http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N45/yost.html
Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the United States do about it?
I drew a 5C/century trend (purple) on top of the actual decadal trend (green – measured El Nino peak to peak.)
Where do people come up with these nonsensical forecasts of 5C warming in the next ninety years? They are off by almost two orders of magnitude.
For what its worth, the IPCC scenario with the highest projection is A1FI (rapid growth exploit fossil fuels to the max) is only +4C (2.4 – 6.4C), and I would have thought A1FI is rather more than leaving emissions “unchecked”.
However yet again you have spoiled a reasonable point by cherry picking. You have picked the period since AGW is considered to have become the dominant forcing with the lowest warming. The point would have been made just as well if you had used 1975-present and your argument would have been better for not being based on biased cherry picked graph.
The last 12 years is cherry-picking? That is the really steep part of Hansen’s 1988 projection.
yes, but it isn’t a plot of Hansen’s prediction is it, its the flattest 12 years of the instrumental record since 1975. As I said, if you used 1975-present it would have made your point just as well, but no, you just can’t resist maximising the difference in the plots, even if it does make your bias absolutely unequivocal.
Given the sensitivity to ENSO – I used El Nino peak to peak, which is correct way to measure recent trends.
Tamino used trough to peak from 1975, which compounded his cherry-picking.
Hey Dikwad, check out how well Hansen’s forecast from 1988 has done over that entire period! Not so well!
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful-guest-weblog-by-john-christy/
Sorry Steve, cherry picking is cherry picking is cherry picking. Pointing out that tamino does it (in your view) does not justify you doing the same thing. You seem determined to weaken your arguments so that only those already in your camp accept them, but make you look disingenuous to those who disagree and are familiar with the tricks. Seems a bit futile to me.
You have got to be kidding.
Using the 21st century trend to date is absolutely essential for seeing if 5C is even remotely possible.
Hansen’s whole story is based on non-linear behaviour – which is not happening.
check out how well Hansen’s forecast from 1988 has done over that entire period
Nobody disputes that Hansen’s estimates 22 years ago of emissions and climate sensitivity were too high, which is basically all that Christy says. Hansen certainly doesn’t.
So why is MIT talking about 3-7 C warming – today? LOL
Well Mr Marsupial, it may seem a bit futile to you, but please be aware that Steven does not have to wait for many more months for the latest cycle of cooling to prove him correct, whilst you have apparently continued to put your money on the warmist cause. That is not a good bet for you, but hey, it’s your cause and it’s a lost one.
You can pontificate and bluster all you want. It won’t make the weather any warmer in the NH this winter and next spring will see millions more European peoples highly desirous of taking severe retribution on the politicians who have been rooking them. It will be bye bye to Fatty Barroso and Backward Obama.
“As I said, if you used 1975-present it would have made your point just as well”
Not really, because the period 1975-present only covers a period of persistent warming which, only very recently, appears to have come to an end :
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/global-jan-dec-error-bar.gif
My take is that a truer picture is revealed if present day temperatures are compared with those at the end of the last warming period c.1945.
The 20th. Century record reveals a warming trend of approximately 0.5C between 1910 and 1940, a slight cooling of 0.1C between 1940 and 1975 followed by another period of warming of 0.5C between 1975 and 2005.
By the year 2000, global temperatures had risen by 0.7C since 1880 ( a rate of 0.58C per century) and 0.4C since 1940 ( a rate of 0.67C per century).
Whatever you may think of Steve’s methods (I am reasonably sure he is not the first person in history to present data in such a way as to best back up his argument ) (:-, there is little doubting the validity of his conclusion : There is simply no empirical evidence in the observed temperature record to suggest that a 3-7C rise will occur in the next 100 years.
Little wonder that the CAGW alarmists are starting to lose credibility…………
““As I said, if you used 1975-present it would have made your point just as well”
Not really, because the period 1975-present only covers a period of persistent warming which, only very recently, appears to have come to an end :”
I have said this a couple of times here, but a good scientist presents evidence as a chess player chooses his moves, not to maximise his advantage, but to minimise his opponents maximum advantage (min-max optimisation – all chess computers work that way). You present your evidence in the strongest form that an opponent can’t refute. The advantage of that is that although your programme of research procedes in small steps, they are all in a forward direction. That way your opponent has no way to avoid admitting the truth of your position. As a by-product this also tends to instill the proper self-scepticism that is the hall mark of really good scientists that is absent in pretty much all blog-science.
If you can’t demonstrate the truth of your position without introducing bias, by cherry picking and by misrepresentation, then perhaps your position isn’t all that strong.
How about the 1000 yr trend Dikran? Or the 2000 yr trend? If we could get a truly objective 75 yr trend, you’d likely see the same thing. Technically, ANY period is “cherry” picked.
Have we been burning fossil fuels for 1000 years or 2000? No. If you are going to argue about the trends due to burning fossil fuels, you have to look at the period where significant fossil fuel burning was actually going on (and even then you have to consider climate variability and the fact that there have been changes in other forcings as well).
The simple rule is to use a trend over a period that doesn’t bias the result in favour of your argument, that is long enough not to be dominated by variability (e.g. ENSO).
There are all different types of criteria which people use to make choices. For some reason you expect everyone to be thinking along the same lines as yourself.
Some of us don’t assume that the climate is controlled by CO2.
Some of us don’t assume either way and are swayed by the evidence. I’m not swayed very much by those who misrepresent and cherry pick, you will find very few scientists who are. You generally don’t find Roy Spencer or John Christy indulging in this sort of thing, which is why the still have good reputations in mainstream science.
“affected by”, not “controlled by”
good point!
Dikran Marsupial the broken record says:
October 15, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Have we been burning fossil fuels for 1000 years or 2000? No. If you are going to argue about the trends due to burning fossil fuels, you have to look at the period where significant fossil fuel burning was actually going on
Actually, that would be (to borrow your overused, misused, and throughly abused favorite term) “cherry picking”. If you are going to argue that the trends are due to buring fossil fuels you need to look at a much larger time period that just the cherry picked period of fossil fuel burning becuase just looking at the cherry picked period tells you nothing by itself. It’s one of the reasons Mann is so keen on erasing the MWP, Because it shows that there is nothing unprecedented about recent warming.
Hmm, how long have we been burning coal? Wood? Other forms of oil?…..just saying.
For the record, peak to peak is perfectly acceptable. Or trough to trough, it really doesn’t work any other way. And yes, any arbitrary date will be open to “cherry-picking” accusations. You say 1975 to present. That’s fine. I, like yourself, prefer to do the chess approach, so I use 1985 trough to peak, but that doesn’t really show the true trends but worse case views. btw, here it is, trough to peak worst case, http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1985/plot/wti/from:1985/trend 0.4/25 yrs
yep, I’m buying my floaties right now!!!
ChrisD says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:12 pm
“affected by”, not “controlled by”
=============================================
Gavin says not true!!!
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob
Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/lacis101015.pdf
Coal burning was insignificant prior to the industrial revolution, and Wood isn’t actually a fossil fuel (unless it has become coal).
Picking 1975 is an obvious choice as it is when tamino says there is a change-point, so tamino has picked it instead of Steve. It is fairly simple excersice in self-skepticism, always think “how can my analysis be criticised” and then think of ways of making the analysis robust against those criticisms, repeat until convergence. That is what all good scientists do, even on uncontentious issues where there is no opponent.
If Steve could grasp that simple idea it would be greatly to his advantage, but I am pretty much fed up with offering constructive criticism, if he hasn’t got the idea by now he probably never will.
Why don’t you start your own stalking Steve Goddard blog?
Gavin says not true!!!
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob
In terms of atmospheric influence on climate, he’s right. There’s nothing in the atmosphere that has a bigger influence on our climate. But it can’t control our climate all by itself, which is what I take “controlled by” to mean.
1975 is cherry picked since after that the Pacifig and Atlantic climate shifts occured. According to the scientific knowledge from temperature records and proxies we can confirm the earths climate has a 60 year cycle (where 70’s it was in it lows, and 1940 and 2000’s in the high’s). See for example Scafetta 2010 and its references:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
Also see Thompson et al:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html
If you want a long termp trend, you draw it from 1940, period. Any other period is cherry picked. If you want a short term trend pick 1998, since then short term fluctuations as ENSO wont bias the trend (well, since 1998 ENSO is has a small positive trend though…)
1975 to date is a cherry picked trend since there is a warming noise from the 60 year oscillation bringing about 60% bias to the warming trend. The problem with the 60 year oscillation and the 1940 blip is that the alarmists lose almost two thirds of their “trend” when used a proper interval.
Right, wood isn’t a fossil. I was going at it from the CO2 emitting use of fuel. Mankind has been doing it since he showed up. People like to say industrial revolution, but anthropological CO2 emitting has been going on for 1000s of years.
I was going at it from the CO2 emitting use of fuel. Mankind has been doing it since he showed up.
Yes, but burning wood is entirely different from burning fossil fuels. The carbon in wood came out of the atmosphere only recently; it’s carbon neutral on the time scale you can easily measure in decades.
The carbon in fossil fuels, on the other hand, has been sequestered for many millions of years.
Chris, so what? If it had been sequestered, at one time the poor CO2 molecules were running free. The point is, since man started, he’s been emitting CO2 in one form or another. Given the theory CO2 continuously prevents heat from escaping and the churn of CO2 is 100s of years, it doesn’t reason that only now we’re seeing the effects of something that has been occurring for thousands of years. Yes, we’re using more energy than ever, but even still, 3000 years ago a man would emit more in his life time than would return to the earth and in an ever increasing amount. Ponder that for a moment.
