capacities in the various heat reservoirs within the system. It takes several decades for the fast feedbacks to reduce a positive perturbation in EEI to close to 0 W/m2. In other words, models that do not take the lag into account will have their skill suppressed somewhat.
Not sure what you are arguing about on the anthro side. I am aware of all the various forcings and have worked with them in multilinear regressions. You can reproduce the model output with to R=0.96 with just the sum of all anthro + natural.
But the point is natural is trendless, according to IPCC. I posted the chart already, the IPCC natural only model output is trendless. Natural is basically cooling spikes from volcanos, according to IPCC.
In my view the models are overfitted post-1950s and don’t fit pre-1950s. In temps I see a linear trend + 2 cycles of about 60-70 years imposed. In Glacier and sealevel data, which go back further, I see linear trend + 3 cycles. Using forward modelling, I can fit the glacial retreat data better with a linear trend + sinewave model than any of the temperature outputs from GCMs for AR5 or AR6. Modellers are basically fitting the latest cycle (post1965) entirely with anthro (predominantly GHGs) and miss the earlier cycle. That’s an overfitted model. Because the IPCC have no other natural forcings, they will never reconcile the issue.
Note also the IPCC (certainly up to AR5) only claimed post-1950s caused by humans. Everything else largely ignored. Why? Because they can’t explain it.
Here are the AR5 model versus temp residuals. The residuals are structured and periodic. That is a clear indication the models are incomplete.
And here’s a final point as I have work to do.
The GCMs are basically an attempt at forward modelling from the forcings. The result is only revealed by averaging the models. But the model average can be reproduced almost completely by simple linear regression of the forcings (eg Willis in a recent article at WUWT, Pat Frank in his published paper). So models don’t really do anything other than convert input forcings to temps and add random noise. The models are only driven by the prior forcings, nothing else. No further information is added. They are a smokescreen (although I don’t think the modelers really get this).
How do we see this? By subtracting the model mean from the individual models. Below is a picture for the main 39 models from KNMI for AR5 with the mean model subtracted. Note the spread of the models in temp is 3.5 degC, larger than the entire temperature record. The residuals for each model are unstructured noise.
The mean model response is determined solely by the input forcings, so the fit to temps is already in the prior model and is as good as it can get. The models are circular nonsense. You cannot prove anything by forward modelling from a prior and as the model output can be trivially computed by linear regression from the inputs they are pointless.
This then raises another question: how/where does the noise originate inside the models?
I think you have asked this of me before. I don’t know as I don’t run these models. Numerical instability is one possibility, or round off errors.
All the models do the same thing because they are forward models so they can only do what the forcings (and their coding) say. Without input forcings the models would do nothing (if they are numerically stable).
We see the mean of the forcings by averaging the models. Averaging is effectively a low pass filter, all we then see is the input prior.
The problem here is that you cannot prove anything by forward modelling. Conversely, inverse modelling would only give the average forcing and no attribution. The IPCC problem is all the positive trends are assumed (a priori) to be anthropogenic. Clearly that cannot be true because the forcings are about 3x larger post-1950s than pre-1950s yet the warming observed in the two periods is almost identical.
The models cannot be right in one period and wrong in the other and still have credibility.
Very much liked your analysis.
I’ve always had a problem with the climate models. As Pat Frank pointed out long ago they basically devolve into nothing more than a linear equation, ala y = mx + b, that continues forever. Thus the idiotic conclusion by the CAGW crowd that the Earth will turn into a burnt cinder from increased CO2. No recognition of cyclical processes over long periods of time and no recognition of the logarithmic response of CO2 levels. There *has* to be more than just CO2 or the earth would have become a burnt cinder long, long ago!
That chart you show, bdgwx, is a perfect example of Data Mannipulator lies about the Earth’s climate. You show the true temperature profile of the Earth in blue, and the bastardized temperature profile in black.
the true profile shows we have nothing to fear from CO2.
BEST is a bunch of crap before the satellite era.
