Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2018 was +0.19 deg. C, down from the July value of +0.32 deg. C:
Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.
Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.34 +0.10 +0.27 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.28 +0.29 +0.26 +0.21 +0.89 +0.23 +0.40
2017 05 +0.45 +0.40 +0.49 +0.41 +0.11 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.28 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.54 +0.49 +0.77
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.34 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.12 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.42 +0.21 +0.29 +0.50 +0.29 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.21 +0.16 +0.12 +0.06 +0.09 +0.25
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through August 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for August, 2018 should be available after Labor Day here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
My guesstimate of +0.17 was very close. In fact I got +0.18 but downgraded it to be conservative.
Whew, I was worried we were going to have to wait until Tuesday. Thanks, Dr. Spencer!
yeah, I know some people like their monthly fix, so I went in to work for a bit this morning.
Dr. Spencer, do you have any thoughts on the impacts of the smoke from the fires in the Western U.S. and Canada on the low temperature for the USA48 in your data? On a larger scale, has the rapid increase in coal burning by China and India added enough tropospheric sulfates to offset a significant fraction of AGW since around 2000?
Cheers Dr Spencer! Enjoy the rest of the long weekend and pack that sweater with USA48 @ +0.06 ! hehe
As Mr Spencer admitted a couple of months ago, the temperature in the troposphere above the USA that his data is measuring has little to do with ground temperatures.
bob…”As Mr Spencer admitted a couple of months ago, the temperature in the troposphere above the USA that his data is measuring has little to do with ground temperatures”.
Neither do the thermometers, especially after the data from them is fudged by NOAA.
So back in April, all the thermometers in the USA got it wrong, and it was in fact a warm month, is that right?
@Bobdesbond,
Good. That +0.06 is then safe from ground pollution and progressives.
I’m sure that comment means something to you, Jamie dearest.
Dr. Spencer, thank you for coming in to work this morning. A lot of us folks are eager to find out if indeed the “earth has a fever!”
Thanks Roy for all your hard work. Look forward to your 39 year average temperature trend. About 0.013 C/year?
Thanks +1.
David…”Thanks Roy for all your hard work. Look forward to your 39 year average temperature trend. About 0.013 C/year?”
That’s actually pretty close to what one would guestimate using the Ideal Gas Law. CO2, at 0.04%, should not contribute more than a few hundredths C.
And I’m one of them.
Thank you.
Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Thanks for your work Roy. I wonder when people will realize that the benefits of carbon outweigh any potential downsides.
Remembering how quickly we are chopping down forests, what do you see as the future benefits to humans of future increases of atmospheric CO2?
Maybe you could give a cite for the claim of reduced forest coverage? The US government shows it as being roughly constant for the past century.
https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf
Typical effing Yank who thinks the USA is the world.
I bet you also think that GLOBAL temperatures were high in the 30s.
Anyway … hope you enjoy your “North America minus Mexico Series” next month.
OK, so your answer is, “No, I don’t have a cite for my claim of quickly reduced forest area.”
Just look at the Amazon, dimwit.
Amazon is not the world. Quite the contrary. The forest cover is, if something, increasing. What happens in Amazonia is that criminals (often poor people who Dims love so much) burn down some forest to get some quick wins, and the government doesn’t do a thing to put an end to this. Not that it were easy, but they don’t really even try.
I bet you think Amazonia is Trump’s fault, or possibly Chevron’s. As if the local criminals were not responsible of the whole mess. It is a white man’s (and not Brazilians’) fault when portuguese-speaking Brazilians cut down their trees and cause bad feelings in Western countries.
Bobdesbond: (I suspect you are a fellow Brit) There’s no need to be abusive just to state your position. Your point about the Amazon needs a little correction:
Brazil has actually slowed its deforestation, but in other countries like Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Paraguay, and Uruguay, deforestation is increasing. You should also be aware that a report in Science last year stated that researchers have found ‘hidden’ forests all over the world which equate to 2/3rds the size of Amazonia. It represents a 9% INCREASE on the world’s trees. So although you are roughly correct on deforestation, all is not doom and gloom. And that’s a running theme through people like yourself – you fail to see any positives, and focus only on doom.
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
Barry Foster
I’ve never been to the whiny isles.
Interesting concept … if you discover forests you never knew existed, then the planet has undergone reforestation, just by virtue of your discovery!!
Who knew science could work this way!!
No, Bobdesbonddesbobbonddesbondbobdesbondesbob, you are not getting it. Please STOP trolling.
wert,
Not sure if your history of Amazonian forests is correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest
The benefits are quite apparent in rate of growth and water use efficiency of plants both increasing. If only we could get Central America, South America, and Indonesia to embrace more fossil fuel use, they could reverse the removal of forest cover like the West has.
It has to come through political pressure – from Trump. However, I believe that deforestation is because of agriculture, not burning for fuel.
Barry – yes, that’s the major cause.
I think that “people” are beginning to realize that the opposite is true. For example, the projected rise in sea-level will render major coastal areas uninhabitable. The people who lost their homes in California this summer have experienced just one of those downsides in their own lives.
People might realize that New Orleans is sinking much faster than sea level is rising:
“New Orleans is sinking, according to a study using NASA airborne radar. The subsidence, or sinking rates, of the city and surrounding areas is caused by naturally occurring geologic and human-caused processes. According to this latest study, subsidence is happening at higher rates than what previous data has shown using different kinds of radar, which before had been lower resolution and not as spatially extensive.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0518/How-fast-is-New-Orleans-sinking-Faster-and-faster-says-new-study
It’s expected that areas where land is subsiding will see the effects of sea level rise first.
But SLR costs are showing up.
In Miami Beach, where only 20% of SLR is land subsistence, they’re spending $400 B to address sea level rise. Some of the money comes from all FLorida taxpayers, and some of it comes from a $7/month increase in monthly stormwater fees for residents. NJ is spending (federal money) $300M for their Blue Acres property acquisition program.
The Louisiana Office of Community Development was awarded $48.3M to move 99 residents off Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana
https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-save-a-town-from-rising-waters/
Chutzpah:
The oil industry is asking for $12 B for for 60 miles of seawalls to protect refineries from climate change effects
https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/news/erry-2018/08/88ce31f2fa4310/oil-industry-wants-government.html
$14 B in home values lost:
“According to a new report by the nonprofit First Street Foundation, housing values in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut dropped $6.7 billion from 2005 to 2017 due to flooding related to sea level rise. Combined with their prior analysis of 5 southeastern coastal states with $7.4 billion in lost home value, the total loss in 8 states since 2005 has been $14.1 billion.”
https://www.axios.com/sea-level-rise-costing-billions-in-home-prices-7920a7a8-8db4-45b1-ad21-357c4d522fcb.html
In Miami Beach, 50% (not 20%) of sea level rise is due to subsidence, based upon InSAR data.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/arctic-florida/pdfs/fiaschi-wdowinski.pdf
And how can you mention SLR without mentioning it’s been rising naturally since at least the 1850s? Even if we accept some acceleration since 1950 based upon the Church & White dataset, and assume all of that acceleration is anthropogenic, it amounts to only 1 inch per 30 years.
So, nature never changes, right David?
Even the people who model SLR can’t explain why sea level was rising so much in the early 20th Century.
Roy W. Spencer,
Even the people who model SLR cant explain why sea level was rising so much in the early 20th Century.
Well, there would be a plausible explanation: https://tinyurl.com/yaoyjf6x
Roy…”In Miami Beach, 50% (not 20%) of sea level rise is due to subsidence, based upon InSAR data”.
Seems to me the same issues were reported in the Huston area following flooding from the hurricane that parked itself over the city. There has been significant subsidence in that area, leading to the unexpected extent of the flooding.
Re the Fiaschi / Wdowinski slide (not peer-reviewed):
…one of the limits of SAR interferometry, is
that it is generally not possible to obtain results in areas covered
by vegetation, because of the loss of coherence in the SAR
images. Despite the overall high reliability of the results
obtainable through InSAR, it is necessary to validate them with
the standard ground-based techniques such as, levelling and
GPS surveys
https://www.int-arch-photogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XLI-B7/23/2016/isprs-archives-XLI-B7-23-2016.pdf
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
I think you have too much faith in the IPCC, long term temperature has been tracking ln(CO2) long before 1950. That’s the bold black line here:
https://tinyurl.com/y8kyzwsk
We have had 3 inches in the 25 years of satellite measurements.
You are assuming 2/3 of that is natural?? Big assumption.
If the 6 inch rise in the 20 th century is mostly natural, it would be unprecedented in the last 2000 y.
Appell suggests that
$7/month is $84/year. If ALL 20 million Floridans pay $84, you’ll collect 1.684 billion / year.
A twenty-million population of Florida is not spending 400 billion dollars. Now, $400B it is only $20,000 per capita, which is about on par with what progressive-minded governments shove out the window on a good day. I should know, since I’m the peasant paying.
I found evidence that Miami Beach is spending hundreds of millions, which is a good money, but still very very little.
There might exist speculations on how much a certain sea level rise could cost; I guess 400 billion is possible number there in some long time estimate. But they ‘are not spending’ now that sum of money. Prove me wrong…
Nate says
You don’t measure the water in the garage from a satellite. Just forget that. You measure the high tides and storm surges with respect to the land you stand on.
Then you try to either build high enough so don’t need to worry, or adapt to what happens. We have wonderful insurance agencies telling us what to not do in order to keep feet dry.
If the water rises into my living room, I’m not exactly worrying that sea level has been satellite-measured on the average to be 3 inches higher somewhere in the middle of the sea. (Out of which 1 or 2 inches is ‘natural’.)
When we talk about adaptation, it is pretty simple thing. When people start buying sea-front properties from Wyoming, that’s adaptation. When people bathing in Miami sea-front money complain their Tesla was wetted in a basement, I’m not so impressed.
The US used to be place where people laid as they made. Now it appears Florida is turning back into a swamp.
Anybody care to point out the effects of CO2 on Central England Temperature Record’s Summer temperatures?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/image2.png
And subsidence isn’t the only issue, cessation of sedimentation is the other 49% of the issue. For the Gulf Coast, it is removal of sediment source from channelling and damming of rivers, on barrier islands like Miami Beach it is the removal of silt and sand after overwash. Besides, every student halfway through their B.Sc. in geology could tell you that barrier islands are rarely preserved in the geologic record and should not be expected to make stable sites for cities.
Roy, 20% of Florida’s SLR is due to land subsidence, according to this site, who cite the IPCC 5AR:
https://sealevelrise.org/florida/causes/
The site has a lot of experts behind them:
https://sealevelrise.org/about-us/
===============
Sea level rise has been *accelerating* during last century.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//haysl13.jpg
and its accelerating has even been detected in the satellite era, to be be 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2.
R.S. Nerem et al, “Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era,” PNAS, February 12, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717312115
Adam Gallon says:
Anybody care to point out the effects of CO2 on Central England Temperature Records Summer temperatures?
Rise of 0.4 C.
Wanna talk about the effects during spring, autumn and winter?
wert says:
A twenty-million population of Florida is not spending 400 billion dollars
$400 *million*
David Appell says:
In Miami Beach, where only 20% of SLR is land subsistence, theyre spending $400 B to address sea level rise.
I wrote that wrong — it’s $400 MILLION, not BILLION.
—
Home valuations are being lost, too — $14 billion so far:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/09/sea-level-rise-is-already-starting-to.html
Svante says:
I think you have too much faith in the IPCC, long term temperature has been tracking ln(CO2) long before 1950. Thats the bold black line here:
No at all.
Your chart clearly shows a faster-than-linear temperature increase.
Yes, Dr Spencer seems to assume:
“The period of substantial human-caused warming is generally agreed to be only since 1950 (U.N. IPCC AR5).”
The chart shows it’s more like 1750.
We were in a long term decline so, in Richard Alley’s words, the human part of the warming is little more than all of it.
“You don’t measure the water in the garage from a satellite. Just forget that.”
I know, satellites are for nerds. What good are they for seeing disasters coming ahead of time?
https://www.space.com/37943-hurricane-harvey-satellite-video.html
Why is local land subsidence some kind of argument against problems with sea level rise? Obviously local land subsidence would exacerbate the effects of rising sea level. I’d want my garage on rising land, thanks.
It’s like the “mostly natural” temperature argument.
If you have a problem, why make it worse?
If you suffer from a natural disaster you should work against it.
Bodesbond disappears and David Appell apears. Is that a coincidence?
swannie…”For example, the projected rise in sea-level will render major coastal areas uninhabitable”.
That propaganda has been with us since 1988 when Hansen lied on national TV about the effects of CO2. That was 30 years ago and sea levels have not risen noticeably.
There is no proof that CO2 has anything to do with wild fires. California has them every year and they are related to weather.
Gordo, There have already been reports of the unusual warmth and dryness this past summer in California. Such conditions are highly correlated with forest fires. Whether those conditions are related to AGW is a matter for careful data analysis, not propaganda, such as you typically produce.
Sea-level rise is an obvious consequence of a warmer world as the oceans’ waters expand because of the warming. The rate of rise could be much greater as the result of melting glaciers over land. There’s still quite a bit of uncertainty regarding how fast the glaciers will melt, but there’s already considerable evidence that such melting is underway, such as the loss of high altitude glaciers in the tropics.
Nate said 3 inches, out of which some is unnatural. I’m afraid, since at this speed I’m gonna die before I see the sea.
I’m afraid CO2 is partly behind the California fires. As bush grows faster due to CO2 fertilization, the burnable load is higher and as somebody tosses a cigarette or drives a train, finally everything goes up in flames faster than before. It is unprecedented. At least if you let the loads grow enough.
Gordon Robertson says:
“That was 30 years ago and sea levels have not risen noticeably.”
Wrong. According to AVISO sea level data, global average sea level has risen 8.5 cm since 1993.
Its acceleration in the last 25 years is 0.084 +/- 0.025 mm/y2 according to
R.S. Nerem et al, Climate-changedriven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era, PNAS, February 12, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717312115
That acceleration adds about 25 cm to SLR in 2100, compared to the linear projection.
In Florida, “Flooding Has Increased By 300% since 20003; sea level has risen by 8 inches since 1950, nearly half of it (3 inches) has occurred since 2000.”
https://sealevelrise.org/florida/
David if sea level rise is such a concern why can I not find one mention of concern by any sea mariners.ie merchant seamen,fishermen,coastguards or any denisons of the high seas.as one person I know put it.if no one told you about the rise in sea levels you would live your whole life and die and never know ,I fish the North Sea and no one has brought the subject up. .either we are unique or it is a none problem.
Why would someone who floats on the ocean be concerned about the rise of it?
Ask Miami Beach about SLR. Norfolk, VA. Tangier’s Island, MD. Olympia, WA.
Why are oil refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast asking for $12 B to be protected from the impacts of SLR?
It’s been quite obvious, and discussed here and elsewhere for several years, that Miami has a critical flooding/slr problem which will cost probably $Billions to manage. Continuing to do the climate wars dance on this subject is most tedious. Miami, and a good portion of Florida, was built virtually at sea level. Developement occurred without any thought that the slow march of slr would eventually take its toll.
“Climate Change” has little, if anything to do with it, except in the writings of propagandists who have demagogued the subject mercilessly.
Two and half years after the end of the 15/16 El Nino and still no apparent trend in the anomaly that would indicate that a step change in anomaly will occur. A clearer picture would be expected to develop over the next twelve months. This is where it starts to get interesting.
Yes, there are no step changes, just short term fluctuations on top of a long term rise:
https://tinyurl.com/y7t5os8z
Hehe, no it isn’t. That’s just a common talking point used by CO2 warmists who haven’t actually bothered to look into these matters themselves, and who don’t want others to do it either:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/noise-trend/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-ii-step-1/
Wiggle matching without significance testing doesn’t even rise to the low level of mathturbation.
As usual the cry of “look at the data!”. With your eyes. The snake-oil patter.
Except what we are looking at is graphs, not data. Looking at the actual data, and rigorously testing it, would be something.
There are statistical tests for step-changes. And you “look at the data,” for that. You don’t just eyeball graphs.
There are statistical tests (e.g.) to tell you which data model fits best (which only makes it the most likely), whether linear trend, step-jump, sine wave or order of polynomial.
And then there are statistical tests to check if the results from those tests might be fooling you.
But as soon as someone tells you your eyes are enough – and the same person scorns the rigours of testing the data – then you know you are being sold a line.
Skeptics complain of data being adjusted as if it is some sort of ad hoc process to get a better ‘fit to AGW’. In the article linked above, the data is adjusted in ad hoc ways to get a better fit for the argument.
Data adjustments done by professionals are not ad hoc but to remove false artefacts. They are quantified, tested multiple ways to prevent bias, and explained in methods papers. That’s nothing like what we see in the article above.
b,
The problem is that your data is meaningless. Totally.
You cannot describe the mythical GHE, you cannot propose a testable hypothesis for something that does not exist, and you haven’t got a theory about anything really, have you?
Data is a collection of numbers – nothing more, nothing less.
If you are actually being so stupid and ignorant as to claim that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, bully for you! Be prepared for laughter!
Thermometers are designed to measure temperature, which is a measure of heat.
CO2 cannot create heat. It can prevent heat from reaching a thermometer – lowering the observed temperature, all else remains equal. Maybe you are merely deluded, like Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and the rest of the climatological pseudoscientific loonies.
Try praying harder – it will help to block out the laughter.
Cheers.
Yes, Mike, putting more CO2 into the air between the sun and a thermometer sitting in air at ground level will cause the thermometer reading to increase by a small amount. Easily calculable with some basic engineering emissivity calculations….pardon me for laughing at your stupid and ignorant pot-kettle-black comment.
DMacKenzie, how about sharing those “easily calculable basic engineering emissivity calculations” with us?
Or, are those calculations as imaginary as your laughter?
barry…”Data adjustments done by professionals are not ad hoc but to remove false artefacts”.
No scientist of repute would go back to old data, apply a statistical algorithm to it, and claim the data was wrong.
Only idiots like those at NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut would participate in such pseudo-scientific chicanery.
When the Great Climate Shift appeared in 1977, several scientists were advocating the step change be eradicated since there was no apparent reason for it. Then the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was discovered, explaining it fully.
It should be noted that the 0.2C attributed to the step change should come off the claims of anthropogenic warming, as well as the cooling attributed to the Little Ice Age.
Roy Spencer continually updates his data set with new algorithms. What do you think happened between versions 5.6 and 6.0? The nonsense you spout gets more specious by the week.
Somehow you think a ‘step-change’ in the data disproves AGW. That would be based on the farcical presumption that AGW relies on a monotic, year on year warming. Only idiotic skeptics try to pretend that anyone believes such nonsense or makes such a claim (apart from other idiotic skeptics).
When the Great Climate Shift appeared in 1977, several scientists were advocating the step change be eradicated since there was no apparent reason for it.
Hah! Good luck trying to demonstrate that “some scientists were advocating for the step change to be eradicated.” What, did they apply to their local government, stand in the park with megaphones, or send out petitions? What form did this “advocacy” take, I wonder?
b,
Where’s your “sharp and consistent definition” of AGW? Mislaid along with Trenberth’s missing heat, and Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize, do you think?
You cannot even define AGW!
Maybe you could explain the principle behind AGW, including how and where it may be reproducibly observed and measured. If you can’t, you are just spouting climatological pseudoscientific nonsense, hoping you won’t be challenged.
Off you go, now, and dream up some more strident assertions. Maybe throw in an irrelevant and pointless analogy or two for good measure. If that fails, deny, divert, and confuse has worked in the past – maybe you can get away with the same tactics of demonstrating stupidity and ignorance, disguised with sciency verbiage.
You’re welcome – no need to thank me.
Cheers.
barry @ September 1, 2018 at 9:52 PM
“That would be based on the farcical presumption that AGW relies on a monotic, year on year warming.”
Either rising CO2 must produce warming, or it does not have to. If it does not have to over a finite interval of time, then it does not have to at all.
There is no empirical evidence which unambiguously establishes that we are experiencing AGW. If there is further no requirement that rising CO2 must result in rising temperatures, then there is nothing at all upon which to base this fear campaign. It is simply another end-of-the-world neurosis such as has afflicted humankind since the beginning of history.
Gordon Robertson says:
“No scientist of repute would go back to old data, apply a statistical algorithm to it, and claim the data was wrong.”
They certainly do when the measurement methods have changed over time.
How would you account for such changes, Gordon?
I know you won’t read anything that challenges you, but others here might:
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
“Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data,” BEST
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
“Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
“Either rising CO2 must produce warming, or it does not have to. If it does not have to over a finite interval of time, then it does not have to at all.”
When convenient, applied math guy Bart seems to forget about confounding variables.
Ah. Bart.
You said:
“Either rising CO2 must produce warming, or it does not have to”
In reply to me saying:
“That would be based on the farcical presumption that AGW relies on a monotic, year on year warming.”
Your comment doesn’t respond to mine. I’ve bolded the bits you seem to have missed.
If it is farcical to presume that AGW does not produce relentless warming, it is no less farcical to presume that it is inevitable. If the evidence is ambiguous, then the evidence is ambiguous.
You want to counter what I said without actually dealing with what I said.
“Relentless”, huh? I said “monotonic, year on year warming.” And if you think anyone ever said or argued CO2 warming should be monotonic, or if you yourself actually believe than internal variability should cease under CO2 warming, then you’re no better than the twits who post here more regularly.
Contrariness makes you stupid.
Monotonicity is pretty relentless.
It is argued that CO2 is a dominant factor. If it is dominant, then its influence should be clearly observable above others. If it is not, then you have no empirical basis upon which to attribute warming to CO2. Natural variability powerful enough to cause the pause is powerful enough to cause everything you see.
It’s not that you can’t rule it out, it’s that you can’t rule it in. And, given the complexity of the aggregate response, you cannot claim you’re sure of it anyway. There is currently no basis whatsoever to establish that AGW is occurring.
“It is argued that CO2 is a dominant factor. If it is dominant, then its influence should be clearly observable above others. If it is not, then you have no empirical basis upon which to attribute warming to CO2.”
The idea when looking at data and fitting to theory is not to ignore be ignorant of all confounding variables. That makes little sense.
CO2 can be the dominant factor controlling the long term trends in temperature, while natural variation, such as ENSO, volcanoes, PDO, can be important on shorter time scales.
All forcings, natural and anthro, should be considered.
I just don’t see why you have a problem with that.
“CO2 can be the dominant factor controlling the long term trends in temperature, while natural variation, such as ENSO, volcanoes, PDO, can be important on shorter time scales.”
And, it could be the dominant long term factor in early onset Alzheimer’s, the heartbreak of psoriasis, and the prevalence of hangnails among fisher crews along the Dalmatian Coast.
We could speculate all day what it could cause, but without data, we have no basis to confirm it.
“And, it could be the dominant long term factor in early onset Alzheimers, the heartbreak of psoriasis, and the prevalence of hangnails among fisher crews along the Dalmatian Coast.”
The difference is there is no prior hypothesis or proposed mechanism to connect these things to CO2.
Besides, what we were discussing was whether or not AGW must account for all variation.
It need not.
“The difference is there is no prior hypothesis or proposed mechanism to connect these things to CO2.”
It does not matter. There is no unambiguous empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis. Until you have that, you cannot just assume it is correct.
“It need not.”
Again, whether it does or does not, there is no confirming evidence. The hypothesis is, at best, in limbo.
Bart says, September 6, 2018 at 7:00 PM:
This simple scientific principle, this basic fact of life, is something that these people will NEVER (!!) grasp. They will just keep on assuming it is correct. Simply because the hypothesis itself says so. Circular? Noooo …
“Thus there is an underlying physics based mechanism for a linear trend.”
So what? That means precisely jack squat without verification.
“And its possible to predict magnitudes.”
Of course it is. That’s trivial. Any model can predict magnitudes. The question is whether they are skillful. Climate models have not proven to be, so far.
“The alternatives you propose have no such well-developed theory with an ability to predict the magnitude of the forcing (for periodic part) and no theory whatsoever to account for a linear forcing.”
So what? Do I need a theory of aerodynamic lift to observe an airplane flying?
“I see no reason to arbitrarily cutoff data at 1900. Just take into account increasing error going further back in time.”
We cannot quantify the error going back. We can only guess, and the guesses cannot be validated.
Bart,
I just don’t see how your method could match the skill of Hansens’s AGW model in 1980, predicting the decadal trends of the next 40 y, looking at the record to that point:
https://tinyurl.com/y8hl7mvy
Yes, that’s lame. I guess it is to prove the warming goes in steps and since CO2 doesn’t then CO2 is not related. This is non sequitur at best.
“There are statistical tests for step-changes. And you look at the data, for that. You dont just eyeball graphs.”
Wrong. Your eyes are more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models. The degree to which a model “fits” is not a reliable metric for determining how predictive it is.
Any dense basis can be used to model any process over a finite interval of time to arbitrary precision. This is an excellent way to fool yourself.
No one’s using fits for predictive purposes.
Bart says:
Your eyes are more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models.
Confirmation bias writ large!
I trust my eyeballs, but I don’t trust Bart’s.
Therefore its better to measure things with reliable tools and knowable error bars.
Headline: SCIENTISTS ANNOUNCE DISCOVERY OF THE HIGGS BOSON!
lead paragraph:
Geneva, Switzerland
In Switzerland today at the CERN high energy particle laboratory, scientists announced they have detected a new particle based on eyeballing their data.
“We just looked at it,” said Luigi Sipriano of his group’s data, “and the Higgs was clearly there. At least it was to me.”
Some of his teammates, working now for up to ten years on this project, insisted on analyzing the data with mathematical techniques, but Sipriano called them off, saying it was clear to him that eyeballing the data was good enough.
Anyone who disagreed, he said, “clearly wasn’t seeing straight.”
David, please stop trolling.
Ha!
Well put, David.
When one argument-loser compliments another, you know its Vomit Town.
The characteristic pattern of the Higgs was seen. They wouldn’t have considered it valid were it not readily observable.
https://home.cern/sites/home.web.cern.ch/files/image/inline-images/abelchio/zeeevent_aug21_v5.png
“Higgs was seen”
“readily observable”
Hardly
“Spotting this common Higgs-boson decay channel is anything but easy, as the six-year period since the discovery of the boson has shown. The reason for the difficulty is that there are many other ways of producing bottom quarks in protonproton collisions. This makes it hard to isolate the Higgs-boson decay signal from the background noise associated with such processes.”
“To extract the signal, the ATLAS and CMS collaborations each combined data from the first and second runs of the LHC, which involved collisions at energies of 7, 8 and 13 TeV. They then applied complex analysis methods to the data.”
DREMT
“When one argument-loser compliments another, you know its Vomit Town.”
Sounds a lot like trolling, DREMT. That would be a No-No.
Which argument have I lost, DREMT?
I have yet to see you win an argument.
How about ‘The moon doesn’t rotate’?
If you win an argument, I will be the first to congratulate you.
FYI Nate: when I don’t bother responding, it is because you haven’t made a point worth responding to.
Bart says:
The characteristic pattern of the Higgs was seen. They wouldnt have considered it valid were it not readily observable.
What Nate wrote.
(And my comment wasn’t meant to be taken literally.)
Nobody did, David, we just took it to be trolling.
You don’t need to respond to facts, such as “They then applied complex analysis methods to the data” to find the Higgs.
Up to you.
But this fact still refutes your ridiculous assertions that eyeballs are “more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models”.
“If you win an argument, I will be the first to congratulate you.”
DREMT/Halp takes on a new job as ‘neutral’ judge and jury.
I see your unhealthy obsessions are still very much rampant. All I ask is that you try to stop trolling.
“Obsession” I believe you trolled me first in this thread, DREMT/Halp/Tesla.
More nonsense from an obsessive troll.
David – ditto. I gave you the diagram.
Wrong. Your eyes are more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models.
My point was not about arbitrary models. Straw man.
Your eyes are the tools for a first pass. Then you test to see if the data are doing what you think they are doing.
That’s stats 101, under the heading, “How to not fool yourself.”
The degree to which a model “fits” is not a reliable metric for determining how predictive it is.
Why are you talking about predictiveness? That’s nothing to do with what I was saying.
FTR, I don’t think that a linear regression of the last 40 years, or a 3rd or 4th order polynomial or whatever, tells us where temps will be after another 40 years.
“My point was not about arbitrary models.”
All of your “statistical tests” are based on models that are unvalidated and disconnected from actual physics. A model of a linear trend with measurements colored by iid noise is arbitrary. A model of step changes with measurements colored by iid noise is arbitrary.
Such elementary models are just shots in the dark. I regularly have to code massive filters that are based on actual validated physical models with measurements that have their own characteristic dynamics. By way of comparison, I am in the major leagues, and you are playing with marbles. You can bamboozle neophytes with your faux sophistication. I’m having none of it.
“Why are you talking about predictiveness?”
Because that is the entire purpose of having a model. You don’t need a model to tell you what has already happened. You already know it has happened. You need a model to tell you what will happen in the future. Even when you use a model to illuminate what has happened in the past, it is so you can project what will happen in the future.
E.g., the model for the Higgs boson is not needed to confirm it exists because we don’t care if it exists unless it can do something for us. To make it do something for us, we need to be able to use it to predict particle interactions and the evolution of systems of particles.
“By way of comparison, I am in the major leagues, and you are playing with marbles.”
I don’t think you are aware of what leagues commenters are playing in.
We know you’re smart, Bart.
But then its hard to understand why you say such ridiculous things, regarding measurement, statistics, data analysis, and data that disagrees with you must be unreliable, etc, etc
More of it:
“the model for the Higgs boson is not needed to confirm it exists because we don’t care if it exists unless it can do something for us”
Complete failure to understand science.
“elementary models are just shots in the dark. I regularly have to code massive filters that are based on actual validated physical models with measurements that have their own characteristic dynamics.”
When doing science, and you’ve collected data that needs to be compared to various candidate theories, you should not assume the data has a certain functional form that matches one of the candidate theories.
You CAN try out various statistical models to fit the data and try to determine which model best fits the data, linear, polynomial, exponential etc.
Once that is done, you can compare the statistical model, that best describes the data, to theory.
“You CAN try out various statistical models to fit the data and try to determine which model best fits the data, linear, polynomial, exponential etc.”
To what purpose? To create swirly patterns that dazzle the eye?
No, the purpose is to use past data to project future events, so that we may derive the benefit of foreknowledge.
“Once that is done, you can compare the statistical model, that best describes the data, to theory.”
That is a valid method of teasing out a relationship. But, until an unequivocal match with theory is found, it is just an exercise. It establishes nothing.
“But then its hard to understand why you say such ridiculous things, regarding measurement, statistics, data analysis, and data that disagrees with you must be unreliable, etc, etc”
Statistics are means of data compression, and a statistical model that does not apply to the data can be worse than useless. Canned mathematical routines based upon specific assumptions can never replace the function of a conscious mind in analyzing data with unknown properties.
Data that disagree with me are not necessarily unreliable. But, data that cannot be validated or consistently corroborated cannot be considered reliable.
Bart,
A model of step changes with measurements colored by iid noise is arbitrary.
That’s pretty much where I started when I entered this conversation.
I don’t know what straw man you have in mind, but my point was that statistical analysis is a check on assumptions. ‘Step-jumps’ were an assumption I challenged.
That was it. You’ve brought a whole bunch of not-what-I-said to the party.
You use your eyes for a first pass. If you’re telling me that you do an eyeball check and hand in your conclusions to your superiors without any further analysis, then I’m gonna call you out for a liar.
“Step-jumps were an assumption I challenged.”
But, without a valid statistical model to check the assumption, you have no legitimate way to check it.
“If youre telling me that you do an eyeball check and hand in your conclusions to your superiors without any further analysis, then Im gonna call you out for a liar.”
I do if they don’t pass the check. And, I start there before selecting a model, which must not only be consistent with the data, but consistent with the physical processes involved. Randomly throwing darts at a board is no way to analyze data.
