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

Discussion > A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years

My conversation … can be proved correct…
But… you say that science doesn’t do proof! Is this an admission that you do not do science?

Anyhooo…

Let us start with your idea of using the past to forecast the future with the rise from 1910 to 1940. A rate similar to what was experienced from 1975 to… well, let’s just call it 1996, shall we? What was the rise in CO2 25 years prior to that? Ooh, look! Not much different from today’s rate of rise! Maybe you are on to something! Now, let’s look at the fall in temperatures from 1945 to 1975, and the rise (or otherwise – by your reckoning, it actually fell) in CO2 25 years prior to that. Ooops! It DID rise, and at more or less the rate it rose in the late 19th century, and the rate it is rising, now. Well, so much for that theory. Quite why you are so fixated on the idea that it is CO2 that is the sole factor in any changes in temperature or climate is truly beyond me, when there is not one jot of evidence to suggest it might be so, and a whole swathe of data to suggest that it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory follows a closer link to the rather staccato rise we have witnessed; Evans’s notched-step idea also has a closer correlation with observed events, and even has the benefit of being able to be proved wrong within the next few years. Both these theories have the benefit of being able to be proven wrong, a feature your “It’s CO2 wot dunnit, innit?” theory does not have, which makes your pet theory NOT science.

Oct 3, 2016 at 6:11 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

It's simple, both rises are from the oceanic oscillations(and the one before in the 19th Century), but CO2 is credited for the last one. It simply ain't true, and therein lies the tall tale.
==============

Oct 3, 2016 at 6:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Radical Rodent, having failed in everything, and not having done anything useful with all the billions they have had, Climate Projectionists now expect everybody else to work out what is wrong with their UNPROVEN theories, for free.

The reason for this great alarm amongst people claiming to be Climate Scientists, is that the money is about to run out.

As only 3% of Climate Scientists have ever contemplated alternatives to the failed CO2 theories, the other 97% have no data approved by the Hockey Team, Skeptical Skience etc to enable them to work out any other possibilities.

As James Lovelock has now admitted Green Gaia was all wrong, I would suggest that unbanning insecticide DDT, would save lives, and that the banning of CFCs seems to tie in fairly approximately with the start of the pause. That should fix every thing, at no further cost to the planet.

Oct 3, 2016 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC,

DDT was never banned as an insecticide.But then where would you be without your myths?

Oct 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Did the medievals invent and ban CFCs? Oh well, maybe it was the earths erratic orbit around a variable heat source. Or it could be anything, but CO2 made by man.

Oct 3, 2016 at 7:00 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM if you think you can predict the future climate using a few back off the envelope calculations, then be happy. You don't need my approval or acquiescence. I await your being awarded a Nobel Prize.

Oct 3, 2016 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

RR - Just for a laugh, here's your 1910-1940 trend continued to the present day

106 years

And compared to the last 60 years

60 years

And what the heck, the last 80 years

80 years

The current increase has lasted at least twice as long as the prewar increase, and shows no sign of abating. (Fun with trends, not to be taken too seriously)

You mangled the meaning of EM's opening sentence, btw.

Oct 3, 2016 at 7:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Radical Rodent

I found your paragraph on CO2 and temperature rather incoherent. Could you express whatever you were trying to say more clearly, please.

I have no argument with you about other forcings. There are cycles such as ENSO and the 11 year solar cycle.

The problem is that they are small short term variations. Their amplitude and period cause a lot of the short term variation in the temperature record, but they are too small and too transient to generate the observed long term trend. They also cancel out, so the net natural forcing is close to zero. That leaves CO2 and industrial albedo.

Svenmark I'm familiar with. Unfortunately for you the CERN CLOUD experiment has shown that effect he proposes is very small at the intensities we observe. A gamma ray burster nearby might produce an observable effect, but we would be dying of radiation poisoning and in no condition to care.

Evans' notched step theory sounds like absolute rubbish with an unspecified Force X, two different solar cycles and other silliness. It does make one clear prediction.

Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s. This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle, currently 13 years (2004+13 = 2017).

Since we are all expecting 2017 to be cooler than 2016, the first year won't tell us much. By the mid-2020s it should be easy to tell whether Evans or AGW is more likely.

Oct 3, 2016 at 8:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

ACK

Unfortunately I am just using the current paradigm, so a Nobel Prize is unlikely.