The global average temperature is in black.
The AMO is in blue.
Just wait:
Our resident thermageddonists will come barging in to tell us that we’re all blind and if we had our CAGW goggles on we’d be able to see a hockey stick curve, just like they can.
All the Usual Suspects are showing up to defend the hockey sticks.
Yep, Bodywax and Bellend have turned up right on cue to tell us that actually the temps have been rocketing skyward and we’re all going to die. Aiieeeee!!!
I assume you are referring to me?. If so, I get +0.14 C/decade over the last 40 years with UAH. I have no idea if that fits anyone’s definition of “rocketing skyward” though. And the warming trend isn’t the primary focus of my two main posts. Those would be the challenge that the warming trend is weakening and that the AMO is a better fit to the temperature than CO2.
My challenge to you, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this thread, is to give us all some empirical proof of CAGW. So far, no one’s found any
BTW models aren’t proof
I don’t know what CAGW is to you. If it is 1+ C of warming under an RCP4.5 or higher scenario then I can probably meet the challenge. If it is that all humans will cease to exist by years end then I will not be able to meet the challenge.
1 Deg of warming? Can’t wait. A warmer and wetter world. What’s not to love? It sure beats cold, famine, and starvation.
And it’s already happened. Nothing catastrophic occurred.
No catastrophe means no problem, doesn’t it?
You want to be careful: you’ll get cancelled by your fellow censorious thermageddonists for admitting the whole CAGW scam isn’t a real problem.
And now a word from Mikey Mann.
No hockey stick could possibly ‘make‘ your head look fat.
It is your ego that balloons your head far beyond most people’s houses.
On Mikey Mann’s personal website he has a whole page chock full of HD photos of himself in case anybody wants to use them for a puff-piece about the great man. His ego is the size of a very large planet.
He’s a pathetic little man.
He’s the modern-day Trofim Lysenko.
I wonder whether, in the small hours, he realizes he is a fraud, and his entire career has been based on a lie. Perhaps this explains his aggression and litigiousness.
Yes, Michael Mann represents some strange psychology.
How do they know 2.5 degree warming is “better” than 3.5 degrees. So far warming has been nothing but beneficial and history tells us cold periods are what we should fear. Never mind that the ones touting CAGW have no evidence that human CO2 emissions are anything more than a minor contributor to the warming we see. And no, climate models are not evidence, they are theory. Without rigorous validation against real world data the models are just a political fantasy designed to support favoured narratives and policies. John Kerry swore up and down that we must not pass 1.5 degrees, up till the point that it was politically unsustainable to do so and then he just adjusted the number for his own convenience. So clearly he is not a source of science or truth – just another talking puppet for socialism.
2.5 is better politically than 3.5. Less wood on the CAGW Hysteria Fire.
You pretty much nailed it. Freeman Dyson said a number of years ago that climate models are useless. He said that any models of the Earth need to be holistic to be of any real use, not just an attempt to forecast temperature using models whose uncertainty is wider than the temperature difference trying to be identified.
If a rising average temperature means more food, fewer climate related deaths, and a better standard of living then why try to limit the rise in average temperature. A “global average temperature” doesn’t even tell you what is causing the rise! Is it rising minimum temps? Rising max temps? A weighted combination of some kind?
P Gosselin said: “A “Weakening Warming Trend Of The Last 40 Years Is Apparent”, Says German Expert”
I did a 2nd order polynomial regression which says the warming trend over the last 40 years is actually accelerating albeit only barely.
Using UAH6 – per the poster – and starting in 3/82, mine shows it decelerating at ~ -0.000025 deg*year^-2*. I.e., also, “only barely”. But the magnitude of the standard error of that acceleration term is over 5* it’s value. So, the best indicator of the “Weakening Warming Trend” doesn’t indicate that at all.
It took me awhile to figure out the discrepancy. Apparently I analyzed 1982/01 through 2021/12 (which is a 40 year period) which does have a slightly positive x^2 fit. That was unintentional. I actually meant to do 1983/05 to 2022/04 which I can confirm has a slightly negative x^2 fit.