“And, I start there before selecting a model, which must not only be consistent with the data, but consistent with the physical processes involved. ”
I don’t follow. You already agreed with me that
“You CAN try out various statistical models to fit the data and try to determine which model best fits the data, linear, polynomial, exponential etc.
Once that is done, you can compare the statistical model, that best describes the data, to theory.”
is a valid approach.
Second, in choosing, as you do, to fit climate data to linear trend plus 60 y oscillation, what physical process is this consistent with? It seems arbitrary.
“Once that is done, you can compare the statistical model, that best describes the data, to theory.”
You can do anything you please. The question is whether it is productive. Fitting an arbitrary model to data is unlikely to provide insight into the process, or predictive skill.
“Second, in choosing, as you do, to fit climate data to linear trend plus 60 y oscillation, what physical process is this consistent with?”
Cyclical forcing with long characteristic time constants and/or solution of the governing partial differential equations via modal expansion.
Personally, I believe the ~60 year cycle is probably a beat frequency between the solar cycle and tidally induced precession of the Earth’s axis of rotation. These are at ~11 years and 9.3 years, respectively, producing a beat at 11*9.3/(11-9.3) = 60 years.
“Personally, I believe the ~60 year cycle is probably a beat frequency between the solar cycle and tidally induced precession of the Earth’s axis of rotation. These are at ~11 years and 9.3 years, respectively, producing a beat at 11*9.3/(11-9.3) = 60 years.”
Speculative at best. No way to predict a magnitude of this effect, unlike AGW.
And the 150 y linear rise in temp? What underlying physical mechanism produces ongoing linear rise? When does it stop and why?
“No way to predict a magnitude of this effect, unlike AGW.”
Sure there is. Get the angle between the polar axis and the Sun, use it in an appropriately phased sinusoid, and fit the amplitude to the observations.
You can argue that is not a validated model, but AGW is not a validated model, either. You can argue it requires empirical data to produce a fit, but AGW relies on empirical data as well.
“What underlying physical mechanism produces ongoing linear rise? When does it stop and why?”
I don’t know, but I know its onset preceded significant rise in CO2.
The climate has always varied due to a complex web of interlinking drivers and responses that we do not fully understand. Having a putative explanation for the variations does not elevate that explanation to fact.
barry says, September 6, 2018 at 9:01 AM:
It is not an assumption. It is an observation. The steps are there. In the global temps relative to scaled NINO3.4 SSTa:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/total.png
(Red curve: NINO3.4 SSTa, scaled x0.146; blue curve: Had-CRUt3gl, adjusted down 0.064K from Jan’98.)
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-11.png
(First (East Pacific) step, 1979.)
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-21.png
(Second (West Pacific+North Atlantic) step, 1988. Note: red NINO curve lifted to align it with the blue Had-CRUt curve from 1979 onwards.)
continued …
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/step-31.png
(Third (West Pacific+North Atlantic) step, 1998. Red curve once again shifted up to match the level of the blue curve, now from 1988 onwards.)
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/post-step-32.png
(Post Step 3. Red curve brought up to the level of the blue one, from 1998 onwards.)
“and fit the amplitude to the observations.”
No, that is not a PREDICTED magnitude. It can’t be predicted can it? Then it is not a real theory. It is just numerology.
What underlying physical mechanism produces ongoing linear rise? When does it stop and why?
I dont know, but I know its onset preceded significant rise in CO2.”
OK there is no known underlying physical mechanism. Your model is linear but it could be something else.
In other words completely arbitrary. Exactly what you accuse us of doing.
“In other words completely arbitrary. Exactly what you accuse us of doing.”
But, much longer term. When you draw lines from any time after 1970, you are picking up additional warming from cyclical variation that is readily apparent, and is unlikely to be sustained. The longer term underlying trend stretches back to at least the early 1900’s (global average temperature data before that are highly speculative).
In this universe, cause must precede effect. The long term trend was in evidence long before CO2 started rising significantly.
With AGW, there is a well developed theory, and a forcing that can be quantified. The GHG forcing has been ~ linear since the 70s.
Thus there is an underlying physics based mechanism for a linear trend. And its possible to predict magnitudes. Some uncertainty remains on feedbacks.
This hypothesis, magnitude, and form of T rise are testable.
The alternatives you propose have no such well-developed theory with an ability to predict the magnitude of the forcing (for periodic part) and no theory whatsoever to account for a linear forcing.
On the arbitrariness scale, AGW, is near 0, and your alternative theories are quite the opposite, very high.
” The longer term underlying trend stretches back to at least the early 1900s (global average temperature data before that are highly speculative).”
I see no reason to arbitrarily cutoff data at 1900. Just take into account increasing error going further back in time.
If we take the periodic component seriously, and remove it, the remaining trend since 1850 is at least quadratic.
“Thus there is an underlying physics based mechanism for a linear trend.”
So what? That means precisely jack squat without verification.
“And its possible to predict magnitudes.”
Of course it is. That’s trivial. Any model can predict magnitudes. The question is whether they are skillful. Climate models have not proven to be, so far.
“The alternatives you propose have no such well-developed theory with an ability to predict the magnitude of the forcing (for periodic part) and no theory whatsoever to account for a linear forcing.”
So what? Do I need a theory of aerodynamic lift to observe an airplane flying?
“I see no reason to arbitrarily cutoff data at 1900. Just take into account increasing error going further back in time.”
We cannot quantify the error going back. We can only guess, and the guesses cannot be validated.
“If we take the periodic component seriously, and remove it, the remaining trend since 1850 is at least quadratic.”
Not by much, if at all. The residual from periodic + linear is very small:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wasioj.jpg
CO2 emissions did not really take off until mid-century. This rise was established long before that could have been a significant driver.
““If we take the periodic component seriously, and remove it, the remaining trend since 1850 is at least quadratic.”
Not by much, if at all.”
This disagrees. https://tinyurl.com/y7uskazq
Again, no logical reason for choice of year 1900, other than to hide contrary evidence.
Good way to fool yourself.
“Of course it is. Thats trivial. Any model can predict magnitudes.”
Yours doesn’t (what is the predicted magnitude of your linear trend?), so that is an utterly ridiculous assertion.
N:”The alternatives you propose have no such well-developed theory with an ability to predict the magnitude of the forcing (for periodic part) and no theory whatsoever to account for a linear forcing.”
Bart: “So what? Do I need a theory of aerodynamic lift to observe an airplane flying?”
You can’t be the same Bart who said this:
“All of your ‘statistical tests’ are based on models that are unvalidated and disconnected from actual physics.” A model of a linear trend with measurements colored by iid noise is arbitrary.”
and this
“Such elementary models are just shots in the dark.”
“This disagrees.”
Clearly, the stuff before 1900 is not dependent upon CO2.
“Yours doesnt “
Of course it does. Just extrapolate the linear trend + cyclical term forward in time.
It has skill. In the early 2000’s, I predicted a peak in mid-decade based on the cyclical pattern. By 2010, it had become apparent that such a peak had, in fact, occurred.
“You cant be the same Bart who said this:”
I am not doing statistical tests on short term data based upon arbitrary models. I am observing long term patterns.
Bart,
“Clearly, the stuff before 1900 is not dependent upon CO2.”
Yes but you need to see that it flattens out during this period, to compare to the later decades.
“Yours doesnt “
‘Of course it does. Just extrapolate the linear trend + cyclical term forward in time.’
Uh, so your prediction is based on the idea that past performance DOES predict future results?
Hows your stock portfolio doing?
I prefer to make predictions based on the fundamentals, in this case physics, which you have said is important.
Again, absent AGW, there is no fundamental reason to predict a never-ending linear trend.
Your method assumes the linear trend will continue, but does not predict an end, which clearly it must have.
“It has skill. In the early 2000’s, I predicted a peak in mid-decade based on the cyclical pattern. By 2010, it had become apparent that such a peak had, in fact, occurred.”
The peak in mid decade is now surpassed. Your peak is no longer a peak.
D,
Unfortunately, Nature doesn’t seem to believe you or the calculations you cannot show.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. Bad luck for you.
You remain as stupid and ignorant as ever. Maybe you are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that replacing CO2 at 20 C with N2 will cause a fall in temperature?
Dream on.
Cheers.
Barry Says:Skeptics complain of data being adjusted as if it is some sort of ad hoc process to get a better fit to AGW. In the article linked above, the data is adjusted in ad hoc ways to get a better fit for the argument.
Data adjustments done by professionals are not ad hoc but to remove false artefacts. They are quantified, tested multiple ways to prevent bias,
Since the 1st of the year GISSTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
has been adjusted for 110 of the 252 monthly entries from the 19th century. And for all of the 516 monthly entries since January 1880, 516 have been adjusted. And for the 12 monthly entries for 2017 adjustments have been made to JAN, MAY, JUL, OCT, NOV & DEC.
So every month 25-30% of all the LOTI data is modified. I have LOTI files back to 2002 and since then it does add up. Looks like this:
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
And if you analyze what changes were made to what years it looks like this:
https://s6.postimg.cc/x2t8mty0x/GISSTEMP_Changes_2018_05.gif
(The values are in 0.01 degrees Celsius for both charts.)
All of the changes since 1970 add up in the positive column and nearly all of the changes prior to 1970 were negative.
That there is an obvious pattern is matter of fact, why those changes form a pattern is matter of opinion.
My opinion? It looks fishy.
Steve: adjustments (=corrections for biases) *REDUCE* the long-term warming trend.
David Appell says:
September 2, 2018 at 5:42 PM
Steve: adjustments (=corrections for biases) *REDUCE* the long-term warming trend.
Dave, This graphic
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
generated from LOTI as it was in 2002 and as it is today in 2018 shows that the long-term warming trend has *INCREASED*
Steve,
Hi.
So you see changes. the sum of changes produces more warming. If you are curious, you ask why. Then investigate.
Have you done this?
Or, worse, do you not investigate why and instead make assumptions?
David’s right, BTW. The raw data has a higher centennial trend than the adjusted. Mainly from cooling the long-term SST record (by significantly adjusting earlier temps upward).
So if you want raw data instead, get ready to be disappointed.
Meantime, why don’t you read the many methods papers out there and commentary besides and fill in your knowledge gaps? I’ve linked you to this kind of material in the past, but I can’t make you inform yourself. IIRC, you just don’t want to go there.
Barry says @ 7:07: So you see changes.
Yes I do, lots of changes, double digit percentages of changes every month all the way back to 1880.
Barry says: the sum of changes produces more warming.
It would appear so, the trend increased and the changes form a pattern
Barry says: If you are curious, you ask why. Then investigate. Have you done this? Or, worse, do you not investigate why…?
I’ve read about the homogenization techniques, and quality control of station data. I have a reply from Dr. Reto Ruedy at GISSTGEMP. I had asked why 100 year old data is constantly changed.
Barry says: Or, worse, do you … make assumptions?
Pointing out that changes are constantly made and form a pattern isn’t an assumption, it’s a matter of fact.
Barry says: David’s right, BTW. The raw data has a higher centennial trend than the adjusted. Mainly from cooling the long-term SST record (by significantly adjusting earlier temps upward).So if you want raw data instead, get ready to be disappointed.
Put up a link to a graph and a data source.
Barry says: Meantime, why don’t you read the many methods papers out there and commentary besides and fill in your knowledge gaps? I’ve linked you to this kind of material in the past, but I can’t make you inform yourself. IIRC, you just don’t want to go there.
So you want me to read about; Time of day observation, Change in instrumentation, Station moves, Urban Heat effect, Ship engine intakes vs. buckets. That kind of information? Or are you claiming there’s something way different and much much more?
So you’ve read up on the methods paper, and yet you always carry on as if you haven’t.
It’s like you don’t want anyone to know that the data is interrogated for bias. You seem to want to give the impression that all that is behind corrections is a need to create fake warming.
You notice that much of the data changes on a regular basis. I know why and it isn’t the least bit nefarious. Do you know why?
It’s because NOAA puts out monthly updates with the data they have at the time. But they don’t get everything in one big download. Data for previous months and years keeps coming in from around the world, and this gets added to the database. That’s why there are slight changes all the time. This is apart from any changes in data handling, which are less frequent.
Roy Spencer’s UAH data has the same thing happening to it. I have kept copies of the data stretching back a few years, and the older monthly anomalies change, even if there hasn’t been a formally published change in methods.
Here’s a chart of sea surface adjustments, that significantly cool the long-term record (by raising temps in the past).
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_world_rawadj_annual-640×465.png
This is the article the chart comes from. A pretty good overview of why adjustments are necessary, and how the adjustment methods are tested for biases.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
Raw SSTs can be got from here:
http://icoads.noaa.gov/products.html
The chart of raw/adjusted for all global (land and sea) is in this article.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
The thing is, when skeptics actually do the work – create their own global temp records (or US) – using raw data, they come up with very similar products to the institutes.
It’s only those who have not done the work that continue to complain about adjustments. If even skeptics are coming up with similar results, where’s the beef?
Skeptic Phil Condon at the Air Vent:
“There are high trends from GHCN, so high in fact that anyone who questions Phil Climategate Jones temp trends will need to show some evidence. Certainly Phil is an ass, but it no longer seems to me that he has directly exaggerated temp trends one bit.”
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
Anthony Watt’s published paper on US temp record finds bias in min and max across different station classification, but the mean trend from their selection is virtually indistinguishable from NOAA’s average (min/max mean) temperature series for the US.
The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on time‐of‐observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best‐sited stations was less than 0.01C/decade….
Homogeneity adjustments are necessary and tend to reduce the trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends.
http://www.landsurface.org/publications-protected/J108.pdf
And we all know the results from BEST.
Barry says:
September 4, 2018 at 5:42 PM
So youve read up on the methods paper, and yet you always carry on as if you havent.
…
Its because NOAA puts out monthly updates with the data they have at the time. But they dont get everything in one big download. Data for previous months and years keeps coming in.
And the pattern that I point out, I guess you’re saying that’s just the way it shakes out.
You provided a link to this graph
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_world_rawadj_annual-640×465.png
Some questions:
1. When were those changes made?
2. Why do the 2002 LOTI 2018 LOTI data sets
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
disagree with that chart?
I suspect the answer to #1 Explains #2
I look at data, I look at the blogs too, but I don’t quote them usually. Carbon Brief – Clear on Climate is a blog
Here’s the link to the paper on buckets:
CORRECTION OF INSTRUMENTAL BIASES IN
HISTORICAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA
Looks like the 1948 physical tests weren’t actually re-done, but there was excellent agreement between the model and the 1948 Mark II canvas bucket data. The paper dated from 1993. Is that when the changes were made?
You know Barry, Besides this discussion on changing 100 year old GISS temperature data, I look out my window and at the data. And over the decades in my neck of the woods it’s mostly not happening, winters are warmer and summers are cooler. I look at Ryan Maue’s charts that show that hurricanes are about the same. I see charts that show that extreme Tornadoes in the United States have decreased over the years. I look at sea level data from the PSMSL and it looks like it undulates over the decades. Right now it’s up, pretty much like it was in 1950. I see that the Satellite data for sea level from the ’90s was recently changed, resulting in an acceleration curve that didn’t exist before. I do a daily Google search on “sea level” in the news and find ridiculous headlines about this or that community that will be under water and in text they talk about carbon emissions and ignore their local tide gauge. From what I see on the net, I’m fairly sure the polar population is up over the last decade. Well, I could go on.
You provided a link to Ocean Data
http://icoads.noaa.gov/products.html
That link wants me to:
Log in with an ID and password
Download special software.
Meet certain requirements.
Not going to happen.
2. Why do the 2002 LOTI 2018 LOTI data sets
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
disagree with that chart?
The chart I linked shows the difference between raw and adjusted temps. It shows that the raw data has a higher long-term warming trend than the adjusted data.
The chart you are showing shows 2 adjusted data sets, I believe – no raw data. It would take some reading (16 years worth of methods papers) to figure out what the changes are based, on, but one obvious one is that there are many more stations and better coverage in the 2018 version.
The long-term warming is higher in the raw data.
There’s another look here, with reference to both land and SSTs, for which adjustments have the opposite result (SST trend gets cooled, land-only trend gets warmed), but a warmer raw trend for land+ocean.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
So Steve,
I pointed to 3 different skeptic groups that downloaded the raw data (and sourced their own), did the work, and came up with results virtually identical to the institutes: Phil Condon, Anthony Watts and the BEST group.
Nothing to say about that?
Skeptics have been doing the work. Condon got a higher trend than Phil Jones. Watts got the same mean trend as NOAA for the US. BEST got higher global trends than NOAA and GISS.
Are you aware of this work?
Do you think they’re fudging the data?
barry says:
September 5, 2018 at 4:20 AM
2. Why do the 2002 LOTI 2018 LOTI data sets
https://s6.postimg.cc/y233gh4ht/GISS_2018_vs_2002.gif
disagree with that chart?
The chart I linked shows the difference between raw and adjusted temps. It shows that the raw data has a higher long-term warming trend than the adjusted data.
The chart you are showing shows 2 adjusted data sets, I believe – no raw data. It would take some reading (16 years worth of methods papers) to figure out what the changes are based, on, …
Well you have finally addressed my question, and you can’t answer it.
… but one obvious one is that there are many more stations and better coverage in the 2018 version.
So then it must follow (is obvious) that new stations are being found every month with data going back to the 19th century because since 2002 over 7500 of the monthly entries have been changed to the data prior to 1900. And as I point out, over all the years, these changes form a pattern. What’s the expression? Oh yes, “Shit happens” It’s just bad luck that all of these new stations with old data add up to something that looks fishy when actually that’s the way it shakes out.
barry says:
September 5, 2018 at 4:25 AM
So Steve,
I pointed to 3 different skeptic groups that downloaded the raw data (and sourced their own), did the work, and came up with results virtually identical to the institutes: Phil Condon, Anthony Watts and the BEST group.
Nothing to say about that?
Skeptics have been doing the work. Condon got a higher trend than Phil Jones. Watts got the same mean trend as NOAA for the US. BEST got higher global trends than NOAA and GISS.
Are you aware of this work?
Do you think theyre fudging the data?
I’m interested in data that I can actually see for myself. I can’t practically download the raw data that the volunteers wrote down 100 years ago, and I have no way of knowing what adjustments were initially made to those numbers.
How does that go, “There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” Donald Rumsfeld.
I know that early version of GISS had stations mostly from the US and Europe.
With a warm 1930 for both regions.
This made the record cooler than present.
Because when data from elsewhere came in, especially the Southern hemisphere, those regions didn’t have the same uber-warm 1930s.
That made the global record change because it wasn’t all weighted heavily in the US and Europe.
Why it changed from 2002 to 2018, you read up, seeing as you’re interested, and then tell us.
Because until you investigate like skeptics before have done, then “it’s fishy,” sound like an ignoramus trying to sensationalize.
I repeat:
Skeptics got the raw data. They did the work you haven’t done. They verified the official records.
They all started out saying, “This is fishy.”
They changed their minds after doing the hard yards.
So when Steve Johnny-come-lately Case calls “fudge” before doing the work…
Read up the links. These are actual skeptics (Anthony Watts, fer Chrissake) who finally did the hard work.
At the very least it should make you less inclined to call “fudge.”
Unless you like spinning that line in ignorance.
Unless you’re really about the messaging, not about the honest, humble truth-seeking.
Barry says: September 6, 2018 at 9:10 AM
I know that early version of GISS had stations mostly from the US and Europe. With a warm 1930 for both regions. This made the record cooler than present. Because when data from elsewhere came in, especially the Southern hemisphere, those regions didn’t have the same uber-warm 1930s. That made the global record change because it wasnt all weighted heavily in the US and Europe.
Because when data from elsewhere came in,
Is that data still coming in?
Why it changed from 2002 to 2018, you read up, seeing as you’re interested, and then tell us.
I don’t know, and you don’t know and it looks like you don’t care. If you would like acknowledge that those changes form a pattern and that you don’t know or care about that either, then that would be great.
Besides the pattern it’s the number of changes that are being made:
Between July and June of this year, the monthly entries in these two files
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index … 1880-06/2018
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index … 1880-07/2018
were changed as follows:
Chgs…Total..Pct….Time Line
457….1656…28%….1880 to 2018
183…..252…73%….1880 to 1900
..6…….6..100%….Jan to Jun 2018
Yes, 73% of the 19th century data was changed just last month and every month this year so far has been changed.
Because until you investigate like skeptics before have done, then “it’s fishy,” sound like an ignoramus trying to sensationalize. I repeat: Skeptics got the raw data. They did the work you havent done. They verified the official records. They all started out saying, “This is fishy.” They changed their minds after doing the hard yards.
I can’t investigate what was initially done to the raw data, but I can look at what it was in June and what it is in July. I can also compare the well over 100 versions of LOTI that I’ve collected to see that what one would think is established data changes every month.
So when Steve Johnny-come-lately Case calls “fudge” before doing the work Read up the links. These are actual skeptics (Anthony Watts, fer Chrissake) who finally did the hard work. At the very least it should make you less inclined to call fudge. Unless you like spinning that line in ignorance. Unless youre really about the messaging, not about the honest, humble truth-seeking.
One of the reasons I dog this one, is I never see anyone on the blogs I follow bring up the sheer number of changes being made every month. There’s lots of talk about the pattern, “Lower the past and increase the recent” they say, but as you point out they talk about the raw data. But data that you would think would be settled isn’t. They changed every monthly entry January to June of this year when July came out for God’s sake.
Well you’re right I don’t understand why the GISSTEMP LOTI data is changed over and over and over and over again every month and it’s unlikely I’ll find out.
Well youre right I dont understand why the GISSTEMP LOTI data is changed over and over and over and over again every month and its unlikely Ill find out.
I already answered that!
“Its because NOAA puts out monthly updates with the data they have at the time. But they dont get everything in one big download. Data for previous months and years keeps coming in from around the world, and this gets added to the database. Thats why there are slight changes all the time. This is apart from any changes in data handling, which are less frequent.”
Now, for someone who complains that no one ever answers your questions, what steps have you taken to answer them yourself?
I came across this GISTEMP FAQ in 2 minutes of googling.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/
Answering questions like:
“Do the raw data ever change, and why do monthly updates impact earlier global mean data?”
And
“How did the GISS analysis and their sources change over time, and how did this affect the results?”
And
“Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?”
And
“Why are some current station records different from what was shown before 2012?”
There are also the methods papers to read, as well as papers commenting on changes, and blogs doing the same. Sources that give answers instead of posing loaded questions.
Have you not troubled yourself to look this up, or are you hoping someone will do the work for you?
barry says:
September 9, 2018 at 2:08 AM
Well you’re right I don’t understand why the GISSTEMP LOTI data is changed over and over and over and over again every month and its unlikely Ill find out.
I already answered that!
I’ve been through the GISS Frequently Asked Questions page here’s one you highlighted:
Q. Do the raw data ever change, and why do monthly updates impact earlier global mean data?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.
These occasional corrections are one reason why monthly updates not only add e.g. global mean estimates for the new month, but may slightly change estimates for earlier months. Another reason for such changes are late reports for earlier months; finally, as more data become available, they impact the results of NOAA/NCEI’s homogenization scheme and of NASA/GISS’s combination scheme, particularly in the presence of data gaps
My comment is “Occasional Corrections!?” GISS changes perhaps 25% of the monthly entries since 1880 every month. That comes to maybe 80,000 changes made since 2002, the earliest record in the current format I can find. There are earlier reports back to 1997.
I’m not asking you to explain it; I’m just asking you to acknowledge the number of these changes. And that it produces a pattern. I’m asking that people acknowledge that as a matter of fact. “Why such a large number?” And especially, “Why the pattern?” Leads to an unproductive discussion which is what’s been going on here. But a discussion that simply establishes fact, i.e., how many data entries have been made and how many have been changed should be straight forward. Additionally if you graph those changes out, what it looks like should also be reasonably straight forward.
Now if you think that those tens of thousands of changes to the LOTI that I claim have been made is off the mark, then I will be glad to send you the nearly 120 out of a possible 192 monthly editions of the GISS LOTI that I’ve gleaned from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and you can load them up into Excel to count and graph it all out yourself.
I really don’t want to discuss the why.
Kristian,
If you can avoid the knee-jerk sniping at the messenger, this is an excellent post on the pitfalls of what you are doing – and goes into more depth, too.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/steps/
And I’ll quote the most relevant parts.
“Let’s apply the same regime shift detection tool (from Radionov) used by the blog post’s author. It indicates 6 regime shifts over the 100-year period. Each of the regime shifts is strongly statistically significant, theres absolutely no doubt about it….
This illustrates one of the most important lessons in statistics: just because your model is overwhelmingly statistically significant, that doesnt mean your model is correct. It only shows that the null hypothesis is wrong….
The other fact of the matter is that for these data, the trend is perfectly linear. This is artificial data, and thats how I designed it a linear trend plus random noise.”
This is a level above what you’ve done – this actually applies significance testing (and still gets step-changes as statistically significant). But it shows the folly of over-interpreting – whether by eyeballing graphs, or, at a more granular level, from testing the data for the patterns you think are there.
There are a couple of other posts from the same statistician on step-changes
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/step-2/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/
See if you can wrestle with the message here. I know what run-of-the-mill ‘skeptics’ would do.
barry…”If you can avoid the knee-jerk sniping at the messenger, this is an excellent post on the pitfalls of what you are doing and goes into more depth, too”.
Allow me to snipe on Kristian’s behalf. Tamino is an uber-alarmist and a musician by trade. He dabbles in misinterpretations of science that suit his AGW belief system and prided himself at one point on being Hansen’s bulldog.
If the rants of Tamino are all you have for evidence, you have no evidence, as Mike has already implied.
Tamino is David Appell on steroids.
b,
Statistics applied to irrelevant numbers are meaningless. Tamino may wax as lyrical as he likes, and appeal to his own authority as loudly as he likes.
It makes no difference. Statistics are derivations of historical numbers, and do not predict the future at all. Correlations are meaningless, particularly if you cannot even describe why you are correlating one set of numbers with another set of numbers.
Tamino cannot describe the GHE, any more than you can. Just more deny, divert, and confuse, in the usual fruitless climatological pseudoscientific fashion.
Carry on. Maybe you can bend Nature to your will, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
barry…quote from tamino…”Theres a good bit of hand-waving about visual inspection of graphs (which really amounts to it sure looks like a step change), but the essence of the proof comes from modelling the data as two different straight lines, one fit to data before the purported step change, the other fit to data after the purported step change. The stated conclusion is:”
*****
This amounts to a statistician telling an observer that he/she should not trust his/her eyes but instead, believe a modeled version of the data.
That is utter, pseudo-scientific rubbish. If you look at an accurately plotted graph of data, and you see a sudden step change why should you ignore it and accept a smoothed version of the same data in a model?
Modelers are not scientists, they are mathematicians playing with numbers, aka number-crunchers. It’s the height of arrogance for modelers to claim to be bona fide scientists when it’s plain their models do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.
Gordon Robertson says, September 1, 2018 at 6:31 PM:
What Tamino fails to realise (or tries to hush up) is the fact that you never spot a step change in a set of data by just looking at that set of data in isolation. That’s ridiculous. THEN you will fool yourself. No, you discover it only when comparing your dataset to OTHER relevant/related sets of data. Like in this case here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/
What physical process(es) in the last several decades caused a step change?
This amounts to a statistician telling an observer that he/she should not trust his/her eyes but instead, believe a modeled version of the data.
Your opinions blind you. THIS is what Tamino wrote about data models in the first link:
“This illustrates one of the most important lessons in statistics: just because your model is overwhelmingly statistically significant, that doesnt mean your model is correct.”
Exhibiting exactly the sort of knee-jerk messenger shooting I warned of, you missed where your mischaracterization is completely contradicted at the first link.
And do you know what else you got wrong? Tamino is saying that the ‘skeptics’ used modeling as proof of their claims. That bit you quoted is about what they did, not what he did.
And di you get as far as the 3rd lin, because the very first sentence in that post is:
“One of the most important lessons to learn about statistics, and not forget, is that just because your model is statistically significant, that doesnt mean its right. In fact, just about all models are wrong. And some models, even some which strongly pass statistical significance, arent even useful.”
You don’t ever read for comprehension. You read for little bits of text you can rail against. You always miss the point. Your characterization of fault here is what the skeptics Tamino is excoriating did, not Tamino. In fact, he agrees with you. But your knee jerks so much it hits you in the eyes.
We’ll see if Kristian does better.
b,
Tamino can have any delusion he likes
Pseudoscientific climatological types have no testable hypothesis about anything. They can’t even describe the nonsensical supposed “greenhouse effect”.
Climate is the average of weather – that’s all. Of course the climate changes, and nobody except a mentally afflicted person would claim otherwise.
The “skeptics” you refer to merely assert that climatological pseudoscientists cannot even describe what it is they are talking about! CO2 causing heating? You can’t even bring yourself to claim that, because it is ridiculous!
Off you go, now. Have a grizzle about someone laughing at your stupid statistics, models, and all the rest of your pseudoscientific folderol. The laughter you hear might not only be mine.
Cheers.
I’m sorry, barry, but this is not “an excellent post on the pitfalls of what” I’m doing. It is an excellent exposition of how people who are not the least bit interested in the actual physical processes behind the observational data being plotted, only in ways to statistically manipulate and “interpret” them, as if the data had no connection whatsoever to things happening in the physical world, rather just randomly generated inside a mathematical model. Like Tamino. And you, apparently.
Quoting Hare & Mantua (the ‘discoverers’ of the PDO pattern): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222545801_Empirical_Evidence_for_North_Pacific_Regime_Shifts_in_1977_and_1989
(Emphasis added.)
This is just one piece of the puzzle, barry. You should read some papers on this subject. Some are cited in my blog post linked above. It is mighty interesting.
Tamino ASSUMES (without evidence) a background (CO2) trend and interprets all the ups and downs along the graph as just inconsequential noise on that trend, when the data itself tells a very different story. Rooted in NATURE itself. The background trend that he “sees” is nothing more than the statistically generated linear trend line that you draw across the data. And it happens to go up only BECAUSE of those abrupt upward shifts in the data. There is no gradual increase in the data, with noise just randomly distributed. The data increases in a very systematic fashion indeed: decadal no-change (regimes) > intra-annual change (regime shifts) > cycle repeats. You realise this as soon as you actually start making an effort to try and FOLLOW the processes at work within the real Earth system, rather than just sitting in front of your graph trying to figure out ways to make it agree with your preconceived ideas about what SHOULD be going on in the real world … Like Tamino does. And you, apparently.
First, you’ve linked to a paper on climate regime shifts in the North Pacific and Bering seas. There is no connection in this study to, or discussion of, global temperature indices. Nor is there that in Trenberth’s paper that came out around the same time. The PDO is associated with heterogenous cold/warm regions during each phase. Early papers don’t make the global connection. That comes later, with varying results that you see fit to ignore. Are you read up on this topic? If so, you’re not honest about the variety or weight of opinion.
Secondly, you can’t read.
Tamino ASSUMES (without evidence) a background (CO2) trend and interprets all the ups and downs along the graph as just inconsequential noise on that trend… The background trend that he “sees” is nothing more than the statistically generated linear trend line that you draw across the data…
I’ll quote Tamino on your idea of what he “sees.”
The idea is silly. For one thing, greenhouse-gas theory doesnt imply that temperature must follow a linear pattern.
That’s the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the first link.
Skim much? Did you even read his posts before commenting?
He goes on:
…claiming that “Warming during 1960-2010 was clearly a non-linear process” is simply stating the obvious, whether one is talking about “at station level” (as the blog post does), or about global averages, or the output of compute models.
Did you read the link, or are you rebutting from memory?
Tamino’s point is that you should not trust your eyes, you should not even trust models – including linear ones – that give you statistically significant results. You need more rigour.
He has 10 times the rigour (and skill) that you do.
If it wasn’t already obvious from your arsing up of what he is saying in these posts.
The PDO may have some influence on global temperatures. But you haven’t demonstrated it, and you have in no way demonstrated that there are step-jumps with any statistical rigour whatsoever. Eyeballing graphs doesn’t cut it, and applying ad hoc jumps and trends without establishing a quantifiable basis for these choices is simply making the elephant wiggle his trunk.