ChrisD says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Gavin says not true!!!
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob
In terms of atmospheric influence on climate, he’s right. There’s nothing in the atmosphere that has a bigger influence on our climate.
============================================
HAHHA……stop Chris, you made my drink come out my nose and onto my keyboard when I read that. HAHAHAHA
Chris! Newflash! CO2 is a trace gas. water vapor, the sun, El Nino/La Nina……AMO/PDO? Orbital tilt? Any of these things ringing a bell?
Chris! Newflash! CO2 is a trace gas. water vapor, the sun, El Nino/La Nina……AMO/PDO? Orbital tilt? Any of these things ringing a bell?
Uh, yeah. That’s why I said CO2 doesn’t control the climate, it only affects the climate. That was pretty much my point.
If it had been sequestered, at one time the poor CO2 molecules were running free.
There’s a big difference, James. That CO2 took millions of years to accumulate, but we’re releasing it over the course of a few centuries. The planet can’t absorb it as fast as we’re emitting it, which is why the CO2 level is rising.
Burning wood, on the other hand, is essentially carbon neutral over the lifetime of the tree you’re burning. This is just not true of burning fossil fuels.
(This is the same reason why biofuels have an advantage over fossil fuels. They both emit carbon when burned–but the carbon in biofuels only came out of the atmosphere last week, not three hundred million years ago.)
Right, Chris, you’re missing my point. Assume a baseline CO2 level. It doesn’t make any difference what it is, because the theory is emitted CO2 runs free in the atmosphere for 100s of years doing all of that blocking heat thing. Right? Man finds a lump of coal or a tree to use as fuel. He’s emitting CO2…..he’s exhaling…..he’s putting more CO2 out in the atmosphere….always. Some may get absorbed by the flora, but most (according to theory) is mucking about warming the earth.
Now, consider, flora nor the ocean nor any other known sink absorbs/breaths/eats atmospheric CO2. Why? Because trees and the ocean are ground or sea level. They can’t! So, for this GH/CO2 theory to be correct, we must have been very, very cold when we first got here and have increased in warmth from day one. This would defy logic, seeing that early man lacked many abilities to overcome nature. (Doesn’t matter if you are a creationist or evolutionist same holds for both.) Even today, it would be very difficult for man to thrive in Arctic or Antarctic conditions. By implication of this theory, it must be that way for us to be enjoying the climate which we do today. Further, while mercury thermometers have been around only a couple hundred years, there’s plenty of evidence that the earth in man’s history has significantly warmed and cooled. It can’t under the theory, only increase.
Crap….only meant to bold “atmospheric CO2.” I think it’s still readable.
Yes, but the carbon he’s putting into the atmosphere by exhaling or burning wood came out of the atmosphere very recently. It’s neutral, it’s a very short cycle. Think of it this way: You’re not adding carbon to the atmosphere, you’re returning it to the atmosphere.
That is not true if you’re burning coal or oil. That stuff has been buried for hundreds of millions of years. You’re adding, not replacing.
ChrisD says:
October 16, 2010 at 1:19 am
Yes, but the carbon he’s putting into the atmosphere by exhaling or burning wood came out of the atmosphere very recently. It’s neutral, it’s a very short cycle. Think of it this way: You’re not adding carbon to the atmosphere, you’re returning it to the atmosphere.
That is not true if you’re burning coal or oil. That stuff has been buried for hundreds of millions of years. You’re adding, not replacing.
============================================
No Chris, that isn’t correct. Breathing = net loss for O2, net gain for CO2. Burning of wood, releases CO2, but …….Again, it isn’t the ground level CO2 that causes warming. It is the atmospheric CO2. That stuff that hangs up there for 100s of years. Remember, churn, or the lack of it is prominent in the theory.
According to the theory, there can only be warming. Regardless of replacement, the net for man, even 3000 years ago was to produce more CO2. Hence, we could have only generally warmed and never generally cooled.
Incidentally, you might want to reconsider your handle. It isn’t working to your advantage.
That’s not a problem, childish insults don’t bother me to much, it is a reflection of their character, not mine. If the science is on your side, you don’t need it.
Dikran, Not to be all grammar police on you, but I think you meant to use “too” instead of “to” i.e. “childish insults don’t bother me too much”
John, I think your capitalization of “Not” is incorrect. And where is the period in your sentence?
Seriously, unless the original mistake is atrocious, this kind of comment is petty (IMO).
-Scott
#
John Endicott says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Dikran, Not to be all grammar police on you, but I think you meant to use “too” instead of “to” i.e. “childish insults don’t bother me too much”
#
Scott says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:27 pm
John, I think your capitalization of “Not” is incorrect. And where is the period in your sentence?
