Here is the text that goes with the chart:
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. [My bolding]
Had the reverse been the case, the news would have, of course, been front page and top of the bulletin across the world. If we had been worrying about being hit by a meteorite, the whole world would have been in collective relief that we had escaped. Not with this. Here we are dealing with people with other agendas running, not just a selfless desire to save the planet from a rise in temperature. Without the data to support them, those agendas will not go away, but it will be harder to make the case given just how contrary to the facts the global warming argument has become.
Tough, pal.
Capitalism is still destroying the planet and is unsustainabubble.
We’ll now move on to the next utterly preposterous scare.
Rabz
15 Oct 12 at 3:12 pm
Food security?
Steve of Ferny Hills
15 Oct 12 at 3:17 pm
They have already. It’s called ‘extreme weather’.
Hot/cold, drought/flood, no snow/snow, no ice/ice, is all ‘consistent’.
Lazlo
15 Oct 12 at 3:18 pm
So what? Climate change’s effects come in spurts and pauses. 16 years is nothing in the time span of such changes. Once the next spurt occurs it will be massive. One thing for certain – the long term trend will be inexorably up and you denialists will have to slink back to your burrows.
Listen to true scientists instead of the Bolts and Novas of this world. They know nothing.
Gareth Hamilton
15 Oct 12 at 3:21 pm
What does John Holmes and climate change have in common?
See above.
Harold
15 Oct 12 at 3:24 pm
So “climate change” rooted in runaway mean global temperate rises secondary to positive feedback loops was meant to stop for 15years?
JamesK
15 Oct 12 at 3:28 pm
I thought people on this site couldn’t stand adjusted data sets? Or is that only when the data don’t accord with their preferences?
Jarrah
15 Oct 12 at 3:30 pm
Ha ha. We’ll all be living in burrows when the climate changering happens. Denialists will have a head start.
ar
15 Oct 12 at 3:30 pm
I see it took Hammy 15 minutes to start trolling. Slow Hammy, we expect better.
Cato the Elder
15 Oct 12 at 3:32 pm
Laz,
“Ocean Acidification” gets bandied around a bit.
Rabz
15 Oct 12 at 3:36 pm
Just read hammy’s profile on Gravatar (whatever that is). Amongst other gems:
‘blessed USSR’? – lol. c’mon, this has gotta be Sinclair Davidson taking the piss and driving the comments count up at the same time. Bolt used to do the same with some made-up character called Barry Bones.
papachango
15 Oct 12 at 3:40 pm
Yes Rabz, forgot about that one. But it’s not very sexy, not very visual.
Whereas every time there is an extreme weather event anywhere on the planet, some goon can say it’s pwoof of deadly CO2.
The IPCC clique are going full throttle on this one right now.
Lazlo
15 Oct 12 at 3:44 pm
“So what? Climate change’s effects come in spurts and pauses. 16 years is nothing in the time span of such changes”
@Graeme Hamilton – except the global warming that was originally identified ran from 1980 – 1996. Before that the temperature record back to 1880 was essentially flat. The fact that the temp rose in 16 years compared to that almost neutral backdrop was what the catastrophic predictions were based on.
If 16 years is nothing in your eyes then we can forget the warming part too eh?
Be honest with yourself – none of the models that predicted catastrophic outcomes predicted a pause, let alone one of this length.
It follows that we should be careful basing policy on the predictions of these models.
scotty
15 Oct 12 at 3:55 pm
Sorry, that should be @Gareth Hamilton – apologies
scotty
15 Oct 12 at 3:56 pm
I see Steve of Brisbane is silent. No doubt he’s waiting for the official party denial and denunciation to come down from on high – realclimate.org or somesuch – so that he can parrot it here. He’d be lost without it.
Oh come on
15 Oct 12 at 4:04 pm
Please don’t hex us OCO.
PS: He noted on his blog he’s given up blogging for lent or some such (or so I heard 2nd hand).
Token
15 Oct 12 at 4:06 pm
How come their high-falutin’ fancy modeling didn’t predict 16 years of no warming?
Oh, that’s why.
Gab
15 Oct 12 at 4:10 pm
Why is it that only the most rabid and extreme political activists “believe” in the “science” of global warming? Because it’s nothing to do with science. It’s a political doctrine. AGW has almost run its race so now we’re gearing up for the next “scientific challenge”: sustainability. Hint: if it’s doublespeak that requires the redefinition of words, it’s a political doctrine. You’re welcome.
Tom
15 Oct 12 at 4:13 pm
Just perusing the HadCRUT4 datasets and graphs, and there is not one line that points anywhere but up.
There is no pause.
Rex
15 Oct 12 at 4:14 pm
What’s an adjusted data set? (Genuine question.)
Dangph
15 Oct 12 at 4:17 pm
Those climategate idiots?
P.S. The met office are among the most notorious wrongologists on the planet.
Rabz
15 Oct 12 at 4:23 pm
lol
You must have the wrong link.
JamesK
15 Oct 12 at 4:24 pm
Oh look! A troll with a genuine personal interest in physics.
Tom
15 Oct 12 at 4:24 pm
The adjustments which concern me are where the NH temp trend, as published in the National Geographic in 1976, shows no net warming from 1920 – 1976 while the Phil Jones’s CRU adjusted set (superimposed) shows ~ 0.4 C warming; or the sort of thing Hansen gets up to.