You commit first order mistakes in handling data. Worse, you don’t do any testing for significance or fit. You trust your eyeballs. It’s the 1st thing you learn NOT to do in stats 101.
Thirdly, you’ve gone from a post about three ENSO-related step-jumps in 1979, 88 and 98. The PDO shift is in 1976/77.
You’ve got step-jumps on the brain, and no physical basis for them. In any similarly variable data set with an underlying continuous signal, you are boundto see step-like jumps if you filter your brain for them. It’s virtually inevitable – even if the data is actually linear.
That’s Tamino’s point. Don’t fool yourself with what you want to see.
The skeptics he takes to task at least attempted some statistical analysis to check their results. You don’t even get that far. You fool yourself wholeheartedly.
Roy has shown that step-jumps don’t reject a continuous underlying trend.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
El Ninos are exactly the kind spike that could create the impression of step-jumps when there is a continuous rising trend. I’d guess that, unless a volcanic eruption accompanies a strongish to very strong el Nino, it will look like a step jump follows more times than it won’t.
Just you watch. 2016 will be the latest in a growing line of ‘step-jump’ start years according to the skeptic milieu who are into step-jumps as the antidote to AGW. And the next strongish el Nino will be the start of the next one, barring volcanic eruption or meteor strike.
Because the warming of the last 100 years is going to continue.
You can bet on it. I’m still willing to. No takers yet.
So what is your best bet about the coming cooling, Kristian? Or do your views have no predictive quality? Can you read the tea leaves for global temps in the PDO/AMO patterns you seem so sure about, or is your whole interest in these things about debunking AGW?
barry says, September 2, 2018 at 5:00 AM:
And by that you have effectively disqualified yourself from any further discussion on this topic. You have shown that you do not understand the physical processes at work. You look at a graph tracing real-world observational data and think it’s all about statistics. That statistics alone will answer your questions. PDO does not in any way have an “influence on global temperatures”, barry. PDO is but a symptom. One particular set of SST patterns (out of several) seen in the North Pacific. It is not itself a cause. It is a signal. One indicator (out of several) of a particular climate state. There are tons of papers out there on these things. Like I said, just one piece of the puzzle. More pieces in the linked blog post. The one you of course can’t be bothered to read. Because you fear you might learn something you don’t really want to learn. Better to stay ignorant and rather listen to Master Tamino.
Well, if you refuse to actually read up on the subjects you’re opining about, as you tend to do, you will never gain any actual understanding, and you will remain a mere mindless barking dog.
Bye for now.
Kristian, it’s pretty well accepted that the PDO has an effect on surface temperatures, and probably (as Trenberth said) gave the impression that over the 1980s and 1990s warming due to CO2 was thought to be too high.
Sorry, Kristian, amping up the arrogance is a poor smokescreen.
I’ve read a ton on the PDO. You can’t even accurately parse a blog post.
You have shown that you do not understand the physical processes at work.
The causes of the PDO are still unknown. The physical processes are varied, and only a handful are well established. Are you pumping up your chest here or did you have a point?
You look at a graph tracing real-world observational data and think it’s all about statistics. That statistics alone will answer your questions.
You’re an idiot.
It’s remarkable that you attribute a view to me that is 180 degrees from what I’ve written. It seems you go completely blind when encountering views that challenge yours. No other way to explain this extraordinary wrong-arsed take on what people are saying, whether Tamino, me or whoever else ruffles your unnuanced convictions.
His message and mine are the same – don’t trust your eyes to tell you the truth, use them for a first-pass approximation. Test your take on data with statistical analysis, and be wary of false positives.
For the rest, your views are incoherent.
You chimed in on a post about global temps and step-jumps. You introduce ENSO and the PDO to that conversation and then say the PDO is unrelated to global temps. You definitely made a positive connection between PDO and global temps in your blog posts.
We’ve already accounted for the 1979 global step (Step 1). It occurred as a direct result of the PDO (PDV) phase shift from a ‘negative’ (cool) to a ‘positive’ (warm) regime in 1976/77
In your reply just above you say;
PDO does not in any way have an “influence on global temperatures”, barry.
This apparent lack of coherence is your doing, not mine. If you’ve walked off with a good bye, that’s probably because you posted before reading and thinking and don’t know how to walk it back. A little less entrancement with your own views may help you comprehend other people’s comments.
The PDO has indeed been tied – and untied – to global surface temps. That’s part of the literature.
But this digression has gone far enough.
Step-jumps inglobal temperatures do not have an explained physical basis. Because data is noisy and there are spikes (such as with el Ninos), the data can appear to be step-jumps when they are by no means necessarily so.
You do no significance testing for your views. you just draw straight lines and presume. this is a first order mistake. It’s basic and it’s foolhardy.
I do not claim AGW forces linear trends, or that these best describe the evolution of global temps for the whole record. But people here announce that the temp data are definitely step-jumps (and say that el Ninos cause them).
Quite the opposite of what you claim, I’m arguing for a more cautious appraisal of temp data.
You and the people you defend are incautious, uncritical, and unskeptical.
Your arrogance is part and parcel of that. Your scorn at any significance testing is as hollow as your agenda is clear.
You could come clean and say you are not familiar with the techniques, and cannot perform them.
You could bullshit about by saying that these methods are not foolproof and are overrated – but it would obviously be BS.
Instead, you’ve avoided the point for a few posts. Because you’d rather appear the expert in your own limited domain than suffer the ignominy of real scrutiny – and especially and more sadly – real self-scrutiny.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry says, September 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM:
Hahaha! Ok.
Bye, barry.
Ha!
Good old Kristian. He can always be counted on to arrogantly lecture people on things (like PDO) that he is thoroughly confused about.
Perhaps he should argue it out with himself first, before deciding other people are misguided.
Bye-bye, Kristian.
Yes, bye-bye Nate and barry. Please stop trolling.
Yes, DREMT.
barry has forever earned himself a new nickname: “‘You’re an idiot’ barry”. When you know you’ve got nothing, just call your opponent an idiot. Really makes you look like a winner …!
The problem, Kristian, is that Barry showed very clearly you contradicting yourself.
Then you call him “disqualified” for taking a position YOU took.
I would also call that idiotic.
Really makes you look like a winner !
Nate says, September 5, 2018 at 7:16 AM:
Um, no, he didn’t. He (and you, apparently) might THINK he did, but, no, he didn’t.
Again, no. He disqualified himself when stating the following:
“The PDO may have some influence on global temperatures.”
This is NOT a position I took, Nate. If that’s your belief, then you can’t read. The PDO is not a physical process that is able to ‘influence’ anything. If you think so, you have some reading to do.
I’m sure you would, Nate.
What Tamino fails to realise (or tries to hush up) is the fact that you never spot a step change in a set of data by just looking at that set of data in isolation. That’s ridiculous. THEN you will fool yourself. No, you discover it only when comparing your dataset to OTHER relevant/related sets of data. Like in this case here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/
So barry sets up a straw man. As if I’d claimed you could just look at a single graph in isolation, without any kind of context, and distinguish actual steps from noise in the data.
Yes, DREMT.
Oh dear.
Chumming up to the resident troll to get another pile of bollocks in after saying good bye.
You got what I said and what Tamino said 180 degrees wrong.
You contradicted yourself.
You avoided – or missed – the point in spectacular fashion.
I hope you’re a shill. That’s the explanation that best excuses such a waste of intelligence, and your ‘appalling reading skills’.
Look forward to you replying to what was said, and not what you wished had been said.
K: “The PDO is not a physical process that is able to ‘influence’ anything. ”
Noting an association, a correlation, between the phase of PDO and global climate is what you have done, what many others in the literature have done…
and now Barry has the audacity to do.
This leads you to, once again, get on your semantic high-horse and lecture people about the horrible errors they are making by talking about things in the wrong way (according to only you).
All very pointless and hypocritical.
So barry sets up a straw man. As if Id claimed you could just look at a single graph in isolation, without any kind of context, and distinguish actual steps from noise in the data.
I’ll just repeat myself here.
“Youve got step-jumps on the brain, and no physical basis for them.”
I presume by “context” you meant “physical processes behind the data.” Was I right?
El Nino events could be step jumps or just spikes. But you have posted neither the stats nor the physics to determine either way, just ad hoc data fudging.
I’ve never said what kind of trend there is. Neither did Tamino. That was all your straw manning. All your off the wall, wasted bluster.
All I did was call out specious certainty. You should loosen your grip on that.
Let’s get Kristian on the record more clearly. The bolding is just as he posted it:
“We’ve already accounted for the 1979 global step (Step 1). It occurred as a direct result of the PDO (PDV) phase shift from a ‘negative’ (cool) to a ‘positive’ (warm) regime in 1976/77, as the East Pacific experienced a significant wholesale surface warming while the West Pacific did not similarly cool to offset that warming”
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/how-the-world-really-warmed-part-iii-steps-2-3/
So Kristian has connected the PDO to global effects as a “direct result”. But when I suggest that the PDO may effect global temps he says:
“by that you have effectively disqualified yourself from any further discussion on this topic…. PDO does not in any way have an “influence on global temperatures…”
barry, YOU are a troll. Please stop.
barry says, September 4, 2018 at 6:48 PM:
barry says, September 6, 2018 at 9:19 AM:
barry says, September 6, 2018 at 9:44 AM:
barry says, September 6, 2018 at 10:17 AM:
‘You’re an Idiot’ barry (or just ‘… Idiot’ barry for short) once again shows what a winner he is.
Well done, Kristian.
Nate says, September 6, 2018 at 9:43 AM:
Two things:
1) The only PDO phase shift I’m discussing is the 1976/77 one, in association with the so-called “Great Pacific Climate Shift”. It is the only one over the course of the last 45-50 years where the PDO index correlates with global temps:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/pdo-1970-2018.png
2) Yes, an association, a correlation between the PDO index and global temps, Nate. That is NOT the same as believing the PDO to be an ocean process of some kind, somehow itself capable of exerting an influence on global temps. The PDO made its jump at the same time as global temps did. That’s the association. That’s the extent of it. No one is claiming the PDO caused the jump in any way. The PDO phase shift was just an expression (one out of several) of the basin-wide “Great Pacific Climate Shift”.
All of this you would’ve known, Nate, if only you’d bothered to READ my blog posts on this subject. But that is of course of no interest to you. You’re not here to read or understand what I actually write, or to look at the actual evidence I present. You’re here to misdirect and misrepresent. Just like barry.
No. barry wrote the following: “The PDO may have some influence on global temperatures.”
Which gives away his fundamental ignorance on this subject. He also hasn’t read my blog posts. Just like you. Yet he pretends he knows everything about my position. He’s not interested in the processes behind the data. Which are readily observable, readily traceable. He just wants to be able to play with the data, as if it were comprised of just randomly generated numbers. Just like Tamino.
K:
“He also hasn’t read my blog posts. Just like you.”
FYI.
Arrogantly bludgeoning people with your opinions disguised as facts does not encourage people to seek out and read your much longer essays, which are very repetitive, very opinionated, chock full of assumptions and inferences that don’t always stand up to scrutiny.
There are plenty of other, better ways of learning about climate science and forming our own opinions.
K:””The PDO made its jump (1977) at the same time as global temps did. Thats the association. Thats the extent of it. ”
Not sure why you neglect the 1920s, 1940s, 2000s correlated jumps.
“No one is claiming the PDO caused the jump in any way. ”
Roy Spencer, for one has suggested the PDO is a cause of much of the 20th century global warming pattern.
See here for an example of a well written essay on the topic.
https://skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-advanced.htm
Nate says, September 8, 2018 at 8:00 AM:
Quite a confession. But thanks. That’s all I needed to know.
You’re all like little children in a sandpit. Don’t like something? Just scream at it until it goes away.
Look,
If you’re going to loudly opine about someone else’s position on a specific topic, you better start by making sure you know and understand what that someone is actually saying first. Otherwise, stay away. If you don’t want to know, just leave it be.
I do get that you people have made a virtue out of ignoring this fundamental rule of mature, productive discourse, and rather prefer setting up straw men and misrepresenting your opponents as a deliberate debate tactic. But this circumstance doesn’t prevent me from continuing to point out the fact that you do. In fact, at this point, that’s all I need to do. It is abundantly clear (and has been for a long time), after all, that even trying to have any sort of objective discussion about anything climate with you people is utterly pointless and a complete waste of time …
Nate says, September 8, 2018 at 9:03 AM:
*Facepalm*
Q.E.D.
The chart of raw/adjusted for all global (land and sea) is in this article.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
The thing is, when skeptics actually do the work – create their own global temp records (or US) – using raw data, they come up with very similar products to the institutes.
It’s only those who have not done the work that continue to complain about adjustments. If even skeptics are coming up with similar results, where’s the beef?
Skeptic Phil Condon at the Air Vent:
“There are high trends from GHCN, so high in fact that anyone who questions Phil Climategate Jones temp trends will need to show some evidence. Certainly Phil is an ass, but it no longer seems to me that he has directly exaggerated temp trends one bit.”
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
Anthony Watt’s published paper on US temp record finds bias in min and max across different station classification, but the mean trend from their selection is virtually indistinguishable from NOAA’s average (min/max mean) temperature series for the US.
The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on time‐of‐observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best‐sited stations was less than 0.01C/decade….
Homogeneity adjustments are necessary and tend to reduce the trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends.
http://www.landsurface.org/publications-protected/J108.pdf
And we all know the results from BEST.
Wrong sub-thread
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says average surface temperatures on Earth rose 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) between 1880 and 2016, and that change is accelerating in recent years. In 2017, 159 nations ratified the Paris Agreement to try to halt the warming at 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C) above Earth’s average temperature before the Industrial Age. Given industry’s and transportation’s reliance on fossil fuels, many studies say that agreement will be difficult to keep to.
For example, a 2017 study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters suggests that Earth’s climate will be 1.5 degrees higher as early as 2026. This would happen if the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) fluctuates back to a warm period, instead of its current cool period. (IPO changes similarly to El Nio and La Nia in the Pacific).”
https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html
In some time after the beginning of 2019, what will NOAA say about global average temperature between 1880 to 2018.
I wonder whether they wait until they give the average of 1880 to 2019- as it then would be a round number of 140 years.
It seems the guys of Geophysical Research Letters can’t figure out
what ocean oscillation is going to do. And tend to think it would be important and I have no particular insight into what they going to do.
The escalator graph:
https://tinyurl.com/ya65jlqc
Yeah, it’s funny. It were funnier though if the data were not reinterpreted in retrospect to fit the linear trend so awesomely well.
I just can not believe my eyes when I see some linear fits; they are too good given the chaotic nature of Nature.
It’s easy to do linear regression — the fit is what it is, with associated uncertainties. It’s not up to you to tell Nature what to do.
Really? How is the bottom quartile of the data looking now vs before the El Nino?
Where’s the equivalent graph for the Anthropocene component?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
Predicted June18-Aug18 average = 0.00 C
Actual June18-Aug2018 average = +0.24 C
You sure showed him, David! I guess to you it seems like your the stronger and that you’re pounding him down where he should be. But to me, it just seems you are the equivalent of a bully. To me, you’re just a mean person. I have no clue why a nice guy like Roy allows you on here.
But now that you’re done with Salvador, show the rest of us the truth. What is your prediction David?
Surely someone that posts on here as much as you post must have an actual opinion. Out of all those models, which one is correct? Take a stand. Show us the correct one. If you don’t have a prediction of your own, be half as brave as Salvador and at least pick one of the many models that the IPCC looks at and tell us which one is correct? Tell us oh perfect one – which model is correct?
Mike…”I guess to you it seems like your the stronger and that youre pounding him down where he should be. But to me, it just seems you are the equivalent of a bully”.
What would you expect from someone who was banned from WUWT for insulting the deceased mother of the host. Anyone with any decency would have apologized but Appell just smirks and justifies his behavior.
That kind of behavior seems prevalent with alarmists.
Salvador doesn’t hurt anyone with his predictions. David is a mean person and I’m really surprised Roy doesn’t ban him.
If Salvator makes these very bold predictions (and keeps changing them when he is wrong) it only makes sense that he is being called out on it.
If you want a prediction from me: The next decade will be warmer on average than the current one.
Salvatore hurts anyone with any realism. He also hurts the cause of scepticism.
wert says:
Salvatore hurts anyone with any realism. He also hurts the cause of scepticism.
Yes, that’s a very good point. Salvatore’s long series of bad predictions stand against anyone who really does want to discuss skepticism about how climate is changing, and why.
As many have said, We need better skeptics.
Gordon Robertson says:
“What would you expect from someone who was banned from WUWT for insulting the deceased mother of the host.”
Gordon lies.
I made a joke about Watts’ denialism — that he denies everything, his denial is so bad he even denies his own mother exists.
Of course, I knew nothing about Watts’ mother. But Watts saw the chance to play the victim and attack me for it, which, being Watts, he did.
Then people like Gordon, who care nothing for honesty, repeat the lie.
David, please stop trolling.
Salvatore only missed by that much!
Yeah and I’d be one of them. Thanks for ‘the fix’ Roy.
Now on to reading the inevitable abrasive comments by the brainwashed few.
The NCEP Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS) preliminary monthly average global mean surface temperature for August 2018 based on daily CDAS averages was 16.367C, which is the lowest August average since August 2013 at 16.266C. The August 2018 global mean surface temperature anomaly referenced to 1981-2010 was 0.147C compared to 0.220C for July 2018 and was the lowest global mean surface temperature anomaly since 0.089C for April 2015.
Lots of graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
Because El Nio will not develop, the surface temperature will not increase.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Sorry. El Nino.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
What’s more, in the winter period, strong stratospheric intrusions in the north threaten.
“Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
And if it does, will you announce that you were wrong, or will you act like you never made the claim?
I hope that you will announce it. I am waiting.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat4_sstanom_1-day.png
What does a map from today have to do with an event that is not supposed to have begun yet?
Look under, Ren.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
Look at the winter in the southern hemisphere.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=samer1×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
La Nina is more likely than El Nino.
El Nino could have developed at the beginning of August, but it did not happen.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
I haven’t seen anyone forecast an El Nino for August. But the IRI-Columbia puts it at a 60% chance by fall and a 70% chance by winter.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
El Nino could have developed at the beginning of August, but it did not happen.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
“La Nina is more likely than El Nino.”
According to no one but you, Ren.
The required westerly wind bursts have already happened.
The subsurface ocean heat content is already enroute to the East-Central Pacific.
There is no choice now about nino 3 and 3.4 warming in the next 2 months.
The only question is how strong and sustained the warming will be.
Do you think that for two winter months in the southern hemisphere, the eastern Pacific will warm up?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png
Ren,
SH is entering Spring. Perfect time for an El Nino. At the moment all signs point to that.
Boom. The AGW hoax is all but debunked.
{rolls eyes}
If only back into your head, never to arise again.
L,
The eye rolling is accompanied by facial contortions, and an excess of drool.
Next comes vigorous flapping of brightly coloured pieces of paper created by the pedestrian mathematician Gavin Schmidt, accompanied by mewling demands to look at his “evidence”.
The evidence is clear. David is unable to distinguish fantasy from fact, and possibly believes that CO2 has magical energy creating properties. He probably even believes that a reduction in the rate of cooling is warming, or heating!
Oh well, it takes all kinds, I suppose.
Cheers.
Lewis, are you wishing me dead?
Classy.
David, please stop trolling.
I can now post the full numbers for a little experiment which limits climate noise. As we can see the full warming is a little less than .3 C.
When combined with the cooling experienced from 1940-1980 we end up with about .25 C of warming for the past 80 years. If that is all we see in the next 80 years I don’t see a problem.
RSS
April-August 1980-81 14.5 C (58.1F) .03C
April-August 1990…..14.6 C (58.1F) .05C
April-August 1995-96..14.6 C (58.2F) .10C
April-August 2001-02..14.8 C (58.6F) .31C
April-August 2007…..14.7 C (58.5F) .24C
April-August 2014…..14.8 C (58.6F) .30C
April-August 2018…..14.8 C (58.6F) .30C*
UAH
April-August 1980-81 14.4 C (58.0F) -.06C
April-August 1990…..14.5 C (58.1F) .02C
April-August 1995-96..14.6 C (58.2F) .09C
April-August 2001-02..14.7 C (58.4F) .19C
April-August 2007…..14.7 C (58.4F) .18C
April-August 2014…..14.7 C (58.4F) .17C
April-August.2018…..14.7 C (58.5F) .22C
Net warming from RSS = .27 C, UAH = .28 C
What is the rationale for such strange selections?
Limiting “climate noise” (you mean weather noise) is done by omitting Sep-Mar data? Que??
Much of the noise in climate comes from ENSO. It is well known that ENSO peaks right around the NH winter solstice. Hence, eliminate the fall/winter months to eliminate much of the ENSO noise. This also tends to reduce AMO noise.
In addition, it helps selecting years without the effects of two major volcanoes (It is not all weather related.) and full year ENSO events.
What’s left is then examined to again eliminate as much of the ENSO noise that is left.
ENSO is in no way symmetrical in the way it falls out over the seasons. Symmetrically excising data from the record creates a false filter.
Here are some indices that show this.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/ensoevents.html
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/mei.data
3 different indices on 3 different ENSO metrics for thoroughness – no cherry-picking of sources here. There are other sources, too, Australian and European.
A simpler way is to use all the data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12/trend/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/trend
Results:
UAH = 0.50
RSS = 0.78
Why do skeptics keep assuming trends in the future (or past) are supposed to be linear?
Why would anyone use all the noisy data?
Have you heard of a least-squares fit?
Because in most cases more information is better, and in this case there is significantly more information than what you selected, for which the rationale is not well-supported (see above).
With this much information and using a linear regression for the overall change, the ENSO fluctuations make very little difference to the outcome, and regardless of whether an ENSO event lies at one end or the other of the time series.
The weight of all those numbers overwhelms the fluctuations with a linear regression. More data – in this case – is definitely better. I’ve tested that.
Whereas the fewer data points, the more the noise will affect any signal, giving you less confident results.
b,
You really have no clue, have you?
Measurebation achieves nothing, Even financial planners reluctantly admit that the future cannot be predicted from examining the past, so your obsession with numbers supports exactly nothing.
What is it you are really trying to say? Something that cannot be expressed in words, perhaps?
Sciency sounding nonsense is still nonsense. Fodder for the ignorant, stupid, gullible and deluded.
Test some more data. Let us know how it scores. Do you award prizes for data which passes your test? Maybe you could torture the failing data, until it does what you want!
Cheers.
Apart from the non-symmetrical rise and fall of ENSO events, there is also the lagged effect to global temps, which can be anywhere from 2 to 6 months, so you have to account for that as well with the kind of analysis you want to do.
There are a number of studies that attempt to filter out ENSO influence from global temperature data (as well as solar and volcanic influence). These methods tend to take various ENSO indices and offset them against global temperature for each month. This method retains the larger number of data points for more robust analysis of any underlying signal. Here are a couple for your interest.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI3089.1
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
I used a 3 month lag.
There is really little value to keeping a lot of extra noisy data when looking at something like GAST. Beginning and end values are basically all you need if you can eliminate the noise from them. It’s not a lot different that looking at weight in a diet.
How do you decide what’s noise and what isn’t?
David, we’ve been following the global temperature data for decades. We know ENSO and major volcanic eruptions produce noise.
These are not the only things that cause noise in the global temp data.
Do you understand that the fewer data points you use, the more prone your analysis to be a product of the noise? Even if you remove the noisier parts?
Beginning and end values are basically all you need if you can eliminate the noise from them
You believe that removing the noisier parts of the data will get you closer to the “truth.” This isn’t so. If you want to know the centennial trend, using all the data will give you a better approximation than using a tenth of it.
It’s not only end values that affect the trend. And the change derived from a trend from least squares is a better approximation than just choosing 2 end points. Using only 2 points can seriously skew the results! Move an end point up 0.3 C and simply subtracting the first from that will give you a change of 0.3 to your result. Running a regression with that end point lifted 0.3, and the result will be barely different from the original. That is the power of using more data.
As you saw, the 2016 el Nino increased the absolute change derived from regression by 0.05 C. But use 2016 as an end point and simply subtract, and the result will be much larger: an additional 0.25C
Barry, it all gets down to how representative are the end points.
You can argue my end points are poor and that would be a reasonable objection. We will see over time. It may turn out 2018 is a poor year. I would prefer to have data before and after to put a year into context. But, that data doesn’t currently exist.
The reason I looked at a few of the internal years is to put the end points into context. That is somewhat like doing a trend. One could do a least squares trend on all of my points but it wouldn’t change much.
Richard M says:
“When combined with the cooling experienced from 1940-1980 we end up with about .25 C of warming for the past 80 years.”
Very ad hoc, little science.
Also, UAH and RSS do not offer 80 years of data. Nor is there any reason to expect warming to remain linear.
Very little science is required. It is very simple math. Your objection smells a lot like denial.
Your math smells a lot like garbage.
It’s ad hoc with no logic behind it. Cherry picking at its best.
All you have is denial. That is obvious. You provided nothing of any substance to support your impotent attack.
There is nothing wrong with attempting to remove noise from data. Your method as described leaves a lot to be desired. ENSO events are not seasonally symmetrical, yet you have treated them as such. It also seems that you’ve removed Ninos only but not Ninas (is that so?).
Trend analysis reduces the noise considerably while keeping all the data. Smooths also do this. There are many methods.
Signal processing includes uncertainty bars. Where are yours?
Barry, I attempted to remove both El Nino and La Nina effects. In one case I averaged two years where one was Nina and the other Nino. That doesn’t always work because their intensities can be quite different.
Cherry Picking (Urban dictionary):
“When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld……”
Your “net warming” for UAH is based on 35 months of data. What happened to the other 441?
Most of the rest of the data is infected with noise. That just happens to be reality.
How did you determine that the months you cherry-picked are not “infected with noise”?
All months are infected with some noise. I used the ONI to try and find the times where there is less noise, or where the combination of warm/cold noise balances out.
Sounds very arbitrary.
Not arbitrary at all. You remove what you know to be noise. While that doesn’t mean all the noise is gone, it should provide a more representative signal. Sounds like you are a signal processing denier.
Richard M says:
Most of the rest of the data is infected with noise.
Noise is an inherent part of the data.
Yes, there is always noise but when you have solid evidence that the noise translates into variations in the temperature then it is best to remove that noise. There’s a whole field of science dedicated to this … it’s called signal processing.
And what are the results after that field is applied to monthly temperature data?
(Show your math.)
David, I already did for anyone able to do simple arithmetic.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
On our menu this week, we have something to offend everyone.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
Entree
======
Global warming – how long do we have left?
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-how-long-do-we-have-left
.
Main
====
Solving Global Warming is easy. _ (a do it yourself guide)
https://agree-to-disagree.com/solving-global-warming-is-easy
.
Dessert
=======
If the earth was an apple pie… _ (a delicious global warming dessert)
https://agree-to-disagree.com/if-the-earth-was-an-apple-pie
.
Coolistas score this month , The temperature is still exactly the same as 30 years ago , warmistas still two degrees short of climate alarm.
Until next month . . . . . .
July 31 2017 in Sydney was 18.6 C average with a high of 26.5 C.
This was a Winter’s day.
The previous Summer, on December 15, the average temperature was 18.2 C with a high of 19.1 C.
I conclude that in Sydney Winter is colder than Summer.
We are measuring and discussing planet Earth here , not your planet Sydney
b,
I conclude that you are stupid, ignorant, and deluded.
Mark Twain reputedly said “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.”
Are you really claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
If you are, I would suggest you need to say so, otherwise people might conclude you are a member of some bizarre cult with supposedly powerful hidden secrets, not to be revealed to unbelievers!
Time for another appeal to spurious authority, do you think?
Cheers.
We are measuring and discussing planet Earth here , not your planet Sydney
You are making the mistake of confusing weather with climate. My example demonstrates that folly using climate change that everyone is familiar with – the seasons.
In the same way that Summer was “back” during mid-Winter on July 31 2017, global temps are “back” to where they were 30 years ago as of last month.
IE – actually not “back” at all.
That’s just tiresome, dude.
w,
I assume you have a reason for thinking why I should give a fig for your opinion, but you are choosing to keep your reasons secret, in the finest climatological pseudoscientific tradition.
Are you perhaps annoyed that I give reasons for my conclusions?
You could always give reasons why others should conclude that you are not, indeed, stupid and ignorant.
I really don’t care one way or the other. Of course, you have the perfect freedom to feel as bored or annoyed as you like. Your choice.
Cheers.
Roy,
SLR 1 inch in 30 y? How did you get that?
We have had 3 inches in the 25 years of satellite measurements.
The lag effect is nearly over but the overall anomaly is not that high and the tropics are not that hot. There may still be room for a few more surprises for JCH and if El Nino does not develop then the absolute temps cannot go that high and may continue falling into close to zero anomalies. If a proper La Nina all bets off.
Interesting to watch the contortions the ground stations will have to go through to cut off the good news.
Perhaps we will have to use ATTP’S 60 airport stations only to keep the flags flying.
2018 will end up being in the top 10 warmest years (currently 6th).
If you’re keen to make it look colder than that there are many rhetorical devices at your disposal.
Yawn. We’ve seen a total of .3 C of warming when the noisy data is eliminated and much of that is likely natural. Wonder what is going to happen when the AMO goes negative in a few years?
When you say “we’ve” seen it, you really mean YOU have seen it through your cherry-coloured glasses.
Nope, nothing cherry colored about the ENSO data. It simply exists and I used it. I suspect if my result enhanced the amount of warming you wouldn’t find any fault in it.
Richard M says:
Weve seen a total of .3 C of warming when the noisy data is eliminated and much of that is likely natural.
Natural due to what cause(s)?
Why do El Nino years keep getting warmer? And La Nina years? And ENSO-neutral years?
Graph:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html
Natural warming will also lead to ENSO years getting warmer. In particular, the AMO tends to enhance winter temperatures which are also enhanced by ENSO. You want to attribute the increase in the ENSO temperatures to CO2 but the AMO is also a perfectly logical reason. We will find out in time which is right.
Note that my analysis still finds some warming more in line with low climate sensitivity values.
What is causing natural warming?
Richard M says:
You want to attribute the increase in the ENSO temperatures to CO2 but the AMO is also a perfectly logical reason.
Where does the AMO’s added heat come from?
David, sounds like you are an AMO denier. It has been tracked backed for centuries.
As for what is causing the natural warming, it is very likely the same cause that led to the many historic variations that have been documented by science. There are lots of theories as to what drives those variations. I happen to feel ocean current changes is one of the best.
Is denial your middle name?
Have you checked to see if AMO is aliasing global temps? Have you checked for lead/lag in the respective data sets?
Seriously, does no skeptic actually do any proper work on this stuff? Is it all eyeballing wiggles on graphs?
Judith Curry. The last great hope but she seems to have gone emeritus since her last on stadium waves.
Weve seen a total of .3 C of warming
Yeah, no. Not when the methods suck.
You got an R statistic, p stat or any kind of significance testing for your result?
No. Not when an amateur can make a few uninformed choices that give them a result they like.
Not even uncertainty estimates! You can take off the lab coat.
Here, let me help you out, Richard.
You reckon that the big bad el Nino of 2016 is responsible for the overall warming trend in the UAH data? Or that its inclusion nearly doubles (adds 0.2 C to) the actual warming since the beginning of the satellite record?
Here is the linear trend from 1979 to present and 1979 to Dec 2015.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend/plot/uah6/to:2016/trend
Let’s do the math imagining that the trend from 1979 to Dec 2015 continued for a full 40 years (to Dec 2018), and do the same with the trend 1979 to July 2018.
Trend:
1979-2015: 0.113 C/decade
1979-2018: 0.128 C/decade
Multiply by four to get the overall change:
0.452 C
0.512 C
Neither of those results are closer to yours than they are each other.
