Patrick Michaels has a great graph at Forbes, in which he compares the UN climate agency's predictions (colored swaths- FAR means "First Assessment Report", SAR "Second..., etc). Black with error bars is the observed temperatures.
No warming since 1996, despite substantial rise in atmospheric CO2 and hysterical predictions.
Let's move on the next hoax, guys. Eugenics, Overpopulation, Pesticide Hysteria, Global Cooling, Global Warming all splashed. How about acidification of the oceans?
No warming since 1996, despite substantial rise in atmospheric CO2 and hysterical predictions.
Let's move on the next hoax, guys. Eugenics, Overpopulation, Pesticide Hysteria, Global Cooling, Global Warming all splashed. How about acidification of the oceans?
So let's get this straight. The actual temperatures have fallen within the range predicted under the most recent climate models, but because they haven't fallen near enough to the "center" of the range for your liking, then global warming is a hoax.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, when reality doesn't conform with your wishes, you pretend that the results aren't what was predicted. And you expect anyone to take your drivel seriously?
Let's get this straight: there has been no global warming for 16 years, despite substantial rises in CO2.
DeleteLet's move on to the next hoax. This is getting old.
Let's get this straight, you clearly haven't looked at the historical record. But thanks for exposing your ignorance yet again.
DeleteNot so fast, Dr. Egnor.
DeletePlease look at the plot of the global temperature anomaly from 1880 to now.
From 1940 to the late 1970s (30+ years) the temperature anomaly was going nowhere, and more down than up.
Now step away from the graph and let us know whether the temperatures were not rising overall during last century.
Hoo
Actually, temperatures have been rising since 1800, which was the end of The Little Ice Age.
Delete"End" of an Ice Age means that temperatures rise, by definition. If they fell, it wouldn't be the end.
And of course the end of the LIA had nothing to do with humans. Man-made CO2 didn't get into the atmosphere in amounts that could even possibly cause a change until the mid-20th century. So what caused the end of the LIA, and what makes you think that that natural (not human) warming isn't still in play?
And now, for a decade and a half, there's been no warming at all. Despite large increases in atmospheric CO2.
Oh well.
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteThe recent warming has occurred much faster than the cooling and warming associated with the LIA. Looking at the temperature anomaly over the last millenium makes that quite clear. The rise on the right side of the graph is quite striking.
Hoo
Let's get this straight: there has been no global warming for 16 years
DeleteThis is simply false. There has been an average increase (GISTEMP) of 0.128 degrees per decade since 1996, which doesn't differ much from longer-term trends.
Play around with the data for yourself. It's fun to cherry-pick your starting date and see how that affects the results.
[The rise on the right side of the graph is quite striking.]
DeleteLooks like a hockey stick!
Scarrry...
Hope it's not a Nature trick,to hide the decline.
When are you guys going to let this hoax go? No one takes you seriously any more.
troy:
Delete[This is simply false. There has been an average increase (GISTEMP) of 0.128 degrees per decade since 1996, which doesn't differ much from longer-term trends.]
Within the error bars, ace. You claimed you teach statistics?
And if your insignificant increase "doesn't differ much from longer-term trends", can we just admit that the longer term trend is insignificant as well, especially since the pre-1950 trend could not have had anything to do with AGW (not enough human CO2 prior to 1950).
And why is there no statistically significant increase in temp since 1996, despite a 1/3 increase in CO2?
Answer the question and stop throwing chaff.
Dr. Egnor,
Delete"Hide the decline" does not refer to a decline of measured temperatures. Your ignorance gets ahead of you.
The stick, meanwhile, is alive and well. You can see it in this graph (the temperature anomaly over the last millenium) quite clearly.
It is your side who cherry-picks the data. The best cure for that is to see the data for yourself. You don't like doing that. Too bad.
Hoo
Egnor: Within the error bars, ace. You claimed you teach statistics?
DeleteAnd if your insignificant increase "doesn't differ much from longer-term trends", can we just admit that the longer term trend is insignificant as well
This is so wrong that I can only laugh at it. Dr. Egnor, you are clearly not familiar with statistics and you are trying to teach troy the subject in which he is a professional. You end up looking like a fool.
Hoo
I asked a question at the end of the comment.
DeleteCan you answer it?
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteThe answer is that in addition to increasing amounts of CO2 there are other factors such as decadal oscillations that push the temperatures up and down. On short-term time scales they mask the upward trend (see my remark about the period from 1940 to 1977). Over longer times, the upward trend is unmistakable.
Hoo
["Hide the decline" does not refer to a decline of measured temperatures. Your ignorance gets ahead of you.]
DeleteRight.It refers to the decline in proxy temperatures (tree ring), which do not show the increase that instrumental data shows.
So Mann et al changed the data to different source data, got rid of the original data, at just the point that the upward inflection begins. They colored the upward deflection they created red, and they buried the method they used in a discussion the public would be unlikely to see or understand.
Their trick hid the decline in the proxy data,which they admitted in the emails.
In science, this is a felony. In climate science, this is business.
The modern tree-ring proxy is wrong. It deviates significantly from all the other (multiple) modern proxies. It should not be used. What is wrong with that?
DeleteHoo
[On short-term time scales they mask the upward trend (see my remark about the period from 1940 to 1977). Over longer times, the upward trend is unmistakable.]
DeleteAll players agree that humans did not collectively put enought CO2 into the atmosphere prior to 1950 to have any effect on temps.
All warming/cooling prior to 1950 is natural.
Your "long trend" is from 1950 to 2012. The last 16 years show no warming, despite a large increase in atmospheric CO2, and any warming before 1996 can be interpreted as a continuation of the universally recognized natural warming that brought us out of the Little Ice Age in 1800.
Your theory is in tatters.
Egnor: All players agree that humans did not collectively put enought CO2 into the atmosphere prior to 1950 to have any effect on temps.
DeleteAll warming/cooling prior to 1950 is natural.
Dr. Egnor, what have you been smoking?
Hoo
[The modern tree-ring proxy is wrong. It deviates significantly from all the other (multiple) modern proxies. It should not be used. What is wrong with that?]
DeleteThen how do you know that the old data is right-- you left it in the graph, to serve as a baseline on which the big red hockey stick takes off?
If you chuck the tree ring data now as unreliable, on what basis do you retain it prior to 1960?
I reiterate: the substitution of different source data at the inflection point of a crucial graph is a scientific felony.
I can't believe we are having this conversation! People knew how to measure temperatures prior to 1960. They kept temperature records. Directly measured. All over the globe. The temperature anomaly record from 1880 on is based on measured temperatures, not proxies.
DeleteUnbelievable ignorance.
Hoo
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteYou may begin learning here: Instrumental temperature record.
Hoo
[The temperature anomaly record from 1880 on is based on measured temperatures, not proxies.]
DeleteTree ring proxies were included in the tabulations of temperature on the hockey stick graph(along with other measurements and proxies)until the 1960 data, when the tree ring proxies were dropped from the graph because they did not show warming.
They were retained for the pre-1960 portion of the graph.
The data was manipulated at the inflection point of the hockey stick.
Class A science felony. You do not play "Nature tricks" with data especially at the inflection point of a crucial graph.
Since the tree ring data did not correlate with measured temperatures post 1960, why was it considered reliable to be included in pre-instrumental era, to create the impression that the instrumental temperature rise was unprecedented?
Remove the tree-ring proxies from all periods. Look at the instrumental temperature records and other proxies. What will be the result? Answer that, Dr. Egnor. (I am not holding my breath waiting.)
DeleteToday's conversations revealed your absolute lack of understanding of the global temperature record. I see no point in continuing this discussion because you are completely, utterly uninformed. Fully, mind-bogglingly ignorant of this topic.
Hoo
Why did Mann et all include the tree ring proxy data for any period, if the knew for a fact that post-1960 it was not an accurate proxy?
DeleteReason: the tree ring proxy data prior to 1960 made it look as though the increase in temperature post-1960 was unprecedented, and they wanted to include the corrupted proxy data in the pre-1960 era to bolster the case for AGW.
In other words, deliberate misrepresentation of data to advance ideology.
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteYou keep avoiding a simple question that I asked you again and again. What would happen to the temperature record if we removed tree proxies entirely and only relied on the instrumental record and other proxies?
I anticipated that you would not be able to answer this question. You did not disappoint. I predict that you will not be able to address it.
It still cracks me up that you had no idea we had had direct temperature measurements for more than a century (from the 1850s). You are truly a hundred and fifty years behind, Dr. Egnor. What a joke!
Hoo
I'm fully aware that instrumental records exist from the 19th century.
DeleteThe tree ring proxies were included in the pre-1960 part of the hockey stick graph, along with instrumental readings and other proxies such as ice cores, but the tree ring proxies were deleted beginning at 1960, which is when the hockey stick begins and when the tree ring proxies diverge from the instrumental records.
Prior to the 19th century, there are no instrumental records, and all data is proxies. Most of the data is tree ring proxies.
Warmists retained the tree ring proxies for the pre 1960 data (including the pre 19th century data) because the tree ring proxies did not show previous hockey sticks, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY KNEW THAT THE TREE RING PROXIES DID NOT SHOW THE HOCKEY STICK AFTER 1960.
This is a self-evident move to falsely represent the late 20th century hockey stick as unprecedented and man-made.
Pure fraud.
I asked you a question: why has the Earth not warmed for 16 years, despite a large increase in atmospheric CO2?
but the tree ring proxies were deleted beginning at 1960,
DeleteExcept they weren't. A small number of anomalous tree ring proxies were removed because they diverged from all the other much larger number of tree ring proxies.
But you probably knew that and lied about it anyway. Because you're like that.
Oh. So Mann et all only deleted the proxy data sets that showed cooling.
DeleteThat's what they meant by "hide the decline".
Leave all the data that supports your theory, delete the stuff that doesn't.
That makes it better science, and removes any question of dishonesty.
So Mann et all only deleted the proxy data sets that showed cooling.
DeleteNo, they didn't delete the data. In fact, they included the data in the paper and pointed it out. Because that's what scientists do.
They removed an outlier and said "hey, we removed an outlier". But you probably knew that too, but it doesn't fit your agenda to mention that.
Egnor: Prior to the 19th century, there are no instrumental records, and all data is proxies. Most of the data is tree ring proxies.
DeleteI will repeat my question one last time. What would happen to the temperature record if we removed tree proxies entirely and only relied on the instrumental record and other proxies (ice cores, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments)? Would the temperature record fall appart or stay as it currently is?
Hoo
If we assume for a moment that Dr. Egnor is correct, and the earth hasn’t warmed since 1996, we are left to wonder how come the extent of arctic sea ice has continued to decline, setting yet another record this year.
ReplyDeleteSomebody needs to check if the freezing point of water is still 0deg. C.
-KW
AGW is a claim about average temperature of the entire earth, which stopped warming 16 years ago despite a large increase in CO2.
DeleteLocal weather (in the Arctic, in New York, in Siberia,etc) can and does vary considerably, and the local weather in the Arctic may have been warmer, balanced by weather elsewhere that was colder.
Weather is not climate.
There has been no net warming since 1996, despite a large rise in CO2. Time for a new theory.
No, it did not stop warming. If you followed troy's link and played with the data yourself (or merely looked up the results elsewhere) then you would know that over the last 16 years the global temperature anomaly increased by 0.13 degrees plus or minus 0.13 degrees (Celsius) per decade.
DeleteWhat does this result mean? Statistically speaking (I know it is Greek for you), it means that the most likely value of the increase was 0.13 degrees per decade. The quoted uncertainty of 0.13 degrees per decade is two standard deviations. In plain English, the rise was between 0.065 and 0.195 degrees per decade with the probability of 68 percent, and between 0 and 0.26 degrees with the probability of 95 percent. The chance that the temperature did not increase or went down is 2.2 percent.
Let me repeat that. 2.2 percent chance that the temperature did not rise or went down.
97.8 percent chance that the temperature did rise.
68 percent chance that it rose between 0.065 and 0.195 degrees per decade.
If I were a betting man, I would not bet against global warming. If you do so then you are a fool.
Hoo
So the fact that the graph is flat is an optical illusion? One of them "statistical" things.
DeleteThe most important tool in global warming "science" is a shovel.
@Statistician (except for HIV stuff) Hoo:
DeleteHow do you feel about the "delete the tree rings that don't agree with our theory" methodology in the hockey stick graph?
You keep evading the central questions here. You have asserted the the hockey stick graph is good science. Why won't you defend it on the specifics?
So the fact that the graph is flat is an optical illusion?
DeleteWell, no, because the graph shows, as has been pointed out before, a 0.13 degree increase in average temperature. But that doesn't matter to you, because you'd rather lie about it.
Dr. Egnor, please feel free to reveal the location of the area(s) of dramatically colder temperatures that compensates for the dramatically warming arctic.
Delete-KW
Egnor: You keep evading the central questions here. You have asserted the the hockey stick graph is good science. Why won't you defend it on the specifics?
DeleteYou are stuck like a broken record on one proxy that diverged from the others and the temperature record in the late 20th century. You have avoided acknowledging the inconvenient fact that it agreed with the other proxies in the past. The hockey stick is alive and well and you can see it in a number of different proxies. Not just in tree rings.
Hoo
I will repeat this on an off chance the Dr. Egnor's considerably thick skull can be penetrated by data.
Delete1996-2012:
2.2 percent chance that the temperature anomaly did not rise or went down.
97.8 percent chance that the temperature anomaly rose.
68 percent chance that it rose between 0.065 and 0.195 degrees per decade.
Hoo
We know that the colder areas exist, because the average temperture hasn't changed significantly in 16 years.
DeleteI don't know the locations.
One more time:
Delete1996-2012:
2.2 percent chance that the temperature anomaly did not rise or went down.
97.8 percent chance that the temperature anomaly rose.
68 percent chance that it rose between 0.065 and 0.195 degrees per decade.
Hoo
"I will repeat this on an off chance..."
DeleteRepeating cute little calculations from warmist websited is amusing.
I prefer to take my information from the Met Office data
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
Wish they had a neat little calculator,so I could play with the data...
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteThis is a silly retort. The site only provides plotting and calculation facilities. It takes the data from respectable sources. The same ones that the Met Office relies on. You can access the raw data yourself, but you would not know what to do with it.
Hoo
How about this retort:
DeleteDo you disagree with Phil Jones that there has been no warming?
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm]
Let me reply to Dr Egnor in this sub-thread.
Delete[This is simply false. There has been an average increase (GISTEMP) of 0.128 degrees per decade since 1996, which doesn't differ much from longer-term trends.]
Within the error bars, ace. You claimed you teach statistics?
Dr Hoo already pointed out your mistakes, but it probably won't hurt to have me repeat it in my own words.
Yes, the increase of 0.128 deg/decade since 1996 is just within two standard deviations. This means that if the true trend were completely flat, the probability of observing an increase of at least 0.128 is about 2%. That's still not very unlikely, so you could fairly say that the observed increase is not entirely inconsistent with a total lack of warming since 1996. However, an observed increase of 0.128 is equally consistent with an actual increase of 2 times 0.128, i.e. 0.256.
So there isn't sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that no warming occurred, but there is also not sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that the true rate of warming is actually twice as big as the estimated rate of warming.
In this case, what is a proper null hypothesis? Well, the claim is made, by you and others, that the trend since 1996 differs from the long-term trend - that whereas there might have been warming before, there isn't any more. So a proper null hypothesis would be that the increase in temperature since 1996 is identical to the increase in temperature before 1996. And guess what? The observed increase since 1996 doesn't differ significantly from the increase before 1996.
It's like Dr Hoo said: the odds are about 50:1 against no warming since 1996. It is irrational to conclude that warming has stopped.
And if your insignificant increase "doesn't differ much from longer-term trends", can we just admit that the longer term trend is insignificant as well, especially since the pre-1950 trend could not have had anything to do with AGW (not enough human CO2 prior to 1950).
That is just hilarious. It's exactly the other way around. Since the increase since 1996 doesn't differ significantly from the extremely significant increase before 1996, that was based on much more data, the correct conclusion is that there was an increase since 1996 as well.
Jones did not say that. Here is the relevant excerpt:
DeleteQ: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Let me unpack this for you. He is saying that the data he uses (HADCRUT) does not show a warming trend with a 95-percent confidence level, but only just so. He is not saying that there is no warming.
Go to the calculator page and select the data set he mentions: HADCRUT4 (put out jointly by the Met Office and Jones). Put the start date at 1995 and end date at 2009. Hit Calculate. You will see a rising trend with a warming of 0.140±0.164 °C/decade (2σ error bars). With a 95 percent confidence the temperature trend was between −0.02 and +0.30 degree per decade. It isn't much different from the trend seen in the GISTEMP data set I quoted earlier.
All you understand is sound bytes. Data, not so much.
Hoo
The worst thing about the AGW hysteria is that it draws attention away from real climate and weather issues that we could better prepare for and adapt to.
ReplyDeleteOceanic currents and solar cycles are only just starting to get the attention they deserve as they begin to make themselves unavoidably central.
Also the gradual (but increasing) movement of the magnetic poles seems to have entered the public radar (forgive the pun). Nobody is quite sure how polar movement works or what it's effects are on climate or even the geology of the planet.
We can only assume how it works, and we KNOW it is happening with increasing speed.
Then there is the 'gunk'.
Pollution, toxins, and waste are a serious problem. I am all for using a cloth or paper bag and glass bottles. No problem with recycling any plastics.
Should we be careful about what/how we eat? Sure.
Should we be careful and concerned about water quality and additives? Of course!
C02? Please.
Local emissions controls and proper forest management in/near industrial and major urban centres should be enough to counter any change in local weather.
We don't need big brother to goose-step us all into some master plan to stop the sky from falling.
crus,
DeleteThe only one who is hysterical here is Dr. Egnor. He won't look at the data, won't answer questions, and only yell "Fraud!"
Do you acknowledge that the global temperatures have been rising measurably over the last 150 years?
Hoo
[Do you acknowledge that the global temperatures have been rising measurably over the last 150 years?]
DeleteFor 200 years, actually. Since the Little Ice Age, which ended circa 1800.
Human CO2 emissions were relatively small in terms of the total atmosphere until the mid-20th century-- the US and Europe were industrialized, much of Asia (China, India) as well as South America were not.
The large human CO2 emissions began in mid-20th century.
So all warming since 1800 prior to the mid-20th century must have had a natural cause.
Therefore, your observation that "global temperatures have been rising measurably over the last 150 years?" supports my argument, not yours. Most of that 150 (actually 200) years has been natural warming, and I and other skeptics assert that the natural warming has just continued, until 16 years ago.
If warming had only been occurring for 60 years, you would have a sronger case. But 150/200 years of warming points to natural causes.
You don't even understand your own arguments.
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteYou are making a hand-waving argument. I could reply in the same manner, but that is not my cup of tea. Instead, I will point you to the data. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began to change measurably in the second half of the 19th century. PDF figure.
Hoo
Dr. Hoo:
DeleteLooks like a hockey stick to me.
Like I said, the dramatic increase in CO2 began about 1950.
From 1940-1980, there was global cooling.
From 1996 to 2012, there was stasis.
What was your theory again?
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteWhat you have described above is not a theory. It is hand waving. I don't do hand waving.
Furthermore, the line about the last 16 years is a significant distortion. It is statistically much more likely (50-to-1 odds) that global temperatures have been rising over the last 16 years than falling. The positive trend, reported by several different groups, is 1.2 degrees per century, in agreement with the rise in the last 100 years.
Hoo
One more time, for those who are slow on the intake.
Delete1996-2012:
2.2 percent chance that the temperature anomaly did not rise or went down.
97.8 percent chance that the temperature anomaly rose.
68 percent chance that it rose between 0.065 and 0.195 degrees per decade.
Hoo
[I don't do hand waving.]
Delete:)
[Furthermore, the line about the last 16 years is a significant distortion. It is statistically much more likely (50-to-1 odds) that global temperatures have been rising over the last 16 years than falling. The positive trend, reported by several different groups, is 1.2 degrees per century, in agreement with the rise in the last 100 years.]
I'll post on it shortly.
It's amusing that you repeatedly cite data that strengthens your opponent's argument. It's like a tic, and quite funny.
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteI am not sure that I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you now accept the warming in the last 16 years? Could you please clarify that?
Hoo
Dr Hoo,
DeleteOff-topic, but I was just wondering - are you perhaps a student of professor Nakashima?
Yes, Dr. Troy, I indeed studied with Nakashima-sensei!
DeleteVery uncommon man. I learned much from him.
Hoo
Dr Hoo,
DeleteThat's what I thought. I admire your joint publications very much. Indeed professor Nakashima's work is very uncommon, but your own work is a great descent of his work.
cheers!
Michael,
ReplyDeleteOne of the causes of the Little Ice Age was the Black Death your caring God sent to scourge humanity in around 1347, which resulted in a mortality of around 30-50% in huge areas from Asia through Europe. And then recurred at 10 to 15 year intervals for the next 3 centuries (one of the reasons Newton thought of his theory of gravity was because he had free time because Oxford University had been closed due to an outbreak in 1660).
The severe drop in population resulted in a lot of cleared farm land reverting back to forest, soaking up a lot of CO2 and dropping the atmospheric CO2 level and resulting in cooling.
And then in 1492 Spaniards went to the New World, introducing Old World diseases, such as smallpox, malaria, yellow fever, measles, etc causing a collapse in human populations there too, with a reduction in agriculture, including slash and burn.
The global human population only reached 1 billion in 1800, and has increased since then at an exponential rate, owing to industrialization, the availability of cheap energy from fossil fuels and the widespread use of fertilizers.
Only an idiot would assert that CO2 is the only driver of climate change. There are other factors too. Changes in solar output (we're currently in a quiet phase). Aerosols from coal burning increasing albedo and causing cooling. El Niño/la Nina events.
Some cause cooling. Some cause warming. The fact remains - increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases will cause a warmer surface temperature above the temperature it would OTHERWISE have.