The back of my envelope has successfully described the 135 years to date. I see no reason why it should not continue to do so.

What strikes me is your inability to do the same.

Oct 3, 2016 at 8:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, when was it announced that 2017 is expected to be cooler? I thought CO2 was still rising.

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf charlie

Any rational analysis of the data will lead you to expect 2017 to be cooler than 2016.

2015 was an El Nino year with an GISS anomaly of 0.86C.

2016 is an El Nino year. The current anomaly after 8 months is 1.03C and falling too slowly to avoid another record.

2017 will probably be ENSO neutral, around the long term trend level of 0.8C.The long term trend due to CO2 is currently 0.17C/decade. That is 0.017C/year, When comparing one year to the next that is too small to be significant.

Consider this a Turing test of YOUR ability to rationally discuss climate data.

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Sorry, Mr Clarke, but I was dealing with the figures before they had been too “homogenised”, when 1938 (or was it 36?) was still the hottest year of the 20th century. Now, I have difficulty believing anything the once-trusted organisations pump out.

Who gives a hoot, EM, what you think of Force X; it is just an as-yet unidentified variable that appears to have more effect than CO2, irrespective of source (though, to tell the truth, almost anything could fit that bill). What is important is that Mr Evans has given a specific indication that would indicate his theory is falsifiable; yours do not, therefore, your theories are not science. Maybe CERN has disproven Svensmark; curious, though, that his figures so closely tie in with temperatures for the past 200 million years, or so – yes I know, and Henrik Svensmark acknowledges, correlation is NOT necessarily causation, but the correlation is far, far more closely linked than any CO2 figures you can conjure up over the past 200 years (and over which time, Svensmark’s figures continue to more closely follow).

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM, Your words were that "we are all in agreement .... " I merely asked when.

I expect that 2017 will be cooler, simply based on ENSO, I just didn't know this had been formally agreed on, so were you using the Royal "we", or were you merely reporting a formal or informal agreement?

I do not claim to be a climate scientist or expert. You are the one who refuses to consider the possibility of being wrong, and just regurgitate falsified computer data. Therefore you would fail the Turing Test, and be mistaken for a computer generation. As climate science only exists within adjusted computer models, based on the man made input data, are you really sure that Turing is appropriate?

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM, if you are so convinced by the science of climate science, why was money wasted on Gergis?

Surely the money would have been better spent on sea walls for Bangladesh.

Climate Science funding needs to be cut by 97%.

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Detailing the latest waste of taxpayers money (though I don't know that taxpayers paid for the photo of Cook, Mann and Lewandowsky together, but taxpayers probably paid for the Air Tickets).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/03/get-your-mind-right-embrace-the-lewandowsky-hypothesis/

Oct 4, 2016 at 12:18 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sorry, Mr Clarke, but I was dealing with the figures before they had been too “homogenised”, when 1938 (or was it 36?) was still the hottest year of the 20th century. Now, I have difficulty believing anything the once-trusted organisations pump out..

You don't like the numbers - so they must be wrong. In which case further discussion is futile. But I think you have your myths confused, the US was warmer in the 1930s however I'm pretty sure that was never the case in any global dataset.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

Oct 4, 2016 at 12:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Sensitivity and the mysterious Factor X, or margin of erroneous Fudge

http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/02/leading-climate-sensitivity-scientist-admits-mathematical-errors-in-the-agw-theory/#sthash.cA1e6y3A.dpbs

Oct 4, 2016 at 12:52 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke, here are some unadjusted numbers for you to work on

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

"Time is fast running out to stop irreversible climate change, a group of global warming experts warns today. We have only 100 months to avoid disaster. Andrew Simms explains why we must act now - and where to begin"

How long have we got? Aug 2008 + 100 months = ?

In case you hadn't worked it out yet, nobody trusts NASA GISS anymore, and they could be the first to fail by the time 100 months are up.

Oct 4, 2016 at 1:04 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@GC, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:24 AM

Climate Science, and Climate Scientist, are terms that should be revised, as they are taken to mean something that they are by Entropic Man's definition incapable of fulfilling.

Perhaps Climate Projectionist would be more apt. A different scary projection, simply by changing the inputs, and it is all fiction anyway.

I like that, but I prefer Climate Psychic.

