(base period 1961-90)
Julienne asked to see a longer time period. I don’t see any evidence of acceleration in recent years. Temperatures rose just as fast from 1910 to 1940 as they did from 1970 to 2000, and they haven’t increased at all since then.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
- Richard E Fritz on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
thanks for posting this graph Steve! Helps make the point you were trying to get across more clear.
Hi Julienne,
Sorry, this is OT.
Last year, you posted a table of FYI loss in the Arctic Basin on WUWT. Could you give as the value for 2010 here so we can update our data? Or better yet, if you could provide a link with that data on the NSIDC server?
Thanks,
-Scott
Wow. So that’s what happens when a (Little) Ice Age ends! Who knew?
But the trick is to use the necessary adjustments. When viewing these graphs you need to tilt your head down to the right to see the acceleration through all time periods.
can you add to the graph the time-period the anomalies were computed relative to? I just realized this is a temperature anomaly plot, so it would be good to also include the baseline for which the anomalies are computed.
Julienne,
The base period is 1961-1990 for HadCRUT.
🙂
The thing is that warming wasn’t even accelerating when they published that tripe back in 2005. I could understand that they might think that in 1998, but then they could have thought that in 1940 too, when the CO2 level was “safe”.
Yes, the base is conveniently nestled in the trough. But more importantly, what would it look like if the artificial “adjustments” prior to the satellite period were removed?… and if UHI were properly accounted for? Something more like this perhaps?:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_b5jZxTCSlm0/R6O8szfAIbI/AAAAAAAAA8Y/t58hznPmTuw/s320/Statewide%2BRecord%2BHigh%2BTemperatures.JPG
You just got to love that graph…
….all bright scary red and measured in increments that no one can measure
Yes, the trend lines should be more prominent. The 30s are very relevant in the discussion. No one can legitimately argue climate change because of CO2 when discussing the 1930s. In fact, its very difficult to argue the relevance of global temps equating to the dire consequences of climate change when the 1930s are mindful. Given the decade that started in the 1930s and the duration, our fathers can rightfully say they took the worst of humanity’s history and not only persevered, but thrived and prospered, well!!!! Per aspera ad astra. Climate change is a problem? Not to me and my ilk. Why scare of something that we’ve already conquered? Has this world produced nothing but cowards since? Mankind has always persevered, thrived and progressed. There is no reason to believe mankind will not rise to any imagined problem, much less an imaginary one.
Thanks Lat! I went off on a tangent, but used your comment to reply. I just thought it needed stated……..
but I like your tangents…
..it’s the sines cosines and secants that scare me
We have to face people with their force fed BS everyday and it’s nice to be able to tell them that it has only warmed up a degree or less the last 100 years. Since climate is always changing, that is not at all alarming.
Just today, I looked at a chart that showed the top ten warmist Julys for DC. It seemed like most of them were between 1980 and 2000, only one since 2000. That would fit in with what your chart seems to be indicating, warming during those years but none since.
What is clear from even that adjusted graph is that the ‘satellite era’ is extremely unrepresentative of normal climate behaviour, and far too short to declare ‘trends’.
It is depressing that one scientist could be stupid enough to declare a runaway trend in weather data, but it makes one suicidal to realize that peer-review is so utterly debased as to let them get away with it.
This is a typical warmist fraudulent trick! You can do the same thing with a constant sine wave (sorry can’t find the link to deonstrate!).
Scumbag alert:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/07/climate-ugliness-gets-personal/#comment-615464
I’m thinking of improving the quarter mile time for my hotrod by shortening the track. I mean, if I cannot increase the performance , why not just shorten the track? Do you think I could get the IPCC to sponsor me?
The satellite temperatures should be the only consideration for “accelerating” – the pre-satellite temperatures are proxies-at-best.
We have to stop worrying about carbon emissions and start worrying about our nitrogen emissions. Nitrogen controls the temps, see here http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=14199622
I know, just saw that….amazing.
Oh what a twisted web the psychotic mind can weave…
The real trend is only 0.053C per decade and it has not accelerated.
0.053C per decade
It seems that the theory that the sun being more active than it was during the time of the Little Ice Age could be the cause of such a subtle change. But I don’t know the math that could prove it.
But in the end who knows for sure what causes things like the Little Ice and the the Medieval Warm Period.
BTW,
I’m really happy to see a comment from you, Bill Illis.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/dec/15dec2010a4.html
Nothing new under the sun, it’s still colder then before
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
Modern Warming is about the coolest warming yet in this interglacial.This according to NOAA data.
The NRDC zinger is the same claim the IPCC makes, using a colorful graph with heavily smoothed, really fat trendlines.
Pachauri gave a speech with this graph when he accepted a honorary doctorate.
I do not understand why everyone is putting so much on trends, trends are for looking in the past but they are very poor at predicting the future.
For example
“30-40” Hitler should have taken the world by now
“40-50” we should have at least 1 billion hula-hoops per person by now
“50-60” the Soviet Union will be the largest economy by 2000
I could go on, but trends are for the past.
At the current rate the days are getting longer we will have 24 hour of sunlight per day before December in the Northern Hemisphere! and everything south of the equator will be in darkness all day long! It is definitely worse than previously thought.
This is the first time in recent history the daylight time has been increasing at such a rate. Just last July it was in a death spiral and if we had not sacrificed the goat in December it would not have turned around.
You need to detrend out the PDO/AMO, which bottomed in 1900 and peaked in 2000. That is about 0.27 C worth of illusory warming.
Detrending for solar effects, based on Butler & Johnston 1996, would wipe out a lot of the rest of the rise because of the short and hot solar cycles in the latter half of the century. After that maybe you would see the CO2 effect, although there could also be a soot and UHI signal particularly in the last 50 years as diesel engine usage increased.