Since 1979 the satellite series has kept Jones and Hansen reasonably honest.
manalive
15 Oct 12 at 4:28 pm
As compared to say, the Daily Mail online?
and who may I ask is Ben Weller? The mystery man who owns copyright of his adjusted selective graphs that seem to give you all such a hard on.
Rex
15 Oct 12 at 4:31 pm
Yes, it is a definite concern troll who obviously doesn’t believe what they write. We’ve known that for months. Why are people so slow to catch on?
Yobbo
15 Oct 12 at 4:35 pm
“What’s an adjusted data set? (Genuine question.)”
Exactly what it sounds like – a set of data that have been adjusted to improve the visibility of underlying trends. There are many reasons to adjust – seasonally adjusted unemployment figures, for example, try to correct for periodic workforce changes that would otherwise exhibit misleading spikes and troughs in the raw numbers.
HadCRUT4, like all temperature data sets, has been adjusted (in some ways, not others). Normally that sends Catallaxian ‘sceptics’ into a tizzy because obviously it’s all a ‘hoax’ where scientists just manipulate the figures to get whatever trend line they want. Unsurprisingly, because this graph shows a flat trend line, this fair-weather scepticism is completely absent.
Jarrah
15 Oct 12 at 4:35 pm
when the data suits them. Funny how the science only speaks when its in the affirmative eh?
Nic
15 Oct 12 at 4:38 pm
“Adjusted data sets” in this case is historical temperature data “corrected” of systemic and random errors by comparing temperature from one station and “adjusting” it so its results are similar to two or more nearby weather stations. Strangely, you would expect in theory that the changes of the collected data would show both adjustments up and down with little overall change to the aggregated mean. In practice, the datasets seem to show predominantly upward adjustments (although downward adjustment is ok in the last century, as it contributes to the overall warming trend). In Australia, where a nearby weather-station might be hundreds of kilometres away, the practice is still applied, no matter how stupid.
Cold-Hands
15 Oct 12 at 4:43 pm
So Rex, considering how compelling the evidence you present on Global Warming is, do you support the imeediate move of electricity production to nuclear?
Token
15 Oct 12 at 4:53 pm
Yes, not immediately, we simply don’t have enough Scientists and Engineers. But eventually yes.
Rex
15 Oct 12 at 4:57 pm
Once again, the daily drip-feed of the media will pass over or denigrate this observation, because it doesn’t suit the narrative, and in fact skewers the most fraudulent action of the present unfranchised government.
The model is stuffed, and so are we if this is not fixed up by the next government. Is it any wonder I have nothing but contempt for the leftist tools who rule the Fairfax/ABC/SBS/ALP/Green/Human Rights/Social Services collective?
blogstrop
15 Oct 12 at 5:01 pm
The picture editor was obviously at odds with the theme of the article.
Floating icebergs and drifting ice are not symptoms of dangerous human-induced global warming — they always have and always will exist.
The caption to one of the photos, “Damage: Global warming has been caused in part by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station” is utter but typical MSM BS.
They are cooling towers and the “smoke” is steam (H2O).
manalive
15 Oct 12 at 5:36 pm
All temperature data is adjusted for one reason or another. some good, most bullshit; in Australia the data is adjusted persuant to criteria laid out in Torok’s 1996 thesis.
Some of the reasons why temperature data are adjusted are laid out in Table 2.2, page 59-60 of the thesis; they are quite amusing and include such things as thermometers being stolen by foxes, eaten by cockatoos or destroyed by angry wifes. One set of data was suspect because the town council had a by-law whereby if the temperature went over 100F the council workers got the day off with pay; it was thought the bloke taking the readings bumped it up every now and then to look after his mates on the council.
So the usual problem is missing data or data which appears to have a bias.
The ongoing issue, which was not resolved by the recent New Zealand law case where the NZ Bureau of Meteorology BOM] equivalent, NIWA, was sued because it was alleged they adjusted to create a warming bias, is, do the adjustments reveal or create a temperature trend?
Australia has just had a new temprature data set, called ACORN, released by BOM. This data set supposedly overcomes warming bias which was in the old High Quality [HQ] temperature record where the adjustment created a trend of about 0.4C per century, or about 1/2 the alleged warming from AGW.
However, ACORN, still has the same trend as the HQ network! To enable analysis of the methods used by BOM to produce ACORN the code for the adjustment procedure has been released.
However this code appears to be like a set of utilities only. The main algorithms for recognizing breaks and adjusting do not seem to be there.
If you are in Sydney this weekend David Stockwell will be giving a talk at the annual AEF meeting at Rydges on the 21st October on this issue.
cohenite
15 Oct 12 at 5:38 pm
HadCRUT 3v has a cyclic component which can be seen in this graph. Its easy to replicate, I did it in 10 min on a spreadsheet.
I haven’t heard from any consensus climate scientist yet as to why CO2 makes temperature bounce on a 60 year cycle. On the other hand AMO and the PDO both appear to have this cycle. Creepy.
It alone explains more than half the temperature rise in HadCRUT since 1970. Also explains why HadCRUT 3v was falling as expected. HadCRUT 4 for some reason not known to man or statistician is not now falling. Maybe elves got at the database?
Bruce of Newcastle
15 Oct 12 at 5:51 pm
I am sure that a global cooling will justify the same set of anti-progress policies.
Jim Rose
15 Oct 12 at 6:16 pm
I know where kero boy needs to be:
In North Korea, there is no such thing as individuals. There is only the collective.