The 2016 el Nino did not turn your result into my result. We have the ‘pause’ from Jan 1998 to Dec 2015 in the UAH data as the final 18 years of the first series, and still the overall warming is closer to the result with the el Nino year than to the one using your method.
So either the 2016 el Nino year is not responsible for a massive difference or there is something else going on, eh?
NB: the results have an uncertainty of just over 0.06C, so the two results are consistent within uncertainty intervals.
And despite that uncertainty not overlapping with your results, you would find that your uncertainty is considerably greater owing to having far fewer data points. So happily our results likely coincide – within uncertainty intervals.
The 2014-16 El Nino is just one aspect of the noise that leads to a larger trend than is real. So yes, there is more going on. Let us know when you go back and read my original comment where I specify the causes of the noise.
I responded to that immediately, and have been waiting for you to pick up on the comment.
ENSO events are not seasonally symmetrical, yet you have treated them as if they are, starting and ending in the same months for each cut. Your filter doesn’t match reality.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Barry, I removed the entire year from consideration if it looked like ENSO affected the April-August time period I used. Did the same for volcanoes. That reduced the symmetry problem.
Then you are putting more weight on end effects, instead of less. The change you are measuring is not overall, but only the difference between one point and another. All of the data is noise-laden, so you are in effect measuring noise, not trend.
Linear regression is a superior method than subtracting end points to get overall change. It’s as simple as that. It would be an improvement to regress your own selected data. But with so few data points, the uncertainty would be considerable.
There are simple alternatives.
EG, Average all anomalies for the 1st half of the record, and then again for the second half. (We’re nearly at 40 years, so I’ll just extend this year by the average of it so far (0.23). Won’t make much difference if the actual average turns out to be, say, 0.2C different.)
That will give us a 2 central estimates 20 years apart. Take the difference of those and multiply by 2 (40 years) to get an estimate of the overall change.
The benefit of this is that both very strong el Ninos are in separate bidecadal averages. This is a good way of evening out all ENSO effects. It won’t be perfect, but it will make ENSO effects negligible to the whole series.
I wrote all that before averaging the data. This is the result.
1979-1998: -0.080
1999-2018: 0.158
That’s a difference of 0.238.
To extend the 20-year average difference to a 40 year change, just multiply by 2.
0.476
No end effects are perturbing this result in any significant way, and we haven’t had to make ad hoc choices that strip away the majority of the data.
This method corroborates the linear trend analysis (within uncertainty), indicating that the result may be robust.
UAH global TLT data, BTW.
Perhaps we will have to use ATTPS 60 airport stations only to keep the flags flying.
Why stop there? We could use all rural. We could use all golf courses. We could use all airports instead of just 60.
That would take some work, of course. The kind of thing never done by people who snipe from the sidelines.
b,
Why stop there? Why bother with reality at all?
Just use a computer model to generate data, and pretend it’s real. Say it’s supported by 97% of scientists (dressed in white coats, of course), and people will believe.
Just like 9 out of 10 dentists (dressed in white coats) prefer Brand X toothpaste.
Good for a laugh, anyway. People might even pay you lots of money for creating such pseudoscientific nonsense.
Cheers.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
It’s funny to watch the evolution of ‘skeptic’ arguments. 2016 was a big el Nino, hottest year in the record, so therefore it has to be disallowed from any data analysis. But just you wait, the ‘pause’ will be back by the end of 2017.
Whoops, 2017 was also quite warm, and the pause didn’t come back, so 2017 is disallowed because of the ‘lag’ of el Nino, which apparently lasts for a couple of years (instead of a few months) after the el Nino, if the following year is too warm.
And hey, the beginning of 2018 was a little bit too warm to be counted. These el nino lag effects do drag on, you know.
Finally, 2.5 years after the finish of the 2016 el Nino, skeptics are satisfied that its effects have worn off, and we can now start using the monthly data.
You must really be in a panic. We are sitting right about at the same level as the pause. There’s been no real measurable warming this century when you remove ENSO noise. Sorry but that’s what the data is telling us.
Let us know when some real warming shows up that isn’t caused by El Nino.
Panic?
Are you ok? What story would you like to hear to settle your nerves? Shall we tell the one about the evil scientists exposed by a plucky band of internet bloggers and their hangers-on?
b,
How about the fable of the undistinguished mathematician who thought he was a climate scientist (Gavin Schmidt), and the geologist who not only thought he was a climate scientist, but also thought he was a Nobel Laureate (Michael Mann)?
Ably assisted by the man who couldn’t find what wasn’t there (“Travesty” Trenberth), and with a supporting cast of assorted bumbling buffoons.
How’s that for a fairy story? No relation to reality of course – that would make climate science an oxymoron, wouldn’t it? I much prefer your story about the evil scientists, although I’d probably call them delusional, rather than evil.
Keep those fantasies coming.
Cheers.
Barry since late 2017 and through today the trends are down with out the aid of La Nina for the last several months, and the one that did take place was very weak and short in duration.
Short-term thinking. It’s the basis behind all your wrong predictions.
No la Nina to from late 2017?
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
How many things can you get wrong before you start being more cautious about what you say, Salvatore?
No Barry, there is nothing funny in unfounded expectations. And you used scare quotes right. That’s not skeptic.
What we learn from here? Maybe that short-term (under 10 years) fluctuations have little meaning. Even 30 years might be too short. But life is also short.
Contrary to popular belief, forested area is increasing both in the U.S. and worldwide. In the U.S., total merchantable volume on federal, state and private lands is 57% greater than is was in 1953.
Links, data, please. Let’s not establish any new ‘popular beliefs,’ eh?
b,
Let’s see you provide a description of the GHE, eh?
Wouldn’t want anybody thinking that the climate can be prevented from changing, or any other witless pseudoscientific nonsense, would we?
I suppose you are convinced that CO2 is somehow evil, but you can’t really put your finger on it. Do you think plants grow better if you restrict the amount of CO2 food?
Cultist garbage. Learn physics.
You don’t need to thank me.
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
DA,
I use insulation to prevent things getting too hot.
Dont you?
Is that what the GHE does? I agree.
Cheers.
In the U.S., total merchantable volume on federal, state and private lands is 57% greater than is was in 1953.
You realize that this very specific metric (“merchantable”) could easily lead astray about total forestation/deforestation.
EG, to start with an extreme example, if only 10% of US total forest area was “merchantable” (right kind of trees with economically viable access), and half of all US forests were cut down, while the area of “merchantable” forest was doubled through planting….
That would still be a net loss of forest.
So, being proper skeptics, we want data and studies. We also want sharp and consistent definitions on which to base metrics.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y
b,
Maybe you might care to define “climate” in a sharp and consistent way.
For example, the climate of California (or somewhere else, if California doesn’t suit you) – how would you define it? Has it changed over the last century? How much? Up or down?
Go on. Measure away – show your workings. I’m only joking, of course. You can throw unsupported assertions around, but these no longer have the authority you desire.
How’s that sharp and consistent definition of the GHE coming along, by the way? Or hasn’t it progressed beyond the belief stage yet?
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
DA,
I use insulation to prevent things getting too hot.
Don’t you?
Is that what the GHE does? I agree.
Cheers.
Do you mean clouds.because they are the only recognised none theoretical part of the atmosphere that insulates.
Don
To hell with “merchantable”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p0tp3pD7w7A
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VSmpW6C6JKo/Ue9EZ0qHK6I/AAAAAAAAIO0/8sKadJFrU34/s1600/Old_Growth_vs_Clearcut.jpg
******
Aerial view of a “managed” forest (Pacific NW, USA):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lewis_and_Clark_River_2148s.JPG
+1
A few of the more than 90,000 miles of logging roads in the states of Oregon and Washington alone:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5127518.gif
https://www.conservationnw.org/our-work/wildlands/sustainable-forest-roads/
90,000 miles:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b7YkVpM0Rfs
*******
The new forest:
https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-a-clearcut-with-revegetating-planted-trees-133399394.jpg
The tropical Atlantic is cool and there are still no hurricanes. A tropical storm has formed that has little chance of becoming a hurricane.
Sorry.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_eatl_1.png
Global ACE is running significantly ahead of average for this time of year. Mostly due to the NE and NW Pacific.
Ryan Maue says to watch the Atlantic over the next two weeks.
Year-to-date ACE compared to recent averages:
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/
Another hurricane threatens Hawaii.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=epac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Don
The 90,000 miles of Oregon/Washington logging roads only accounts for those on National Forest service land. 100’s of thousands of additional acres have been, and still are, being logged on BLM, State, and privately owned land. This is the typical practice:
” In western Oregon, clearcuts are usually implemented on a 40-60 year rotation – meaning that after each clearcut, trees are replanted and then cut again 40-60 years later, though this timeframe has been shrinking as economic pressures to liquidate timber for investment firms grows.”
IOW, cathedral forests are replaced by tree farms:
http://forestry.sfasu.edu/faculty/stovall/silviculture/images/textbook/resizedimages/clearcut4_merrit.jpg
I definitely think Cathedral Forests should be reserved for those who like to visit them, if they can be maintained in a condition that will not support wildfires (just remove the undergrowth). Stay away from clearcuts, as they are inhabited by wild creatures.
And for the other species who live there. Humans don’t have to dominate every square inch of the planet.
@ Svante and Barry,
You both are unfamiliar with limitations of mathematical concepts that cannot and so not represent REALITY. The data is REALITY. We are interested in causation, NOT mathematical abstractions that cannot and do NOT provide any insight whatsoever into the actual physical process as they occurred in REALITY.
For example, superimpose a forward moving linear curve upon the data and then calculate the slope and spit out constant warming at N per decade. Meaningless for anyone that has an honest interest in attribution of the physical processes that the DATA is the measurement of. You see it everywhere where the linear slope is superimposed over the data the linear curve is claimed to be the actual reality despite the DATA clearly and irrefutably being one step in the entirety of the data since 1979 with extremely insignificant increase in anomaly pre 1997 and pre 15/16.
Tell me, with a linear curve what are the physical processes that is producing linear increase in anomaly over the entirety of the dataset at N per decade. Thats right! You cant. And so you know why? Because the linear curve is an abstract concept. It is a mathematical construct, not a PHYSICAL emipiral REAL WORLD measurement. Do you understand that? Mathematics is NOT physics. And PHYSICS is NOT mathematics.
Please see the great Richard Feynman for further insights into the character of physical laws and the folly of mathematicians who do not understand the fundamental and crucial difference, much like Plato, who destroyed empirical observation and the advancement of knowledge in science for over a 1,000 years with his mathematics is EMPIRICAL observation rubbish. Thank God for Kepler or the likes of the two of you would still be calling the shots on what the scientific method is in the Earth sciences and where would be then?! Crystal spheres, the perfect solids and living in the dark ages.
https://youtu.be/obCjODeoLVw
GC…amen!!
GC,
Seconded. Of course, one can just continue adding new epicycles – for a while, at least.
I’ll go with Feynman. Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes!
Cheers.
“The data is REALITY.”
OK then reality is thousands upon thousands of numbers. Meaningful to you?
No, data without analysis, without interpretation is just gibberish.
All data requires ANALYSIS.
One very basic piece of analysis asks: how much is temperature rising over time? What is, on average, the temperature rate of change?
The best way to do that is NOT to take a point in 1970 and another in 2013 and find the difference, because the data is bloody noisy.
The best, and most statistically robust, way to do that is to fit the noisy data to a line and find the slope, and error on slope.
The data NEED NOT be linear to do this analysis.
This 30 y rate-of-change or 50 y rate-of-change, with error, can then be compared to predictions.
It is useful to do so.
N,
Analyse this –
Average temperature of surface – above the temperature of molten rock.
Average temperature of surface – below the temperature of molten rock.
The first is the temperature of the Earth after creation. The second is the present situation.
I call this phenomenon cooling. What would you call it?
No GHE. CO2 has proven to be ineffective in preventing the Earth from cooling over the longest period available. Maybe you are convinced that the new physics, which Gavin Schmidt claims prevents him from documenting his computer game adequately, has changed the properties of CO2.
CO2 has no heating properties. None.
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
DA,
And an insulator merely impedes the transfer of energy. Otherwise, four and a half billion years of atmospheric insulation would have made the molten surface hotter, and not allowed it to cool.
Maybe you’re delusional, and thinking about magical pseudoscientific atmospheric insulation, which is required to allow the surface to heat when exposed to bright sunshine – or something.
If you put sufficient insulation between the Sun and your head, you may be able to prevent your brain from overheating. Your thought processes appear somewhat deranged.
No CO2 heating. No global warming due to any greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
And an insulator merely impedes the transfer of energy.
Is your house insulated?
DA,
Indeed it is. It would be very much hotter otherwise. Don’t you need to insulate your house to keep it cool?
I believe my refrigerators and freezers use insulation to help keep the contents cool. You might even find any you come across use the same principle.
Do you have a point, or are you just pointlessly trolling?
Cheers,
Perfect opportunity, Mike, to admit that insulation can keep things warm. But you only ever seem to mention its ability to keep things cool.
Might explain your inability to grasp the GHE.
Perfect opportunity, Nate, to stop trolling. Just try it.
“the temperature of the Earth after creation”
Mike, long ago we all gathered that you think Earth Science has no point.
Now we see why. Earth was created and ever since managed by God.
N,
Long ago, maybe you decided that fantasy is superior to fact.
You may gather what you wish where you wish.
Still no GHE. CO2 still heats nothing – that is reality, regardless of what you gather from your fantasy world.
Gather away.
Cheers.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
DA,
Thanks for the support, David. It saves me the trouble of pointing out the stupidity and ignorance of people who believe that the indescribable GHE results in global warming.
As Fourier realised, each night the Earth rids itself of the day’s heat from the Sun, plus a little bit more of its own.
Hence the present non-molten Earth’s surface.
Learn some physics. Allow some facts to intrude into your fantasy.
Cheers.
Mike,
It is your fantasy that geothermal heat is significant for climate.
You have never shown evidence to support this red herring.
If no evidence is needed for you to hold and disseminate your opinion, Mike, then maybe you need a different forum than science blog.
Maybe you’d do better handing out literature in the train station.
Nate,
It is your fantasy that you do not troll.
You have never shown evidence to support this red herring.
If no evidence is needed for you to troll this comment thread, Nate, then maybe you need a different forum than a science blog.
Maybe youd do better handing out literature beneath your bridge.
Still trolling, DREMT/Halp/Tesla…and still boring and pointless.
You are indeed, Nate, you are indeed.
GC wrote:
Tell me, with a linear curve what are the physical processes that is producing linear increase in anomaly over the entirety of the dataset at N per decade. Thats right! You cant.
temperature change is proportional to forcing
forcing varies as ln(CO2/base_level_of_CO2)
CO2 is increasing exponentially.
=> linear temperature change.
GC, you are right, we must have physics, here’s some:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
You mentioned my name, GC, but then said a bunch of stuff that doesn’t relate to what I have said or what I think.
The trend discussions come with a context. Not always the same context. And context is everything. That is why you fail.
More of the same but the trend is down in contrast to last year.
And..predictably, Salvatore does learn a single damn thing when his predictions are wrong — again.
does NOT?
Yes, thanks.
I said last year this would be happening this year(lower overall temperatures) in response to weakening magnetic fields solar/geo.
If I am correct in that the magnetic fields have much to do with the climate then it will follow that past tools used to forecast the climate will fail (if the magnetic fields are extreme enough either direction, in this case weakening ) unless they incorporated magnetic field strengths which we know they did not.
That is the essence of my argument and why I am so against the models and pretty sure that AGW is over, and trying to make this point, in my article which will be coming out soon.
It comes down in large part to galactic cosmic rays and just how much influence do they have in global cloud cover and explosive volcanic activity.
The evidence is there when one looks at the global electrical circuit and forbush events .
If you get the cloud coverage wrong and do not incorporate major future volcanic activity in any fashion the climate forecast will not be correct.
This is why I say how could any one think models in this environment will perform well, unless of course one thinks the magnetic /climate connection is hogwash.
My two cents , but it is early and I know better then to celebrate more time is needed but I like the trend..
Seismic Monitor shows 30 day past earthquakes mag. 4.0 or higher up from an average of 680 to now 940!
Please explain the Physics behind how cosmic rays cause earthquakes. In answering, please remember that the vast majority of earthquakes are not associated with volcanism.
Here is your answer Bobdesbond.
Theodore White
The ‘mechanism’ Dave Burton is electromagnetic. All seismic activity such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are triggered by external pressures being forced on the Earth’s magnetic field.
The stress that is put on Earth’s magnetic field begins at the ionosphere, which can be observed by the appearance of luminous phenomena very close to regions showing tectonic stress, seismic activity or soon-to-be volcanic eruptions.
The connection between prolonged minimum and maximum solar phases to large magnitude earthquakes and increased volcanic eruptions is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence that is easily found online.
There is strong statistical data which shows powerful correlations between major volcanic activity and numerous earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude or more on Richter scale to the Sun’s Grand Minimum states.
Over the last several decades scientific papers began to appear that clearly show correlations between galactic cosmic ray and low solar activity with a rise of destructive geological events like earthquakes & volcanic eruptions.
This has been supported by statistical evidence that extend back centuries.
A 1967 study published by the Earth & Planetary Science Letters discovered that solar activity plays a significant role in the triggering of earthquakes.
Then, In 1998 a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Science, also discovered a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes.
Additional research by The Space & Science Research Center found direct correlation between solar activity and the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions within the continental United States and other regions around the world.
The study examined data of volcanic activity between 1650 – 2009 along with earthquake activity between 1700 – 2009 while utilizing solar activity data.
The findings of study said that there was very strong correlation between solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events – worldwide.
The correlation for volcanic activity was larger than 80 percent and 100% for the greatest magnitude earthquakes measured with Solar activity lows.
Moreover, the findings concluded that there was proof of a strong correlations between global volcanic activity among the largest of classes of eruptions and solar activity lows; with 80.6% occurrence of large scale global volcanic eruptions taking place during the Sun’s minimums and 87.5% occurring for the very largest volcanic eruptions during times of major solar minimums.
We are entering such a period of a Grand Solar Minimum with the start of solar cycle #25 – due to begin anytime between now and the year 2020.
When I forecasted back in 2006 that the world would enter global cooling just before the Sun entered its Grand Minimum and would see an ‘increase in large magnitude earthquakes and numerous volcanic eruptions, some conventional scientists derided me by saying that there was no physical mechanism.
This, despite the fact that I named that mechanism – which is electromagnetic and penetration of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system.
Then, two years later, in 2008, NASA announced that a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending earthquakes on the ground below has been found.
The finding fell into agreement with additional scientific studies performed by other space research institutes.
For example, orbiting satellites above the Earth picked up disturbances that were 100 to 600 kilometers above regions that have later been hit by earthquakes.
Fluctuation in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the Earth’s ionosphere have been observed, and huge signals have been detected many times before large magnitude earthquakes struck.
These are climatic events which feature seismic activity connected to atmospheric disturbances caused by celestial bodies and the Sun’s quiescent phase, which is underway.
During times when the Earth’s axis rotation slows, in concert with the Sun’s minimum output and weakened heliosphere allows cosmic rays to enter our solar system and straight into the Earth’s atmosphere.
Planetary modulation relative to the Earth and the condition of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) of outer space where our planet lives and transits – all play significant roles.
The fluxes of cosmic and solar radiation charges the Earth’s ionosphere.
The result means a rise in anomalies of the Earth’s geomagnetic field which produces Foucault currents – also called ‘Eddy Currents.’
Eddy currents are essentially loops of electrical currents that are induced within conductors by a changing magnetic field in the conductor. This is due to Faraday’s law of induction.
Anyway, eddy currents flow in closed loops within conductors, in planes that are perpendicular to the magnetic field.
The eddy current heats the rocks inside faults as the shear resistant intensity and static friction limit of the rocks decrease.
This is the physical mechanism that trigger earthquakes and volcanic eruption, but it is an ‘effect’ of what is happening where the Earth lives – and that is in outer space.
You see, during eras of solar minimums high energy cosmic radiation can and does penetrate deep below the Earth’s surface.
It is the reason why most earthquakes that occur during solar minimum are deep earthquakes.
The stress on the Earth’s Magnetosphere during solar minimum is higher because the Sun’s Heliosphere is weaker which allows the high-energy charged particles of cosmic rays to flood into our solar system.
For instance, on average, the flux of cosmic rays is 20 percent or more – higher during solar minimums.
Over the last 250 years consider the fact that these major volcanic eruptions took place during strong solar minimum and Grand Minimums:
*Grimvotn (Iceland) 1783/84 (14 km3)
*Tambora (Indonesia) 1810 (150 km3)
*Krakatoa 1883 (5.0 km3)
*Santa Maria (Guatemala) 1902 (4.8 km3)
*Novarupta (Alaska) 1912 (3.4 km3)
Salvatore Del Prete says:
The ‘mechanism’ Dave Burton is electromagnetic. All seismic activity such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are triggered by external pressures being forced on the Earth’s magnetic field.
More junk science.
An analysis of temperature changes in warm and cold air masses of extratropical cyclones in both hemispheres with their movement during geomagnetic disturbances at the minimum of solar activity was performed. The location and movement of air masses of cyclones was determined by thermobaric maps at the 500 hPa level. In the conditions of a classical cyclogenesis, a warm air mass cools from day to day, while the cold air mass warms up. During geomagnetic disturbances, favorable conditions for increasing intensity and cyclone lifetime are formed, i.e., in a warm air mass, the temperature increases at heights lower than 300 hPa, while a cold air mass warms up more slowly. The distributions of the temperature of air masses of extratropical cyclones were shown to change due to the changes in geomagnetic activity.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0016793217050115
AGW is the junk science David.
It has a better track record than you, Salvatore.
But then, so does a squirrel putting nuts in hat.
David, please stop trolling.
You can’t argue with David. Salvatore he thinks ships and boats don’t notice any sea level rise because they float around for ever and never return to land.wonder why they built all those harbours and docks .he lives in a CO2 induced coma.and the Sun is only there to ripen his tomatoes.
A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes in Earth’s cloud cover in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations.
The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth’s atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.
Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html#jCp
In addition to the well-studied significant upper atmosphere ionization effect during GLE 69 on 20 January 2005, it is shown that ionization effect is significant at sub-polar and polar atmosphere (Mishev et al. 2011; Usoskin et al. 2011), with fast tropospheric decrease. Moreover, it is demonstrated that the ionizaton effect at low altitudes may be negative due to Forbush decrease of GCR at middle latitudes. Therefore the effect of sporadic solar energetic particle events is limited on a global scale but most energetic events could be strong locally, particularly in sub-polar and polar region, affecting the physical-chemical properties of the upper atmosphere.
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2013/01/swsc120040/swsc120040.html
Currently, the level of ionizing radiation GCR is very high.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00970/36d078b6x1mb.gif
The next question or questions that need to be known are what are the threshold levels of change to cause a more significant climatic change in contrast to a minor one.
For example everyone (I think)agrees there is a point where if solar activity /geo magnetic field decreased enough it would effect the climate.
The argument is in my opinion which is first of all how much of a decrease is needed and secondly is that decrease achieved at times when solar activity tanks.
The caveat this time unlike recent earlier times is the geo magnetic field is weakening at a rapid clip and the same questions could be ask about it, which is are there thresholds of weakness for this field when combined with solar that results in a climatic impact?
I say yes.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 28, 2017 at 8:00 AM
“Look out below global temperatures should be at or below 30 year means by next summer.”
“…Solar is finally entrenched in the values I said is needed to have a climatic impact following x years of sub solar activity in general.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273890
I am satisfied with the way it is going. I rather be early then late with any prediction.
I do not want to predict something after it happens.
You were wrong about this summer. By a lot.
Why were you wrong?
====
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
If I am wrong by a lot and the temperature trend is down what does that make AGW?
You have already been down by a lot.
You said summer 2018 would be below 0.00 C.
It was actually 0.24 C.
Why were you so wrong?
David it is going in my direction not yours.
Salvatore, you said summer 2018 would be below 0.00 C.
It was actually 0.24 C.
Why were you so wrong?
David, please stop trolling.
Moving on from my forest rant……..
“From 1600 until 1645 events increased during the Maxima in some of the tectonic plates as Pacific, Arabian and South America. The earthquakes analyzed during two grand solar minima, the Maunder (1645-1720) and the Dalton (1790-1820) showed a decrease in the number of earthquakes and the solar activity. It was observed during these minima a significant number of events at specific geological features. After the last minima (Dalton) the earthquakes pattern increased with solar maxima. The calculations showed that events increasing during solar maxima most in the Pacific, South America or Arabian until 1900.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258471897_Influence_of_Solar_Cycles_on_Earthquakes
Sal
Upon further reading, the author who I just linked seems to agree with you WRT the very strongest earthquakes and volcanoes:
https://watchers.news/2015/06/09/cosmic-solar-radiation-as-the-cause-of-earthquakes-and-volcanic-eruptions/
Snape ,that is where I am coming from.
Oops! No, I confused myself, completely different author. Lol
0.19 C looks a little paltry compared to some anomalies we’ve seen in UAH over recent months/years. Let us not be too dismissive of it though; it slips into the top 10 warmest Augusts in the UAH record (making it to number 9). Not too shabby.
TFN
If protest is what you are seeking
Self-crucifixion always will fail.
There is no way known, to the thinking,
To drive in the final nail.
Geoff
TFN
Since 1979. Wow
Regards
Harry
If CO2 actually did what alarmists claim it does , since 1988 by now the 13 month average would have to be 1 whole degree C above the current place , which would put it above and completely out of scale range of this chart , the chart scale would have to be increased at least 1.7 extra degrees upwards to accommodate this plus the usual 0.5 short spikes variations
The fact there is nothing of the sort happening already thoroughly debunks CO2 caused global warming,
Only the stuck on stupid do not comprehend this simple fact.
You seem to be confused. The claim is only 0.2C per decade at the moment, making a 0.6C rise from a negative starting point. The UAH rise is two-thirds of that. Eff knows where you get your claim from.
The UAH LT rise is +0.50 C since 1979. RSS’s is +0.75 C since then.
Eben says:
If CO2 actually did what alarmists claim it does , since 1988 by now the 13 month average would have to be 1 whole degree C above the current place
Why?
DA,
Why not? Or are you just trolling?
Cheers.
For you stuck on stupid this is why. can you read pictures ???
https://s15.postimg.cc/jhqxckzcb/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.jpg
That graph has a lot of problems
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
not the least of which is that it’s never been submitted for publication or peer review.
DA,
Trying to describe the GHE has a lot of problems.
Not the least of which is that nobody has ever managed to do it.
Even in a peer reviewed publication, where you pay to publish (there’s a great scam, eh?).
Ah, the wonders of climatological pseudoscience. A mathematician masquerading as a scientist, a scientist masquerading as a Nobel Laureate, a meteorologist complaining that it’s a travesty he cannot find something that doesn’t exist!
All based on precisely nothing – no new observation, no testable hypothesis, no resultant theory as a result.
Just a collection of bumbling buffoons desperately seeking undeserved adulation – and a continuing flow of funds from the public purse!
They might be stupid and ignorant, but possess a certain amount of rat cunning – some at least, I suppose.
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
DA,
Nope. That won’t work, will it?
Not unless you have invented some new type of insulation. Real insulators don’t add heat.
They merely reduce the rate at which an object achieves thermal equilibrium with the environment.
You might be aware that the surface of the Earth is no longer molten, atmospheric insulation notwithstanding. It has cooled.
The surface temperature drops at night – in spite of atmospheric insulation.
And so on.
Maybe you have been afflicted with a severe attack of climatological pseudoscience?
The properties of insulators have already been described. The supposed “greenhouse effect” has not. Not even in a peer reviewed journal!
Maybe you could try a spot of deny, divert, and confuse? Support it with some pointless and irrelevant analogies? I don’t think you’ll get a lot of support for trying to redefine “insulation” as “GHE”. I can’t find a single dictionary which defines “insulation” as “GHE” – I don’t think such exists, but climatological pseudoscience isn’t concerned with facts, is it?
Still no CO2 heating. The Earth has cooled since its creation some four and a half billion years ago.
Calculate that, and wave a few graphs in peoples’ faces. Let me know how you get on, if you want.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
September 2, 2018 at 8:16 PM
DA, Nope. That won’t work, will it?
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
I read that somewhere.
Oh yeah, it was here:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
DA,
Thank you for quoting me. Unfortunately, you appear to have magically conjured up the acronym “GHE” from somewhere else, and incorrectly ascribed it to me.
Your memory is obviously defective.
If you claim the GHE is merely atmospheric insulation, then there is no global warming on account of the GHE – as I have pointed out in the past.
Insulation between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer cooler, not hotter. And at night, an insulator between the surface and outer space merely slows the rate at which the surface cools. Overall, the Earth cools – slowly.
No mad pseudoscientific climatological GHE making the surface hotter – that would be too ridiculous for words, wouldn’t it?
Once again, thanks for quoting me. Repetition of facts doesn’t hurt, does it? Repetion of your delusional fantasies is optional, of course. I’m sure you can find some, if you try hard enough.
Cheers.
What is the main characteristic of an insulator?
In 1988 hansen presented what CO2 will do to the global temperature . It shows 1.1 degree C increase by 2018.
This is his chart
https://goo.gl/T4YabM
The temperature today is exactly the same as in 1988,
Which part of “exactly the same” you don’t understand ?
Eben says:
The temperature today is exactly the same as in 1988
Wrong.
But thanks for playing.
MF, as usual, distorts physics when he wrote:
The insulation effect works during the day as well as at night, since the Earth is constantly radiating IR energy to deep space. The effect of adding insulation on a system with a (nearly) constant energy input will be to increase the temperature within the insulated space. This effect can be easily demonstrated with simple instrumentation, but MF chooses to ignore such evidence. MF is either hopelessly ignorant of physics or his goal is a malicious attempt to spread denialist FUD.
Bad Appell and Swannie River, please stop trolling.
Eben,
Hansen 1988: B scenario was the one Hansen considered most likely. The increase from before 1988 (when the prediction starts) is about 1 C.
And here’s what happened.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/mean:12
Looks very close to me. No fancy trend lines included, which ‘skeptics’ deplore, for some reason.
My eyeballs are so expert at figuring stuff from graphs, so I’m sure you will see the same thing I do….
I think the majority of all the global warming since the ending of the Little Ice Age will be wipe out in less then 10 years from now.
And the global warming since end of LIA is about 1 C ?
And you expect .5 C of cooling within 10 years?
at a minimum
Salvatore said cooling started in 2002.
Why were you so wrong about that, Salvatore?
If you go to my web-site you will see that is not true and my colder forecast was based on specific solar criteria being met which did not happen until late year 2017.
You are the one that is being proven wrong as each day goes by and no progress in global warming is taking place.
It is true, Salvatore.
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
– Salvatore del Prete, “Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming,” 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
So why have you been so wrong all these years, Salvatore?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Look out below global temperatures should be at or below 30 year means by next summer.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273890
David, please stop trolling.
Below some news on the weakening earth magnetic field and the volcanic effect.
These waves are penetrating electromagnetic radiation of a kind arising from the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei. Gamma Rays are beyond X-rays and will obviously penetrate deep into the Earth insofar as the few that do get through our magnetic field. This may be pointing to the cause of an increase in volcanic activity. The Earths magnetic field serves to deflect most of the solar wind, whose charged particles would otherwise strip away the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. According to scientists best estimates, the Earths magnetic field is now weakening around 10 times faster than initially thought, losing approximately 5% of its strength every decade. But they dont really know why, or what that means for our planet. This could be the precursor to the poles flipping.
Volcanoes: Global Pers…
John P. Lockwood, Rich…
Best Price: $60.55
Buy New $59.56
(as of 05:00 EDT – Details)
Here we are in August 2018 and three volcanoes in Indonesia erupt all at the same time. The three volcanoes that are rumbling and spewing ash are Mount Sinabung (pictured here), Gamalama, and Rinjani. In fact, this year we now have 34 major volcanoes erupting worldwide compared to 12 last year and 11 back in 2015. In the Ring of Fire, we now have 6 volcanoes erupting this year with another 5 in Indonesia alone. There are now 4 erupting in South America, 5 in the Mexico/Carribean and Central America. In Africa and the Indian Ocean there are now 4 volcanoes erupting and in the Pacific Ocean, there are yet another 6 erupting. In Europe, we have one in Italy erupting in the Eolian Islands Mt Stromboli. Lastly, there is even one in Antarctica melting ice.
Is this your book you’re hawking, “Salvatore”
no
Still waiting for a string of several months below 0.25 Celsius to indicate potential global cooling in the offing. It’s been a wait of several years by now
Bart…”Your eyes are more trustworthy than arbitrary statistical models. The degree to which a model fits is not a reliable metric for determining how predictive it is.
Any dense basis can be used to model any process over a finite interval of time to arbitrary precision. This is an excellent way to fool yourself”.
********
Besides your excellent analysis, there are validated models and unvalidated models. Unless a model can be validated it’s essentially an educated guess. That describes all climate models and the guesses are not all that educated.
Most of AGW is based on model theory and it’s all unvalidated. The IPCC had to develop a convoluted scale measuring opinion because they have little or no fact upon which to claim truth after basing most of their conjecture on models.
How would you determine future climate without a model, Gordon?
How would you determine ANYTHING without a model, Gordon?
Gordo claims to be an engineer, but fails to understand that models are tools which are widely used in engineering. The models are based on real world physical data, as captured in theoretical representations using mathematics. Almost all mathematics is modeling of one sort or another. The models used to assess climate are the result of earlier efforts to characterize the known properties of gasses in the atmosphere and are combined with the dynamical models of the atmosphere’s flowing fluids. The models are similar to those used for weather forecasting, both efforts suffer because of the complexity of the fluid flows across the Earth.
Such models are subjected to validation before acceptance. Until validated, they are considered speculative.
Real scientists form a hypothesis, look for evidence that both supports or contradicts the hypothesis, and only after repeatably verifying the former and providing reliable and repeatable explanations for the latter do they proclaim the hypothesis validated.
This farce of a scientific investigation started with the proclamation that the hypothesis was valid, then looked almost exclusively for supporting evidence, and is busy piling up excuses for the discrepancies. It is bass-ackwards, pathological science.
Bart thinks he knows science. But, no, real science starts with observations, either of natural phenomena or data from experiments which do not agree with previous theories. Then, a hypothesis may be offered or other experiments and observations may be undertaken to verify the previous anomalous results.
AGW theory is the result of scientific efforts to explain the natural world going back to the 19th century and progressing thru the discovery of electrons, atomic and nuclear structures. Those efforts were focused on the emission/absorp_tion of radiant energy in gasses, including CO2 and water vapor, both or which are greenhouse gases. The case for the Greenhouse Effect was built on efforts to explain the temperature profile in the atmosphere and extended from surface measurements all the way to the top of the atmosphere, once it became possible to place instruments in orbit. Those efforts include building models of the energy flows thru the atmosphere from the Sun’s SW energy to the IR EM radiant energy which exits the TOA.
It’s the data, Bart, not some mythical hypothesis, which defines AGW.
“Its the data, Bart, not some mythical hypothesis, which defines AGW.”
Corroborating data are ambiguous and inconclusive.
Malaria occurs most frequently with those who are exposed to nightly air (when the mosquitos are out in force, as it happens). For a very long time, it was thereby assumed that exposure to “bad air” at night caused it.
Extrapolation based upon superficial association is the very antithesis of science. You might as well don a grass skirt and sacrifice a virgin to the volcano. It is primitive thinking.
“Those efforts were focused on the emission/absorp_tion of radiant energy in gasses, including CO2 and water vapor, both or which are greenhouse gases.”
These phenomenon are related, but do not establish that increasing CO2 necessarily results in surface warming, any more than the fact of light bulbs giving off heat in my house establishes that the temperature of the rooms will increase without bound. There are other factors in play.
These posts are out of order, as my first attempt went into filter purgatory when I corrected “emission/absorp_tion” to leave out the underscore. I guess you had that for a reason.
And yes, I meant “phenomena” not “phenomenon”.
“Extrapolation based upon superficial association”
C’mon Bart, it is super-duper hyperbole to compare AGW to malaria and “bad air” hypothesis.
AGW theory is consistent with well-known and tested atmospheric science. Its basic mechanisms have been directly tested. Not remotely a superficial association.
What uncertainties remain about feedbacks are out in the open and being actively researched.
“AGW theory is consistent with well-known and tested atmospheric science.”
No, it is extrapolated from well-known and tested atmospheric science. From the basic mechanisms.
The hypothesis of “bad air” also was consistent with well-known and tested principles. Polluted air makes one sick. Noxious gases seep out of the Earth in numerous places around the globe. People out in the night air came down with the disease. Obviously, the air made them sick.
That chain of logic is no less complete and reasonable and plausible than the chain of logic that leads to AGW.
That is correct. AGW is not validated. There is no unambiguous evidence of it occurring in line with the models.
DA,
The IPCC wrote –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
What sort of a model do the think the IPCC should use, David?
What sort of model would you use to determine that Mann isn’t really a Nobel Laureate, or that Gavin Schmidt is not really a world renowned climate scientist?
The world wonders, indeed.
Cheers.
A gotcha question.
DA,
If you say so, David. Gotcha.
Cheers.
David Appell wrote –
“The GHE is atmospheric insulation.”
Now he asks –
“What is the main characteristic of an insulator?”
Once again, David confirms he justs spouts sciency words without understanding.
Not terribly bright, our David. Apparently unable to describe the GHE in any scientific fashion, he attempts to redefine it as something he admits he doesn’t understand!
Not only that, he appears too lazy to look up the definition of an insulator. So much for the typical climatological pseudoscientific buffoon – unable to explain something, substitutes for it something else he cannot explain.
Maybe David could learn some physics, before presuming to teach his betters. He has now decided that the supposed “Greenhouse Effect” is not an effect at all, in the scientific sense, but a cunning climatological redefinition of the word “insulation”.
Just as in climate-speak, “cooling” is redefined to mean “heating”. Tricky stuff to keep with, the everchanging landscape of climatological pseudoscience.
Cheers.
What consistantly astounds me is the excuses people propose for the lack of warming.
We are told as CO2 goes up so does temp but when it does not we are told natural variability hides the CO2 warming signal, therefore if any CO2 warming trend exists it is hidden in the noise.
This would suggest the CO2 warming trend if it indeed exists is very weak and easily outweighed by natural variability including PDO, Volcanic, El Nino/La Nina solar etc.
And yet these people expect us to dismantle our power generation systems or industry, agriculture, transport sectors in an effort to “tackle” climate change.
They expect us to reduce our lifestyle to third world levels based on a furture warming which shows absoutely no sign of actually happening.
Due to this lack of evidence they are reduced to squabbling over hundreths of degree changes in temp from a month to month and year to year change.
After all these years i would have expected these people to have come up with some pretty solid evidence by now but yet they still do the same thing, they post apocolyptic nonsense as they did then and as they do now. Perhaps they are beyond the point of no return and are beyond help?
“This would suggest the CO2 warming trend if it indeed exists is very weak and easily outweighed by natural variability including PDO, Volcanic, El Nino/La Nina solar etc.”
That is precisely what we are saying … over the course of a few years. Over the course of a number of decades the trend wins out.
It is NOT about where we are now. Only ovine followers of Guy McPherson believe there will be a catastrophe within the next couple of decades. It is about where we will end up a couple of generations from now.
From the IPCC –
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Are you saying that the IPCC is wrong? Maybe it needs to redefine “climate” to suit you, eh?
You really don’t have a clue, do you? Just some mindless faith in a “trend”. Good for you. Maybe you are stupid and ignorant enough to believe you can predict the future by minutely examining the past.
Mind you, your belief is shared by other fortune sellers, who believe they can predict all sorts of things by projecting trends. They never bother to mention that they can do no better than you, I, or a reasonably intelligent 12 year old!
One wonders why Gavin Schmidt needs a very expensive sciency computer game, when a 12 year old with a straight edge and a pencil could project a trend just as well. Maybe you have another strident unsupported assertion to prove that you didn’t really mean “trend” when you wrote “trend”, and you weren’t really implying that you could predict future climate states at all!
Still no GHE, is there? You can’t even describe the amazingly wondrous mythical GHE – it’s obviously a travesty, and someone needs to do something about it!
Good luck.
Cheers,
Cracker right on and so far in Sept. according to one source the global average temperatures are below the 1981-2010 means.
I want to see them go to -.40c below 1981-2010 means.
Another Pinatubo combined with a strong La Nina, and you may yet get your wish.
Sal needs a giant meteor to get what he wants. The lowest anomaly in the UAH record is -0.5C.
No, I’m pretty sure another Tambora would do it.
Maybe – av temps were about 0.3C cooler in the period just after Pinatubo happened. We haven’t seen an anomaly as low as -0.4C since then (25 years ago).
Hey Salvatore,
Take a look at this TSI graph:
https://tinyurl.com/SorceAug2018
and tell me how this solar cycle is travelling in comparison to 11 years ago.
Similar to 11 years ago but the big differences are two items.
Item one this time unlike 11 years ago there are now 10+ years of sub solar activity in general a requirement.
This time in contrast to 11 years ago the geo magnetic field is weaker and weakening further.
Geomagnetic field eh? So nothing to do with the sun then?
B,
So you think it does, do you?
Why is that?
Do tell us.
Cheers.
You know if you read my post that I have said over and over again that the geo magnetic field when in sync with solar will enhance given solar effects.
I have said it so many times.
Trump has also said many times that there has been no collusion.
As you can see, what someone says has little to do with reality.
Thank you for confirming that your outlook is political, and not scientific.
Hahaha … so the fact of Trump colluding with the Russians has some bearing on my opinions on climate, which pre-date Trump’s running for president in a third-world backwater? Is that what you are saying?
Bob,
Where is the evidence there is a trend and if it exists where is the evidence the trend is caused by AGW?
Where is the evidence that shows us where we will end up in a couple of generations?
Its OK to have an opinion i welcome yours but we (here in Oz at least) are destroying ourselves so much there wont be anything left in a couple of generations.
Mr Spencer gives the trend in his data. Do you not believe him?
I also live in Australia. Here in Sydney we are in the middle of an unbroken run of 80 months where the monthly average had not fallen below the long-term (160 year) average.
(Pretty cold today though I must admit.)
B,
What 160 year average? The BOM declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 “unreliable”. This got rid of the inconvenient 1897 heat wave. Inconvenient truth is abolished by climatological pseudoscientists.
What’s your next piece of specious nonsense? A description of the non-existent GHE, perhaps?
Keep asserting nonsense. Somebody might believe you.
Cheers.
The BOM declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 “unreliable”.
Nope, the BoM considers that a national average temp prior to 1910 is unreliable. There are a few places around the country with good records prior to 1910, and Sydney, the oldest city in Australia, is one of them.
b,
From the BOM –
“Why does the ACORN-SAT dataset start in 1910, and not earlier?
Climate observations prior to 1910 were
limited across the Australian continent,
being concentrated mostly around settlements
and in eastern Australia. Many observations from the pre-federation period were taken with non- standard instrumental configurations, and the accompanying documentation is patchy. This makes it very difficult to reconstruct early national data that is consistent with the modern record.”
and –
“Temperature data prior to 1910 should be used with extreme caution as many stations, prior to that date, were exposed in non-standard shelters, some of which give readings which are several degrees warmer or cooler than those measured according to post-1910 standards.”
I note that the BOM has changed its previous position, due to people pointing out the defects in their stance, and now employs weasel wording to disguise the fact that the “official” records start in 1910, allowing breathless claims of “unprecedented” extreme temperatures.
Carry on believing that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. It doesn’t. Any obstruction between the Sun and a thermometer results in less energy reaching the thermometer, allowing it to cool as a result.
Notwithstanding climatological pseudoscientific magical physics of course, where cooling magically becomes an increase in temperature.
Cheers.
Hello crakar24…
Actually I’m busy with NOAA’s newest station dataset (GHCN daily), so it is no problem to show you a comparison of GHCN and Roy Spencer’s UAH6.0 LT for the satellite era:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1535975698146/001.jpg
About 700 stations in the average contributed to the data. They are located in about 125 2.5 degree grid cells, what shows a good dissemination over your continent.
UAH’s data for Australia you see here (rightmost column):
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Australia is an interesting corner: the lower troposphere shows a higher trend for 1979-2018 than does the surface (0.18 C / decade vs. 0.12 C).
This might be due to strong poleward advection streams from the Tropics toward the Arctic.
Nothing dramatic so far in your Oz corner. Most warming actually happens in the Arctic regions, but it was warm there 80 years ago as well.
Please do not try to create any spatially or temporally restricted relation between CO2’s concentration and temperatures. You would move into a blind-alley.
Hello crakar24…
Actually I’m busy with NOAA’s newest station dataset (GHCN daily), so it is no problem to show you a comparison of GHCN and Roy Spencer’s UAH6.0 LT for the satellite era:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1535975698146/001.jpg
About 700 stations in the average contributed to the data. They are located in about 125 2.5 degree grid cells, what shows a good dissemination over your continent.
UAH’s data for Australia you see here (rightmost column):
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Australia is an interesting corner: the lower troposphere shows a higher trend for 1979-2018 than does the surface (0.18 C / decade vs. 0.12 C).
This might be due to strong poleward advection streams from the Tropics toward the Arctic.
Nothing dramatic so far in your Oz corner. Most warming actually happens in the Arctic regions, but it was warm there 80 years ago as well.
Please do not try to create any spatially or temporally restricted relation between CO2’s atmospheric concen.tration and temperatures. You would move into a blind-alley.
Interesting! Even the word ‘concen.tration’ must be avoided.
B,
No relation between CO2 and temperature?
Why am I not surprised?
Carry on.
Cheers.
B: ‘Please do not try to create any spatially or temporally restricted relation between CO2s atmospheric concen.tration and temperatures.’
F: ‘No relation between CO2 and temperature?’
*
A stupid comment produced by an ignorant person.
Yes, Flynn: carry on to escape out of your permanent mental disease.
Bindidon
Would you please stop feeding this troll.
Bindidon and Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
Bindidon
Look what you’ve done now … MF has switches to one of his many alter egos.
Bob/Des/Bond/Bindidon/Snape/Svante/Nate/Norman/barry (whichever entirely interchangeable online persona this applies to) please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team (whichever entirely interchangeable online persona this applies to):
Shut up!
Bindidon, accusing someone of having a permanent mental disease is extremely unpleasant. Please stop trolling.
B,
I know your command of the English language is somewhat lacking, so I asked a question.
You are right. It was stupid and ignorant of me to expect you to understand my question, and even more stupid and ignorant to expect an answer.
I shall endeavour to write more slowly for you in future.
Have you managed to provide a useful description of the GHE (in English) yet?
Do you still believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter?
Can you understand the questions, or do I need to express myself more clearly?
I am always happy to assist those less fortunate than myself.
Cheers.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
The David Appell is a troll.
Bindidon,
Australia is an interesting corner: the lower troposphere shows a higher trend for 1979-2018 than does the surface
Nothing more normal. Physics foresees that. What is very worrying is that this is an exception. There is one fundamental thing wrong somewhere.
25 million Australians
Regards
Harry
Comme d’habitude: des mots, rien que des mots.
Où sont vous sources?
What is this graph designed to portray Bob? What i see is the natural fluctuations one would expect from a chaotic climate.
Lets assume the warming that you see is real what is the cause?
Before you run off and site gobbledegook links which demonstrate nothing CO2 has risen quite a lot over that time period and yet one must squint and tilt their head to see the result.
Once again i ask why are we reducing our country to third world standards based on changes of temp in the hundredths of of a degree C?
Are you talking to me??
Because I can’t see another Bob here, and I can’t see where I’ve linked to a graph.
Once again i ask why are we reducing our country to third world standards based on changes of temp in the hundredths of of a degree C?
Well you’re an alarmist. Which country is this?
David the trends are not your friends.
That depends …
On where you choose the ends …
For your trends.
(taken from the poem ‘The Cherry Picker’ by D. Nier)
B,
First point – molten surface.
Second point – non molten surface.
You decide – cooling or warming?
No cherry picking, mind!
Cheers.
I said late year 2017 is the turning point before that especially up to late year 2005 all factors were in a warm mode.
The ice age pends …
And pends … and pends … and pends …
Is there no ending
To the pending?
I seems that until we become spacefaring, the Ice Age will continue during all the time that humans will live on Earth.
You knew what I meant dear boy.
bob….”The ice age pends
And pends and pends and pends ”
As do the mythical effects of AGW.
–Bobdesbond says:
September 3, 2018 at 2:31 PM
You knew what I meant dear boy.–
You mean growth of glacier ice?
It’s a good question.
If Salvatore Del Prete thinks we going to have .5 of cooling within 10 years, are we to expect, advancement of glaciers, any time soon?
I mean noticeable advancement of glaciers, similar to what was happening during LIA. Or we always getting advancement of a glacier somewhere, key issue is glaciers [plural] advancement- as global pattern or large regional pattern.
And for glaciers to grow, they first have to stop receding.
gbaikie says:
“Or we always getting advancement of a glacier somewhere, key issue is glaciers [plural] advancement- as global pattern or large regional pattern.”
Here’s the regional pattern (fig. 5.1):
https://tinyurl.com/ya5tdbg
Good morning Dr. Spencer, thanks for the update.
-Chris
Tropical storm in Florida.
There is the potential for an AccuWeather Local StormMax of 12 inches across a narrow swath of the lower Mississippi Valley. The duration and exact location of the heaviest rainfall will depend on the exact track of the storm.
Salvatore
We have passed from Cycle 24 into Cycle 25. The reversal in the Sun’s magnetic field has been observed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/12/it-appears-solar-cycle-25-has-begun-solar-cyle-24-one-of-the-shortest-and-weakest-ever/
The UAH temperature record shows that the end of cycle 24 was 0.4C warmer than the end of Cycle 23 in 2008. I await your explaination.
I am not Salvatore but I will give you explanation. If you look up how solar cycles affect temperatures you will see the effect is delayed about one whole cycle, The temperature you point out is not the result of cycle 24 it that of cycle 23
This is why the the full cooling will not be strongly evident until about ten years from now.
The first signal is weak La Nina after very strong El Nino. It means that the temperature has settled.
Eben says:
If you look up how solar cycles affect temperatures you will see the effect is delayed about one whole cycle, The temperature you point out is not the result of cycle 24 it that of cycle 23
Where does the cooling hide for 10 years, and what makes it then come out to play?
It is hiding the same place your missing warming has been hiding for the last 30 years
I do not care what solar cycle we may or may not be in . What matters are the solar parameters which are now low enough(late 2017-now ) to cause cooling.
I said it takes 10+ years of sub solar activity in general to have an effect. Sub solar activity in general started in late 2005.
The rise of .4c for argument sake has already begun to subside and should continue as we move forward from here.
One can easily make the argument that all of the rise up to the end of year 2017 was natural, from the lack of major volcanic activity, the warm mode of the PDO(giving rise to frequent EL NINO’S)/AMO, high overall oceanic temperatures due to the strong solar activity 1850-2005,etc.
I would say the main reason for the lag time in global temperatures post 2005 is the oceans which are slow to cool and retain heat for years. My 10+ years is on the low side if anything. In other words to have cooling start 12 years after sub solar activity in general started is considered quick by most of the people who embrace solar/climate connections.
I think however it is sufficient and one can see that overall oceanic global temperatures have been in a cooling trend since the summer of 2017.
I think the geo magnetic field is very important in all of this and that field is also weakening and should compound given solar effects.
What matters is what takes place from late 2017 – next few years. The test is on now , it was not on prior to year 2017.
What the hell is “sub-solar”?
Sub solar is solar activity that runs below average in relation to solar activity based on years 1850-present.
Would you show me where it occurs in the scientific literature in that context.
Eben
I’m not sure that helps.
Cycle 23 started in August 1996 and UAH shows almost no temperature rise between 1996 and the end of cycle 23 in 2008.
If your one-cycle-lag hypothesis were correct there would be no temperature change during cycle 24, yet we observe 0.4C warming.
Next idea, please.
Winter 2018-2019 northern hemisphere will explain a lot.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00970/h05p5g57d6lj.png
Entropic man if you follow what I have said you would realize that I did not expect cooling to start no earlier then late year 2017.
I have said in order to have solar cooling two conditions are needed.
Condition one – 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (2005)
Condition two – followed by a period of time of very low average value solar parameters equal to or exceeded by that of typical solar minimums but longer in duration.
These two conditions have not occurred since the Dalton until late 2017.
Moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field which when in sync with solar will compound all given solar effects. Which is currently the case.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Entropic man if you follow what I have said you would realize that I did not expect cooling to start no earlier then late year 2017.
False.
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
“2016 will not be s warm as 2015….”
– Salvatore del Prete, 12/3/15
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203097
“…if temperatures do not show a decline by then(summer of 2018) in conjunction with very low solar activity we will be in trouble with our global cooling forecast.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 6/2/2017
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2017-0-45-deg-c/#comment-249606
I live in Maine and we experience over 3 meters of sea level rise daily, and have somehow learned to cope with it. Im happy to share some of our technology to those concerned about 1/1000th of that annually. /sarc off
Taylor…”I live in Maine and we experience over 3 meters of sea level rise daily….”
Good point.
T,
Apparently, tidal range around here is 8.1 m.
Average neaps 1.9 m, average kings 5.5 m.
I’m trying not to worry too much about a variation of less than 1 mm per year.
I don’t think CO2 has much to do with it, but you never know.
Cheers.
“Local governments, under pressure from annoyed citizens, are beginning to act. Elections are being won on promises to invest money to protect against flooding. Miami Beach is leading the way, increasing local fees to finance a $400 million plan that includes raising streets, installing pumps and elevating sea walls.”
NYT, 9/3/16
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html
You keep talking as if the solar cycles were some kind of temperature on-off switch. other cycles as oceans multidacadal oscillation play role too.
Get back to me in ten years we will compare the predictions
I forgot the say its not a single cycle effect , it is the cumulative effect of several previous cycles which were very high
Eben good input.
Eben if you are not Salvatore, I like that you used “affect” and “effect” correctly. I always forget witch is which.
Eben is not me.
Salvatore Del Prete is under the impression that within 10 years global temperature will lower by .5 C [or more].
I think it would be better if the global temperature did not cool by .5 within next 10 years, or if this happens this could be counted as bad news.
Many believers of the “greenhouse effect theory” think we would already be .5 C [or cooler] if not for the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. If this the case, I would regard adding CO2 as a positive development.
If .5 C [or more] + .5 C [or more] is a cooling of 1 C [or more] I think a cooling of 1 C I would think it is more than bad news.
Or I think returning to global temperature of pre-industrial or the temperatures of Little Ice Age is not desirable.
0.5C in 10 years???
He predicted 12 months ago that UAH would fall from its trend value of +0.3 to zero by now?
–Bobdesbond says:
September 3, 2018 at 2:29 PM
0.5C in 10 years???
He predicted 12 months ago that UAH would fall from its trend value of +0.3 to zero by now?–
Well I think .5 in 10 years is possible- but I don’t think it is likely.
Also I don’t think CO2 levels have warmed our present world by .5 C
I tend to think we have warming since LIA and that CO2 levels to present time have had as much as .5 C, I more inclined to think it’s been about .2 C or less.
Or I think we are at this moment still, recovering from LIA, and until I see evidence, which allows me to change my mind, I not changing my mind about it.
It seems that the solar activity of late could have effect and no doubt have some non zero effect.
So, actually quite similar to my view about the doubling of CO2, which in terms of near term [decades of time into the future]
a doubling of CO2 could only warm by 0 to .5 C
And I don’t by end of this century, that global average temperature will increase more than 1 C.
Or the global ocean surface temperature about 17 C and don’t expect it to get to 18 C or warmer by 2100 AD.
And by 2100 AD we might be saying Earth average temperature is about 16 C, and say it was about 15 C in later part of 20th and early 21 century.
bob…”He predicted 12 months ago that UAH would fall from its trend value of +0.3 to zero by now?”
As a reality check, can you read 0.3C on a regular room thermometer???
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
Deflection with fluff.
test
I am always going to predict aggressively.
S,
Gutsy move.
As Yogi Berra said –
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
At least you’ll either be wrong or right.
Cheers.
“I am always going to predict aggressively.”
AND incorrectly.
m,
Is that a prediction, perchance?
Cheers.
test
Salavtore…”I am always going to predict aggressively”.
Go for it Salvatore, the gutless alarmists cannot explain AGW or the GHE, never mind predicting anything.
In fact, they cannot predict anything because their data is fudged and all their propaganda comes from unvalidated climate models.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
I am always going to predict aggressively.
“Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
Gordon and I are just the opposite. We’re predicting, on average, only +0.001083 per month.
Check
David L HAGEN
September 1, 2018
“Thanks Roy for all your hard work. Look forward to your 39 year average temperature trend. About 0.01C/year?”
Gordon, “Thats actually pretty close to what one would guestimate using the Ideal Gas Law. CO2, at 0.04%, should not contribute more than a few hundredths C.”
ARL sponsored program corroborates low determinations of Climate Sensitivity. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmLamxqV4AET6h3.jpg
That’s funny, Dan.
Thanks!
Dan Pangburn says:
ARL sponsored program corroborates low determinations of Climate Sensitivity. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmLamxqV4AET6h3.jpg
That calculation is pure junk.
Climate sensitivity isn’t the derivative (let alone partial derivative), it’s the temperature CHANGE after equilibrium is reestablished, not the change in the moment.
In particular, water vapor isn’t to be held constant — it’s an important feedback.
The units don’t even balance in that equation (as poor attempt to use the chain rule), as the righthand side has units of one, while the left hand side has units of temperature per (ppm?).
And that’s just a start. It’s garbage.
DA…”In particular, water vapor isnt to be held constant its an important feedback”.
What’s it feeding back?
Downwelling radiation.
DA,, Valid direct feedback depends only on the temperature of liquid surface water as shown here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlZNZ32VAAEK0kc.jpg and it is only about 6.5% or less.
DA,, The net feedback is even less because the indirect feedback from added clouds from added water vapor is negative. Average global temperature is very sensitive to cloud change as explored here:
DA,, The net feedback is even less because the indirect feedback from added clouds from added water vapor is negative.
That’s still an area of uncertainty, and most papers say it is positive.
Link got stopped by WordPress filter. It is ref [22] in my blog/analysis. (click my name)
Apparently your confirmation bias got the best of you regarding units. Both sides of the equation are simply ratios of numbers, i.e. dimensionless.
This passes WordPress. To use it, take the hyphens out
http://low-altitude-clouds.blogspot.com
binny…”About 700 stations in the average contributed to the data. They are located in about 125 2.5 degree grid cells, what shows a good dissemination over your continent”.
You forgot to mention that 95% of the data is derived statistically in a model. They are not real, physical stations but the output of massaged data via interpolation and homogenization.
NOAA admitted they use less than 1500 stations globally. If 700 of them are around Australia, it doesn’t leave much of anything to fudge the rest of the planet.
Of course your myopia and gullibility prevent you understanding that.
Rose is right, Robertson, in her meaning about you.
You are the least competent, most ignorant and most stubborn person commenting here, and above all you are a psychotic liar.
You are so dumb that you even can’t make the difference between
– GHCN V3
– GHCN daily
and
– what NOAA derives out of them (what I did not at all talk about).
You are so incredibly incompetent that you still did not manage to grasp about reference periods, baselines and anomalies.
And never, never would you be able to process all the data located in
https://tinyurl.com/y9rk9xfr
by using the GHCN daily station list
https://tinyurl.com/yb4yjv72
All that builds the reason why you keep behind your cowardly faked pseudo real name, and discredit and denigrate the work of others.
Poor Robertson…
Bindidon, at least try to stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Seems as if no one is able to get you to stop trolling. You seem to be one of the biggest trolls. You contribute zero percentage of useful information and only go after posters with valid science knowledge. You do not go after the biggest troll of them all, JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n).
If you applied your standards in an unbiased fashion you would have more valid claims. As it stands you are just an ignorant troll defending stupid posters for no apparent reason except you are too stupid to understand the flaws in their arguments.
Norman,
Seems as if no one is able to get you to stop trolling. You seem to be one of the biggest trolls. You contribute zero percentage of useful information and only go after posters with valid science knowledge. You do not go after the biggest troll of them all, David Appell.
If you applied your standards in an unbiased fashion you would have more valid claims. As it stands you are just an ignorant troll defending stupid posters for no apparent reason except you are too stupid to understand the flaws in their arguments.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
There you go. JDHuffman pops up with a trolling comment. Apply your standards to his posts. Tell this poster to “Please Stop Trolling”.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman says:
“You do not go after the biggest troll of them all, JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n).”
Since Dr Roys Emergency Trolling Team is the same as those two.
There’s a picture of them here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycko6qkv
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Are you JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n)?
So you will still apply complete biased administration of your comments. Sad. A political troll that is anti-science. You support the people who make up physics, declare things that are not supported, ridicule valid science, but you will never tell real trolls to stop trolling. Why is this? Why such a double standard?
Apparently, it seems I am whoever the commenter I am talking to is obsessed by.
Svante
Yes DREMT may be Huffman(g.e.r.a.n), it could also be a group of dirupters so that the two may not be the same person but part of a trolling group. I remember an mpainter (who may be one of these) poster, who got banned, but posted at all times of the day. When questioned on this the poster admitted there were more than one person using the same posting identity. Huffman and g.e.r.a.n are the same person, not sure about the others. They do pop up to support whatever odd notion g.e.r.a.n posts.
With his Moon rotation you had a J-Halpless jump in. When the topic came up again there was this odd N. Tesla poster who just happened to be reading at the same time the Moon rotation came up again. They pop up to help g.e.r.a.n then go away. You have DREMT pop up to help g.e.r.a.n then this one also goes away. It is either on person or a group. Have not been able to tell from the nature of the posts.
There is certainly a group of trolls here who all help and support each other in disrupting and generally ruining this blog. Norman, you are one of them.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “There is certainly a group of trolls here who all help and support each other in disrupting and generally ruining this blog. Norman, you are one of them.”
No that would apply to you. I link to actual physics material. You do nothing but troll and support trolls.
JDHuffman, a huge troll that insults and denigrates, is left alone by your posts, yet people with valid science are not.
You are a complete troll because of your trolling bias. If you tell JDHuffman to stop trolling (when he does) I will see at least a fair application of your posts.
Posters who post real and valid science are not the ones ruining a scientific blog, posters who perform actual experiments are not ruining this blog. Posters who make up their own physics with zero support are the ones who ruin a science blog and make it a political wasteland. You are one of those by supporting the pseudoscientists (JDHuffman, Gordon Robertson) who post here on a regular basis.
There is a group of trolls here who all help and support each other in disrupting and generally ruining this blog. Misinterpreting valid science, and drawing false conclusions from poorly conducted experiments. They make up their own version of physics, and try to support it by any dishonest means available. They are either lying to themselves, or trying deliberately to deceive others. Either way, they are trolling. Norman, you are one of them.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Let me examine your latest troll comment.
YOU: “There is a group of trolls here who all help and support each other in disrupting and generally ruining this blog. Misinterpreting valid science, and drawing false conclusions from poorly conducted experiments. They make up their own version of physics, and try to support it by any dishonest means available. They are either lying to themselves, or trying deliberately to deceive others. Either way, they are trolling. Norman, you are one of them”
So you are deliberately lying now. What poorly conducted experiment was a false conclusions were made. Support your lies please.
What physics have I made up? You are intentionally a liar, why, have you no character? Show an example of physics I have made up in my posts, please or quit your lies.
You are not a troll but an outright liar.
No I am not the troll, you are just a dishonest lying poster. If you do not attempt to prove your false and derogatory lies then you need to follow your own advice and “please stop trolling”.