How do you know that using a second-order fit isn’t over-fitting the data?
I don’t necessarily think a 2nd order polynomial fit is the best way to test for “weakening warming trend”, but it was simple and easy for me to do quickly. I’m certainly open to other objective tests.
Maybe Andy May would use the method he imagineered a little over a month ago for sea level data. Oh, BTW Mr. May, I check back every few days to see if you have yet applied it to time periods with a modern amounts of cumulative and accumulating GHG’s. I.e., 1960 or 1970 or 1980 to present. So far, nada….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/ar6-and-sea-level-part-3-a-statistically-valid-forecast/#comment-3482835
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/ar6-and-sea-level-part-3-a-statistically-valid-forecast/#comment-3482145
Here an idea—do an eighth-order polynomial fit!
Go for it!
CM said: “Here an idea—do an eighth-order polynomial fit!”
Here are the coefficients for 1982/05 to 2022/4.
^8 = 4.68e-19
^7 = -1.1e-15
^6 = 1.01e-12
^5 = -5.1e-10
^4 = 1.48e-7
^3 = 2.5e-5
^2 = 0.0024
^1 = -0.11
So you do polynomial fitting without looking at the results.
No wonder you are so confused.
Carlo Monte implied an honest question here. And who knows, it might be his first teachable moment in this forum.
We checked out quadratic fits because it is the single best way to evaluate the central posit of this WUWT post. The smaller the magnitude of the expected value of the acceleration, and the larger it’s standard error relative to that expected magnitude, the weaker is that posit.
I don’t count on lightning to strike here, but hope springs eternal.
Why is it, blob, not one of your ilk (you know who you are) dares to question Mickey Mann’s tree ring thermometer and the hockey stick?
Word salad Bob on the job.
I had the same idea, and did the same thing. I went from start (12/78) to end, though.
I got positive curvature as well.
“I did a 2nd order polynomial regression which says the warming trend over the last 40 years is actually accelerating albeit only barely.”
That sure is the truth. Absolutely minuscule. Almost not even there. just noise + random fluctuations.
It is hardly a wonder that a small change in the start date would set the curvature swinging back and forth between positive and negative. The curvature is so minuscule, just a few points near the end can yank it around.
I marvel at the -15 rating on this comment (as of now). bdgwx simply did a reasonable thing and checked the data. I did too.
It looks like at least a few readers here still do not like facts and simple calculations. Too bad.
bdx gave a meaningless (pre-concieved) conclusion, based on an imprecise data set;
and the (perceived) reason being that bdx wanted to cast doubt on the subject post …
Let me be clear. I am challenging Pierre Gosselin’s statement “A “Weakening Warming Trend Of The Last 40 Years Is Apparent”, Says German Expert”. The only global average temperature dataset referenced in the post was UAH. I’m not the one who selected it. I just tested the statement with 2nd order polynomial regression which shows that the warming trend has not “weakening”. If you feel that UAH not precise for this kind of analysis then you need to let Pierre Gosselin and WUWT know so that they can retract the article.
The data set is not precise enough to utilize, as a verification of your (originally unstated) premise.
Premise: rate of warming over last 40 years is not decreasing … it is increasing.
Bunch of stuff: ……………
Conclusion: The premise is ‘barely’ correct, based on the input data set (‘barely’ being defined as so small it is meaningless).
The premise is “A Weakening Warming Trend Of The Last 40 Years Is Apparent”. It’s not my premise. It is from Pierre Gosselin. And if the dataset mentioned in the article is not fit test the statement then perhaps Pierre Gosselin should not have stated it in the first place.
AMO & associated temps are in decline.
Sea ice … not in decline.
Temp rate is flat (or ‘barely’ not, or slightly negative, or slightly positive …)
-27 (and counting)
As bigoilbob pointed out above the statistical uncertainty on the acceleration term of the trends is larger than the magnitude. That means the trends have no statistical “weakening” nor “strengthening” component. In other words it is fairly steady +0.14 C/decade over both 1982/01-2021/12 or 1982/05-2022/04.