Will
15 Oct 12 at 6:17 pm
The stupidity of the original Daily Mail article, and the dozens of blogs that reproduced it is easily seen if you look at 17 years instead of 16 years. Why pick 16? Because 1997 was a local high point and makes the chart show what the author wants you to believe.
These two graphs (linked) show the same temperature record as the chart in the OP, starting at 1992, and 1850. It should be readily observable that the time period chosen by the Daily Mail is meaningless.
SteveC
15 Oct 12 at 6:19 pm
Huh? It was released by the Met Office.
Gab
15 Oct 12 at 6:27 pm
The starting point should always have been that natural cyclicality had to be disproved. That this did not occur was the direct result of the formation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by political activists, including the NASA extremist James Hansen. It was never a research agency tasked with investigating climate, but a lobby specifically designed to provide government funds for the spurious proposition that industry could be blamed and therefore taxed for climate variability under the new name of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. The IPCC is a scientifically corrupt organisation which has begun behaving like one — the reason it is so popular among political activists dedicated to destroying the Western capitalist economic system. Hence the the swarming government trolls who attempt to disrupt the conversation whenever the subject is raised at the Cat.
Tom
15 Oct 12 at 6:28 pm
SteveC once again flailing to preserve some semblance of sentience. Choosing the start point has been a favourite of the alarmists, as has voodoo economics about stupidly expensive alternative energy. “Let’s all ensure our future viability by destroying our life support systems.”
blogstrop
15 Oct 12 at 6:37 pm
Okay, so far it’s been wah! the datasets wah! it’s only 16 years wah! the start point is wrong. (Just a catch-up).
Gab
15 Oct 12 at 6:40 pm
If most of the post mid-century T trend is most likely caused by human CO2 emissions (ref. AR4), then in so far as a temperature tend alone can demonstrate anything about the cause, the global trend prior to c. 1945 is irrelevant.
manalive
15 Oct 12 at 6:47 pm
The trend this century is extraordinary given the claims of CAGW. The IPPC models all begin their projections from 2001 onwards. Comparing the models to the observed GAT is devastating for the models. It is that simple.
dover_beach
15 Oct 12 at 7:01 pm
“HadCRUT 4 for some reason not known to man or statistician is not now falling. Maybe elves got at the database?”
They included stations from the far north, where the warming has been strongest.
“so far it’s been wah! the datasets”
No-one’s complained about the data, Gab.
Jarrah
15 Oct 12 at 7:06 pm
“The trend this century”
Remember our discussion about minimum durations for meaningful trends?
Jarrah
15 Oct 12 at 7:07 pm
Please, no more references to the Mainstream Media – MSM.
They have been far more aptly dubbed in the US, by Republican bloggers, as the Ministry of Truth.
James in Melbourne
15 Oct 12 at 7:09 pm
What d’ya mean the last 20 years when we could rely on reliable satellite data?
JamesK
15 Oct 12 at 7:10 pm
ok 30 years
JamesK
15 Oct 12 at 7:10 pm
Yes I do, but when you have 11 years of stasis you really are depending on a surge in the remaining 19 years to compensate for the preceding 11. Another 4 years of this and the projections become even more unlikely than they are know. You cannot deny this.
dover_beach
15 Oct 12 at 7:13 pm
Didn’t realise you had such a brilliant sense of humour, Jarrah.
Tom
15 Oct 12 at 7:24 pm
ALL temperature trend since 1976 is entirely due to a step in the trend caused at that time by a phase change in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO.
These papers look at this in detail. And Jo Nova does a handy analysis of this aspect of the temperature trend.
The significance of this for AGW theory is that this sudden, abrupt change in trend in itself disproves the alleged temperature effect of CO2 increase; especially since between 1998 and 2002 there was a break DOWN in the trend, again caused by a phase change in PDO.
cohenite
15 Oct 12 at 7:47 pm
The graph starting at 1850 proves without any doubt the existence of an amazing global warming. Thanks Steve for giving the denialists a dose of reality.
Gareth Hamilton
15 Oct 12 at 7:52 pm
I don’t understand, France has a vibrant industry full of experts who I am sure will be dead keen on the good life away from the 75% income tax.
I look forward to getting your assistance to get SteveC, Steve from Brisbane, Hammy and the other believers in Global Warming to give up their irrational objections to nuclear and treat this disaster as serious.
Token
15 Oct 12 at 7:55 pm
Anything before 1910 has accuracy issues, Kero boy. It’s especially problematic because we’re trying to measure tiny changes in temps. We’ve tried the bristle cone substitute and that ended in tears.
JC
15 Oct 12 at 7:59 pm
The hamster is just being wickedly provocative, the devil.
The temperature trend prior to 1945 could not possibly be due to human CO2 emissions.
manalive
15 Oct 12 at 8:06 pm
Gareth (still have trouble writing that),
I just want to assure you there’s no chance of anything bad happenining to the climate in the next century and probably in the next 10,000 years for one of two reasons (take your pick):
1. The idea that a trace gas could by the primary driver of global temperature was a gag first told by Dave Hughes to get a laugh at a comedy club in Collingwood in the 1990s.
2. NASA’s James Hansen hasn’t revealed this before, but he’s also a stand-up comedian.
You’re a good man and I respect you deeply.
Best regards,
Tom
Tom
15 Oct 12 at 8:11 pm
Gab, the data is released every month by the met office. The author of the chart (there is a name Ben Weller on the chart, but i don’t know what that means) chose the time period for the chart. I simply plotted the same data for different time periods.