It is one thing to be a deluded idiot. An intentional liar is a sad character to be. Will you be like JDHuffman (g.e.r.a.n) and not attempt to prove your false allegations?
Take my posts and prove I make up physics. Demonstrate you are not a dishonest liar. You will not be able to do so.
Continue lying, it is what you fanatics do the best. Twist, distort and intentionally lie. You do not mind the dishonest person you are. I guess being a liar makes you happy in some way, you think you get away with something.
See, not pleasant, is it Norman? You can dish these insults out, but you certainly cant take them. Now please stop trolling. You are only making yourself look worse and worse.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yup you are a JDHuffman clone. I asked you to provide evidence for your false claims and you squirm out like a wet worm.
I asked you to prove any physics I have made up. A challenge to you. You are not able to do it so you post this:
“See, not pleasant, is it Norman? You can dish these insults out, but you certainly cant take them. Now please stop trolling. You are only making yourself look worse and worse.”
I do actually prove Gordon Robertson, and Huffman make up physics with actual physics links. You will not do this because you can’t.
So follow your own advice. Quit trolling. Either provide evidence of your false allegations or quit the troll.
Since I am not trolling, as you are, there is nothing for me to stop. Pointing out false and misleading physics is NOT trolling. You are trolling, I am not. That should explain it to you.
Norman, just keep ranting at the mirror.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yup. Predictable. You can’t address your own false allegations so you continue on the line of avoiding the task. I figured you would. If you are not JDHuffman you use his same tactics. Avoid, divert, ignore.
I guess you have to be a dishonest jerk to fit in with your crowd.
N, JKRATM.
Binny…”You are so dumb that you even cant make the difference between
GHCN V3
GHCN daily”
I repeat, NOAA admitted, based on it’s GHCN stations, that it only uses less than 1500 stations globally. The rest, including the 700 you mention, represent manufactured temperatures created statistically in a climate model.
I claim that partly because you referred to gridded cells which are so numerous they cannot have real temperature measuring devices in each one. Therefore, most of the cell temperatures are derived statistically in a model using sparse real data from cells up to 1200 km apart.
Some of the stations to which you refer are there on paper but NOAA does not use them. You do, then you present them as fact in graphs and explanations. That’s why I call you an idiot.
You refuse to see the outright chicanery being perpetuated by the likes of NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut, lining up like a good little lemming to get your spoonful of propaganda each day.
You still have not explained why NOAA and GISS have to reduce the confidence levels related to the probability their fudging is correct from the standard 90% level to 48% and 38% respectively in order to promote a very ordinary year like 2014 into the hottest year ever.
You fail to grasp the ridiculous in their claims. They proclaim 2014 the hottest year ever then add that the claim is “PROBABLY” true, with a probability of 48% and 38% respectively.
In other words, it’s a damned lie, yet idiots like you believe them just because they are NOAA and GISS.
That’s outright cheating and the only possible explanation is a political influence. NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are run by uber-alarmists and they are all fudging the surface temperature record to reflect the pseudo-science of AGW.
Phil Jones of Had-crut has been hounded by Steve McIntyre to release the Had-crut data set for independent audit. Jones has steadfastly refused and in the Climategate emails he urged his fellow cronies not to cooperate with an FOI presented to the UK government by McIntyre to get access to Had-crut data.
Gordon Robertson says:
I repeat, NOAA admitted, based on its GHCN stations, that it only uses less than 1500 stations globally
How many are needed, Gordon?
I repeat, NOAA admitted, based on its GHCN stations, that it only uses less than 1500 stations globally.
That information is years old, and the station count back then had a peak in the 1980s at around 6000 stations, tailing off at the end to about 1500.
There are now more stations in the historical record, and the near real-time updating stations number upwards of 2500 at present, IIRC.
That’s all about GHCN monthly. That’s not the dataset Bindidon is using.
There is a larger data set called GHCN daily, which has a larger number of stations (100,000). That’s the one Bindidon is using. From that latest methods paper on GHCN daily:
“Government exchange data (Table 3) refer to data collected through official GCOS or bilateral agreements. Under such agreements, Environment Canada and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, for example, have provided their complete digital, daily database for inclusion in GHCN-Daily (with more than 7500 and 17 000 station records, respectively).”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00103.1
A subset of these stations have long-term temp records, which are used for GHCN monthly. A large number of the 100,000 stations have too-short records to be used for long-term climate assessment, and less than a 3rd of of the 100,000 stations have temp data – precipitation data is the largest repository.
Bin, I went to link the station count chart you’ve posted, but it’s no longer there. Your charts don’t remain for long at the service you use. If you post the result again, I’ll save the pic at my image storage site.
Yes barry you are right, I am sorry for that.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536136392100/001.jpg
I’ll try to find another uploading site keeping the data permanently.
Thanks, saved that one. Do you have the same for GHCN monthly? I’d like Gordon to see that there are still more than 6000 stations in the historical data.
Robertson
I repeat: you are the most unexperienced, the most incompetent and the most pretentious commenter on this site.
You do not know anything about temperature measurements.
Why do you not learn to do the same job as I did, Robertson?
Simply because you prefer to discredit, denigrate and lie all the time. That is your dirty, disgusting hobby here.
Never and never would you be courageous enough to write your nonsense for example at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc site: she would let ban you immediately. Even Anthony Watts would.
Poor Robertson!
Bindidon, just keep ranting at the mirror.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You forgot to mention that 95% of the data is derived statistically in a model. They are not real, physical stations but the output of massaged data via interpolation and homogenization.”
All the raw data are from real, physical stations.
Then the raw data are corrected for biases. How would you prefer to correct for those biases, Gordon?
PS: Adjustments *reduce* the long-term warming trend.
1 : All the raw data are from real, physical stations.
2 : PS: Adjustments *reduce* the long-term warming trend.
Do you mean that the adjustments of stations data reduce the long-term trends?
If yes, do you have a reference?
I don’t know where we could obtain such a reference.
But when you generate raw data out of a GHCN station set in a baselined form and compare the output with e.g. GISS land-only data, you obtain this:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536092899583/001.jpg
The GHCN daily anomalies wrt the reference period 1981-2010 were all generated station by station, thus implying a prescan eliminating 12814 of the 35575 stations, namely those lacking the full data necessary for constructing the station’s local baseline for the reference period.
Linear estimates in C / decade:
1. 1895-2018
– GHCN daily 0.128 ± 0.004
– GISS land 0.103 ± 0.002
2. 1979-2018
– GHCN daily 0.251 ± 0.015
– GISS land 0.217 ± 0.073
The difference is not so very great (between 15 and 20 % less), but most people pretend that the inverse holds (“they cool the past to make the present warmer”).
If you don’t believe me, do it yourself!
Bindidon,
Interesting. What is the number of stations in the sample, say around the 1930s?
Look at the graph:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536136392100/001.jpg
It shows you also immediately that an averaging of all stations must be performed such that the world does not look like USA’s backyard.
Thank you but that’s not the question. My request was for the number of stations in your sample around the 1930s.
This is an element that can help understand your surprising result. The nature of so-called raw GHCN data is not so obvious.
I do not understand what you mean: in the graph, you perfectly see what you need, namely how many stations were active in the 1930’s.
More precisely:
1930 | 2763
1931 | 2829
1932 | 2872
1933 | 2935
1934 | 2978
1935 | 3043
1936 | 3340
1937 | 3457
1938 | 3530
1939 | 3643
*
“The nature of so-called raw GHCN data is not so obvious.”
What exactly do you mean here ?? Where did you obtain such ‘information’ ?
Oups this time the good thread.
I am interested in the sample of your graph comparing raw GHCN to GISS land.
You wrote :
So you say you have 22761 stations between 1981 and 2010. How many do you have in the 1930s ?
As for the nature of raw GHCN data : not all series are in fact raw. The French series are for example already adjusted by MeteoFrance. It’s a statistical analysis of the data that showed it to me and it was confirmed by Victor Venema. He apparently has his entry into the institution and, given his opinion on the question, we can not suspect him of lying on this point!
phi
Not one temperature time series on Earth is raw! Who could ever be naive enough to expect such a nonsense?
All measurement institutions check for outlier evidence in order to avoid their distribution all around the world.
But all pseudoskeptics feel the need to think of manipulation occuring everywhere.
The greatest specialist here is Goddard alias Heller who published absolute nonsense about GHCN V3 adjusted vs. unadjusted data. I know this because I processed both data streams two years ago.
Victor Venema is all you want but a pseudoskeptic. He is a very honest scientist.
Errors can include getting the date wrong and putting the decimal point in the wrong place. Station names change, and that can create errors, especially if 2 stations have the same or similar names.
If you think data sets should include mistaken daily values of, say, 312 C, then yes, you are right to complain that data is not purely ‘raw’.
Bindidon,
You are a sophist.
I said French series were adjusted, not just controlled. Do you know what the adjustments are? Yet, this is what you claim to evaluate with your chart!
You do not answer my simple question. You say you have 22761 stations in your sample between 1981 and 2010. How much is left in the 1930s?
phi
Before you call me a sophist, maybe you should manage to accurately read my comments.
You ask for the third time in sequence
“You do not answer my simple question. You say you have 22761 stations in your sample between 1981 and 2010. How much is left in the 1930s?”
1. In the comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319129
you see a link to a graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536136392100/001.jpg
showing you the temporal distribution of station activity.
2. In the comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319197
you see the list of active stations during the 1930’s:
1930 | 2763
1931 | 2829
1932 | 2872
1933 | 2935
1934 | 2978
1935 | 3043
1936 | 3340
1937 | 3457
1938 | 3530
1939 | 3643
Do you have problems with English, phi? Va-t-il nous falloir passer au français? Aucun problème pour moi, c'est ma langue maternelle.
*
But sometimes we all do mistake, and I inverted the number of stations having successfully passed the reference period test for 1981-2010. The correct number is 12814.
That is easily seen in the graph above showing the number of active stations per year. Never and never could there be over 20000 stations having been active between 1981 and 2010!
*
Now back to my pretended sophism.
I speak about ADJUSTMENTS, phi.
See for example the GHCN V3 record for the VOSTOK station in Antarctica. There you see in the unadjusted series that somebody entered -3.20 C instead of -32.00 C.
In the adjusted series, this data has been invalidated.
Somewhere else (I think it was in Spain) it was detected that a station had produced data differing from reality by 0.5 C. That was corrected, what produced a jump in the adjusted series – but the unadjusted data was not changed.
Please show me REAL ADJUSTMENT examples corresponding to what you pretend.
And finally I ask you like barrys did: what would you do if you were responsible for all stations in France?
Would you leave all errors you detect in the record, thus letting every user (GISS, NOAA, Had-CRUT, JMA etc) correct them in his own dataset?
Who is the sophist here?
Bindidon,
Who does not understand or does not seek to understand?
I’m asking you how many of the 12814 stations in your sample are active in the 1930s, and you give me the number of active GHCN stations in that period. Your graph is not that of your sample which should have a constant number of 12814 between 1981 and 2010.
Seen?
You confuse quality control with adjustments. Adjustments, sometimes named homogenizations, are intended to suppress sudden jumps in the series. Each correction has the effect of modifying all values of the series located either before or after the jump.
This operation is not neutral, it provokes, at least in the cases where it was quantified properly (in particular USHCN and the alpine zone, Böhm 2001), a warming of an order of magnitude of 0.5 °C for the XXth century.
My bad: the graph I linked to was the one showing all active stations (35755 in the grand total), and not only those having data in a given reference period (here: 1981-2010) making them able to contribute to an anomaly-based time series.
*
“Your graph is not that of your sample which should have a constant number of 12814 between 1981 and 2010.”
No. Because the 12814 were a static information based on yearly presence; some stations are dynamically rejected because their monthly reference period was not complete enough.
*
“You confuse quality control with adjustments. Adjustments, sometimes named homogenizations, are intended to suppress sudden jumps in the series.”
No. I do not confound anything. Homogenisation is understood today as the process of comparing a station’s data with that of its neighbours in order to eliminate UHI and similar outliers. Performed by GISS since… 1998.
*
“This operation is not neutral, it provokes, at least in the cases where it was quantified properly (in particular USHCN and the alpine zone, Böhm 2001), a warming of an order of magnitude of 0.5 °C for the XXth century.”
You wrote here exactly the contrary of what Böhm, Auer et alii published:
“A comparison of the homogenized series with the original series clearly shows the necessity to homogenize. Each of the original series had breaks (an average of five per series) and the mean of all series was systematically biased by non-climatic noise. This noise has subdued the long-term amplitude of the temperature evolution in the region by 0.5 K.”
All that becomes quite clear when one reads the full article at
http://www.homogenisation.org/files/private/WG1/Bibliography/Applications/Applications%20%28A-B%29/bohm_etal.pdf
namely that the authors were able to perform a cooling bias correction in the CRU dataset.
Did you really read the paper itself? Or did you rather read a ‘critique’ of it made by some ‘skeptic’?
Bindidon,
Too bad you do not have a graph of the actual number of values. In any case, your calculation does not demonstrate what you think.
Homogenisation is understood today as the process of comparing a station’s data with that of its neighbours in order to eliminate UHI and similar outliers.
The definition is still not fixed. That’s why I wrote : Adjustments, sometimes named homogenizations.
You wrote here exactly the contrary of what Böhm, Auer et alii published
This noise has <b/subdued the long-term amplitude of the temperature evolution in the region by 0.5 K.
You have a very serious problem of understanding!!!
I wrote : This operation is not neutral, it provokes.. …a warming of an order of magnitude of 0.5 °C for the XXth century.
Bindidon,
Too bad you do not have a graph of the actual number of values. In any case, your calculation does not demonstrate what you think.
The definition is still not fixed. That’s why I wrote : Adjustments, sometimes named homogenizations.
This noise has subdued the long-term amplitude of the temperature evolution in the region by 0.5 K.
You have a very serious problem of understanding!!!
I wrote : This operation is not neutral, it provokes.. …a warming of an order of magnitude of 0.5 C for the XXth century.
phi
Firstly, let me apologise for having thought you would turn Böhm’s scientific result into its contrary: that is what happens here all the time after all, and I must confess that this makes me sometimes a bit paranoid.
I begin to understand that you are all but a clone of the Robertson clown.
*
Secondly, we need some convergence concerning baselines.
You were wondering about the average number of GHCN daily stations per year being in my comment lower during 1981-2010 than the number of stations I computed a baseline for (and they were indeed 22761, not 12814: this was the number of rejected stations).
This is due to the fact that I used for GHCN daily (35575 stations) the same objects and methods as for GHCN V3 (7280 stations) 2 years ago.
At that time I had the problem of achieving a compromise between temporal baseline accuracy (as many data in the baseline as possible) and spatial station accuracy (as many stations as possible).
The 22761 stations were obtained with a minimal temporal requirement (at least one month per baseline year).
This is the reason why a maximum of 16310 stations appears in the chart instead of the 22761.
Requesting all months to be present in all baselines reduces the amount of available stations down to 3319 stations, and setting the bar at 50% gives us at least 13250 of them.
Below you see two charts:
– one shows the temporal station distribution wrt the baseline completeness level (you see that a 100% completeness gives us exactly the number of stations expected)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536352656582/001.jpg
– one shows the time series constructed out of the available stations (stations not fulfilling the baselining requirement are automatically excluded)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153635273430/001.jpg
Linear estimates 1895-2018
– 22761 baselines: 0.06 C / decade
– 13250 baselines: 0.06 C / decade
– 3319 baselines: 0.11 C / decade
Linear estimates 1979-2018
– 22761 baselines: 0.23 C / decade
– 13250 baselines: 0.26 C / decade
– 3319 baselines: 0.28 C / decade
Please draw your own conclusions.
Nota bene
As opposed to the GHCN daily plot in the GHCN/GISS comparison, the 3 plots above were generated without grid averaging, thus giving the US stations their usual predominance (over 50%) and hence a somewhat lower trend.
People having a higher math/stat background than I of course can obtain much better spatiotemporal baseline presence.
I am a simple layman, and have lots of fun.
Here is a pdf version of the anomaly chart above:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536354309104.pdf
You can scale it up to say 400 or 800 % and thus will obtain a much better comparison of the 60 month running means in the three plots.
phi
I wrote in the comment above (September 7, 2018 at 2:50 PM):
“… with a minimal temporal requirement (at least one month per baseline year).”
Sorry! I should of course have written:
“… with a minimal temporal requirement (at least one year per baseline month).”
Evidemment.
Bindidon,
Thank you for the clarification.
I will not go into details but quickly some elements.
In my opinion, the interest of adjustments quantification resides mainly in the demonstration of the predominance of cooling jumps in the raw series.
This bias is an enigma, the explanatory attempts contained in Böhm 2001 are unlikely.
Your methodology contains a potential defect because the sample varies over time.
You may have a way to test Böhm’s explanations. If he is right, the jumps are statistically independent of the series history and you should get a similar result with constant sample. In addition, this would mean that US and the alpine zone are exceptions.
The alternative explanation is that the stations are subject to a constant increase of the warming perturbations and that the cooling jumps are partial corrections notably at the occasion of thermometers relocation. This implies that statistically the series do not contain significant cooling jumps in the early decades and therefore, at constant sample, you should get lower trends.
You could test this for example on 1931-2010.
Do you think that the important difference between your two graphs comes from the difference of spatial representativity?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536092899583/001.jpg
http://4gp.me/bbtc/153635273430/001.jpg
phi says:
Do you mean that the adjustments of stations data reduce the long-term trends?
If yes, do you have a reference?
Sure. See the graph in Karl et al, Figure 2b (“With Corrections Versus Without Corrections”) for the temperature data with and without adjustments. Compare the trends bias corrections REDUCE the long-term global warming trend.
“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf
Ooooh look! A graph!
Cheers.
David Appell,
My question was specifically about the stations. The visible effect on your graph is due to a correction of the SST.
Adjustments to station data make the long term trend warmer.
Adjustments to SSTs make the long term record cooler.
The combination of both makes the adjusted record cooler than raw.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
barry,
Adjustments to station data make the long term trend warmer.
Yes and that’s why it’s interesting to understand why Bindidon is coming to an opposite result.
For a start, the data in my link is from the GHCN monthly data set, which has upward of 7000 stations (at peak). That’s the data set with long-term station records.
Bin’s data set is GHCN daily, which includes many short-term station data. The entire data set is 100,000 stations. A majority do not have temp data (2/3 of all stations are precipitation only).
Also, there is no weighting in Bin’s plot, so if one area has a bunch of stations more than another, that area’s trend will dominate.
Europe and the US will comprise a large portion of the dataset, and their log-term trends are less than global. The reason for the difference is most likely due to a preponderance of station data in areas that have not warmed as much as global.
Also occurred to me: US raw data has time of observation bias that cools the trend, as well as instrument change bias. This will impact the global trend, as US stations are probably the largest number for any country.
barry
“Adjustments to station data make the long term trend warmer.”
Not necessarily.
“Also, there is no weighting in Bins plot, so if one area has a bunch of stations more than another, that areas trend will dominate.”
WOW! You seem to know what I do even better than myself!
Sorry: you are ‘plain wrong’, as Grant Foster uses to say.
The graph I presented somewhere above in the discussion with phi, comparing GHCN daily with GISS, is very well based on a station data grid averaging (2.5 degrees, like for UAH’s time series).
And yes: a grid averaging indeed makes the world a bit warmer. Simply because it looks that way at bit less like the US!
My poor Bindidon,
You obviously have no idea of the structure of the data you are manipulating. Well clever who can understand what you have tinkered.
There are 673 GHCN stations with complete monthly data between 1981 and 2010 for about 3000 land cells of 2.5 x 2.5 !!!!
GISS and others can ponder because they use all the available series. They integrate them using an effective yet questionable method.
No, I won’t answer with ‘My poor phi’.
“You obviously have no idea of the structure of the data you are manipulating.”
Are you sure?
You are possibly talking about GHCN V3, I am certainly talking about GHCN daily.
Let us go back to our main exchange subthread.
phi
I come back here after a longer comment on ‘our’ pipeline.
“There are 673 GHCN stations with complete monthly data between 1981 and 2010 for about 3000 land cells of 2.5 x 2.5”
1. Do you know this:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/03/area-weighting-and-60-stations-global.html
2. Do you know about the wonderful redundancy level in UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1536355729727.jpg
The blue plot was obtained by selecting 1024 evenly distributed cells within the 9504 cell grid, and constructing a time series out of their averaging.
phi says:
“My question was specifically about the stations. The visible effect on your graph is due to a correction of the SST.”
PLenty has been written about the urban heat island effect, which isn’t that big to begin with. Go read it, especially from the 1980s-1990s.
The larger problem isn’t with the stations themselves, but with the methodology used to read them. These articles are the best I know to explain the issues:
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
“Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data,” BEST
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
“Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
David Appell
PLenty has been written about the urban heat island effect, which isnt that big to begin with.
Reported to 100% urbanized areas, energy expenditure and evaporation deficit produce on average in temperate climate about 50% more sensible heat than rural areas. Which isn’t that negligible to begin with.
I am interested in the sample of your graph comparing raw GHCN to GISS land.
You wrote :
So you say you have 22761 stations between 1981 and 2010. How many do you have in the 1930s ?
As for the nature of raw GHCN data : not all series are in fact raw. The French series are for example already adjusted by MeteoFrance. It’s a statistical analysis of the data that showed it to me and it was confirmed by Victor Venema. He apparently has his entry into the institution and, given his opinion on the question, we can not suspect him of lying on this point!
DA…”All the raw data are from real, physical stations.
Then the raw data are corrected for biases. How would you prefer to correct for those biases, Gordon?”
David Appell’s fantasy world resumes.
Yes, the raw data is from real stations but at one time NOAA was using 6000 stations to cover the planet. Now they are using less than 1500 stations.
They use the data from those stations in a climate model where the data is interpolated and homogenized to create synthesized temperatures, which represent the majority of temperature data points.
In fact, NOAA is going so far as to create ‘reference’ stations with which they can compare real temperatures to see if they need adjusting.
Gordon Robertson says:
Yes, the raw data is from real stations…
So you admit you were wrong.
…but at one time NOAA was using 6000 stations to cover the planet. Now they are using less than 1500 stations
Why have you always ignored Barry’s replies to you, calling you out?
PS: Only ~100 stations are needed.
DA,
Do the long suffering taxpayers get a refund for all the money wasted collecting all the useless records for a century or so? Who is going to be prosecuted for using 6000 stations when only 100 or so are necessary?
Are you the only person to become aware of this colossal waste of time, effort and money? Maybe you can get a whistleblowers’ percentage.
Why are any stations at all needed? Surely computer models are just as useless at predicting the future – or a 12 year old child with a straight edge and a pencil could be employed for a few minutes at a time as required.
I hope you get the reward you so richly deserve.
Cheers.
Gordon,
The number of stations now peak above 6000 in the 1980s, and go down to about 2500 in the present.
The 6000 station data is still there. It hasn’t been deleted. it just hasn’t been updated.
The only reason there is a larger number of stations back in time is that the people who make GHCN went looking for historical data and added it in. This was data that wasn’t from the regularly updating stations. Nothing was deleted. It was added.
It’s still all there in the GHCN monthly database.
Robertson
Stop your disgusting lies!
Bindidon, please stop your disgusting trolling.
“The GHCNM v3 has been released. This version currently contains monthly mean temperature, monthly maximum temperature and monthly minimum temperature. The station network for the time being, is the same as GHCN-Monthly version 2 (7280 stations).”
The data for 6000 stations are still there, Gordon.
CAGW is so disconfirmed…
We’ve enjoyed 0.05C/decade of beneficial warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, for a total of just 0.85C of beneficial warming over the past 168 years… Oh, the humanity…
Since 1979 (UAH start), we’ve enjoyed about 0.13C/decade of beneficial warming recovery, with most of this attributed to: PDO/AMO/NAO 30-year warm cycles, the strongest 63-year Solar Maximum event in 11,400 years (1933~1963), El Nino/Super El Nino spikes, and natural variation.
CO2’s contribution has been minimal; perhaps just 0.2C~0.3C over the past 168 years.
From 2020, the PDO, AMO and NAO will all be in (or about to start) their respective 30-year cool cycles, and a 50~75-yr Grand Solar Minimum event will also start, leading to cooling global temps for many decades to come.
CAGW projected the early 2000 warming trend would be 0.2C/decade (not even close), and will soon increase to 0.3C/decade (a pure fantasy)…
CMIP5 model mean projections show global temp anomalies should be near 1.2C by August 2018, but UAH’s anomaly was just 0.19C last month (6 TIMES lower than projections)…
It looks like the current El Nino cycle will be a La Nada event, but it’s still a bit early… We’ll see by the end of this year how strong it will be…
A La Nina event will likely start in 2020, in combination with: the start of a GSM, the PDO being is a 30-year cool cycle, AMO starting its 30-year cool cycle and the NAO starting its 30-year cool cycle…
CAGW will soon be laughed at…
sam…”CO2s contribution has been minimal; perhaps just 0.2C~0.3C over the past 168 years”.
I could go along with that if you changed it to 0.02C – 0.03C.
Ignoring radiative transfer in the atmosphere is like claiming animals don’t consist of cells, or that electrons don’t exist because you can’t see them. There isn’t even a word for how wrong it is, and how dumb.
It is also not what is happening. You know that of course, you are just trolling again.
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
I must have accidentally nudged the automatic citation feature.
By all means, don’t dare look at any of these citations, let alone discuss them.
You’re clearly not here for the science. So why are you here?
DA,
“Radiative Forcing” is nonsensical pseudoscientific climatological jargon, much like “climate sensitivity” or “heat accumulation”.
Any paper containing such words has probably been published only after its author has paid to have it published. There is probably a market for such nonsense among the stupid, gnorant and delusional.
Books relating to astrology or cooking will likely be more profitable, and more useful.
Cheers.
David, you cannot even follow the simplest conversations. You claimed people here are ignoring radiative transfer in the atmosphere altogether, as if it does not even happen. That is obviously false, and I said so. You then link to those papers (as you have done countless times before) even though it does not logically follow. Weird (and trolling).
DA…”Ignoring radiative transfer in the atmosphere is like claiming animals dont consist of cells….”
Radiative transfer from the surface is inefficient and insignificant. Problem is, alarmists have not learned that yet.
Prove that for us, Gordon. Enlighten us. Please.
(PS: It’s not just from the surface. Big mistake.)
DA,
Prove that he is wrong. You claim to be here to correct people.
Correct away – I am always open to new facts.
Cheers.
E Swanson wrote –
“The effect of adding insulation on a system with a (nearly) constant energy input will be to increase the temperature within the insulated space. This effect can be easily demonstrated with simple instrumentation, but MF chooses to ignore such evidence. MF is either hopelessly ignorant of physics or his goal is a malicious attempt to spread denialist FUD.”
Misleading nonsense. Increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a surface thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer.
All you need is sunlight, a thermometer, and insulation of your choice. Actually, even a conductor will serve just as well – a sheet of silver or copper, if you have one to hand.
Or you can just wait for a cloud to pass between the Sun and the thermometer, if you prefer.
No climatological pseudoscientific misdirection or redefinition needed.
No wonder none of these GHE enthusiasts can actually describe the deity they worship, and it’s a travesty that they can’t. No GHE. No CO2 heating effect. So sad, too bad.
Cheers,
Mike…re swannie’s comment….”The effect of adding insulation on a system with a (nearly) constant energy input will be to increase the temperature within the insulated space”.
What swannie fails to understand it that it’s not the insulation raising the temperature. The room temperature, pre-insulation, is a result of heat in versus heat out and the heat comes from a heat source.
All the insulation does is affect the heat out factor, it cannot change heat in.
The only insulation in the atmosphere is the 99% made up of nitrogen and oxygen. It acts by absorbing heat from the surface and not releasing the heat for a lengthy period.
CO2 at 0.04% can supply no insulating effect. The piddly amount of heat it acquires by converting surface IR to heat can do nothing to raise the temperature of the atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson
E. Swanson knows physics of heat transfer. You do not want to learn it. He has also done actual experiments to prove his view is correct and you have done nothing of this sort.
The atmosphere prevents all but an average of 40 W/m^2 energy from the surface making it to space. The surface emits an average of 390 W/m^2 so it means the atmosphere is absorbing 350 W/m^2. CO2 absorbs a percentage of this amount (minimum estimate is 10%, upper range around 20%).
If you put a cold plate over a hot burner, the cold plate will absorb most the IR from the burner, none will make it through. The plate will heat up and start emitting more IR. Some will be emitted back toward the burner, increasing its temperature a bit, some will be emitted on the opposite side of the burner away from the plate.
Do some experiments. You will find all your ideas are wrong and flawed and you will have to start over from scratch. Start to learn the REAL physics and not the blog version you are addicted to.
No Norman, you’re getting even more confused, instead of learning.
The atmosphere is NOT trapping 350 W/m^2! Think about how stupid that sounds!
JDHuffman
When did I use the word “trapping”. The GHG in the atmosphere absorb 350 W/m^2 of surface IR. They emit more than this because they also absorb solar incoming IR as well as being warmed by latent heat and thermals.
Not sure what prompted your response and changing of my word choice.
“The atmosphere prevents all but an average of 40 W/m^2 energy from the surface making it to space.”
JDHuffman
Yes from the surface emission. As I stated, the atmosphere emits more than it absorbs from the surface.
The surface IR is mostly absorbed and then the heated GHG will emit IR.
Still does not explain your incorrect use of terminology.
Do you claim that the atmosphere is not absorbing surface IR? What is it exactly you are tying to state?
Norman Grinvalds does not understand physics, so he is usually wrong. In this example he gets caught, and tries to spin his way out.
First, Norman claims, erroneously:
“The atmosphere prevents all but an average of 40 W/m^2 energy
from the surface making it to space.”
Then he tries to somehow redeem himself:
“As I stated, the atmosphere emits more than it absorbs from the surface.”
He gets tangled in his pseudoscience, and ends up arguing with himself!
g.e.r.a.n
Sorry you are wrong. Nothing I said was wrong. All was completely true. You are just trolling.
Where is your idiot buddy, Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:, when he is needed. You need to stop trolling and being a general idiot.
Norman says: “Sorry you are wrong. Nothing I said was wrong. All was completely true.”
And that’s why Norman will always be a clown.
Norman, you are the living embodiment of why I am necessary. You have absolutely no ability to be critical of yourself in any way. Yet so many of your comments, like the last one, are utterly devoid of content. Just a collection of insults and a couple of statements to the effect that you are correct.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Most your posts are useless. When you do try to post some physics you show how little you understand. Rather than trying to point out flaws in my physics (which you are not able to do, you are not smart enough to even attempt such a task) you post empty nonsense. You need to be insulted when you are an idiot. Why do you think making a stupid pointless comment (like telling only a select few to stop trolling but letting the biggest troll on this blog, who is not David Appell, but g.e.r.a.n post his trolling comments freely without any reaction from you) deserves praise? When you post like an idiot why do you believe you are entitled to respect?
JDHuffman
And that is why you will always be wrong. Is there anything you have been right about so far? I don’t think so. You have a track record of claiming to know physics but not presenting any of it but your own notions of how things work.
https://postlmg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
I have shown you many times where you are wrong based upon established physics. Your comeback is the standard “He does not understand what he is reading” without the slightest explanation of what I don’t understand. I guess that is an attempt to fool people into thinking you know what you are talking about when you don’t really know anything. Sad deluded poster.
Two more substance-free comments. Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman, I’m glad to see you are studying that link. Someday, maybe you will understand it?
Your constant attempted insults only reveal your pathetic desperation and abject insecurity.
JDHuffman
I do not continue to study your link. I bring it up to show how little physics you understand and how you make up what you don’t know. Experimental evidence proves it to be incorrect. You would be much wiser to reject your made up physics. Accept that you are wrong and correct your flawed notions. Persisting in deluded reality is not going to help you.
Norman, continue to study that link.
Reality is good.
Norman…”E. Swanson knows physics of heat transfer. You do not want to learn it. He has also done actual experiments to prove his view is correct and you have done nothing of this sort.”
You and swannie make a great pseudo-science team.
Gordon Robertson
Sorry to pop your delusion bubble. E. Swanson not only understands real and valid science much better than you ever will, he goes much further and does actual experiments to prove his view is the correct one.
No Gordon you are the one who makes up their own physics to suit your deluded beliefs and Conspiracy theories. You are a true pseudoscience poster by the very definition. You make up ideas with zero evidence, the material you pretend to understand (like Clausius work) is wrong and when people bring up direct quotes you are wrong you are so deluded you further twist and distort the quotes. Pure pseudoscience. When you do your own experiments and prove even one of your wacko ideas, then I will consider your ideas. As it stands you make up whatever sounds good to you and pretend you know what you are talking about. When people correct you you ignore them as it does not fit your political agenda.
You got the psedoscience experts on this blog, You, JDHUffman, DREMT, J-Halpless, N Tesla. Just a bunch of crackpots pretending they know physics. Not one of you knows the slightest bit of physics.
Your goof ball Huffman thinks this is valid even when experimental evidence proves it is BS, false and made up. Does not change this moron’s mind. He will be as stupid today as he was yesterday and will continue to post his endless unenlightened garbage, defended by the stupid DREMT (who is probably a sock puppet of g.e.r.a.n).
This is pseudoscience. It is all you know Gordon and all you care about.
https://postlmg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
The dunce has the plates the same temperature. E. Swanson’s experiment shows him to be a deluded idiot. Doesn’t phase this crackpot or you. Yet neither you nor the idiot (and the annoying idiot DREMT) will do your own experiments of any type. You live in the world of pseudoscience where you make up whatever idea you like and pretend you know physics.
Another comment with zero substantive content, just personal abuse and proclamations of who is correct and who is not, according to your subjective opinion. Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman embraces dishonesty, as he rejects reality.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The annoying troll.
So you make the claim about me “proclamations of who is correct and who is not, according to your subjective opinion.”
Really?
We have an actual experiment done by E. Swanson in vacuum conditions that show blue/green plates are at different temperatures.
We have your buddy making this claim about the state of the two plates.
https://postlmg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
What is my subjective opinion? There is actual facts on this matter. It is not an opinion nor subjective. Not sure what you are trying to say but it is most likely wrong.
Quit trolling. Follow your own advice.
Real plates possess some degree of thermal resistance. Perfectly-conducting, ultra-thin thought-experiment plates possess none. With real plates, get some insulative effect. Apparently, 10 degrees C worth. With thought-experiment plates, get none. End of discussion.
Now, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman embraces dishonesty, as he rejects reality.”
Yeah right! Coming from the poster that got banned as g.e.r.a.n and comes back and pretends he is not. Talk about dishonest.
Also you reject reality. You post a phony energy transfer diagram of plates and have them at the same temperature when experimental evidence proves they do not reach the same temperature. You just make up things and get upset when other posters challenge your BS.
Your troll partner does his/her best to protect your BS from scrutiny by distracting posters with the stupid “Please stop trolling”.
Now the two of you are tag teaming me because I call your posts stupid and ludicrous.
The only question remaining is when you will let go and post “hilarious”. You use clown and very funny but you are avoiding your signature “hilarious”.
Delusional Norman believes every commenter is his hero ger*an.
And, that’s only one of his many personal problems.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Okay good, you are finally making a claim. Now if you don’t want to be a troll what evidence do you have to support you claim that thermal resistance will cause the green plate to be much cooler than the blue plate and what is the logic you have to reach this conclusion?
JDHuffman
YOU: “Delusional Norman believes every commenter is his hero ger*an.”
Really? Hmm. I think I have suggested only you and DRMET could be g.e.r.a.n. I am not sure about DRMET, I am fairly certain you are. Two would not even come close to the several dozen commenters on this blog. Not sure what point you were trying to make. Like most your pointless posts. I guess you need to do something with your time. You get drunk and post on Roy’s blog. I guess it passes the time for you.
Norman, you’re such a clown. You suspect anyone that uses the word “hilarious” to be your hero, ger*an.
Norman provides the proof of his own dishonesty that he earlier demanded from me, as he changes my statement, asks me to defend his altered version of my statement, and most amazingly of all, says that if I dont do this, I will be a troll!
Norman, please stop trolling.
“All you need is sunlight, a thermometer, and insulation of your choice. ”
OK. I’ll take the challenge. My insulation is a piece of glass, on a wood frame.
The temp reading on the thermometer rises from 80 F to 105 F.
N,
No it doesn’t. What is it you are not saying? Is your thermometer not on the surface? Have you perhaps placed it in a fish tank with a blackened bottom?
Or you can tell me that you placed another piece of glass between the Sun and the original, and the thermometer rose another 25 F! And so on.
Either you are stupid and ignorant, or you have discovered a new principle of physics.
I suspect a semantic trick, but you provide insufficient information.
Cheers.
Repeated the experiment, Mike. Easier setup that anyone can reproduce.
Exact recipe.
Large pizza box, remove lid. Cut large round hole (D ~ 30 cm) in bottom. Poke digital meat thermometer through the side of the box.
Place on dirt, hole on top, in sunshine. Ambient temp 85 F.
Wait 10 m, check temp. 105 F.
Cover hole in box with glass window, or plexiglass sheet. Both work same.
Wait 10 m. Check temp. 149 F.
Super-clown Nate believes he has invented a “solar oven”.
That’s why he is a “super-clown”.
JD promised the other day to never respond to my posts anymore. Already he can’t resist.
But yes, JD, it is not a new invention. It works well for capturing solar energy for hot water heating too.
And yet, somehow, Mike Flynn denies its reality.
N,
Not at all. A surface insulated from direct sunlight is colder than that same surface exposed to direct sunlight.
My solar heated water collection panels achieve around 185 F, or so.
Put a pizza box over the panel, shielding it from the direct rays of the Sun, and it won’t get nearly as hot. That is no doubt why manufacturers do not cover their panels with insulation in the form of pizza boxes!
Stupidity and ignorance is no substitute for the scientific method.
Tell me all about the GHE, which apparently is not an effect, and has no relationship to greenhouses! Your delusional fantasies are shared by many. Belief is no substitute for fact.
I confidently predict that placing a pizza box in the Sun will result in a higher temperature than placing it in a refrigerator, or exposing it to the unconcentrated rays of the Moon. Do you think you could make it hotter exposing it to CO2?
Go away, if you choose. Hide from the laughter.
Cheers.
“All you need is sunlight, a thermometer, and insulation of your choice.”
The insulation of my choice was clearly glass (pun intended), Mike. The temp of the thermometer rose considerably with the glass between the sun and the thermometer.
Your challenge was met.
Your favorite meme is proven FALSE. Now you can stop saying it.
MF (and Gordo) again distort the science, as usual. The insulation effect occurs on the outgoing side of the heat transfer process. MF’s comment again presents only the inward flow of sunlight thru the atmosphere, which is not the important portion of the problem.
As another experiment, suppose one places a heat source within an insulated box, along with a temperature measuring instrument of some sort. With the insulated box itself located in a space with (nearly) constant temperature, such as a room, measure the temperature difference between the inside of the box and the room after the box temperature has reached steady state. Now, add some more insulation around the box and then measure the temperature within the box again.
The box could be as simple as a cheap Styrofoam beer cooler and the heater could be a small wattage incandescent light bulb. Measure the temperature with an indoor-outdoor digital thermometer, which are readily available from many stores. You could use a second cooler for the added insulation, since they are typically designed with in a stacked configuration for sale, so one could simply place the first cooler within the second and add the second top above the first, sealing the joints.
Science and engineering tells us that the temperature difference will increase. The heat source doesn’t cause the box temperature to increase, it’s the extra insulation. Surely you will agree with this conclusion, even without performing the experiment yourself.
E. Swanson, you are confusing “radiative” and “conducive” heat transfers.
That happens often in pseudoscience.
That should be “conductive”, not “conducive”!
(Foiled again by auto-correct.)
g.e.r.a.n
No E. Swanson is not confused about the terminology. Your reading skills are what is lacking. Note he chose the words carefully just for people like you.
E. Swanson: “insulation effect” he did not say insulation, he said insulation effect.
Take an infrared heater turn it to maximum and sit in front of it. You will feel the IR energy hitting your skin. Now put a wooden door in-between you and the heater. The door keeps the IR from reaching you, you no longer feel it. It is effectively insulating you from the IR energy.
HERE:
“insulate
verb
Definition of insulate for English Language Learners
: to add a material or substance to (something) in order to stop heat, electricity, or sound from going into or out of it”
So the wooden door will stop IR from reaching you. It is insulating you from the IR, it is stopping the heat from reaching you.
The only one here that is full of pseudoscience (and you don’t know what it means but you like the sound of it) and confused by concepts and words.
Grinvalds, trying to make a point by mixing conductive and radiative properties just indicates you do not understand physics.
But, your humor is appreciated.
E,
You wrote –
“MFs comment again presents only the inward flow of sunlight thru the atmosphere, which is not the important portion of the problem.”
There is no problem. You complain that I depict reality, which apparently defeats your purpose. Without incoming sunlight, there is no surface heating of consequence. Your blue plates, green plates – all cool in the absence of a heat source – the Sun.
You cannot even describe the GHE in which you seem to believe. Nor can anyone else. The pseudoscientific climatological clowns seem to claim that reducing the amount of sunlight transmitted through the atmosphere makes surface thermometers hotter.
Complete nonsense of course, caused by the inability to accept facts. An instance of the scientific ignorance of the GHE believers is demonstrated by the name “Greenhouse Effect”. Another would be the madness of adding “fluxes”, or radiative intensity from sources of different temperatures.
Oh well, I suppose that is not as bad as the NSF refusing for years to believe that Archimedes’ principle applies to floating ice! Don’t believe me? Look it up.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Four and a half billion years of cooling.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
You cannot even describe the GHE in which you seem to believe.
The GHE is atmospheric insulation.
Everything DA sees is now the “GHE”.
The atmosphere is now the “GHE”.
The IPCC would be so disappointed….
DA,
The Greenhouse Effect is not an effect at all?
Just more climatological pseudoscientific delusion?
Generally, increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer results in less radiation reaching the thermometer. The thermometer cools as a result.
Obviously, climatological insulation is of a more magical nature. It creates more energy than it absorbs, resulting in perpetual motion though the miracle of positive feedback.
This is no doubt the reason for Gore’s millions of degrees, or your surface temperature of 760,000 K after a few years. Only in your delusional fantasy, of course. Pity.
No CO2 heating. Four and a half billion years of cooling seems to have occurred. Maybe you are confused about the difference between heating and cooling?
Cheers,
Mike Flynn says:
Generally, increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and a thermometer results in less radiation reaching the thermometer.
Depends on the type of insulation, doesn’t it?
DA,
Why do you ask that?
Do you not know how insulation works?
Maybe you should tell NASA about your special knowledge of magical insulation where the less there is, the better it works.
Keep on trolling.
Cheers.
swannie…”As another experiment, suppose one places a heat source within an insulated box….”
***********
You are still not getting the fact that the heat source supplies the heat, not the insulation.
If you placed a heat source in a room and you were able to prevent all dissipation, the room would reach a maximum temperature which it could never exceed. If you now allow dissipation, the room temperature will drop to a level that is the difference between heat in from the source and the heat out (dissipation) through the walls and ceiling, as well as radiation.
If you come along and slow the rate of dissipation by adding insulation, the room temperature will move upward toward THE MAXIMUM LEVEL THE ROOM WOULD BE WITHOUT DISSIPATION. You have not heated the room with the insulation, you have interfered with the balance between heat from the source and heat loss to the atmosphere.
The heat always comes from the heat source and the ambient temperature measured near the heat source reflects the degree to which the heat can be dissipated.
It is not the insulation adding the heat, it is always the source. Insulation cannot make a room warmer by adding heat. The room warms because it had already cooled due to dissipation. It was not at it’s maximum possible temperature.
Going back to your first experiment, you had a heat source, which was a metal plate placed on an electric ring of a stove. Under the present conditions, it was radiating, conducting, and convecting to and through the surrounding air, and had reached a steady state ambient temperature, which you measured.
The plate was not at its maximum temperature because it was losing heat to the air. Then you installed another metal plate a few inches above the heated plate. That interfered with the convection of hot air which needed to rise straight up. Therefore the heated plate could not cool as quickly and it warmed toward the maximum temperature it would have reached had all dissipation been prevented.
The same thing happened in your evacuated experiment but this time, due to the vacuum, conduction and convection were not issues. You started out with a heated plate (blue plate) radiating to space through the vacuum. The plate reached a temperature you measured but that temperature was not the maximum temperature the plate could reach, since it was dissipating heat through radiation.
Then you raised another plate in close proximity to the blue plate (green plate), noting that the temperature rose on the blue plate. No wonder, you had interfered with its ability to radiate heat, which it had done freely before.
You concluded, in contradiction to the 2nd law, that both plates were back-radiating heat to the heated plates.
You were wrong.
Clearly you accept that insulation will increase a house’s temperature, as will a coat worn in winter.
That’s all that we needed to know.
DA,
Your reading skills are abysmal – or maybe you are just stupid and ignorant.
I insulate my house to lower the internal temperature. What part of this are you incapable of understand?
A coat’s temperature is whatever you measure it to be. Immersed in liquid nitrogen, it will be cold. Lay it in bright sunlight, much hotter.
Wrapped around a live human, it will be hotter than wrapped around a dead human on a mortician’s slab.
What words are you trying to put in my mouth? I don’t blame you for the attempt – your mouth generally seems full of foot.
Does your refrigerator contain insulation to increase the temperature of the contents? Carry on trolling.
Cheers.
MF wrote: “I insulate my house to lower the internal temperature. What part of this are you incapable of understand?”
Not knowing where you live or how your house functions, I would guess that you use an air conditioner or heat pump to cool your house. The insulation reduces the rate of energy consumption necessary to run the HVAC to keep things cool. Just standard brute force engineering that.
Or, if you live an an area where nights are sufficiently cooler than your desired temperature, the insulation may function to attenuate the daily temperature cycle within your house, compared to the daily cycle of the great outdoors.
E,
Are you disagreeing with my statement?
Have you any reason for doing so, or are you just trying to avoid an inconvenient truth?
As to your last sentence, you have accurately characterised the action of the atmosphere in relation to the Earth’s surface. Not as hot as the airless Moon, and not as cold, either.
Just physics – no CO2 heating. No magic.
So sad. Too bad. Off you go, and waffle about “Just standard brute force engineering, that.”
Do you think that might make inconvenient fact vanish?
Cheers.
MF has gotten himself in a bind. He can’t bother to describe his house or it’s environment, perhaps because he is afraid that if he admits that he has a machine to cool his house that he will admit that heat by conduction flows from hot to cold and his cool environment is artificial.
E,
Your mind reading skills are in dire need of an upgrade.
Maybe you need to establish a few facts on which to base your stupid and ignorant assumptions.
You guess away furiously, because you cannot find anything anything factual to disagree with, can you?
My house is insulated to prevent the Sun from heating the interior to temperatures which result in the absence of insulation. The solar hot water (flat collector type) system on the roof gets to about 80 C or so. The floor inside is around 27 C, insulated from the direct rays of the Sun. The adjacent road surface is 52 C or so, but wii be a little hotter later on. Take a wild guess at which temperature I find more amenable, if you wish.
No machinery involved.
It is not my fault if your fantasy cannot cope with reality. Now tell me again what you think I am afraid of, and why. Feel free to demonstrate your levels of stupidity and ignorance if you think it will be of benefit.
Cheers.
MF, Since you failed to report your night time minimum, I still think you may be using a mechanical device, i.e., a fan, to move the night time air thru your house to cool it below the daily average temperature outside. Of course, you are overstating your conditions, since the daily high air temperature will be less than the solar heated surface of the road which you mention.
Just another round of misinformation from your twisted troll brain.
E Swanson, please stop trolling.
Gordo (and MF), The temperature of an object is the result of the the energy flowing in and the energy flowing out. Once these flows reach steady state, the temperature won’t change. Gordo’s notion of a “maximum temperature” is meaningless, as you’ve defined it for a condition of no “dissipation”, by which I presume you mean no convection, conduction or radiation energy loss. In truth, without any heat loss, continuing to add energy to the body would result in the temperature continuing to climb until the material melts or vaporizes. There is no such thing as a “maximum temperature”, since there will always be energy lost to the surroundings.
That said, you have now achieved the realization that there is a steady state temperature within the insulated box or at the Earth’s surface within the atmosphere. And, you apparently agree that increasing the insulation of the box would result in a higher temperature within the box. But, you still claim there’s some mythical “maximum” beyond which the temperature can not increase, which is hogwash.
If you could only make the next logical step and agree that the atmosphere acts similar to the insulation for the box in that the temperature at the surface is the direct result of that insulating effect. Of course, the energy comes from the Sun, just as the energy into the heated box comes from the heating device, that is, from outside.
Of course, you again trot out your deviant physics regarding my Green Plate Effect demo, claiming that the Green plate “interfered with its ability to radiate heat” by the Blue plate’s IR EM radiation energy loss, ignoring the well known effect of the back radiation from the Green Plate toward the Blue plate. All bodies radiate thermal energy all the time. Do tell us what happens to the IR EM from the Green plate in the direction of the Blue plate, if not being absorbed by the Blue plate ?
E,
My house is insulated to reduce its temperature, whether you care to believe it or not.
Just as a refrigerator (an insulated box) uses insulation to keep its contents cool, or the space shuttles was heavily insulated to keep its occupants cool (and alive).
You might notice the temperature drops at night, atmospheric insulation notwithstanding.
You may have noticed that the surface is no longer molten, atmospheric insulation notwithstanfing.
You may even have noticed that the temperature drops precipitously during a total solar eclipse, atmospheric insulation notwithstanding.
Or maybe not. Believe as you wish. Many of a climatological pseudoscientific bent agree with you – quasi religious cultists of all types abound. Keep praying.
Maybe you can reverse four and a half billion years of cooling though the power of prayer, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
MF fails again. He might have noticed that I was pointing to the basics of convective heat transfer, which is that thermal energy flows from higher to lower temperature and insulation retards the rate of that energy flow thru the insulating medium.
He may have noticed that the cooling of a refrigerator or, most probably, the cooling of his house are the result of a mechanical device which moves thermal energy out of the cooled space.
He may have noticed that I agree with him, especially about that cooling during the night time. I too have experienced the effects of a solar eclipse. However, he fails to notice that the night time cooling rate is a function of the relative humidity, with dry air allowing faster cooling than humid air. He apparently has no clue that the difference between these rates of cooling is the result of the greenhouse gas, water vapor. And, as usual, he fails to go further and make the obvious connection between the greenhouse gas, water vapor, and the other important greenhouse gas, CO2. Increasing water vapor results in a warmer surface, which is what physics tells us will also result from increased CO2.
E. Swanson,
He apparently has no clue that the difference between these rates of cooling is the result of the greenhouse gas, water vapor.
Not so simple, condensation of moist air slows the night cooling.
Increasing water vapor results in a warmer surface, which is what physics tells us will also result from increased CO2.
No, physics does not say anything about the effect of an increase in CO2 on surface temperature.
phi, the night time cooling may not continue down to the dew point, which indeed slows the cooling further. Until the dew point is hit, the rate of cooling in humid air is less than that in dry air.
Physics tells us that CO2 and water vapor have similar effects on the rate of cooling of the atmosphere, but different wave lengths in the IR EM radiation spectrum are involved. The other important difference is that the concentration of water vapor is a function of temperature, whereas, CO2 is constantly increasing.
E. Swanson says, September 5, 2018 at 7:53 AM:
Nope. As always, observation trumps ‘theory’. Increasing WV (and clouds) slows the cooling rate during the night AND slows the warming rate during the day. The latter effect, however, is much stronger on balance, and so the NET result of putting more water into the tropospheric column is LOWERING – not raising – of the average surface temperature:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/
E,
I’ll just point out that the highest surface temperatures on Earth occur where there is the least amount of supposed “greenhouse gas” between the surface and the Sun – the arid tropical deserts, such as the Libyan desert, where daytime temperatures can reach in excess of 50 C.
Your statement –
“Increasing water vapor results in a warmer surface, which is what physics tells us will also result from increased CO2.” does not accord with observed facts. Arid deserts are characterised by a lack of water vapour, rather than a surfeit.
Stupidity, ignorance, and preferring climatological pseudoscientific fantasy to fact, cannot change reality. Maybe you need to leap to some more bizarre conclusions, based on nothing more than your obviously defective mind reading abilities. Learn some real physics, if you choose.
Still no GHE. You can’t even describe such a preposterous effect, can you? Nor can anybody else!
Cheers.
MF, No doubt, desert temperatures can be rather high. The important facts would also include the daily low temperatures (which can drop below freezing at night), as in, the diurnal temperature change for deserts vs. more humid environments.
Perhaps MF the physics expert can provide real world data which shows that the diurnal temperature change for desert conditions is less than that for more humid areas. I don’t have the time to look for it, so it’s up to MF to support his silly claim.
Changing somebodys claim and then asking them to back it up seems to be the new troll trick in town. Swansong, better clean up your act. Stop that trolling, please.
After about 5 minutes, I found these references:
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States
Diurnal temperature range as an index of global climate change during the twentieth century
Reassessing changes in Diurnal Temperature Range: A new dataset and characterization of data biases: A new dataset of DTR changes
Swanson pretends not to get it.
You changed Mike Flynns claim, then asked him to support your altered version of his claim!
ES, PST.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, September 7, 2018 at 1:30 AM:
Hehe. Swanson also pretends not to get what the “GHE” is actually supposed to be about. Slower warming during the night is NOT it. An elevation of the AVERAGE surface temperature is. However, more water in the tropospheric column evidently leads to a LOWER T_s, not a higher one. Because the water BOTH slows the nighttime cooling AND the daytime warming, and the latter effect proves to be much more significant overall.
K:
“With as much heat coming IN, but with much, much less radiant heat going OUT. Why hasnt this circumstance forced the average surface temperature in the Congo to be much HIGHER than in the Sahara-Sahel? ”
“The Congo, sfc:
Heat IN, 177.96 W/m2.
Heat OUT, [51.08 (net LW) + 126.88 (cond+evap) =] 177.96 W/m2.
Heat balance.
Mean temp: 26.1 C.
Sahara-Sahel, sfc:
Heat IN, 178.84 W/m2.
Heat OUT, [103.13 (net LW) + 75.71 (cond+evap) =] 178.84 W/m2.
Heat balance.
Mean temp: 28.9 C.”
Although the Sahel has slightly higher average temperature, in fact the the near-surface air in Congo will have much greater heat content (enthalpy), owing to its much higher relative humidity.
The hurricane season in the Atlantic will be very calm. The temperature of the eastern tropical Atlantic is very low. This is due to the weak jet stream in the north of Atlantic.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
ren…”The hurricane season in the Atlantic will be very calm”.
Thanks, ren, appreciate your on-going info.
Yes, that tends to be the case as El Ninos develop.
Sorry.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00970/9gsh9kpubl9z.png
Miami Beach spending $400 billion? LOL. Where does he get his information?
“Miami Beach’s $400 Million Sea-Level Rise Plan Is Unprecedented, but Not Everyone Is Sold,” 4/19/16
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-beachs-400-million-sea-level-rise-plan-is-unprecedented-but-not-everyone-is-sold-8398989
“Miami is racing against time to keep up with sea-level rise,” Business Insider, 4/12/18
https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4
“Rising Sea Levels Reshape Miamis Housing Market,” WSJ 4/20/18
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-fears-reshape-miamis-housing-market-1524225600
So million, not billion. Basic errors from a basic troll.
I corrected my comment above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-318748
Yes, I know, you wrote it wrong, apparently! Keep on trollin
I make mistakes. When I do, I correct them.
Very commendable. Now, if you could only stop trolling, this blog would be a better place. But, that will never happen, since your ego is too large for you to accept that you are simply a nuisance rather than the major player in the debate you feel you are.
I’m here to correct people. Whether you like it or not.
No, you are a troll.
{smile}
Exactly.
Gordon
As we age, our mental faculties tend to deteriorate. Nothing to be ashamed of, but I would recommend you let the calculator on your device do math for you.
I.e., if you go along with a yearly increase of 0.01 C as a result of CO2……..
“Thats actually pretty close to what one would guestimate using the Ideal Gas Law. CO2, at 0.04%, should not contribute more than a few hundredths C.”
……then 168 years at that rate results in an increase of 1.68 C, rather the bizarre calculation of 0.02C – 0.03C.
******
Again, let technology (in this case a calculator) be your friend.
Again, let technology be your friend.
snape…”I.e., if you go along with a yearly increase of 0.01 C as a result of CO2..
Thats actually pretty close to what one would guestimate using the Ideal Gas Law. CO2, at 0.04%, should not contribute more than a few hundredths C.
then 168 years at that rate results in an increase of 1.68 C, rather the bizarre calculation of 0.02C 0.03C. ”
…………
Rather than sniping at me you might learn some physics rather than living in a world of bizarre thought experiments.
My implication is that the IGL sets an overall percentage of warming available to CO2 based on its percent mass. That means if there was 1C warming over a century and a half, CO2 would account for about 0.04C of the warming.
In other words, 99.96% of the 1C would come from nitrogen and oxygen.
Why do you ignore radiative transfer?
DA,
Why do you keep posing stupid gotchas, while piously proclaiming you are here to correct people?
Are you even more stupid and ignorant than you appear?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
(Sorry, the duplicate sentence was a typo. I’m getting older too.)
Tropical storm Gordon threatens New Orleans.
ren…”Tropical storm Gordon threatens New Orleans”.
I assure you, I had nothing to do with it.
When they get to R, I’m going to write to them and suggest they call it tropical storm ren, with a small r.
The hurricane is approaching Hawaii.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00970/xzmaa071acro.png
The influence that added CO2 has on average global temperature is shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmLamxqV4AET6h3.jpg
Dan, that’s still funny, just as before.
Most folks will understand it. Apparently you do not.
Dan, likely most folks will NOT understand it, as your infatuation with it demonstrates.
Hint: Where did the initial values originate?
(GIGO.)
Dan…”Most folks will understand it. Apparently you do not”.
It’s hard understand why some folks think radiation from cooler WV in the atmosphere can warm the warmer surface.
Gordon Robertson says:
Its hard understand why some folks think radiation from cooler WV in the atmosphere can warm the warmer surface.
Because unlike you, some of us know what the 2LOT actually says.
DA,
“Second law of thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time.”
Seems fairly clear to me. Do climatological pseudoscientific types claim this to mean other than what it says?
Maybe you could explain how the operation of this law allows the use of the considerable heat energy contained in the Antarctic ice cap to raise the temperature of a teaspoon of liquid water?
No? I thought not – just more blather, eh?
Cheers.
D,
I think you might mean that most climatological pseudoscientists believe that CO2 has magical powers to create heat. Certainly, the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt co-authored a pal reviewed paper claiming something of this nature.
The paper was titled –
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”, and of course is nonsensical, a flight of pseudoscientific fancy, replete with all the nonsense jargon so beloved of the fumbling bumblers. “Terrestrial greenhouse”, “greenhouse gas”, “global climate”, and all the rest!
Worth a read, if you enjoy a laugh.
Cheers.
Dan Pangburn says:
ARL sponsored program corroborates low determinations of Climate Sensitivity. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmLamxqV4AET6h3.jpg
That calculation is pure junk.
Climate sensitivity isn’t the derivative (let alone the partial derivative), it’s the temperature CHANGE after equilibrium is reestablished, not the change in the moment.
In particular, water vapor isn’t to be held constant — it’s an important feedback.
The units don’t even balance in your equation (a poor attempt to use the chain rule), as the righthand side has units of one (viz., no units), while the left hand side has units of temperature per (ppm?).
And that’s just a start. It’s all garbage.
DA,
Climate is the average of weather. No more, no less.
No “climate sensitivity”. Just more climatological pseudoscientific claptrap.
There is no “climate equilibrium”, either. Even more sciency sounding delusional rambling.
Keep analysing.
Cheers.
There is no climate equilibrium, either.
The definition of climate sensitivity for a factor X is the temperature change from before the perturbation of X exists to after it is applied and equilibrium is re-established.
Your mistake if you assumed that’s what would actually be measured in a real climate system. ECS is a theoretical value.
David,
Climate is the average of weather. It is sensitive to nothing at all – it’s an average, a number.
You are spouting climatological pseudoscientific garbage. Your mythical ECS is on a par with your mythical GHE. No wonder you can’t measure it! Any value is pure fantasy – even referring to it as “theoretical” is more climatological delusion.
You have no testable GHE hypothesis, because you cannot even describe the GHE, can you? Hence, no theory derived from your non-existent hypothesis.
Or is your theoretical ECS value based on the theoretical R value of the atmosphere? You claim the GHE is just the ever changing and chaotic value of the insulating effect of the atmosphere, don’t you?
Maybe you could analyse an equilibrium value for a chaotic climate, derived from the chaotic nature of atmospheric physics. Or maybe not, seeing how it appears to be impossible – even using classical methods (according to Feynman).
Your excuse that fantasy is superior to fact might not convince a lot of readers.
Carry on regardless.
Cheers.
You claim the GHE is just the ever changing and chaotic value of the insulating effect of the atmosphere, dont you?
No, you do.
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
DA,
You appear confused. What 10 year lag?
Is this some secret climatological pseudoscientific code for something?
Cheers.
DA,
You appear to have been seduced by your own fantasy,
Where does GHE appear in the sentence you quoted?
Nowhere, that’s where! Misrepresentation and uttering obvious falsehoods might not be as convincing as you would wish.
Keep at it – at least you might be able to convince some bumbling buffoons that the Greenhouse Effect is not an effect, and has nothing to do with greenhouses. Or maybe not – it will depend whose delusional fantasy prevails!
After all, the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt thinks he is a climate scientist, and the geologist Michael Mann thinks he is a Nobel Laureate. On the other hand, you believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!
Ah, the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
You can’t carry out a rational conversation about a topic. Pity.
You’re back to be dismissed and ignored.
DA,
Dismissed and ignored? Should I be cut to the quick?
Cadge 20 cents from another true believer, and call someone who might give a toss!
You are wasting your dismissal and ignorance on me, as usual.
Good luck with finding someone who might actually be concerned about your awesome powers – ignorance in particular might worry them, I would think.
Carry on blathering – at least you are able to utilise the 15 hours of the journalism course you attended. See? It wasn’t a complete waste of your valuable time, was it?
Cheers.
DA,, I just noticed your repeat post so I will repeat my response.
Valid direct feedback depends only on the temperature of liquid surface water as shown here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlZNZ32VAAEK0kc.jpg and it is only about 6.5% or less. The net feedback is even less because the indirect feedback from added clouds from added water vapor is negative. Average global temperature is very sensitive to cloud change as explored here: http://low-altitude-clouds.blogspot.com
(dashes added to prevent being blocked by WordPress filter. Remove dashes/spaces to use link)
Dan, your equation is badly wrong, so presenting more of your own claims doesn’t accomplish anything.
The cloud feedback is probably positive:
Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.
Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.
Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,
Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.
Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.
Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earths energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.
Hello bilybob, I’m sure you are still watching this site.
You may remember my assumption that very high or very low temperatures in the GHCN daily ‘TAVG’ data stream might very probably be due to strange mixtures of Fahrenheit and Celsius.
I therefore suppressed this stream during a global scan, and was not surprised that
– (1) all strange temperatures in the USA disappeared, letting Greenland Ranch’s homologated world top temperature of 56.7 C appear solo again, and Verhojansk (Eastern Siberia) became again the world’s coldest place outside of Antarctica;
– (2) the difference between presence and absence of these erroneous extremes in a monthly averaging of the daily data nevertheless is below 0.01 Celsius.
Bindindon. Yes, still scan this site from time to time. Your observations make sense. I believe you had mentioned earlier that the F vs. C may have been a data entry issue.
Thanks for following up with the update. Busy week for me, so won’t be participating until maybe the weekend.