Prove the warning’s not natural. Oh yeah, you can’t. End of story.
“Prove the warning’s not natural.”
Boy, these motorized goal posts are selling like hot cakes in this fora. I’m sure they’re on Alibaba, but even with 27% off, I don’t want 50 of them..
Seriously, stop drinking so heavily in the morning.
Does the warming have to be non-natural for the trend to be something other than “weakening”?
The trend can be anything, but you can’t prove it’s anything but natural and nothing to do with someone driving an SUV.
I think the abundance and consilience of evidence can falsify the natural-only hypothesis. But that’s not relevant to Pierre Gosselin’s claim that the warming is weakening.
When you’ve found some empirical proof of CAGW, get back to me.
I don’t know what CAGW is. It doesn’t seem there is a widely accepted definition here. I’ve asked before and the definitions ranged from all humans would cease to exist this year to only 1 C of warming. Not that it matters because presenting evidence either for or against CAGW would not say anything about whether the warming trend is weakening.
All we want is some actual evidence that CO2 has an effect – any effect – on temperatures. So far, you have merely presented that drivel from Sherwood et al, which is based on computer models and statistics.
I’ll give you the same response I gave you the last time. IPCC AR5 WG1 pg 721-730. It’s by no means an exhaustive list of evidence, but it is reasonably comprehensive. I encourage you read the whole report as well. It is only 1500 pages and is pretty easy read (relatively speaking) so it won’t take much time to get the high level overview. You can then spend a lifetime (or as much time as you want) taking the deep dive into the 9200+ direct lines of evidence and the hundreds of thousands of 2nd and 3rd order lines of evidence at your discretion.
You know exactly what it means: catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. So far, we haven’t had the much promised catastrophe. As far as I’m concerned, no catastrophe, no problem. You should stop getting your nickers in a twist about a non-problem.
I know what the letters stand for. I’m saying I don’t know what delineates AGW from CAGW. Is there a threshold of warming for the later? Is there a cataclysmic event involved in the later?
“I’m saying I don’t know what delineates AGW from CAGW. Is there a threshold of warming for the later?”
According to the UN and the rest of the signatories to the Paris Agreement there is. In fact, according to these pseudo-omniscient bodies there are two.
The first one comes at just over 1.5⁰C above the pre-industrial global mean temperature and is possibly survivable if everyone on the planet converts to using carbon-free everything, changing their diets to vegan and/or insectivorous ones (yum, yum), and stops all activity (including industrial) that cannot be powered by windmills, water-mills, solar panels, tidal barrages, wave-power, geothermal energy, bio-mass, or nuclear. The nature of the proposed catastrophe is called ‘climate chaos’.
The second one comes at 2⁰C above pre-industrial and would not be survivable because it implies the heat-death of the planet due to runaway global warming.
I’m surprised that you claim not to know this because it’s been streaming out of every mainstream media orifice 24/7 for years now. I think you must need to get out more and find out what’s really going on in this mad world that you have chosen to inhabit.
I don’t know what CAGW is. It doesn’t seem there is a widely accepted definition here.
There’s probably no “widely accepted definition” because the alarmists who want to stop it can’t seem to settle on exactly what it is.
But let me ask this: What, exactly, are we supposed to “stop”, and why?
TonyG said: “But let me ask this: What, exactly, are we supposed to “stop”, and why?”
I don’t know. That’s a policy topic. I do not engage in policy discussions.
That’s a policy topic. I do not engage in policy discussions.
Seems a bit of a cop-out to me, given the scale of those issues and their impact on practically all of the discussion around this subject. It’s an integral part of the issue.
It is a cop-out, he treats this stuff like measuring density of angles on pins.
“I do not engage in policy discussions”
Well, that’s rather pompous.