Their ESP is their computer models plus manipulation and tampering with current and historic data to ensure it supports their assertions.

Oct 4, 2016 at 1:07 AM | Registered CommenterPcar

“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from [current levels] to at most 350 ppm.”

Dr. James Hansen

From <https://350.org/about/science/>

Currently 400ppm and rising. 2016 will set a(nother) new record for temperatures.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'La-la-la' is an odd response, to put it mildly.

Oct 4, 2016 at 7:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I see the UAH data for September shows no sign of any cooling … and what's this?

Note that the August value of +0.43 is changed slightly from its previously reported value of +0.44. This is because inter-satellite calibrations are improved with each additional month of global data, which can change previous months’ results by several thousandths of a degree.

OMG even Spencer and Christy are tampering with the data!

Oct 4, 2016 at 8:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I'm highly amused that the alarmists were so certain that paleoclimate evidence would make their case, but instead it's putting things better in perspective, and CO2 is a minor player.

It also shows that warm is good and cold is bad, for the biome, for humans, and for human society.

Phil should do a little homework on the adjustment of temperature series by NOAA that purported to erase the pause. Just more evidence of deliberate perversion. How long, really, can they think this bubble of manipulated belief can last, and why don't they rue the ultimate harvest?
===========

Oct 4, 2016 at 8:45 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Phil C:

"OMG even Spencer and Christy are tampering with the data!"

I don't think anyone here has ever denied the satellite adjustments. I am sceptical about all the adjustments and the difficulty of recording temperature accurately over a sufficiently large area and over a sufficiently large timescale to trust any of the measurements much.

The difference between us is that you trust and endorse the adjusted records which serve your purpose (climate alarmism) and doubt the adjusted records which don't support it half so well. Why?

Oct 4, 2016 at 8:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

I was amused that Mears trashed his own modality(RSS). The la-la-la is strong amongst the alarmists.
==============

Oct 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

That was some time ago. Here is Carl Mears responding to Ted Cruz's 'Data or Dogma' hearing.

But what if climate models really were a factor of three or more too sensitive to human-caused GHG increases, as claimed by the majority side of the subcommittee? The telltale signatures of such a serious climate sensitivity error would be evident in many different comparisons with observations, and not just over the last 18 years. We’d expect to see the imprint of this large error in comparisons with observed surface temperature changes over the 20th century (37-42), and in comparisons with the observed cooling after large volcanic eruptions (30, 43, 44). We don’t. There are many cases where observed changes are actually larger than the model expectations (41, 42), not smaller.

In assessing climate change and its causes, examining one individual 18-year period is poor statistical practice, and of limited usefulness. Analysts would not look at the record of stock trading on a particular day to gain reliable insights into long-term structural changes in the Dow Jones index. Looking at behavior over decades – or at the statistics of trading on all individual days – provides far greater diagnostic power. In the same way, climate scientists study changes over decades or longer (39-42, 45), or examine all possible trends of a particular length (23, 38, 46-48). Both strategies reduce the impact of large, year-to-year natural climate variability[k] on trend estimates. The message from this body of work? Don’t cherry-pick; look at all the evidence, not just the carefully selected evidence that supports a particular point of view.

In summary, the finding that human activities have had a discernible influence on global climate is not falsified by the supposedly “hard data” in Senator Cruz’s Exhibit A. The satellite data and weather balloon temperatures are not nearly as “hard” as they were portrayed in the hearing. Nor is a very large model error in the climate sensitivity to human-caused GHG increases the only or the most plausible explanation for the warming rate differences in Exhibit A. Indeed, when the observational temperature datasets in Exhibit A are examined over their full record lengths – and not just over the last 18 years – they provide strong, consistent scientific evidence of human effects on climate (41, 42, 48). So do many other independent observations of changes in temperature, the hydrological cycle, atmospheric circulation, and the cryosphere (41, 42).

Climate policy should be formulated on the basis of both the best-available scientific information and the best-possible analysis and interpretation. Sadly, neither was on display at the Senate hearing on “Data or Dogma?” There was no attempt to provide an accurate assessment of uncertainties in satellite data, or to give a complete and balanced analysis of the reasons for short-term differences between modeled and observed warming rates. Political theater trumped true “open inquiry”.

Oct 4, 2016 at 9:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke