Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Destroy the planet to save the planet | Main | Unbalanced - Josh 344 »
Saturday
Sep052015

Temperature questions

The current El Nino is rousing our green friends into a frenzy as they anticipate all the lurid headlines they will be able to generate at Paris (this is, admittedly, before the year is actually finished, but that has never been much of a concern to the tree hugger).

But questions keep nagging away. If surface temperatures are blipping upwards, why does the pause continue in the satellite record? That's what happened in the 1998 super El Nino.

Similarly, 1998 was hot here in the UK, but the current El Nino seems to have had negligible effect on the British Isles. Indeed, if anything, the opposite.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (81)

Josh (and Appell) should study more like:

http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/04/the-ocean2k-hockey-stick/

Sep 5, 2015 at 8:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterIbrahim

A commenter at WUWT pointed out the odd divergence in the surface temperature trends of the hemispheres from ~1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1997/trend

Sep 5, 2015 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris Hanley

Billy Liar at 5:56 PM

Spare a kind thought for the stressed snails. The pre-Christmas consumption of escargot by the climate glitterati has been modeled to be a species extinguishing event.

Sep 5, 2015 at 11:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterManfred

kim
"I'm impressed that the language may not have matured enough to describe atmospheric physics"
to paraphrase Captain Willard "absolutely GD right"
nor has the math
there are some climate scientists who should stay on the boat

Sep 5, 2015 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Smith

while we await the many katerinas and el nino effects, I'll heat up the tar, and assemble the feathers and rails, for eventual quick transport outtatown of the main warmish protagonists (from Julia Slingo, Dr Mann, Sir Nurse, to Stephan Lewandowsky bottomfeeders) when the doom doesnt pan out.

Sep 5, 2015 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterVenusNotWarmerDueToCO2

Christopher Booker has an interesting article in the Telegraph today.

Yet another Met Office 'warmer, drier summer’ left us shivering in the rain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11847036/Yet-another-Met-Office-warmer-drier-summer-left-us-shivering-in-the-rain.html

"August proved that the Met Office is indeed a national disaster. Yet again, the Met Office told us this year that we could expect a summer “warmer and drier than average”. Yet again, the rain poured down, culminating in those August bank holiday downpours, while our summer ranked as only the 178th warmest since records began in 1659. Almost every year since 2007 it has been the same story. The Met Office predicts a summer “warmer and drier than average”, as in its famous “barbecue summer” of 2009, only for the heavens to open while we shiver for weeks on end."

Sep 6, 2015 at 8:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

Troll comment and follow-ups removed

Sep 6, 2015 at 9:21 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Roy, any Global Warming expert will tell you that "shivering for weeks on end", is the clearest signal evah, of global warming.

I am not a betting person, but if everytime the Met Office forecast "warmer and drier than average", I had bet on the opposite occurring, would I be better off?

With some Met Office forecasters being on the job hunt in the near future, how should prospective employers judge applicants credibility? Would "Do you believe in all the Green crap, global warming bollox?" be considered an unfair question at a job interview, because it is certainly the question the BBC should be asking the Met Office's prospective replacement.

Unfortunately for the UK public, who pay for the BBC, we don't get an opportunity to challenge the BBC, over its non scientific stance on green crap.

Sep 6, 2015 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I have just been looking at the iconic London Underground map.

When viewed carefully, through red/green D'Appelled shades, it's a Hockey Stick.

Sep 6, 2015 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I've looked at a hockey stick, blade down.

But when you look hard enough with Appell/Nurse/UKMET glasses, it's blade up !

Sep 6, 2015 at 12:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterVenusNotWarmerDueToCO2

Venus.....

Preparing some food, I just partially snapped a cocktail stick. Imagine my surprise, when I looked at it, and saw a Health and Safety hazard, with the potential to destroy whole economies, jobs and lives.

So I binned it. It seemed the sensible thing to do.

I am now frightened to touch uncooked spaghetti, in case I break a bit, and it forewarns of a massive disaster, of Biblical proportions, with floods and storms and forty days of rain, and plagues, and swarms of locusts and ....

With the precautionary principle, it is unsafe to cook, let alone eat.

Sep 6, 2015 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Spending on the IPCC, it's parties and other unjust causes, has gone up superexponentionally. Which means lots and lots, or something really big, full of zeros and costing the earth, like Paris will be in December.

Sep 6, 2015 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

RE: "That's what happened in the 1998 super El Nino."

Am I being too literalist - or should you have written 'That's NOT what happened in the 1998 super El Nino'?

The 1998 super El Nino shows up very clearly in the satellite record

Sep 6, 2015 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterJ Calvert N

I can understand power engineering but I have to admit I'm at a loss on the intricacies of climate science written about here. I presume many on the AGW side wouldn't understand this stuff either, including Obama, so how can you create policy based on something you don't understand.

Sep 6, 2015 at 5:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterOwen

Owen
It's quite evident you aren't a politician. Creating policies on subjects you know nothing about is the easy bit. The difficulties start when you try to create policies on things you do know something about — or think you do!

Sep 6, 2015 at 6:03 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Owen, I agree with Mike Jackson!

In addition to making policies do deal with imaginary problems, that they do not understand, politicians have to cope with a barrage of emotional blackmail via the BBC, fired from Non Governmental Organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc, who do not understand what it is they do not understand about the science, but still demand everything is done to match their demands, NOW, because they said so.

Climate science experts, are experts in global warming, because they say they are, and demand salaries to match. Unfortunately they can not agree on how to disagree, about the fact that none of them understand why there has been no global warming for over 18 years. 18 years is a long time to be experts in something you do not understand.

I hope you now have a better understanding of a complex subject, that experts do not understand.

Alternatively, start with the assumption that there really is no problem, and it is actually a lot easier to understand why experts can't understand why nothing has happened.

Sep 6, 2015 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

In 2012, 97 MPs were asked by Ipsos Mori on behalf of the Royal Statistical Society what would be the probability of getting two heads in a row when spinning a coin. Three out of five MPs either answered incorrectly or admitted they did not know.

BBC News home editor Mark Easton provided details on how the test looked and pointed out the worrying fact that when MPs were questioned as whether or not they use official statistics when preparing their policies and speeches, 'only 17% of Conservative respondents agreed, as did 30% of the Labour members who took part.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666

The Royal Statistical Society getstats campaign has in the past emphasised the importance of the role of statistics in political manifestos by running seminars for politicians and later this year, will be running training courses in order to assist MPs and their staff to better understand statistics and utilise them more effectively within their roles.

Before the recent general election the RSS offered courses post-election to successful candidates in the election. 55 of the candidates who signed up for the course were successful in the election so hopefully now will learn to understand the difference between arithmetic and geometric means amongst other things!

Sep 6, 2015 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post

In a separate survey of tossers, MP's were again asked about the odds of 100 MP's being given a coin, tossing it in the air, and keeping it.

80 saw no problem, as the largest coin, £2, was not of sufficient value to declare in the register of members interest.

4 did not know that coins still existed

7 did not know the value of money, as their wife/cook/girlfriend did the shopping (sometimes all 3 together)

The remaining 9 or 18 or 27, just kept coming back having worked out they could legally keep £2 per question.

Sep 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@ gc 1950. An interesting example of lateral thinking. My evening glass of wine all over the keyboard. Well done.

Sep 6, 2015 at 7:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Lohse

If we are currently in a pdo reversal then surely we'd expect a weaker el nino than 1997/8but a strong following la nina. If that is what the satellites eventually show then it would make physical sense.

Sep 7, 2015 at 9:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

BS, what is the statistic significance of the 18+ years pause? Can it be calculated? Why, why not?

Sep 7, 2015 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterWerk

Ah another pause denier rears his head!

Sep 7, 2015 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

JamesG, that's probably not his head.

Sep 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Werk, given the absolute certainty of increased CO2 leading to increased warming, what is the statistical significance of nothing happening for 18 years?

Why is it significant that no global warmist has calculated the statistical significance, of the theory being wrong?

Sep 7, 2015 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie, I always think it's important to note that it's not the first pause since man made CO2 was big enough to affect the climate but the second. The first being 25+ years long. For most of the 65 years we've been affecting the climate, we've had no effect.

Sep 7, 2015 at 1:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Not the first pause? Sacrilege! Heresy!

Don't tell the warmists though. Most of them still believe in tooth fairies and Father Christmas. Life is so much easier, if everything can be portrayed as either good or bad. Aesops fables, religious parables, Stars Wars etc

Simplifying peoples frustration and anger into a common hatred, is what extremist political propaganda has always been about. Nowadays, it is called spin doctoring. The Green Blob are very good at it.

The easiest way to deal with people blowing the whistle on evidence inconsistent with the agreed message, is to shoot the whistle blowers. The Green Blob are very good at it.

Sep 7, 2015 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Tryping error, my fault

Tiny CO2 @2.50 was golf charlie NOT TinyCO2

Sep 7, 2015 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Easy done. One of the reasons I like to post on Wordpress sites is the authoring fields are so user friendly. The downsides are minor compared to the hurdles in other formats.

Sep 7, 2015 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

I worry about Christopher Monkton.

Given five temperature datasets to choose among, he picks the only one which does not show significant or near-significant warming since 1996.

I wonder why. Perhaps he is cherrypicking data to match his beliefs, rather than adjusting his beliefs to fit the data.

Sep 7, 2015 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Woodfortrees is slightly out of date - it is still using UAH v5.6, the newer UAH v6.0 is almost identical to RSS.

In practice, the various surface data sets are not independent of each other (and the two satellite data sets are not independent of each other either), so the most sensible interpretation is that there are two reasonably independent views of the temperature of the atmosphere, the thermometers near the ground and the satellites for the lower troposphere. Half of those independent perspectives are on show here.

Always interesting to observe the warmists obsession with "statistical significance", without ever really understanding the problems associated with calculating it.

Of course, one could always listen to climate scientist Doug McNeall:

If somebody asks if something is statistically significant, they probably don’t know what it means.

Sep 8, 2015 at 2:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterSpence_UK

Blimey two pause deniers now. They didn't get the memo it seems: It happened but it was entirely expected/ needs to last 30 years/ is caused by the deep ocean/the solar minimum/trade winds/etc...hmmm actually maybe it is far easier for them to just disbelieve their lying eyes: Then they just look dumb rather than dishonest. On the other hand they could admit the skeptics have been correct all this time and avoid all the angst and self-delusion.

Sep 8, 2015 at 12:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>