The whole CAGW scam is all about policy. No policy and you’ve got no climate grifters ripping off the general public.
In other words, you are saying that AGW is academic and of no practical consequence that would engage your interest.
Yet whenever asked for actual scientific evidence..
… .. all the AGW scammers and their useful-idiot followers do, is blather and rant.
Follow the money in explanations for slow policy response to emerging reality.
Is this the same “expert” who ten years ago was predicting a cooling of 0.2°C by 2035?
Going by the rule of arbitrary trend calculation and ignoring all uncertainty, the UAH warming since 2012 is +0.3°C / decade.
Only 0.3C? We need more GW. Palm trees would look great in the North Woods. I can’t wait
to hit the beach in my Hawaiin shirt holding a mai tai! Bring it on! 😮
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/has-charles-dickens-shaped-our-perception-of-climate-change/
Yes, and I reckon this trend has a inverse correlation with Bitcoin prices.
Some people have more anxiety about how the temperature graphs dip and spike than others do about how stock markets dip and spike.
The difference is – reality only applies to one of these constructs.
I’ll leave you to figure out which one is worth worrying about.
Doing an online search for “rule of arbitrary trend calculation” does not produce any hits. Just what do you mean?
https://academic.oup.com/bja/article/115/3/337/312358?login=false
Bellman sometimes lets me take the easy ones. I also have not heard the term. But from context I think he is referring to the expected trend results with no consideration of their uncertainties.
B, since I’m barging in here, feel free to set me straight. BTW, your 2012 on trend is not only spot on, but is more statistically durable than the comparable fit for the last 40 years.
Correct, though I don’t think starting in 2012 makes much more sense than starting in 2015. It just illustrates how easy it is to get contradictory short term trends. Though it does illustrate that so far we are not seeing any indication of the predicted 0.2°C drop by 2035.
Last November we were not seeing any indication of the predicted stock market reversal.
It’s a rule I’ve discovered based on the many articles posted here where an arbitrary trend over a short period is used to prove some point. It treats any OLS trend as being the unarguable truth, provided it is being used to confirm an existing bias. It ignores any uncertainty in the warming rate, it ignores the fact that it doesn’t join up with the previous trend, it ignores what this new trend does to the long term trend, it ignores the fact the trend was carefully chosen to get the desired outcome (the end point fallacy as someone once called it).
In this article it is used to prove the idea that a weakening trend is apparent, in others it is used to prove there has been a structural break in the global climate, and in many others it is usd to claim global warming has stopped or at least paused.
Irony alert! AGAIN!
I’m glad you spotted the irony.
No, you missed it, as usual.
So, your were circularly referencing Bellman’s Rule, despite no one being familiar with it. There always have to be bounds to a problem, such as the limits of integration. As long as the purpose of the trend analysis is clearly stated, such as Monckton does, then it is perfectly valid. It is up to the individual reader to infer what the ultimate meaning is.
One can reasonably expect that in a world with changes in geology and climate that trends will change with time. The effects of the changes have to be placed in the context of how they impact things that are of importance to people.
Since when do any alarmists provide uncertainty to their warming trends?
I’ve had enough experience with trying to forecast growth in telephone central office usage to know that short term trends many times become long term trends. For example, a neighborhood may have had straight-line growth for several years. It’s really easy to fall into the trap of ignoring one or two years where the growth rate decreases assuming the straight line growth will soon resume – but it doesn’t and you wind up over-provisioning equipment. Like the earth’s temperature, demographic trends have many, many factors (job availability, housing availability, infrastructure degradation, etc). You need to understand *all* of those factors before dismissing something as “noise” in the natural progression of things.
CO2 and other GHG’s are just ONE factor in the equation that describes the biosphere of Earth – and it isn’t apparent that the CAGW scientists and the climate models are even cognizant of the myriad other factors!
“So, your were circularly referencing Bellman’s Rule” I wouldn’t want to take any credit for it – call it Bellend’s Rule if you want. That seems more appropriate.
It was a joke. I was hoping people would realize that when I say I’m using an arbitrary trend and ignoring all uncertainties, they should not take the trend seriously. For a bonus I might have hoped that any skeptic would have seen I was doing exactly what the “German expert” of this article was doing in order to make apparent the supposed weakening of warming trend.
“Since when do any alarmists provide uncertainty to their warming trends?”
I don’t know what alarmists you are taking about. Scientists certainly should do that, all the IPCC reports I’ve seen indicate the uncertainty. e.g. from AR5
Bellend,
Fortunately for us, Roy Spencer (the Roy Spencer responsibe for the UAH satellite temperature) has computed the trend over the entire length of the satellite record.
It’s 0.13 degrees per decade (over ocean and land).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/
You know quite well that the trend over decadal time scales varies dramatically and is not a reliable indicator of a long term trend. You’re being dishonest.
“You know quite well that the trend over decadal time scales varies dramatically and is not a reliable indicator of a long term trend. You’re being dishonest.”
But the claim of this article, based on that UAH data, is that the trend is slowing down. How can you test that without calculating recent trends?
It slowed down slightly with UAH since it was .14C/decade now it is .13C/decade the change was January 2022.
Nick, the observation by Fritz Vahrenholt was a qualitive assessment, not a quantitative one. Suffice it to say that not one temperature trend estimate comes close to the fancifully high UN IPCC CliSciFi models’. All the rest is dick-dancing. Anyway, UAH6 42+ year trend of 0.13 ℃/decade was made during a warming portion of an approximately 70-year cycle. It appears it is possible that we’ll stay within the fearsome 2 ℃ limit by the year 2100 even without worldwide Nut Zippy.
You can’t, and if you see a small deceleration in such a short, noisy data set you probably can’t claim it to be meaningful. Just exactly like the alarmists who are always claiming to see some (tiny) acceleration.
One clue that you’re dealing with an amateur (or a shyster) is if they calculate a trend without calculating a confidence interval and then extrapolate the trend over long times as if it was meaningful.
“One clue that you’re dealing with an amateur (or a shyster) is if they calculate a trend without calculating a confidence interval|”
Well, this WUWT articles is all about trend, and claiming to identify a decline in it. The second fig explicitly shows one. Where are the confidence intervals?
Pierre Gosselin, Kalte Sonne, Fritz Vahrenholt, and WUWT don’t seem have a problem with calculating trends over an 88 month period from 2015/01 to 2022/04. That is provided in figure 2 in the article.
Correct, a trend of a few years does not contradict the long term trend, until there is statistically significant evidence to support it. Finally we agree on something.
One question with all these short term trends should be what effect if any has it had on the long term trend. What was the trend up to 2012 or 2015. I’ll have to check, but I’m pretty sure in both cases it was less than 0.13°C / decade. This does not suggest that there has been recent weakening of the trend.
Trends that rely on El Nino events that are not caused by human CO2.
In reality, there has been no warming for some 38 of the last 43 years.
No warming from 1980-1997 (17 years)
No warming from 2000-2015 (15 years)
Cooling since the 2015/16 El Nino (6 years )
“Trends that rely on El Nino events that are not caused by human CO2.”
You mean like the trend from 2015 which relies very heavily on the 2016 El Niño and the current La Niñas to get a flat trend?
“In reality, there has been no warming for some 38 of the last 43 years.”
Yet still it warms.
“In reality, there has been no warming for some 38 of the last 43 years.“
Is this a watermelon growth curve?
Paging Carlo Monte’s creators, your language processing routine is on the blink again.
This is the best you can do for an insult?
Not surprised.
Sorry if my jibe wasn’t up to your usual standard. Next time I’ll just tell you to stop whining.
But I would still like to know what you meant by a “watermelon growth curve”.
You figure it out, you’re the expert on absolutely everything,
You flatter me. I’m not an expert on anything. I’m sure you are a far more experienced melon farmer than I.