SteveC
15 Oct 12 at 8:16 pm
It’s only “amazing” to a leftist noncompoop.
Moreover there were no meaningful global surface station network in 1850.
JamesK
15 Oct 12 at 8:18 pm
That’s nice.
Gab
15 Oct 12 at 8:18 pm
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe..
Will I take a shot of castor oil or watch Q&A this evening?
JC
15 Oct 12 at 8:22 pm
We here at the Cat elected you to draw the short straw, JC and we’re counting on your comments.
Gab
15 Oct 12 at 8:25 pm
And
Coal Seam gas.
How dare they find another cheap source of fuel that will keep them out of burrows and caves for a few more hundred years.
Helen Armstrong
15 Oct 12 at 8:49 pm
Flipped on Qanda 10 minutes in and lasted just 2-3 minutes before switching off.
Where do the find these repellent leftist zealots?
That Fox woman is repugnant – an adjective I can confidently apply having listened to her for merely one diatribe of self-important ignorant opinionating
JamesK
15 Oct 12 at 9:11 pm
wrong fred
JamesK
15 Oct 12 at 9:14 pm
“Didn’t realise you had such a brilliant sense of humour, Jarrah.”
I’m also tall and good-looking.
Jarrah
15 Oct 12 at 9:25 pm
Wait….
back up a moment.
The infamous Barry Bones was Andrew Bolt all along?!!?
dd
15 Oct 12 at 9:30 pm
“The trend this century is extraordinary given the claims of CAGW. The IPPC models all begin their projections from 2001 onwards. Comparing the models to the observed GAT is devastating for the models. It is that simple.”
The funny thing is, there was no reward for the person who made the model that was the most conservative. Such a model has been shown to be hopelessly pessimistic, even though it was less pessimistic than all the others.
Twodogs
15 Oct 12 at 9:39 pm
A completely baseless, made-up assertion. The 21C observed temperature has been well below all model predictions, most notably Hansen’s scenario C: zero increase in emissions.
Lazlo
15 Oct 12 at 9:56 pm
Hammey the climatologist dazzles us with usage of scientific terms. I also admire his use of “spurts and pauses” in global warming.
Lazlo
15 Oct 12 at 10:01 pm
Here are responses to the Daily Mail article from the Met Office and Judith Curry.
SteveC
15 Oct 12 at 10:49 pm
Maybe Steve Kates wants to respond to these points from SteveC’s links.
Met Office:
Judith Curry:
Who am I kidding. Kates doesn’t respond to questions, requests, challenges, or debunkings. If he did, how could he keep up the fingers-in-ears ‘analysis’ that pollutes the pages of Catallaxy?
Jarrah
15 Oct 12 at 11:52 pm
16 years is too short, the medieval warming period too long ago, and the world’s slow emergence from an ice age is boring and irrelevant; it just doesn’t suit the alarmist news cycle narrative for political control purposes.
As for the climate doing its own self-regulatory adjustments as a big, complex feedback mechamism, well, let me explain that to you this way: shut up!
Blogstrop
16 Oct 12 at 5:53 am
So what’s the cutoff, for minimum length to detect a trend. Name a number, guys, and give a reason for it.
This statement implies that 33 years is long enough. Progress: we know that 16 is too short, but 33 is okay. Again, what’s the minimum length and the rationale for it?
dd
16 Oct 12 at 6:00 am
Bolt was Barry Bones – now that is amusing…
Rabz
16 Oct 12 at 7:11 am
Gareth – If you looked at my original link you would have seen HadCRUT graphed since 1850 minus the quadratic trend. Here it is again from a different source. It shows a clear periodicity.
The trend upwards, which is worth half of the temperature rise since 1900 is almost all due to solar effects (magnetism+TSI+UV). Read this paper. The first decade of the 2000′s was the most active for 230 years after slowly rose over that time.
Some time ago Steve C quizzed me on this, then in a nice piece of graphing he himself replicated the previous solar cycle length correlation to temperature, which picks up the combined solar output effect on the temperature record.
Between solar combined impact and the cyclic component in the temperature record all but a small amount of your “amazing global warming” is explained. AND it explains just why the temperature is now falling (except in the imaginary thermometers of Hadley Centre and the motley CRU). What is left fits the (low) empirically measured values for CO2 sensitivity from the likes of Spencer, Lindzen, Harde and others.
Yes, the peak in overall solar output, corresponding to the shortest solar cycle in 230 years, was indeed amazing.
Bruce of Newcastle
16 Oct 12 at 7:38 am
Has anybody got proof of that Bones canard, ie that it was Bolt? It’s not as if there’s a shortage of dickheads writing that sort of shit.
blogstrop
16 Oct 12 at 8:00 am
I mentioned earlier that David Stockwell is giving a talk this weekend on temperature adjustments and why the official ground based temperature networks can be misleading; this is a preview of that talk.
cohenite
16 Oct 12 at 8:02 am
If you want to stretch your grey matter, have a look at Lucia’s site where she details how the combined models predictions are so divergent from the actual temperature that there is no chance of them recovering.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/observations-v-models-model-weather/
Biota
16 Oct 12 at 8:07 am
In response to dd:
* Ben Santer’s paper last year arguing the importance of a 17 year period for determining trend over noise was even mentioned at WUWT.
* Foster and Rahmstorf’s important paper, showing that deducting natural fluctuations leaves a clear global warming signal still there, has been mentioned, and largely ignored, at this blog many, many times.
* Neilsen Gammon, a pretty conservative climatologist who helped Watts with his paper, did a similar, rougher exercise to show a similar result to F&R. If you go to Climate Abyss, and have a look at a post or two back, you will see his rough estimate is that maybe there will be another year to go of skeptics claiming “warming has stopped”. He has no doubt, however, that the overall trend is still there, even if he is cautious on the matter of how it should be responded to.
* Skeptical Science point out a paper that many associated with the site have just published that shows warming of the planet overall is continuing. This posts makes reference to other matters considered to have influenced the temperature record over the last decade or two, including increased aerosols from China, etc. It is well worth reading.
If you (dd) or anyone else dares say “I’m not going to read Tamino/Skeptical Science, it’s biased”, you will be showing yourselves up as the fake and foolish skeptics that you are.
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 9:11 am
FFS, weren’t you supposed to be giving us a couple weeks of respite, you pompous pillock?!?
Rabz
16 Oct 12 at 9:17 am
SfB can’t help but lie. Did you or did you not say that you were going to give blogging a rest for a couple of weeks?
Fuck off, no-one cares Steve.
Huckleberry Chunkwot
16 Oct 12 at 9:20 am
From my own blog. And I am not going to spend all day here.
By the way – I note that fake skeptics repeat material so extensively amongst themselves that they skew Google results massively and make finding the counter-arguments via Google a much harder task than it should be.
It took me a surprisingly long time to find reference to the Santer paper, using search terms I thought would work, but attempts were smothered by hundreds of repetitions of a Daily Mail article, which I see seems to be considered a sufficient and reliable source for many small government/libertarian inclined economists and blogs (Reason ran an uncritical blog entry on it too.)
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 9:26 am
No sooner had I written “It’s not as if there’s a shortage of dickheads writing that sort of shit” and there’s a “poof!” and puff of smoke as SfB reappears.
blogstrop
16 Oct 12 at 9:26 am
Get a clue and stop wasting your time and ours.
blogstrop
16 Oct 12 at 9:28 am
Chooks fed.
For a great example of bogus climate model work see Carnaut’s effort to craft the climate policy for Kevin and Julia (the science is settled).
Rafe Champion
16 Oct 12 at 9:28 am
SteveFB – Ben Santer’s recent paper on sea surface temperatures found they rose 0.125 C in 50 years.
This is equivalent to a 2XCO2 of only 0.4 C if you do the arithmetic.
Foster and Rahmstorf are a beautiful example of intentionally drawing a straight line up the side of a cyclic curve. Tamino only shows the temperature rise from 1980-2010, which nicely fits the slope up the side of the graph. You can even see the shape of the sine wave in Tamino’s graph, which they try to hide with the short time base.
SkS have pointed out one of their own papers – by Dana Nuccitelli and John Cook. Which they wrote for this reason, with John Church who is Santer’s coauthor in the SST paper – which shows very little warming of any kind, let alone the terribly dangerous world ending type John espouses (maybe he wants Greg Combet’s job in the new Green Imperium). Last time Dana came out of the closed terrarium of SkS and their incredibly diverse ecosystem I cleaned his clocks. He is not a scientist, nor is John Cook. They are barefaced activists.
Bruce of Newcastle
16 Oct 12 at 9:29 am
Biota, that is precisely my point above. At some point, warmenists are simply going to have to acknowledge that the models are wrong.
dover_beach
16 Oct 12 at 9:30 am
That’s because the paper hasn’t been finally published. There was a preview in JGA Atmospheres in 2011 (referred to by WUWT via Santer’s press release).
Biota
16 Oct 12 at 9:45 am
A clear warming signal says nothing about cause or causes.
manalive
16 Oct 12 at 9:45 am
So the old man is back to remind everyone how his best days of scaring people was back in 2007.
The world has moved on Steve, it is time for you to embrace the new knowledge and data, and move from your dated position.
Token
16 Oct 12 at 9:49 am
What’s this, then?
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 10:01 am
No, no, no, Tokes. Being a communist, Dogshit doesn’t give a fuck about all that sciencey shit. He’s a whore for the doctrine, which involves martial music and pictures of Marx and Lenin and James Hansen and Julia Gillard.
Tom
16 Oct 12 at 10:13 am
SteveFB – Lets see, a modelling paper by a who’s who of the CAGW community. They say >17 years. OK how about 250 years, or 150 using their same data?
I have been doing modelling for over 20 years, statistical, iterative and thermodynamic. You can make black into white with a computer model. I have seen it done. I have pulled models apart and poked holes in them for very large projects. In the end the proof is the predictive fit. The IPCC GCM’s don’t fit the data as it unrolls, which is why Dr Santer is now saying statistical significance needs >17 years. Two years ago his colleague said you needed >15 years. What gives? No warming? In two years will it be >19 years perhaps?
The irony is Santer’s own paper which I linked, including 3 other coauthors common to both papers found the real world warming was so small it was embarassing.
Well, 17 years it is then. With the AMO turning and the solar max at peak, I think Jones et al are going to have their work cut out to readjust HadCRUT 4 to manufacture some warming in a couple years.
Bruce of Newcastle
16 Oct 12 at 10:19 am
That’s the 2011 preview.
Biota
16 Oct 12 at 10:27 am
Bruce, your alleged brilliance at demolishing estimates of climate sensitivity in your spare time has failed to set the world alight.
