Articles on this Page
- 01/03/19--08:41: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--14:42: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--14:59: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--15:17: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--16:04: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--16:08: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--16:57: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--17:13: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--19:16: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/03/19--20:04: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/03/19--20:23: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/03/19--20:30: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/03/19--21:23: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/03/19--21:34: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/03/19--22:30: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--22:48: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--22:59: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--23:10: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/03/19--23:23: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--00:00: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/03/19--20:30: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
In section 3 of this article I described how CET was put together
I have also seen in the archives, material from Manley and Lamb that supported the older record which you dismiss as 'CET is only reported daily from 1772, but earlier data is available, should one wish to trust it.'
I met with David Parker at the Met Office whose name you will note on the bottom right of the chart you link to.
He was perfectly happy with the extended record to 1659. As it is a monthly rather than daily record it tends to be less useful in their research and is limited in its use these days. As you will note, various other innovations have been introduced over the years as regards for example max/min temperatures and in particular the use of a factor to take into account the Urban heat island effect.
Arguably the amount used is not sufficient. Britain is small and is rapidly urbanising as its population soars . It has increased by some 25% since 1974
This and the use of Ringwood as a temperature record, next to a rapidly developing international airport call into question the characteristic modern hump we can observe. I know the Met office were looking at the UHI factor for the period since 2002. I think they are happy that Ringwood has not corrupted the record so this aspect can be set aside.
I am doing an update of CET in the next few weeks so I hope you can contain your excitement
The accusation is so broad it's not even a punt. It's nothing. But nutrition.
Tweet by Scott Adams about overconfidence:
"Four out of the five top comic industry experts said 'Dilbert" had no commercial potential. Five out of six doctors and specialists told me my voice problem was incurable. And every expert was wrong on nutrition for decades."
TonyB writes "As you will note, various other innovations have been introduced over the years as regards for example max/min temperatures and in particular the use of a factor to take into account the Urban heat island effect."
The UHI effect badly needs more study. I tried an informal review of it last month
The more I dug, the longer it got and the more evident the deficiencies became. UHI is an unholy, incomplete mess with capacity to lower the value of the important CET study.
Can I suggest that comparisons of CET with recent times might be better done without instrumental data that might be affected by UHI?
(For now, without formal explanation for this, my private conclusion is that UHI is as big a factor as GHG and natural variation in the last 50 years or so). Geoff.
“....as big a factor as GHG...”
Even without any empirical evidence I tend to agree with you. I would love to see an analysis of how many millions of acres were rural farmland or forests in 1850 and are now heavily developed. In my area the change in only 40 years is tremendous. I can only imagine what the changes have been over 170 years in the US and many other countries.
And then there is the experience of J.K. Rowling. Those publishers that turned her down probably spent years imagining what could have been.
How to NOT find a slowdown.
The slowdown/pause/hiatus, would probably be only a dim memory, if Alarmists didn't keep digging up the imaginary corpse, in order to show that it really is dead.
The website called "The Conversation", recently featured an article called "Global warming 'hiatus' is the climate change myth that refuses to die", by Stephan Lewandowsky and Kevin Cowtan.
It was dated "December 20, 2018", and the web address is:
Both of the authors have also recently co-authored 2 scientific papers, with a large number of other well-known Alarmists (they now write scientific papers in "gangs", to show how tough they are). The 2 scientific papers claim to "demonstrate convincingly that the slowdown/pause/hiatus wasn’t a real phenomenon".
It is rare to find a "scientific" article, which features so much "woolly-headed" thinking. And so much misdirection.
It starts badly. Just reading the first 2 paragraphs made me annoyed. They used the word "denier" in the first sentence, and the phrase "science-denying" in the second paragraph.
When did the word "denier", become a scientific term? What do these arrogant Alarmist jerks, think they are doing. I took a deep breath, and continued reading the article.
The third paragraph really made me sit up, and take notice.
They repeated a common Alarmist lie, about the slowdown, which I talked about in a recent article.
They said, "But, more importantly, these claims use the same kind of misdirection as was used a few years ago about a supposed “pause” in warming lasting from roughly 1998 to 2013."
They talk about "deniers using misdirection", and then THEY misdirect people to a false weak slowdown (1998 to 2013). This is part of an Alarmist myth, which claims that the recent slowdown only exists because of the 1998 super El Nino.