David Appell wrote –
“Where does the cooling hide for 10 years, and what makes it then come out to play?”
More climatological pseudoscience. David cannot find a lack of heat, hiding or otherwise, and it is obviously a travesty that he can’t!
He needs to track down the source of the cold rays, and could probably use the services of a cartoon character who specialises in the art.
Heat cannot be trapped, stored, or accumulated in any useful sense. Cold is merely the absence of heat.
Cheers.
What’s the physical basis for this purportated 10-year lag in surface and LT temperatures?
DA,
You appear confused. What 10 year lag?
Is this some secret climatological pseudoscientific code for something?
Cheers.
Apologies for posting in wrong place initially..
“I will never spin and if I am wrong I will admit it.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
—
salvatore del prete says:
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 6 days
2018 total: 137 days (55%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
2008 total: 268 days (73%)
2007 total: 152 days (42%)
2006 total: 70 days (19%)
http://spaceweather.com/
And the more important parameter … total solar irradiance?
Bob, “total solar irradiance” is fairly constant, that’s why some people call it the “solar constant”.
And, don’t overlook the fact that sun spot numbers vary drastically.
Exactly. Which is why global climate changed by only a fraction of a degree (equivalent to Pinatubo) during the Maunder minimum. LIA temps were already depressed without the help of the MM, and it added about half a degree to the cooling.
And despite the claims of LIA enthusiasts, scientists have no idea whether we are going all the way to a Maunder-like minimum.
right BOB.
The LIA wasn’t caused by solar effects.
The important solar parameter is not the TSI. It’s the ASR.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
from:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
That reconstruction indicates it was less during LIA. And it might be right.
–Bobdesbond says:
September 5, 2018 at 2:50 PM
Exactly. Which is why global climate changed by only a fraction of a degree (equivalent to Pinatubo) during the Maunder minimum. LIA temps were already depressed without the help of the MM, and it added about half a degree to the cooling.
And despite the claims of LIA enthusiasts, scientists have no idea whether we are going all the way to a Maunder-like minimum.–
Predicting sun is difficult.
SHADOWS OF VENUS IN THE ATACAMA DESERT: “The Atacama Desert in northern Chile is one of the best places in the world to look at the sky. The desert’s unique combination of high altitude, clear skies and zero light pollution make it a global destination for astronomers. On Sept. 1st, astronomer Daniele Gasparri was standing under the Milky Way in the Atacama Desert when something caught his eye–not up in the sky, but rather on the side of his car. “It was my Venus shadow!” he says.
“The sky in Atacama is so dark that even the light of Venus can generate clear shadows,” marvels Gasparri.”
http://spaceweather.com/
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 7 days
Gordon
First you said the sun’s been getting hotter recently (but only over Vancouver😏),
“Gordon Robertson
July 27, 2018
Salvatoreits obvious that the summer Sun has felt hotter the past few years. The effect on the skin is noticeable even here in our temperate rain forest climate.”
…..now you think the ~ 1.0 C warming is the result of rising N2/O2 levels??
S,
Learn to read. Otherwise, you might be judged delusionally attempting to misrepresent, or just stupid and ignorant.
I understand you probably don’t care about the difference between fact and fantasy. I don’t blame you. Facts, such as four and a half billion years of cooling, can be a problem for GHE.
Carry on. Learn physics after you have learnt comprehension.
Cheers.
Is the sun getting hotter outside your cave? Maybe you and Gordon should do a little brainstorming…..figure out what the hell is going on?
S,
You could always continue trolling. Just avoid facts and try to be cryptic – that might convince others that Earth’s surface hasn’t cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
Worth a try, do you think? Or do you think you might be seen as an ignorant and foolish troll?
Cheers.
Let’s not forget Huffy’s space dust/SLR connection or Salvatore’s impending ice age.
Where’s Nurse Ratched when you need her?
S,
Why do you feel you need treatment? A nurse is unlikely to help, particularly if you are suffering from a delusional psychotic condition.
“Treatment for this disorder is challenging, especially if the delusion is long lasting. Antipsychotic medications can be helpful, but delusions sometimes do not get better with pharmacological treatment. Since patients may not believe they have a mental disorder, they may refuse all treatment, including psychotherapy.”
I’ll let others decide if believing that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer makes it hotter. That sounds delusional to me, but it may sound reasonable to climatological pseudoscientists.
I’m reasonably sure that Nature doesn’t care one way or the other – facts are facts.
Cheers.
What’s the margin of error?
M,
I’m tempted to reply “the margin of error”, but I won’t.
Cheers.
Or, if someone accused me, (correctly), of facetiousness, I might be more serious –
“The margin of error expresses the maximum expected difference between the true population parameter and a sample estimate of that parameter.”
/humour off.
Cheers.
American predictions predict that Herman will bypass Hawaii. It can be seen, however, that the jet stream falling in the north of Pacific pushes Herman to Hawaii.
https://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/hi/h5-loop-ir4.html
Dr. Spenser (and others).
One important dimension of the trends would become more visible if the months were colored in the UAH graph..
I did a quick variant for Globe here http://cfys.nu/graphs/UAH%20Colored.png to illustrate.
Notice how NH summer months’ (5-8) trend deviates from other months.
It becomes clear that summer months are trending down since 1998. It also looks as if high anomalies were more random summer vs other before 1998. Later years the lowest above is almost always summer.
Comments?
Remove 1998 and 2016 and tell me if summer still appears to be trending down.
Convenient to use or exclude El Nino years depending on what you want to argue…
My main point was that coloring of months adds perspective. I took the lowest hanging fruit that can easily be read from the graph as an example.
Analyzing a bit step further:
It looks as heat ramp up is never during summer months.
It is very clear that summer months have lower slopes
There is a shift before/after 1998
Colors tells you more!
And numbers tell you even more. Look at Barry’s calculations below.
Summer is May June July and August in the Northern Hemisphere?
I’ll do a linear regression only with the actual Summer months. Jun-Aug.
Result:
1998-2018: 0.09 C/decade
I’ll see what happens if we add May in:
Result:
1998-2018: 0.08 C/decade
Comments:
There is a positive trend over the period, though not statistically significant. This is because the very warm summer of 1998 was immediately followed by some very cool summers. 2004 and 2008 are the coldest summers in that short record.
I wouldn’t expect there is enough data to say anything much at all. I would not have been surprised to see a cooling trend just from random variation.
AGW predicts Winters warming faster than Summers. However, this time period isn’t long enough to get a fix on that.
Here’s a chart of the regression:
https://imgur.com/a/C5Eki
You might want to correct your title. It says “Arctic sea ice”, and that is enough for Gordie to claim a fraud.
I mean “Antarctic”.
It’s the title of the ‘thread,’ not my choice. The title of the chart is inside the chart. Standalone below.
This should be a better version.
https://i.imgur.com/um4zjaG.png
Yes, the linear square root trend is slightly upwards also for summer months. However if I had put 0.560M in the bank summer of 1998 and my holding after summer 2018 is 0.225M my trend was not positive! Right? (Average anomaly went from 0.560C to 0.225C)
But again this was NOT my main point. Do your trend analyses on the other months and tell me if colors indicates something or not.
WTF is “Linear Square Root trend”???
Surely you mean “least-squares”.
Or perhaps “root mean square”, but that is not the name, merely a descriptor of the process.
To say “Linear Square Root trend” displays an utter lack of understanding about the process.
My main language is not english.
You obviously understood what I meant so need to be impolite.
I understand you are upset because I came up with an idea you never though of, but please be reasonable.
Hahaha – “an idea you have never thought of”
I am in the process of doing a detailed month-by-month, season-by-season, year-by-year and decade-by-decade of the US temperature time series. I guess I must be so smart for thinking of analysing the seasons separately for the annual data, because no one has done that before, right? fp
Sigh, It was about the presentation part…
Interesting to follow what you conclude about USHCN/CRN though. Is here the best place to follow?
However if I had put 0.560M in the bank summer of 1998 and my holding after summer 2018 is 0.225M my trend was not positive! Right?
No, that is the difference between 2 years. 1998 and 2018. It has noting to do with any trend.
When you used the word trend in your first post, you were referring to the trend of all summers, not just 2 of them. You said:
Notice how NH summer months (5-8) trend deviates from other months.
It becomes clear that summer months are trending down since 1998. It also looks as if high anomalies were more random summer vs other before 1998. Later years the lowest above is almost always summer.
What one sees by charting the months is that in the first half of the record there are some colder summers with values below the zero line, and in the second half of the time series there is only one month below the zero line.
Generally speaking, summers appear to have become warmer over the period, with a few exceptions. In strictly statistical terms, the uncertainty is too great to say this has likely occurred.
“Linear square root trend,” is not actually a thing.
Clarifying a bit:
“What one sees by charting the months is that in the first half of the 1998 to 2018 record there are some colder summers with values below the zero line, and in the second half of the time series there is only one month below the zero line.”
You are so eager to prove that we are statistically still in a warming trend even starting at cherry picked 1998 that you miss the point. I give you that my statement was wrong in statistical terms because the least square algorithm smooths the 1998 peak. It was not my main point though.
1. Would you agree that the slopes for summer months are lower than for the other months?
2. Does the coloring make this visible or not?
I’ve not met you before, MrZ, so my default was politeness and just dealing with the content of your posts. So when you write:
You are so eager to prove..
you are starting a different conversation, which is about motive, and is personal. I just wanted to you to know that you started that kind of conversation between us, not me. If it happens again, I will probably descend with you. I am not infinitely patient, by any means.
You spoke of the trend. I calculated the trend. I posted the result.
I also said the the (positive) trend was not statistically significant. IE, statistically meaningless. I am not trying to “prove” anything, just reporting results.
1. Would you agree that the slopes for summer months are lower than for the other months?
I don’t understand what that means. You speak of “slopes” in the plural. What slopes are you referring to? The ‘trend’ from May to July for each year? I honestly can’t tell what you mean.
MrZ, a word of warning…do not feed the troll.
MrZ,
I can explain, my explanation is inspired by the wise words expressed by a resident commentator.
The NH summer causes an increase in co2 levels, as co2 levels float in the air like blankets they act as an insulator thus causing the surface to cool. Pretty simple really and “this has all been predicted in a co2 enhanced warming world”.
The alternative is co2 has SFA to do with climate and Salvatore’s version of the sun controls the climate comes into the frame of discussion.
Thanks for your input you have raised a very interesting point for those interested in searching for truth based on facts.
Regards
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations peak around May and FALL during the NH summer, bottoming out around September.
This is a strawmen argument. You can’t honestly believe that a 4ppm deviation in CO2 is the cause?
My laymen guess is that CO2 can only insulate and not heat. Even if back radiation and the energy imbalance (0.6W/m2) certainly delays cooling its impact is minuscule when the sun shines at 800W/m2. Compare holding up a lit match infront of a forest fire for an extra heat sensation.
The cause of WHAT?
I am refuting his claim that CO2 levels rise in the NH summer, NOTHING MORE.
Try not to read between the lines – you are not very good at it.
You have the gall to falsely claim a straw man while making one yourself. Yet I’m sure the irony will be lost on you.
But don’t worry, Mikey will come to your rescue with a pithy comment (most likely a deliberately unanswerable question).
Sorry, I understand I read you wrong here.
Are you German by chance Bob I know Germans suffer from a lack of a sense of humour
It is clear from MrZ’s reply that there was no attempt at humour.
Are you saying you were trying to be funny?
This is SAL . Using Ava because I can’t transmit.
My only thought is the climate is now at a crossroad. Thus far from late year 2017-present the trends are down.
The questions are how far down do the temperatures go and for how long?
Wow, like you mean a whole year, man?!?! Like, man, that’s never happened before, has it do you think man?
Trying to find any kind of conclusions about which way the temperature is going from this above data set is no different than reading chicken bones .
There is nothing but noise in it.
The bottom line remains no such thing as “global warming” can be observed from all actual historical existing data, let alone it being caused by anyone or anything , it remains purely as a theory and a real bad one at that.
Agree.
If you look at a series of 5 year averages (ie. 1979-83, 84-88, etc), would you still say there is “nothing but noise”?
“Noisy weather” or “noisy climate”?
We are talking about climate, right?
Okay, “noisy climate” it is.
Nup – climate by definition cannot be “noisy” over periods of a few decades.
Source for that definition?
I want to know what the average temperature is from 1981-2010. Can be?
Average temperature of what?
global average air surface temperature temperature?
I would say it’s about 15 C
global average land air surface temperature is about 9.5 C
average air surface temperature of 50 states of US:
About 9.5 C
China:
About 7.5 C
Australia:
About 22.25 C
Africa:
About 24.5 C
Europe:
about 9 C
India:
about 24.5 C
Russia:
About -4.5 C
This says absolutely nothing about global warming.
Eben
I’m betting the planet will continue to warm because that’s what model simulations and physics tell us.
The temperature record provides supporting evidence and gives clues regarding sensitivity, but I agree is not by itself a predictor.
S,
Bet away. Your assumptions are as valid as anyone’s, I suppose. What do you get if you win your bet!
I agree the temperature record is not a predictor. It is a rather pointless historical curiousity, of no practical use whatever – apart from providing employment for pseudoscientists unable to get real work elsewhere. Someone thought it was a good idea at the time, I guess.
Even describing the numbers as reflecting “surface” temperatures is just the usual nonsensical climatological pseudoscientific redefining of “not surface” to “surface”. And, of course, 70% of the surface is covered by water, making any attempt at “averaging” (beloved of fumbling bumblers) really silly. “Sensitivity”? You jest, of course!
At least if you peer into the future using a bowl of chicken entrails, you get a chicken dinner. Using past temperature records, you get confusion and derision.
All good fun, of course. Possibly a little expensive, but provides endless entertainment laughing at the antics of the capering climate clowns.
Cheers.
Sort of OT, I am afraid, but the RSS trend keeps creeping upwards, currently at 0.197° per decade. Would somebody care to comment, it does not seem to tally with UAH?
Different methods handling much the same data. The 2 teams have to wrestle with calibrating between different satellites over time, accounting for instrument drift (orbital drift/decay), and winnowing a tropospheric temperature from different angle views of the surface/atmosphere from satellites.
These are just some of the challenges.
Just Google
rss adjustments predicted
“it does not seem to tally with UAH?”
That’s because Carl Mear’s is a tried and true global warming propagandist. He could care less about the truth. RSS data used to show less warming than UAH, so he got pissed off several years ago and made arbitrary adjustments to correct the situation.
It must be good to be in a position to be able to make any unjustified claim you wish without fear of having your non-existent scientific reputation tarnished.
As Spencer indicated in a discussion with Judith Curry:
“John reviewed their [Mears] original paper submission to JGR, in detail, asking for additional evidence — but not advocating rejection of the paper. The JGR editor ended up rejecting it anyway.
Mears & Wentz then revised the paper, submitted it to J. Climate instead, and likely asked that we be excluded as reviewers.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going on, Einstein.
So let me get this right …
The initial paper was rejected, as most are, and then resubmitted.
Then the paper was revised, as most are.
Nothing wrong so far.
And then Spencer claims “and LIKELY asked that we be excluded as reviewers”.
“LIKELY” …. so he is just making this BS up.
And THIS is your “evidence”???
Bob,
Don’t worry about it. I did not expect you to get it since you are an alarmist lemming as well. You don’t need to “get” anything. We got it covered.
B,
This would be the situation of the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt, I suppose.
He can make any claim at all, not being a scientist, without fear that his non-existent scientific reputation might be damaged.
Obviously, breathlessly proclaiming “Hottest year EVAH!”, based on his calculation that a probability of 0.38 was involved (less than a coin toss probability) probably didn’t do much for his mathematical reputation.
But hey, climatological pseudoscience doesn’t need to let fact interfere with a delusional fantasy, does it? As long as there is steady supply of stupid, ignorant and gullible acolytes, all will be well.
Cheers.
exactly rss data is tainted. I do not use it.
If RSS is tainted so is UAH.
If the makers of RSS seem to be AGW adherents, Spencer and Christie are very obvious AGW antagonists. They’ve gone to congress to champion the ‘skeptic’ side.
Me, I assume that both groups are doing the best work they can and coming up with different results. I’m not partisan when it comes to the temp records.
b,
I’m glad you accept that historical temperatures actually existed, and opinions have no effects on facts.
Cheers.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
exactly rss data is tainted. I do not use it.
Tainted how?
Skeptic Gone Wild writes:
Thats because Carl Mears is a tried and true global warming propagandist. He could care less about the truth. RSS data used to show less warming than UAH, so he got pissed off several years ago and made arbitrary adjustments to correct the situation.
Which it is already noted is an assertion utterly free of any substantive evidence.
Such logic cuts both ways, and with more emphasis.
Spencer and Christie’s UAH record was suddenly ‘cooled’ with their latest revision, after running hotter than RSS for years. They are AGW skeptics who go to the US congress to play politics on the matter, so OF COURSE this ‘revision’ is BS.
I don’t believe either statement is true. But the ‘logic’ is equally valid – even more so for the UAH team who take their views into the realm of politics.
The ‘logic’ is specious.
MrZ
“However if I had put 0.560M in the bank summer of 1998 and my holding after summer 2018 is 0.225M my trend was not positive! Right? (Average anomaly went from 0.560C to 0.225C)”
Imagine the 20 year trend was perfectly flat, despite lots of ups and downs. That’s what a heart rate monitor looks like. So, using your investment analogy, you “bought” on an upbeat and “sold” on a downbeat……..and from that concluded (incorrectly) that the trend is not flat.
Mr. Flynn,
“Even describing the numbers as reflecting surface temperatures is just the usual nonsensical climatological pseudoscientific redefining of not surface to surface.”
lol! If we slithered across the ground like worms or snakes, then actual surface temperatures would be of great interest. As it is, only the soles of our feet (protected by shoes) tend to come in contact with the ground.
For that reason, “near surface” is the relevant measurement for humans. Not sure about numbats.
S,
The IPCC –
“The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of . . . ”
Obviously, the IPCC does not share your sentiments, but makes equally stupid and ignorant statements, in typical climatological pseudoscientific fashion. I suppose you will try to defend the IPCC bumblers by saying “surface” doesn’t “really” mean “surface”, but something else entirely!
You might care to ustify sea “surface” temperatures while you are at it. People don’t live just below the surface, or on the surface, for that matter, but that is apparently where “surface” temperatures were measured.
No matter. Real scientists are generally more truthful.
As to real surface temperatures, they are quite important to growers of crops which grow on the actual surface, but of course the climatological “surface” is not the surface at all!
It seems you want not to agree with me, but you cannot find any facts supporting your disagreement. Just the worn out tactics of deny, divert, and confuse.
Next you’ll be telling me that the “Greenhouse Effect” is not an effect at all, and has nothing to do with greenhouses! That might explain why nobody can describe it, do you think? How sad.
Cheers.
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO THE FLYNNTROLL? Stop feeding it.
B,
If you are telling Snape to either address issues with facts rather than trying to deny, divert and confuse with irrelevant and information free comments – or say nothing at all, I agree.
I presume you find yourself in the same situation. Refraining from commenting would seem to be your best option, if you want to avoid appearing stupid and ignorant.
Do you disagree with anything I have said? Can you provide any facts to support your disagreement?
Appeals to climatological pseudoscientific authority do not count as fact. Mad assertions of the sort that a GHE exists, without even being able to describe such, are not facts.
Off you go, now. Have a think, and let me know – if you wish, of course.
Cheers.
Des
I make a point of not feeding him after midnight:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EHvUOM0M1m0
Ever watched, Big Bang Theory?
“With large amounts, theobromine can produce muscle tremors, seizures, an irregular heartbeat, internal bleeding or a heart attack. The onset of theobromine poisoning is usually marked by severe hyperactivity.
…
If you have a small dog that has eaten a box of chocolates, you need to call and go to your veterinarian right away. Do not wait.”
https://www.hillspet.com/dog-care/nutrition-feeding/is-chocolate-bad-for-dogs
“…
William Happer, a physics professor and vocal critic of mainstream climate science, has joined the White House as a top adviser, says Sciencemag.
Happer, 79, told E&E News in email that he began serving yesterday on the National Security Council as the senior director for emerging technologies.
…
Happer has accused both NOAA and NASA of manipulating temperature records and claimed that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would accentuate plant life, citing satellite data showing a greening of the planet.
The public in general doesnt realize that from the point of view of geological history, we are in a CO2 famine, he told E&E News during the interview in January.”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/09/05/trump-adds-physicist-will-happer-climate-science-opponent-to-white-house-staff/#more-38481
Yeah, and plus, we are in an Ice Age.
Happer is criticized because he is not a “climate scientist”. But understanding Earth’s energy balance requires a solid knowledge of the relevant physics, not demonstrated by “climate science”. That’s why we see such horrendous mistakes as adding/subtracting different radiative fluxes, “cold” warming “hot”, CO2 “trapping” heat”, etc.
Yes.
greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science.
There is so many ways that it is.
One important aspect is that lacks an author.
Another aspect is lack of any agreement by anyone- unless
you count compromising as agreement.
Anyhow, re Happer
WUWT has two blog posts about it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/06/the-great-climate-debate-report/
And:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/06/william-happer-joining-trump-national-security-council-cnn-report-happer-climate-denier-trump-adviser/
gbaikie says:
greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science.
There is so many ways that it is.
One important aspect is that lacks an author.
Fourier (yes, that Fourier), 1827:
“On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space,” Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Sciences, 7 569-604 (1827).
https://is.gd/jk6kXl
English translation by William Connolley:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html
English translation by William Connolley:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html
…
“The interposition of the air greatly modifies the effects of the heat at the surface of the globe. The solar rays, traversing the atmospheric layers compressed by their own weight, heat them quite unequally: those which are most rarified are also coldest, because they extinguish and absorb a smaller part of these rays. The heat of the sun, arriving in the state of light, has the property of penetrating diaphanous solids or liquids, and loses this property nearly entirely when they are converted, by their interaction with terrestrial bodies, into IR.
This distinction of SW and IR explains the elevation of temperature caused by transparent bodies [**gh?**].”
…
Not greenhouse gases- but a greenhouse effect.
Would you agree?
I would agree with Fourier there is greenhouse effect of both Earth’s atmosphere and transparent liquid of it’s ocean.
Continuing:
“The mass of water which covers a great part of the earth, and the polar ice, present less obstacles to the SW than to the IR, which returns to exterior space. The presence of the atmosphere produces an effect of the same type, but which, in the current state of theory and because of the lack of observations, cannot be exactly defined.”
And I think that due to “lack of observations, cannot be exactly defined”.
The public in general doesnt realize that from the point of view of geological history, we are in a CO2 famine, he told E&E News during the interview in January
What propagandistic rhetoric.
We’re in a heat famine, too. But anyone arguing that we’d be better off with a sudden global increase of 10C needs a brain transplant.
We’re also over-supplied with organic life “from the point of view of geological history.”
Statements just as inane – but not as politically motivated – as Happer’s are easily formulated.
Waters off New England in midst of record year for warmth
“The waters off of New England are already warming faster than most of the world’s oceans, and they are nearing the end of one of the hottest summers in their history.”
“The gulf warmed at a rate of about 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, which is more than three times the global average, Pershing said. That rate has jumped to more than seven times the global average in the past 15 years, he said.”
“”Warming in the GOM has been pushing out native species like cod, kelp and lobster, and fostering populations of species typically found in the Carolinas,” Bruno said. “Although it’s an extreme example, it mirrors what we’re seeing across most of the world.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/waters-off-maine-midst-record-year-warmth-57501376
I can’t believe you people are still debating the temperature record. But then again, nothing should surprise me. Apparently Donald Trump believes there are ghosts in the White House.
MYKEY it was all natural.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“it was all natural.”
Dr Richard Alley says:
“We actually have high confidence that the warming that is happening now is not natural cycle. If anything, over the past few decades, nature has tried to cool us off a little bit The sun has dimmed just a little bit. We have blocked the sun with particles from our smokestacks just a little bit. And yet it has warmed.
If you were to ask how much of the warming that we see recently has been caused by our greenhouse gasses, it’s a little more than all of it.”
Alley is a geologist, Svante. He probably knows even less of the relevant physics than you do.
Alley is an outstanding climate scientist who has won lots of prestigious awards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley#Awards_and_honors
He is greatly respected among the climate science community, and he’s also one of the nicest people in all of science.
As a recovering rockhound, I appreciate geology. A competent geologist can find some really cool rocks, not to mention oil and gas deposits, and precious metals.
Just as an incompetent “camp follower” can win meaningless awards in pseudoscience.
As if you get to judge someone like Richard Alley.
You don’t.
Of course, only the great David Appell troll is fit to be judge, jury and executioner of everyone he surveys.
S,
Michael Mann is a geologist. He was highly confident he was a Nobel Laureate
Richard Alley is apparently a geologist with high confidence in the heating abilities of “greenhouse gasses”.
Michael Mann’s high confidence was misplaced. So is Richard Alley’s.
Greenhouse gasses? Spare me. Nobody has ever made anything hotter by inserting more gas between the Sun and a thermometer. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.
If you are going to appeal to authority, best to choose someone who knows what they are talking about.
Cheers.
Svante says, September 6, 2018 at 2:22 PM:
Hahaha, it’s always this “expert” SAYS and this “expert” THINKS, isn’t it?
Alley is of course referring to TSI, the convenient go-to solar parameter of all warmists/alarmists. However, as anyone with half a brain should (and does) know, TSI is not the relevant solar parameter when it comes to ‘global warming’ or ‘cooling’. ASR is. ASR is the amount of solar energy actually absorbed by the Earth system, the solar heat. TSI is not.
Either Alley is just happily ignorant about this basic and crucial distinction (I don’t buy that), or he’s willfully deceitful about it, busy pushing a political agenda rather than doing real, objective (purely observation-based) science. My money is on the latter …
Where’s the time series for surface globally averaged ASR?
Indeed. Where is your observational basis for claiming that the Sun has been contributing negatively to ‘global warming’ over the last decades …?
“Where is your observational basis for claiming that the Sun has been contributing negatively to ‘global warming’ over the last decades…?”
Sunspot number – I took care to phase match start and end dates.
https://tinyurl.com/y9bkm7eo
TSI – phase matching was a little trickier.
https://tinyurl.com/yaqg5cmg
Or you could run it from the middle of the peaks.
https://tinyurl.com/y8evpb8a
I’d say that constituted observational evidence that the sun itself has had a negative impact on global temps over the last few decades.
I trust that you were referring specifically to the big yellow orb in the sky this time, Kristian – the bolded bit of your sentence – and not to your usual metric.
If you could link the time series for globally averaged ASR, that would be helpful.
barry says, September 9, 2018 at 11:53 PM:
Sunspot number and TSI do nothing to indicate the solar thermal influence on Earth’s climate, barry. ASR does. ASR = ‘absorbed solar radiation’, net SW, TSI minus albedo, Q_in(sw).
The ASR is Earth’s heat in from the Sun. TSI isn’t. TSI is simply the specific intensity of the Sun’s radiative flux measured at 1AU.
barry says, September 9, 2018 at 11:53 PM:
No. That’s what I’m asking you for. You’re the ones who claim to know that the Sun has contributed negatively to Earth’s temperature over the last decades. That’s why you’re the ones who should provide such a time series, to show how ASR has gone down overall during the modern era of global warming. Yes, it would indeed be helpful.
You do understand the difference between ‘heat’ and ‘not heat’ in a thermodynamic energy budget, don’t you, barry?
barry,
TSI is the 340 W/m^2 (1360/4). ASR is the 240 W/m^2 (1360*(1-a)/4) used in the global ToA energy budget (ERBS, CERES, HIRS, ISCCP FD). The ASR is the solar HEAT to the Earth. That portion of the incoming SW (TSI) that is actually being ABSORBED by the Earth system. Net SW (incoming SW (TSI) minus outgoing/reflected SW).
WASHINGTON “A National Academies committee recommends that NASA pursue development of a large space telescope to search for potentially habitable exoplanets, but declined to choose a specific concept for such a mission.
The Exoplanet Science Strategy report, requested by Congress in a 2017 NASA authorization act and released by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine Sept. 5, also recommends continued development of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) and funding by the National Science Foundation of two large ground-based observatories.
The recommendations of the report are based on an underlying conclusion that the science of exoplanet research has advanced to the point where it will soon be possible identify planets that are potentially habitable and even discern so-called biosignatures, or evidence of life, on them.
If we choose, we could learn the answer to that question we could figure out whether or not theres life on planets orbiting other stars in the next 20 years, said David Charbonneau, a Harvard University professor and one of the co-chairs of the study, in a briefing about the report here.”
https://spacenews.com/exoplanet-report-recommends-development-of-large-space-telescope/
I am not particularly keen on the idea.
Nor was keen on idea of SLS or James telescope- which both way behind on their schedules [and was predictable that they would be]. And even not years behind completion and both were operating, don’t think much of them.
Oh that reminds me to check on recent count:
” As of 1 September 2018, there are 3,823 confirmed planets in 2,860 systems, with 632 systems having more than one planet.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet
I have no confidence that anyone could identify exoplanets which are potentially habitable. But if an exoplanet was identified as habitable, what the good which could come from it, would perhaps be a desire to build much bigger telescopes.
If we explore the Moon and find minable water, then we will build much bigger telescopes.
If the Moon had rocket fuel, the Moon would be a good place to put all kinds of telescopes- radio telescopes and 100 meter diameter optical telescopes, plus what might be more exciting lots of smaller telescopes available to any all who want look at something.
You’d be happier on a blog about outer space, instead of trying to force this blog away from its topic of climate change.
You might happier on a blog about “climate change”.
Or maybe “weird climate” or we are going to die from climate change/weird climate.
Oh here someone who needs some comments:
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2018/columnists/weird-climate-and-weak-leadership.html
M,
What is your point?
I suppose you have data which shows that any warming is not due to a hotspot as per –
“The team piggybacked off previous research showing a relatively hot spot beneath New Englands upper mantle. Using data from EarthScope, they then observed a localized plume of warm rock beneath central Vermont, western New Hampshire, and western Massachusettsand found geologic evidence that its on the move.”
If you learn some real science, you might be able to diminish your CO2 GHE fixation. No temperature rises are due to CO2, but delusional believers cannot accept this. They exhibit unwarranted pride in their stupidity and ignorance.
Have you examined alternative sources of heat (which causes changes in temperature, unlike CO2)?
No? I thought not.
Cheers.
“The waters off of New England are already warming faster than most of the worlds oceans, and they are nearing the end of one of the hottest summers in their history.
At least we agree about the warming. ———unless you would like to claim NASA has fudged the data?
(and moved the cod and lobster as well !!!)
m,
If temperatures have gone up, they have gone up.
Where do you think the additional energy came from? Not from CO2, unless you accept the delusional thinking of deranged climatological pseudoscientists!
Any thoughts, based on fact?
Cheers.
Bookies place odds on anonymous White House official
“Hours after MyBookie posted numbers, Canada-based Bovada issued its own Trump-leak odds and listed embatted AG Sessions as its favorite at 5-to-2.
He was followed by Pence (3-to-1), Kelly (4-to-1), Mattis (4-to-1), UN Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley (10-to-1), Javanka (15-to-1), Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats (15-to-1), White House counsel Don McGahn (15-to-1), Melania Trump (50-to-1) and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway (50-to-1).
Bovada listed President Trump, himself, as the potential mole and Times writer at 25-to-1.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/bookies-place-odds-on-anonymous-white-house-official/
Linked from https://www.drudgereport.com/
It’s silly. I would think it’s a member FBI or Justice.
They quite delusional and it would seem that they imagine that they are senior officials.
Or completely made up by NYT, as this gang seem quite fond of writing fiction.
I bet it was the ghost !
What a motley crew that list of names is. A case of Dumb, Dumber, Dumber Still, …, Trump.
There’s a simple test to see who is out of their mind, just ask them about climate change.
These are OK:
https://tinyurl.com/z9nf248
https://tinyurl.com/y7rjq3eb
https://tinyurl.com/yauqohq6