What of the naturally (non-CO2) driven warming trend between about 1915 and 1945? It was of about the same magnitude and duration of the late 20th Century warming for which the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models were tuned to assert a CO2-driven high ECS. Observationally derived ECS’s are coming in less than 2 ℃.
Except the “long term” trend is 10,000 years and it’s all down hill. You guys act like you know something but you playing stupid games over an almost irrelevant climatic time scale. We all know where this heads and that’s the next glaciation and none of your BS changes that. Nick knows it but for some reason he’s yo stubborn to say it, but the 3 Bs are just a bunch frauds trying to snow people.
He’s a lot more accurate than the standard “We only have ____ yrs before we’re beyond the
tipping point”/”The Arctic will be ice free in ____ yrs”/”the children won’t know what snow is”/”…
memes. How are they working out for you? 😮 😮 😮
Are we going to start laughing people off the stage that have made ridiculously false claims in the past? Good! That would thin out the Malthusian Leftist mob quite a bit.
No. You should laugh him of the stage because of lack of any actual evidence for his claim that there is a weakening warming trend. But this article makes it a headline that he is an expert, without saying what his expertise is.
Isn’t that much higher than the standard used by Warmistas as they fawn over Greta,
AOC, & Algore? You should’ve quit when you were only a little bit behind! 😮
The 21st Century is warming far less than the last quarter of the 20th Century. I’d say that indicates a weakening warming trend. Why else were the CliSciFi practitioners freaking out over the Pause?
It would help to understand your point if you didn’t keep making up this silly nicknames. I’ve no idea who these CliSciFi practitioners are, who are freaking out of the pause. The only people I see who even think there is a pause are Lord Monckton and his followers.
But to your point, what data set are you using?
Using the Skeptical Science Trend Caclulator for the 2 sigma uncertainty values I get
GISS 4
1975 – 2000: +0.16 ± 0.08°C / decade
2001 – 2022: +0.21 ± 0.10°C / decade
HadCRUT 4
1975 – 2000: +0.18 ± 0.07°C / decade
2001 – 2022: +0.15 ± 0.09°C / decade
UAH 6
1979 – 2000: +0.14 ± 0.14°C / decade
2001 – 2022: +0.14 ± 0.13°C / decade
Bellman,
I find the Viscount Monckton method for calculating the duration of a zero trend to be credible. What other method is better?
There is an overall problem with all temperature/time data sets, which is the inability to go back in time to find data and events that allow a meaningful calculation of uncertainty.
It is non- scientific to accept uncertainties that include made-up infilled values, using guesses to estimate uncertainty.
The lack of ways to collect uncertainty data for UAH means that present uncertainties are likely to have missed some relevant effects and therefore are optimistic. The best that can be done has been done, like comparison with data from rockets, but closure still awaits.
In the absence of definitive uncertainty terms, all assertions about trends are capable of easy challenge. Geoff S
“I find the Viscount Monckton method for calculating the duration of a zero trend to be credible.”
There’s nothing incredible about how he finds the longest zero trend he can. But that’s all he’s doing, just a meaningless number game.
I’m not statistician, but I do understand that the purpose of statistics is to try to show skepticism. Are you seeing something that might be real or is it just fluctuations. A classical approach is to describe the null-hypothesis and then establish that the result you see would be unlikely to have happened under the null-hypothesis. Monckton does nothing of the sort, he just asserts the trend exists and is this long.
I would suggest the most basic hypothesis test is, is the trend I am seeing different from the previous trend. The null-hypothesis is they are the same, and if you can show that it the difference is statistically significant it is a first step towards demonstrating something interesting. But he can’t show that, it’s just not true. The short pause is just too uncertain to be significantly different to the previous trend. There is insufficient evidence to rule out the possibility that the trend continues unabated, or even that it has not greatly accelerated.
That doesn’t mean you can rule out the possibility that warming stopped in October 2014 or whenever, it’s just that so far there is insufficient evidence to support it.
As always, the clue resistance is of the highest order.