In my article, I said:
- The strongest slowdown (the one with the lowest warming rate), went from 2002 to 2012. It had a warming rate of +0.14 degrees Celsius per century. Because it went from 2002 to 2012, it had nothing to do with the 1998 super El Nino.
- The average warming rate from 1970 to 2018, is about +1.8 degrees Celsius per century. So the slowdown from 2002 to 2012, had a warming rate that was less than 8% of the average warming rate.
- If the average warming rate was a car travelling at 100 km/h, then the slowdown was a car that was travelling at less the 8 km/h. Doesn't that sound like a slowdown?
- The strongest slowdown WHICH INCLUDED THE YEAR 1998 (the one with the lowest warming rate), went from 1998 to 2013. It had a warming rate of +0.96 degrees Celsius per century.
[this is the slowdown interval that Lewandowsky and Cowtan used]
- So the false Alarmist slowdown (1998 to 2013), had a warming rate which was 6.9 times greater than the warming rate of the real slowdown (2002 to 2012).
-If the real slowdown (2002 to 2012) was a car that was traveling at 100 km/h, then the false Alarmist slowdown (1998 to 2013), would be a car that was traveling at 690 km/h.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Alarmists don’t believe that there was a slowdown. They are not even looking at the real slowdown.
Lewandowsky and Cowtan seem to be under the impression that, because "the past two years were two of the three hottest on record", that there could NOT have been a slowdown. Have they never noticed, that when a person takes their foot off the accelerator in a car, the car keeps moving forward (but at a slower rate, i.e. a slowdown)? So the car is still setting records, becoming further from where it started, even though it has slowed down.
This "everyday" observation (about a person taking their foot off the accelerator of a car), appears to be too complicated for them to grasp. Perhaps they are chauffeur driven, everywhere.
Lewandowsky and Cowtan say, "In a nutshell, if you select data based on them being unusual in the first place, then any statistical tests that seemingly confirm their unusual nature give the wrong answer."
There is a well-known saying, "If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably IS a duck".
We could rephrase that as, "If it looks like a slowdown, and the warming rate is lower than normal, and the statistical test says that it COULD be a slowdown, then it probably IS a slowdown".
But Lewandowsky and Cowtan want you to believe that, "If it looks like a slowdown, and the warming rate is lower than normal, and the statistical test says that it COULD be a slowdown, then it DEFINITELY IS NOT A SLOWDOWN".
Lewandowsky and Cowtan don't want skeptics to look for slowdowns in places that look like slowdowns. They want skeptics to only look for slowdowns in places that DON'T look like slowdowns.
I would like to suggest that skeptics start looking for slowdowns, on the moon. There isn't much chance of finding one, but if you do find one, it is almost certainly real.
I am amazed at how Lewandowsky and Cowtan don't seem to be able to understand simple logic. They give an example, "If someone claims the world hasn’t warmed since 1998 or 2016, ask them why those specific years – why not 1997 or 2014?"
If somebody got run over by a truck in 1998, would you ask them, "Why 1998, why didn't you get run over by a truck in 1997 or 1999"? If something happens in a particular year, or over a particular interval, then that is a fact. There is little point in questioning why it didn't happen at a different time.
The reason that Lewandowsky and Cowtan ask, "Why those specific years – why not 1997 or 2014?", is because they CAN'T PROVE that there wasn't a slowdown since 1998, and they want to misdirect people, with a stupid question.
Lewandowsky and Cowtan are concerned that skeptics will cherry-pick intervals which "look like" a slowdown, but are not really a slowdown.
I developed a method to analyse date ranges, for slowdowns and speedups, which does NOT cherry-pick date ranges. It does this, by giving equal weight to EVERY possible date range. So when I analyse 1970 to 2018, I calculate about 150,000 linear regressions (one for every possible date range). Then I look at which date ranges have a low warming rate. To make it easier, I colour code all of the results from the 150,000 linear regressions, and plot them on a single graph. I call this graph, a "Global Warming Contour Map".
If I find that 2002 to 2012 has a low warming rate, then that means that it had a low warming rate, compared to the thousands and thousands of other date ranges that I checked. Every date range has an equal chance of being a slowdown or a speedup, based on its warming rate. The warming rate is an objective measurement, based on a temperature series.
But wait. I don't stop there. I check every temperature series that I can find. This includes GISTEMP, NOAA, UAH, RSS, BEST, CLIMDIV, RATPAC (weather ballon data), etc.
But wait. I don't stop there. I check every type of measurement that I can find. Land and Ocean. Land only. Ocean only. Lower troposphere. Upper troposphere, Stratosphere.
But wait. I don't stop there. I check every region that I can find. Northern hemisphere. Southern hemisphere. Tropical. Extratropical. Polar.
But wait. I don't stop there. I check every latitude that I can find. 90N to 48N. 48N to 30N. 30N to 14N. 14N to Equator. Equator to 14S. 14S to 30S. 30S to 48S. 48S to 90S
When I say that there was a slowdown, that means that I have found evidence of a slowdown, in most of the major temperature series, types of measurements, regions, and latitudes.
I have made literally hundreds of global warming contour maps, for nearly every type of global warming data, that you can imagine. Each one, based on about 150,000 linear regressions.
I have probably done more linear regressions, than any other person in the world. I may have even done more linear regressions, than everybody in the world, put together.
And all of those linear regressions, tell me that there was a slowdown, sometime after the year 2001. It was strongest from 2002 to 2012. You can measure it in different ways, and get slightly different results. But there is overwhelming evidence for the slowdown.
I didn't cherry-pick 2002 to 2012. This interval leapt out of my computer screen, slapped me on the face, and yelled, "I am a slowdown, stop ignoring me !!!"
Alarmists, are the real "Deniers". They ignore the evidence that they can't explain away. They insult the people who try to show the truth. They lie, when other methods don't work.
It is time for Alarmists to admit the truth. There was a slowdown. It was not enormously long. It was temporary. It is now over. The fact that it existed, didn't prove that global warming isn't happening.
My personal belief, is that the slowdown was caused by ocean cycles, like the PDO and AMO. There are climate scientists, who believe the same thing. We need to acknowledge the slowdown, so that we can learn more about climate. Lying about the slowdown, won't solve global warming. Understanding the slowdown, might help us to understand global warming.
If anybody would like to learn more about my method, and "Global Warming Contour Maps", then there are lots of them, on my website. I wrote a special article, called "Robot-Train contour maps", which explains how contour maps work, using simple "train trips", as an analogy for global warming.
Here is a small selection of articles about slowdowns, and "global warming contour maps".
- No, I am not obsessed with slowdowns.
- I didn't choose slowdowns, they chose me.
- Being the "proud father" of "global warming contour maps", I am always happy to answer questions, and show you pictures, of my clever baby.
[ this article shows how "global warming contour maps" work ]
[ this article shows why Alarmist thinking on slowdowns, in one-dimensional ]
[ this article investigates the Alarmist myth, that the slowdown was caused by the 1998 super El Nino ]
[ this article shows why the slowdown is so special (No, no, no, no, no! It only LOOKS special. It isn't really special.) ]
[ A guide to the CORRECT way to look for slowdowns. Please try to stay quiet. Slowdown scare easily, and then they run away and hide. ]
[ this article investigates warming in the USA, using NOAA's new ClimDiv temperature series ]
[ this article investigates regional warming, by dividing the earth into 8 equal sized areas, by latitude ]
[ this weather balloon article has global warming contour maps with very nice colours ]
[ this article uses global warming contour maps to compare GISTEMP and UAH ]
Yes Larry, most smart people know that there is a crisis of confidence in experts for many valid reasons. It continues to amaze me that anyone would take the advice of an MD without doing some research themselves. There is just so much rubbish out there masquerading as science.
The real issue that exists with this analysis is just how much Cowtan and Wray has been "adjusted". As the analysis is not working with raw data, there could very well be an artifact from whatever C & W did with the raw data, and the analysis if finding the corrections, not reality.
Have Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way like climate science mystics, rigged, krigged, tweaking, blended, in-filled, homogenized and smoothed their way to finding all the missing heat and missing 'hot spot?'
Reblogged this on <a href="https://hifast.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/reconstructing-a-dataset-of-observed-global-temperatures-1950-2016-from-human-and-natural-influences/" rel="nofollow">Climate Collections</a>.
One of two articles on why RCP8.5 is not for planning:
It's more of a four times deal. If a headline says, RCP8.5, it's nonsense.
"When you see a story about possible futures, check what scenario is being used. If it’s RCP8.5 (“business as usual” or “a high emissions scenario”) then you can just ignore it – or be concerned and start petitioning your government to encourage more natural gas production."
The NASA chart on Tamino's article has mischaracterized the solar contribution, secondly, the <b>MEI is a solar response</b>, and lastly, the volcanic contribution has been partially confused with the solar response.
"How much warming since 1950 is anthropogenic? The procedure gives 98% for this time window. "
That's absolutely crazy because CO2 primarily accumulates in the atmosphere via a solar-warmed ocean, and doesn't drive ocean warming:
I call this effort a complete stunning failure. Nothing personal.
I am puzzled by an apparent failure to distinguish between the marginal effects of CO2 and methane on changing the degree of insulation, hence reducing the dissipation of solar energy, and changes in solar and other energy sources (ENSOR). Insulation acts to cumulate energy (just like a capacitor stores a multiple of the energy input per unit of time).
What are the marginal effects on the insulation factor from the increase in CO2 and methane? Just to create a purely hypothetical example, if one were to assume all the increase in atmospheric insulation only adds 0.1% to the cumulation of heat, but the ENSOR sources added .01% of energy, which through the cumulative effects of insulation adds 0.1%, then one could conclude that anthropomorphic causes are only about 50% of the cause of the temperature rise in recent times.
[…] National Climate Assessment: A crisis of epistemic overconfidence. […]
The variance of observations from means can be simply calculated. But all methods have limitations that have difficult to quantify departures from reality. Large in paleoclimatology - the ones listed by Judith in the post. Although I have been impressed by the attention to detail and quality control in PAGES2K 2017 especially.
What I comfortably take from this is that there was a global little ice age before the modern era.
This from PAGES2K 2013 has some interesting features.
The hint of leads and lags in a Global Stadium Wave (GSW) and the apparent anti-phase polar warming identified by Rial et al 2014 as synchronous chaos at the millennial scale.
The GSW is a metaphor for perturbation initiated shifts in quasi standing waves in a spinning Earth's flow field. It is akin to catastrophe theory where small changes in control variables lead to large and abrupt shifts in the system state (e.g. NAS 2002, Broecker 1995) - including in TOA energy flux (Loeb et al 2012, Loeb et al 2018).
But as the IPCC and NCA continue to miss internal variability at decadal scales - e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6 - whatever they have to say about recent decades on the basis of paleoclimatology is of no significance.
"most smart people know that there is a crisis of confidence in experts"
Perhaps so. On the other hand, I have seen polls that (from memory) show that trust in scientists has been roughly stable for a long time.
In one of the fields I follow closely, American's are blindingly trusting, "smart" or not. See The Big List of Lies By Government Officials. All were widely believed at the time. Many still are widely believed, despite being proven falsehoods.
This isn't the same as trust in experts, of course.
For a deeper analysis why C/W is a good choice when it comes to comparisons with climate models see https://www.nicholaslewis.org/how-dependent-are-gistemp-trends-on-the-gridding-radius-used/
For a deeper analysis of the used forcing data see https://www.nicholaslewis.org/peer-reviewed-publications/the-impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity-2018/
Geoff and Ceresco kid
You may be interested in this link that illustrates the population of England.
There is a very useful map on the right hand size.
At the start of the CET there were 5.5 million people. Today there are some 55 million. As can be seen England is crowded and the CET area-a triangle north of London to south of Manchester and to the east- takes in a lot of inhabited area.
In the 1600's there were few made up roads, The most solid ones were made of stone and had been laid by the romans. Since then black tarmac has been laid on tens of thousands of miles of roads, car parks, pavements, driveways and there are much larger urban and industrial areas. To allow this to happen, millions of acres of farmland have been built over.
England is much the size of New York State. It is difficult to imagine all this building has not had an effect.
The Met Office acknowledges this and is currently studying the effect. As I say above, I doubt if the current allowance is enough so I shall await their report with interest.
My 'man of 70' graphic shows that the average person has seen a rise of 1 degree c over the lifetime of CET. With a population increase of 5 million to 55 million over the timescale of the graphic how much is natural variation, GHG, uhi and how much are changes in how land is used, would need teasing out, but it is difficult to believe that GHG are responsible for all the increases.