UAH Global Temperature Update for November, 2023: +0.91 deg. C

“What evidence can you cite to support the hypothesis that CO2 increase has caused a warming trend?”

I doubt there’s any evidence that would satisfy you. But something is causing the warming trend, either CO2 or postage stamps, or random sine waves. The point is what ever caused the trend did not cause the spike, but the spike wouldn’t be record breaking if it wasn’t for the trend.

“The secular trend began in AD 1695, during the depths of the Maunder Minimum.”

Any evidence for that? What data set are you using to determine that trend? What do you think caused the trend?

If you take CET for instance, there was no significant warming between 1695 and 1900. The warming rate was 0.0026°C / decade. Between 1700 and 1900 there was an insignificant cooling trend of 0.0054°C / decade. That could be described as a 200 year pause in your secular trend.

Again, what evidence do you have that there were stronger trends in the 18th and 19th century? What periods and what data are you talking about?

And then, how do you establish that they had the same cause as over the last 50 years?

“Here is Phil Jones’ chart of the last three warmings.”

I was asking about the 18th century, and the claim that there had been a warming trend since the late 17th century. Your response is an out of date graph from the mid 19th century, which in other circumstances you would be dismissing as a fraudulent bastardized graph from an unreliable source. And it does not show continuous warming.

“All three warmings are of the same magnitude.”

They are not. They might all show similar rates of warming – but over different time periods. The first is only 20 years, the second, 30, and the third 35 years.

Actual warming is

0.163 * 2 = 0.326°C
0.150 * 3 = 0.450°C
0.161 * 2.4 = 0.547°C

Or to avoid the wrath of the sigfig police

0.33, 0.45, 0.55.

And of course the final warming has gone on for another 13 years, so assuming no change in trend, that would be 0.161 * 4.6 = 0.740°C.

Since 1975, there has been twice as much warming as there was in the brief 19th century warming trend.

And that’s ignoring the fact that in 1975 temperatures where already around 0.5°C warmer than they where at the start of the previous two warmings.

“I assume that the current warming is just one more in a cycle of warmings and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.”

An unwise assumption. People have been using that assumption for the past 30 years to predict we were just about to enter a cooling part of the cycle.

“And, btw, the correct way to read Phil Jones’ chart is to put the 1880’s and the 1930’s and 1998 highpoint on the same horizontal line on the chart because they were all equally warm, according to unmodified, written Tmax charts from around the world.”

And there we go again. Happy to claim that the chart proves something about cycles, but at the same time claim it’s meaningless garbage.

“Ridiculous. You don’t know that for a fact.”

~Once again you are denying your own evidence. You were the one who dragged up HadCRUT 3, with some trend lines to claim something. But when I explain it doesn’t show what you where claiming – you just reject the data out of hand.

“I’m skeptical that CET represents European temperatures”

It doesn’t. If it represents anything it’s Central English temperatures. There’s a clue in the name.

But some here, when it suits them, like to claim it’s a proxy for global temperatures. And the question remains. If you want to claim there has been a continuous warming trend in global temperatures since the 17th century, what data are you basing that claim on?

“and it shows that the temperatures in the Early Twentieth Century were just as warm as they are today.”

Early 20th century is not late 17th century. And the claim was that temperatures have been warming since then, not that they staid the same.

And once again,. your graphs are not showing annual average temperatures, they are showing a single monthly maximum temperature, and only go up to 2012. Also, apart from one cold year in 2012 and a couple of hot years at the start, that graph does not show temperatures just as warm in the early 20th century.

There’s a clear warming trend, with some big ups and downs along the way. Just eyeballing it I would say at the start of the 20th century the temps are around 14.5°C and by the 2010s they are around 16°C.

“I think Norway’s Tmax chart is more representative of the temperatures of Europe.”

Of course you do.

Here’s the same with a rolling 5 year average in blue.

“There’s more than one way to mannipulate the raw data. One way is legitimate, others are not. What method did you use?”

I’m not using raw data at all. I’m using exactly the same data you use, that from BEST for Norway.

“So I’m wondering how Bellman used his data”

It’s perfectly simple. I went to the website, downloaded the data, and plotted the maximum temperatures for July. As I said, this was instead of your graph which selects the warmest month of each year. The only difference is they have now updated the record to June 2019.

I’m certainly not going to take any lessons from Tisdale about how to pull a fast one.

“You may think you’ve done something special”

I really don’t.

“July isn’t always the hottest month!”

Which is why it’s better to compare the same month. But if you prefer here’s the warmest individual month ion any given year.

Again, and again, you attack me for using the very data that’s being used to claim no warming since the early 20th century. I agree that trying to determine the hottest part of the year in order to represent annual temperature change is misleading. And you are are correct, even if you want to just know how hot the hottest part of each year is, using monthly data can be misleading.

One year might have a hot July, another a hot August and another have a hot end to July and start of August. The result is that the 3rd year appears to be colder than the previous two, just because it’s hot period was split between two calendar month. This is why it would make more sense to look at the average over the summer months, rather than select the hottest month.

The idea of looking for the hottest 30 consecutive days is better than using calendar months – but you will need to find the daily data. However it’s still a problem deciding how long a period you want to look at. What if one year there was an extremely hot week, surrounded by much cooler weather, and another year had above average, but not excessively hot, days for an entire 30 day period. Which would you consider to be the hottest? What if one year has many hot days, but spread across many months – should that be considered less hot than a year where all the hot days fell within a 30 day period?

Whatever you do, if you only want to look at the hottest parts of the year, will require some form of aggregation – and different forms, will probably give different results.

Anyone using words like trendology has already lost the argument. I’m not interested in marketing or fashion.

But seriously – I’m not sure what you think I’m disagreeing about. I live in England – I know how variable weather can be. That’s why I find trying to base claims of no global warming based on looking at one location or another, and ignoring everything but the hottest set of days is misleading.

All of this is a deliberate distraction from the question of global warming – climate, not weather. If you want to know if the world has been getting warmer or not, an obvious first start is to see if global average temperatures are increasing or not.

“CET has a very obvious population based trend in it.”

So you agree that CET doesn’t show this mythical warming trend since 1695. And even suggest what warming trend it does show is caused by humans. Maybe you should explain this to Milo.

“UK with more sunshine… .oh the inhumanity… WE MUST STOP THIS !!!”

So you admit the climate is changing. Good to know. And the three exclamation marks makes your argument particularly convincing.

Writing things in all caps and bold, doesn’t help your argument. Nor does being constantly apoplectic. If you just calmed down, stopped hurling childish insults, and actually thought about what you were trying to say, we might get somewhere.

It’s an interesting question as to how much the warming in the UK has been caused by increased sunshine. Also to what extent increased sunshine might have been caused by warmer whether. I tried to look into it a few years ago, when another person of similar temperament to you kept insisting all the warming was caused by it being sunnier. I didn’t come to any firm conclusions.

There certainly is a correlation between the two, but it gets more complicated when you look at the details. However, it doesn’t seem to me that the increase in sunshine can explain all, or most, or the recent warming. And the question still remains, why did it start to get sunnier in the UK at just the time that global warm really took of? A significant change in cloud cover is climate change, whatever it’s cause.

However, looking at the best fit between the two, it does seem there is more warming in the 21st century than can be explained just by sunshine.

But even if there was a correlation, try to remember that correlation does not imply causation. I don;t agree with much bnice2000 says, but it is at least reasonable to assume that increased sunshine will cause increased temperatures. Not so much tax rates.

If you could just read the threads you wouldn’t keep making such a fool of yourself.

I said twice that correlation does not imply causation. The only person suggesting that was bnice2000. He’s the one who posted the graph showing the correlation between Sunshine and Temperatures, and implied that was proof of a cause. I merely agreed there was a correlation.

You still are suggesting you can get as good a correlation between taxation and temperature as you can between sunshine or CO2, but as always you refuse to provide any evidence, and ignore the graph I gave you showing that this was unlikely. And of course, you ignore the fact that whilst correlation does not prove causation, there are better reasons to believe the both sunshine and CO2 will cause warming, than taxation.