I prefer to go by what is out there, published in detail, and commented on by others with better knowledge than me, for any faults etc, before being convinced.
So, even though you’ve convinced yourself, I find it unconvincing.
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 10:27 am
How does one tell it is a “preview”, Biota?
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 10:29 am
That narrows it down to 5 or 6 billion people.
Infidel Tiger
16 Oct 12 at 10:32 am
Oh look – more relevant commentary from Skeptical Science, the blog too e-vil to read for Catallaxy:
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 10:37 am
Not obvious on that page but search for Last Name: Santer Year: 2011 at the top of the page.
Biota
16 Oct 12 at 10:39 am
Biota, doing that and clicking the “Preview” button brings up a two line box that is a “Preview”.
I still think you’re mistaken.
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 10:47 am
SfB, I am not mistaken, I was able to search via my Uni library.
Biota
16 Oct 12 at 10:51 am
“So what’s the cutoff, for minimum length to detect a trend. Name a number, guys, and give a reason for it.”
30 years has been the standard for a very long time. The reason is after a certain sample size, standard deviations stabilise. 45 years, in fact, but the WMO thought 30 years would be enough. People do try to squeeze the data for meaningful trends from fewer years, but their results aren’t going to be very useful for determining what the climate is actually doing.
That’s why Bruce is wrong when he suggests Santer is changing his mind about what time period is required for statistical significance.
Jarrah
16 Oct 12 at 10:54 am
Hey, I notice the entire paper is available on the JGR site (I assumed I was going to be asked to pay.)
So this:
means it is still a “preview”?
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 11:00 am
Here’s the .pdf version Biota.
Most detailed looking “Preview” I’ve ever seen…
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 11:02 am
SfB, I was only trying to offer an alternative explanation as to why you had difficulty finding the paper. Maybe I am misinterpreting what I found but your claim that skeptics ruin Google searches sounded a bit far fetched.
Biota
16 Oct 12 at 11:36 am
What is this storm in a teacup? You all seem to be missing one very important fact.
Australia has priced carbon. Therefore the temperature of the globe is coming down. Only now can we look our unborn grandchildren in the eyes.
Julia told me this, and she is never wrong. To imply so would be misogynist.
James in Melbourne
16 Oct 12 at 11:42 am
Biota, I couldn’t remember whose paper it was that had been about “pauses” in temperature increase, and so I was trying many search terms that I thought might bring it up. (And, I must admit, it took a while finding it even searching just Real Climate and Skeptical Science. I thought my own blog had mentioned it too, but apparently not!) The general searches I was trying at Google were all bringing up page after page of news and blog comments just on the Daily Mail article.
It’s depressing really – the “skeptic” movement is a real creature of the internet, which facilitate wrong headed but populist causes getting traction with ridiculous ease.
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 11:47 am
So mean global temperature stopped its previous 15 year uptick for another 15 years ‘cos of the internets liar?
JamesK
16 Oct 12 at 11:53 am
FFS, why do you so obsessively believe in and shill for, the most preposterous, hysterical, utterly discredited, fact and evidence free anti scientific fraud in human history?
Answer – because you’re an imbecile.
Enough.
Rabz
16 Oct 12 at 12:01 pm
That’s terrible, Dogshit. What are we going to do? I know! We’ll suspend democracy .
Tom
16 Oct 12 at 12:11 pm
Were you also searching for “spurts”?
That would be most appropriate in your case.
Lazlo
16 Oct 12 at 12:24 pm
Steve, I see, is spreading vomit around in the form of the Foster and Rahmstorf paper and Santer’s 17 years is long enough effort.
That 17 years will bite him in the arse next year.
As for F&R, they themselves, were forced to conclude that there has been:
That at a time when according to Foster CO2 is increasing exponentially; yet they could find no increase in what they call global warming.
F&R attempt to isolate the AGW temperature signature by removing the natural factors; so they remove MEI [ENSO], volcanoes [AOD] and the sun [PMOD]. There have been several amusing interpretataions of F&R’s findings, all on the internet which Steve disparages, but none more devastating than this:
cohenite
16 Oct 12 at 12:25 pm
Jarrah – Please read what I said. I said “colleague”. I linked to an article about Dr Phil Jones, who is notable in this respect as a principal author of the HadCRUT data series, which is what we are talking about.
As for the first part, Jarrah, do you have the wit to understand that if there is a 60 year cycle in the data that a 30 year baseline will catch only half of the cycle? And therefore will be biased no matter which portion of the cycle you choose to misrepresent?
SteveFB – lets not bother with my brilliance and world shattering wit for a second. I have put forward primary data, unfiltered through the minds of fallible peer reviewers, which shows (a) half the temperature rise has been due to the combined solar impact upon climate and (b) most of the rest is an artefact of the 60 year cycle. The residual fits well with experimental determinations of climate sensitivity.
Now, Steve, would you like to make your case from these data that we should expend $64 trillion and change, and submit ourselves to a green dictatorship which tells us how to eat, sleep and shit? When you and your extremely scientifically well endowed sources cannot explain the data I present to you?
Sir, take your activism back to your preferred political website and leave us poor people to live our lives without unjust taxation and Big Brother benevolence.
Bruce of Newcastle
16 Oct 12 at 12:29 pm
Mere logic and facts, put forward by people who know vastly more than he does, are not enough to deter SteveLiarDogshit.
blogstrop
16 Oct 12 at 12:33 pm
blockquote>In other words, F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in climate change.
