Romm cleverly chose a graph which stopped in 2007, before the La Nina kicked in. Being the helpful person that I am, I updated Cook’s graph to include the latest GISS (red circle.)
You are welcome Joe. Your global warming panic is a joke.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
You forgot the pretty rainbow spaghetti and necessary smoothing as well as proper adjustments to match the model output.
But… but… this is the Hottest Year Ever Recorded (TM)!
good eyes Steve………..
You have probably seen this but it puts Romm’s entire argument in the toilet where it belongs.
From WUWT a paper by Pat Frank:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/
Excerpt:
Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.
The hockey stick looks very lame right now! But the propaganda mill is still working overtime.
Looks more like 2005 since the vertical axis appears to be 2007. Anyway.
What does “latest GISS” mean, Steve? December 2010? Yearly Average 2010?
Looks like “Joe’s” graph is smoothed (moving average) is why I ask. Where is the original graph? Links to source material would make your blog more instructive.
Looks like Scenario A is spot on.
It’s a pretty legit criticism Steve. The original figure clearly uses a multi-annual moving average, evidenced by the lack of peaks and troughs (e.g. 1998 & 2005).
The GISS anomaly you’ve plotted, 0.4C, is the 2010 December average. If you had used the annual average for the whole of 2010, that dot would clearly be lying above the scenario C projection at 0.63C. If you used the average of the past 10 years, it wouldn’t be far below scenario C, at 0.55C.
So why did you think it was ok to use just the average of December?
Do you think January will be below 0.2?
“Do you think January will be below 0.2?”
The last time we had an ENSO index as low as it has recently been was in 1976. From GISS, the 10 year average for 1966-1975 is -0.01C (this is to 1976 what 0.55C is to 2011, bear with me).
The lowest monthly anomaly during 1976 was -0.29C, which is a 0.28C deviation from the previous 10 year mean. If we take 0.28 from 0.55, this lands us at 0.27C. Based on that I think it’s *unlikely* that January will be below 0.2C, but it’s not outwith the realms of possibility. However, if you are privvy to some information about the January anomaly thus far, then please do share.
Now I have answered your question, would you do me the courtesy of answering mine? Why did you think it was ok to compare multi-year averages to a monthly average?
What is your estimate for 2011? Above or below scenario A?
I think I’m beginning to understand why you’ve got the reputation you’ve got. And I’m not talking about wit.
I posted my comment in a perfectly reasonable tone, raising a justified criticism of this post, and then you go and give me the run around instead of addressing it? Not very impressive for someone who wishes to be called a skeptic.
Are you attempting to claim that Hansen’s forecasts are on target, or trying to distract with a straw man argument? I have zero patience for the behaviour you are displaying.
I’m not claiming that Hansen’s forecasts are on target – I think that would be a stupid claim to make considering that CO2 emmisions are close to scenario B while temperature is close to scenario C. It’s mere coincidence that temperature is following the 1988 scenario C, considering that the difference here is the CO2 emissions, while it is known that the fault in the 1988 model is the climate sensitivity (Hansen, 2006).
My issue is that I think your figure above is deceiving. By showing a single point monthly average next to what is clearly a multi-year moving average series, it implies that multi-year moving averages have taken a dramatic plunge recently. If instead of a moving average, the time series was simply all the monthly anomalies, we’d see that on top of December 2010, there have been 13 other months in the past decade with an anomaly of 0.4C or lower in the GISS data. That point on the figure above wouldn’t look like such an anomalous anomaly if that were the case.
What behaviour exactly are you talking about? I answered your genuine (I assume) question with nothing more than reasoned logic. The you asked me the completely redundant question “is 2011 going to be above or below scenario A?”. You took the piss, then accused me of unreasonable behaviour.
I’ll ask once again Steve, why did you compare a monthly average to a multi-year moving average?
Hansen’s latest reading is at 0.4, just like I stated. His next will almost certainly be lower. Scenario A is the closest to the actual emissions path. I’m not interested in you changing the subject.
Ok, perhaps I haven’t phrased my question as well as I would have liked.
Why do you think comparing a monthly average to a multi-year time series, or even to the model projections, which are projected annual means, is in any way instructive?
Hansen’s argument of catastrophic warming is based on the huge heat capacity of the ocean buffering the temperature. If the oceans had heated as he predicted, it would be impossible too have months as low as we are seeing now.
I’m assuming that you have some basic understanding of weather modeling.
FMJ:
Joe Romm and Cook are providing the comedy and Steven is displaying it. If you want to rely on any data from GISS surface temperature records then you are the fools and provide many regular readers with entertainment.
Business as usual! The Sky is Falling! CLB is getting more shrill day by day!
If you are so new to the discussion that you want links to the source data then you have no business making comments and would do well to just read.
The original figure uses the preferred method of smoothing to give the desired results however smoothed Garbage is still Garbage and putting lipstick on a pig does not make it anything more than a pig. As this situation proves it makes the pig look ridiculous! Keep applying the lipstick!
Do you have reason to believe that ocean heat storage would influence the *variability* or magnitude of effect of ENSO?
After all, I showed earlier that a monthly average 0.28C deviation from the previous decade’s mean would not be unprecedented under the recent conditions (my comment referring to the 1976 La Nina). 0.4C is only a 0.15C deviation from the previous decade’s mean of 0.55C.
If you could point me to some reading material for this I’ll happily lap it up. You’ve answered my original question, now I’m just curious about mechanism.
bbtxu
Steve’s response was a joke, in case you aren;t familiar with him
Thanks for the heads up, Tony.
FJM addressed my main concerns more clearly. Looking forward to Steve’s response.
Steve I see Cook also forgot to put the mushroom cloud on the graph for the catastrophic tipping point that Romm warns will happen any day now.
Baghdad Romm