============================================
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
Dikran for once I agree with you, about the insults with nicks and names… but then you spoil it by insinuating you have science on your side. You make a bold face false statement.
I have to say I agree that the 5C/century warming line would look much more impressive on a longer time scale graph. Why don’t you put it, starting at 2000, on the plot you posted earlier?
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/hadcrut3vgl1.png
As pointed out above, even starting at 1975 (probably the least favorable point from your perspective) still puts your analysis in a good light. It could then lead to a lot of good discussion concerning feedbacks and such. However, I think starting starting in 1975 is improperly biased in the warmist’s direction. Instead, I’d argue that the most objective approach would be to show the entire plot from the above link, starting ~1850. I’d also recommend expanding the 5 C/century line to an imaginary x-axis point of 2100 and do the same for the y-axis, which would take it up to ~5.5 C (clearly this would take some image scaling). You could then keep your current image as a zoom up.
To me, and presumably a lot of scientists and engineers, a highly zoomed is an instant red flag when additional data is available. This is one reason the hockey stick graph (however flawed) is so high impact – it shows a huge time scale. Consequently, I would find a plot from 1850 to 2100 much more meaningful than 1998-2012.
Just my thoughts,
-Scott
ChrisD says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:53 pm
I would’ve thought that the thing in our atmosphere that had the biggest influence on climate was water vapor.
-Scott
Water vapor has the greatest effect, but it doesn’t control anything. It’s completely dependent on the other GHGs (CO2, CH4, etc.) for its existence; it rises and falls as they do, but not vice versa. That’s why they’re called forcing agents, and water vapor is a feedback.
Chris, you’re seeming to contradict yourself. You said CO2 affects climate“affected by”, not “controlled by”, but by this sentence, “Water vapor has the greatest effect, but it doesn’t control anything. It’s completely dependent on the other GHGs (CO2, CH4, etc.) for its existence;” you’re implying it does control climate.
No, I’m saying that it, along with the other forcing agents, controls water vapor. The forcing agents and water vapor together affect affect climate, along with a bunch of other things.
Chris – So then you must not agree that a warmer world is a drier world under AGW theory?
Overall, no. There will almost certainly be regions that will be drier due to changed weather patterns, but overall I don’t think a drier world is expected.
I have been following this web site for about two weeks now. What is it with the cherry picker and the Hansenite. My suggestion to Mr. Goddard is to ignore the duplicity of their arguements. It is most obvious to an unbiased observer or a reasonable facsimile thereof that there is little to no intelligence to be gleaned from these two.
I’ve found that this sort of comment is much more powerful if you can point to any specific errors in what was said by the people you don’t like. Generic “They’re idiots” comments are pretty ineffective.
??
Troll, troll, troll the thread
gently down the tubes.
Fancifully, forcibly, even rhetorically
those guys are really boobs.
??
Congrats to Geezer1 for naming that tune in one post!
ChrisD —
If CO2 controls water vapor, why are there deserts and jungles?
Does CO2 control temperature or temperature control CO2? In the past the earth had ice ages and warm periods. Near the end of each warm period the temperature started to rise quite rapidly, then in a few hundred years CO2 started to rise. Looks like CO2 follows temperature — but, wait a moment, temperature peaks and starts falling but CO2 keeps going up for a few more hundred years. So maybe something else is controlling both of them? I don’t know, I’m just asking.
Ted, it’s not an either/or situation, it’s a case of mutual causation or mutual feedback. Increasing temps cause an increase in CO2 from melting permafrost, etc. And increasing CO2 causes an increase in temps through the greenhouse effect.
In the historical warm-ups, the thinking is that some external event–a small change in orbit or solar activity or whatever–caused an initial increase in temps, which released stored CO2, which then caused more warming.
I don’t get it, we can’t put carbon in the air, but something like the Deccan Traps or Yellowstone fires up and that’s ok because nature did it, but we are not part of nature anymore are we, we are special?
Also, they say water vapour doesn’t count while CO2 and other noble gases accumulate and water doesn’t count because it just falls out of the atmosphere, but hey someone remind me what clouds are made of? And if clouds change 3% it can cool a lot or heat a lots depending which way they go. Now H2O must then be the greatest threat to mankind, they already say rivers are increasing in flow, that’s because of the evil H2O flying out of the tail pipes
Scott says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Seriously, unless the original mistake is atrocious, this kind of comment is petty (IMO).
=====================================
I was not trying to be petty (Hence the “Not to be all grammar police on you” disclaimer at the beginning of my post), it’s just that the misuse of to, too and two is just a bit of a bugbear. I blame my high school English teacher 🙂 But thank you oh so much for projecting motivation onto my posting.
If you REALLY want to see some cherry picking, have a look at these two before and after images from GISS:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/
Note the entire 19th century is gone.
Everybody else is just an amateur cherry picker. GISS is where the real cherry pros work.