It was always a dipstick theory that is illogical, anti-intuitive and lacking observational evidence, consistent with the UN imperatives that drove the formation of the IPCC by political agitators like Hansen.
Tom
16 Oct 12 at 12:40 pm
Yes, but just feel “Da (self) Righteousness”, brother!
Oh noes, da world is going to end, boiling lakes, drowning poleys, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!!!
We need to suspend democracy now!
Rabz
16 Oct 12 at 12:42 pm
“Please read what I said.”
That’s what I was referring to, your implication being that ‘now’ he’s saying something different.
“do you have the wit to understand that if there is a 60 year cycle in the data that a 30 year baseline will catch only half of the cycle?”
Yes, but that’s not what we’re talking about, which is minimum periods required to spot climate trends. If you want to make the case that 30 years is too short, go right ahead. But you just claimed something useful can be gleaned from 16 or 17 years, so you’d better make up your mind.
Jarrah
16 Oct 12 at 1:03 pm
Jarrah; Santer is fudging; they are still not sure of the lag between a forcing and its climatic effect; so much so that what may be regarded as a feedback by GCMs may in fact be a delayed response to a forcing. When this basic state is unknown then the larger periodicities, which in themselves do vary and display asymmetry, can have their effects on climate muddied by the shorter term forcings and feedbacks.
Santer’s 17 years is another stab in the dark.
This doesn’t mean climate is chaotic so as to be unpredictable; what it means is that the assumptions made by the AGW modellers are incorrect.
cohenite
16 Oct 12 at 1:59 pm
Jarrah – I said 250 or 150 years (being respectively from the CET and HadCRUT 3v datasets). It is Dr Santer who is saying >17 years. His quite close colleague Dr Jones said 15 years. In doing so they both say that flatlining temperature is not statistically significant. I am asking if the Hockey Team’s official number was 15 years a couple years ago, 17 years in this paper that Steve cites, will it be 19 years next week?
I am saying that statistically fitting a straightline trend to a cyclical relationship with a 60-ish year period over a baseline of 30 years is not an appropriate approach. But a sloping sine curve with period 60-65 years fits the data a whole lot better than a straight line. Furthermore as I pointed out several more climate datasets have a similar 60-ish year cycle.
But I’m not the one who has to explain why global warming has fizzled. That’s the job of guys like Drs Santer & Jones, who then want zillions in save-the-world money from taxpayers like me. World clearly doesn’t need to be saved, and we don’t have to be taxed for wretched CO2 and windmills and deluded climate modelling studies like this one Steve is citing.
Oh and by the way temperature has now been falling for over a decade in the satellite data. As you would expect from a cycle which peaked around 2002.
Bruce of Newcastle
16 Oct 12 at 2:51 pm
Of course something useful can be gleaned from 11 or 16 years. If 30 years is meaningful, then 1/3 or a 1/2 of that number can also give meaningful information about that 30-year trend. The longer this stasis proceeds the more the model’s efficacy recedes in the distance.
BTW, Gavin Schmidt said 13 years would be sufficiently indicative of what was occurring climatically.
dover_beach
16 Oct 12 at 3:48 pm
Bruce, you might recall from my charts, that the solar cycle length prediction works up until the most recent cycle (1996-2008, either cycle 23 or 24 depending on which source you use). At 12.6 years, that’s a very long cycle, and thus the temperature since 2008 is predicted by your model to be much lower – and so far that has not been the case.
My charts did not include the ocean cycles which you included. Can you give me a source for the ocean cycle data – I can try to use that data in the model as well.
SteveC
16 Oct 12 at 4:05 pm
“If 30 years is meaningful, then 1/3 or a 1/2 of that number can also give meaningful information about that 30-year trend.”
No, that’s the point. You can’t tell natural variability from climate trends with too small a sample.
“His quite close colleague Dr Jones said 15 years.”
No, he didn’t. He said 15 years had to pass before he even considered getting worried about the models.
“I am asking if the Hockey Team’s official number was 15 years a couple years ago”
The ‘official’ number was 30. It is still 30. People keep trying to force conclusions from less data, but as the article Steve Kates linked to in his post pointed out, this cannot work:
If adding just 20 months of data changes the ‘trend’, then obviously we’re still measuring variations in weather, not climate.
Jarrah
16 Oct 12 at 4:15 pm
No, that’s the point. You can’t tell natural variability from climate trends with too small a sample.
You don’t need to know what fraction of the current stasis is due to natural variability or not because given what the model’s argue, the longer the stasis persists the more unlikely it will be that you will see the sort of trend required to satisfy the projections of the models.
dover_beach
16 Oct 12 at 4:49 pm
Bitterly clinging to AGW is not impressing anyone, guys. Charts or no charts.
blogstrop
16 Oct 12 at 5:18 pm
Easier said than done blogstrop, quoting Prof. Lindzen:
“… there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake …”.
Perhaps Prof Stephan Lewandowsky can help, he’s a psychologist.
manalive
16 Oct 12 at 5:31 pm
Here’s another chart.
Gab
16 Oct 12 at 5:33 pm
Thinking you understand something when you don’t should not impress anyone, either. Par for the course here, though.
d-b: you really need to look at the Santer paper, linked by me before. Figures 3 & 7 in particular are of interest. Notice some lengthy periods of multi-model average flatness?