“Add up all the taxes paid by the typical citizen; federal income Tax, regional income tax, property tax, state sales tax, county sales tax, city sales tax, school district tax, and anything else you can think of.”

If I ever need help with my taxes, I’m not coming to you for advice. None of those are taxes in England.

“You will find a steady rise in the amount of taxes paid per year”

And your evidence for that is…?

I assume you are ignoring inflation in that, in which case you are just saying you want to believe there is a correlation between rising prices or GDP rather than taxation – but as always you base this on guesswork rather than checking the figures.

As I said, in the UK taxation rose immensely after WW2 – it hasn’t changed that much since, as a percentage of GDP. It was highest in the 70s, and then dropped a little, but has increased over the last few years.

None of this resembles the changes in temperature over that period.

“You keep posting CO2 vs temperature as if the relationship *MEANS* something. It doesn’t.”

Of course it means something. I can’t help it if you can’t figure out what that meaning is.

“Evidence?”

Your evidence is two anecdotal data points, from a single tax, in a single country that isn’t even the right one. And you ignore inflation.

And all this to prove a point that no one disputes. You can always find spurious correlations, and correlation does not imply causation.

You still haven’t figured out that the graph you were complaining about is not about CO2, but the correlation between hours of sunshine and temperature.

“but continue to use the correlation as proof of CO2 causing temperature increase.”

I do not. That’s just your own imaginary straw men. I’ve always stressed that the correlation between CO2 and temperatures does not “prove” it’s the cause. That’s not how science or statistics work. You never prove a hypothesis. All I’ve ever said is it proves that people here insisting there is no correlation, are wrong.

What the correlation is is evidence. Evidence of a long proposed hypothesis that increasing CO2 will rise temperatures. There is no similar hypothesis that rising taxes, postage, storks, or any other nonsense you propose will increase temperature.

“I’m not claiming there has been continuous warming since the 17th century”

No. That was Milo

The secular trend began in AD 1695, during the depths of the Maunder Minimum. Hence CO2 increase is a consequence of warming seas, not a cause. It might however be a slightly poisitive feedback effect thereof.

You just butted into the discussion with your own pet peeves.

“If you don’t like Tmax charts then here are about 600 Tavg charts from all over the world that also show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.”

I’ve nothing against looking at maximum temperatures, or minimum temperatures. But if you are making a claim about global average temperatures, as in the UAH data, it’s a distraction. Just cherry-picking one aspect of the global picture. “Summer day time temperatures haven’t risen much in Norway, so UAH is wrong to show the global average annual temperature rising” seems to be the extent of this logic.

“Are you going to nitpik them, too?”

It’s becoming an irregular verb. “I think the data is flawed” “You nitpick”.

Pointing out flaws in the evidence is part of the scientific process. Dismissing it as “nitpicking” is just a way of ignoring the objections.

But I have no intention of trawling through 600 scientific papers. From past experience these No Tricks Zone Gish Gallops a just them cherry-picking some graph or other with little regard to the actual content. We are supposed to be impressed by the numbers and ignore the actual papers.

“You will say: Oh, that’s not a global average!”

Which is an important point. Hundreds of papers all showing different trends for different time periods do not make a global record. And whenever someone constructs a global record from these different proxies, you’ll just reject it out of hand if it doesn’t give the results you want.

“You believe in bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts and I don’t.”

And there you go proving my point.

If you don’t agree with any of the current global constructions, you need to produce a global construction that does demonstrate no warming, rather than just say you don’t believe it.

Quite a few of the papers are about how much warmer it was during thew last ice age.

Then we get to one about Argentina

These warm and humid conditions were kept during the rest of Late-Holocene III–I (1656±96–160±120 ca BP) with an increase in mean annual temperature between 1.7°C and 4.4°C and annual precipitation 27.5–263.6mm, higher than the current.

So that means the warm and humid conditions lasted to somewhere between 1670 to 1910, (1790 ± 120). So much for the Maunder Minimum.