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 5:48 pm
Figures 3 & 7 in particular are of interest. Notice some lengthy periods of multi-model average flatness
Figure 3 involves observed temps, not multi-models. Figure 7 is interesting, not least because of this “The recent cooling near the end of observed TLT records is outside the ‘model average’ envelope of interannual variability.” In other words, the recent cooling is not weather, but climate.
dover_beach
16 Oct 12 at 6:31 pm
d-b: eyeballing it, the period for which the “recent cooling” is extending outside of the envelope is about the same as the 97/98 peak heat was outside of the envelope on the other side.
I could just as easily argue, if I were to follow your flawed way of arguing, that the earlier heat was “climate” too.
In fact, what they both are is noisy spikes around what the long term thing which is called climate.
steve from brisbane
16 Oct 12 at 6:54 pm
Steve C – Yes we have yet to see the outcome of the current solar cycle which is at peak now. As you recall I agree that CO2 has an effect, around 0.7 C/doubling, as does the 60 year cycle. Together they fit the long term temperature datasets pretty well IMO.
The reference I used to replicate (more or less) the detrended 60 year cycle in HadCRUT 3v dataset is Scafetta 2010. He detrended the HadCRUT 3 dataset (see bottom p953) by subtracting this quadratic: 0.000029*(year – 1850)^2 – 0.42 (see Fig 1).
I did it on the annual average data which I had to hand and got this. Compare to Scafetta’s Fig 10 B (which I linked above, from Joe d’Aleo’s discussion of the 60 year cycle which I also linked.
You can see the trough-peak difference is about 0.4 C (in the blue curve). That is essentially what Grant Foster has graphed in his post and paper that SteveFB linked to above. We are just over the peak, hence the plateau in the trend (and recent start to fall).
I have not personally fitted a sinusoidal to the HadCRUT dataset, nor replicate that quadratic fit equation, as the stats package I used to use for work is no longer available to me. Too expensive to buy when I don’t have need in my current consultancy. Can’t easily do it in Excel, I’d have to do it by first principles.
I won’t get into an argument about Scafetta’s conclusions as to the reason for the cycle, I’m not convinced he is right. It might equally be a resonance with the double solar cycle (3:1) or the thermohaline cycle (3:2).
Both Scafetta and d’Aleo include power spectrum plots (presumably Fourier) which show the 60-ish year frequency. As discussed above you can see a similar 60-ish year cycle in the AMO, PDO and elsewhere. Today I saw this article which mentions the 60 year cycle linked to the PDO in Canadian Praries tree rings and rainfall over the last 1000 years. I’ve not hunted down Dr Sauchyn’s paper.
Over a long baseline the 60-year cycle doesn’t make much difference. In the CET with it in I get a 2XCO2 of 0.7 C by difference, with it out it is 0.8 C. You’d expect this since a sinusoidal or pseudo would average to zero in the long term. I don’t know it is classic sinusoidal, may well be more like a modulated FM signal. We only have 150 years of data its not possible to know.
Bruce of Newcastle
16 Oct 12 at 7:02 pm
““The recent cooling near the end of observed TLT records is outside the ‘model average’ envelope of interannual variability.” In other words, the recent cooling is not weather, but climate.”
LOL
Jarrah
16 Oct 12 at 8:28 pm
Some pompous know-alls seem to be easily amused..
Lazlo
16 Oct 12 at 8:44 pm
Santer’s paper is an exercise in end point fallacy derived from the infamous graph from AR4 shown in FAQ 3.
Using this technique you can do anything, including disproving the uniqueness of AGW caused temperature trend in the modern era.
cohenite
16 Oct 12 at 9:29 pm
Antarctic climate facing ‘rapid’ changes: chief scientist
SteveC
16 Oct 12 at 9:57 pm
Utter bollocks. Without empirical foundation. A grave dis-service to science. When the funding dries up because they are regarded as shallow, they will only have themselves to blame.
Lazlo
16 Oct 12 at 10:03 pm
Who to believe?
cohenite
16 Oct 12 at 10:39 pm
Note also that global sea ice anomaly appears correlated with the AMO.
Global sea ice anomaly (red curve)
AMO
The peak in the AMO (ie right about now) corresponds to the current low in global sea ice anomaly. The last trough in the AMO 30 years ago corresponds with the highest recorded global sea ice extent.
This is consistent with the 60-ish year cycle since the AMO is a sea surface temperature index. If the sea surface temperature is higher in the Atlantic then Arctic ice should be lower since the Arctic is geographically connected to the Atlantic, but not much to the Pacific. So as the AMO cycle flips to the downward cycle it would be unsurprising to see everything change again since the Antarctic sea ice operates in a countercycle to the Arctic (for some reason I don’t understand).
The satellite record starts in 1979, the bottom of the AMO and likely top of the sea ice coverage. We’ll know whether this correlation is true when the AMO is more clearly into its downswing. But the argument is logical: cyclic AMO->cyclic Arctic Ocean water temperature->cyclic Arctic sea ice. We just don’t have enough sea ice data yet to confirm this logical linkage.
In other words Dr Gales is describing what is mostly a natural change. He will not have seen this before since the last time we were in this phase of the cycle was 60 years ago. I don’t think he was watching the Southern Ocean currents then. Nor was anyone.
Bruce of Newcastle
17 Oct 12 at 8:00 am
[...] MET release by David Rose in the Daily Mail and picked up by the usual local idiot blogs – Catallaxy and, of course, Andrew [...]
Global warming stopped 16 years ago « Harry Clarke
18 Oct 12 at 11:59 pm