12 Month Global Temperature Anomaly, August July 2017



Corrected Source: NOAA, accessed 9/13/2017.

Update, 9/13, 8:15am Pacific: A common refrain is that it’s been hotter in the distant past. I think it’s important to remember that while there has always been variation in temperatures, a question is whether temperatures have changed so rapidly in such a short period of time in a time (post-dinosaur, e.g.). If adjustment costs are quadratic, well, the first derivative (gradient) matters. To that end, consider the following graph, and the movement over the most recent period.

Source: CC BY-SA 3.0, [link].

Notice the steep ascent up to 2004; the global land/sea anomaly in Figure 1 is nearly 0.4 c higher in 2016 than 2004 (12 month thru December)..

158 thoughts on “12 Month Global Temperature Anomaly, August July 2017

  1. joseph

    It has been more than 6 months since Steven Kopits said we would have to wait 6 months (one Kopits Unit) to decide if the rising temperature was an anomaly.

    But then again, another CoRev HIATUS! could be just around the corner.

    Reply
  2. Corev

    I’ll leave the same reply as last month: “Wow! Those are scary graphs showing we have warmed out of the Little Ice Age (LIA)!!! We were so much better off back in the LIA.” We might need to watch the N. Atlantic/Pacific oceans and Arctic ice for the next few years. The AMO is shifting to its cold cycle and we may be entering a la Nina.

    Reply
    1. baffling

      and yet menzie presents data that shows both land and ocean temperatures increasing over time, consistent with increasing levels of co2 in the atmosphere. and we have data which indicates ocean heat content has increased over time. and global sea levels have increased over time. look bruce, the data out there is consistent with the idea that temperatures are actually increasing with time. even in the denier workspace, the position of no global warming is no longer the standard argument, which you are implying.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        And again Baffled creates his false narrative: “the data out there is consistent with the idea that temperatures are actually increasing with time. ” with no definition of the time frame he is citing. Bruce hall showed a set of data with a very specific time frame: “A flat trend from 1979-97 at -0.2º anomaly”. Baffled do you refute Bruce’s claim using his data?

        Baffled are you amazed that there has been a temperature and OHC increase after leaving the Little Ice Age? Just what do you mean “consistent with increasing levels of co2” when Bruce just showed an example which refutes you contention.

        Reply
        1. Menzie Chinn Post author

          CoRev: Over 1979-97, ADF fails to reject unit root at 5% msl, KPSS (trend stationary null) test rejects at 5% msl, so suggests one uses estimate of trend off of first differenced series, rather than linear trend in levels. Estimated drift is positive. Oops.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Menzie, I think you misunderstood what Bruce said. He is actually talking about the “stepwise jump in 1998” after the 98 Super el Nino. If such a thing happens after this latest 15/16 Super el Nino, then his statement is reinforced. If so then it indicates that warming may be more “natural” (ENSO related) than anthropogenic.

            BTW, the “pause” occurred after the 98 Super el Nino until the build up to the latest, but talk to Bruce for clarity.

            I’m not sure of the value of stochastic tests on highly correlated and closely bounded short term data.

          2. CoRev

            Menzie to clarify my comment re: stochastic tests on shorty term highly collated data, you made this comment in the main article: “Notice the steep ascent up to 2004; the global land/sea anomaly in Figure 1 is nearly 0.4 c higher in 2016 than 2004 (12 month thru December)..” But, after updating the graph to a more current time frame the comment could read: “Notice the steep ascent up to 2004; the global land/sea anomaly in Figure 1 is nearly 0.2 c higher in 2016 than 2004 (12 month thru December)..” , a 50% drop from your observation.

            I also completely reject your updated graph in the main article for the already stated reasons, but also for the added uncertainty due to the padding or infilling shown in that graph. Only general conclusions can and should be drawn from it.

            Furthermore the more legitimate look at long term (at least Holocene) data is the other graph included on the side bar: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=466264#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
            I am pointing only to the main graph and not its insert. Even the graph’s insert shows they performed the same trick, padding of temp data measurement data along with a changed smoothing time frame.

        2. baffling

          “Baffled do you refute Bruce’s claim using his data?”
          i am not sure it is a reasonable choice of years, especially since bruce is implying that there is no global warming. and that was the purpose of his post, whether you want to admit it or not. but bruce should also point out that the vast majority of the data is not consistent with his observation. the data shows warming. bruce appears to be ignorant, or is ignoring, what the preponderance of data shows. corev, on the other hand, simply presents the argument of an idiot. as menzie’s new graph shows, the rate of change has increased tremendously in the last century. your commentary regarding the little ice age lacks much merit in the discussion at hand, when one considers the rate of change of temperatures.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            baffled, so you DO NOT refute Bruce’s claim! OK, I didn’t expect you would.

            See my comment re: Menzies updated graph.

            Oh, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” Socrates

          2. sherparick

            Hello:

            Here is your refutation. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm for all the indicators of AGW warming flashing red.

            “Also: Global warming stopped in 1998’–Only if you flagrantly cherry pick
            By Coby Beck on Nov 8, 2006

            (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

            Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over.

            Answer: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)

            According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU’s graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

            Global air temperature 2005 anomaly

            Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. (Even the apparent leveling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.) By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick — NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little.

            Now, this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs. But any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you cannot extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. It’s hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe they speak with integrity in this debate — seems more like an abuse of the trust placed in them as scientists. Bob Carter is just such a voice, and was the first to trot out this argument in an article in the Daily Telegraph. Since then it has echoed far and wide and been used by Richard Lindzen as well as a host of skeptic websites.

            Interestingly, Bob Carter seems to know what he is doing. He tries to pre-empt objections in his article by insinuating that any choice of starting point (say, 1978) will just be a cherry pick with the opposite motive! But cherry picking is about choosing data for the sole purpose of supporting a pre-conceived conclusion. It is not the simple act of choosing at all. One must choose some starting point. In the case of his example year, 1978, it’s often chosen simply because it is the first year that satellite records of tropospheric temperatures were available.

            So what choices are there? What are the reasons for those choices? What conclusions we can draw from them?

            As mentioned above, you could choose to examine the last 30 years — that is when both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately .2 degrees C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998.
            You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis — the start of the late 20th century warming, and as such a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6 degrees C warming.
            You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis — when the recent warming started in their record. It shows around .5 degrees C warming of the smoothed trend line.
            You could choose 1880 in the NASA record — it shows .8 degrees C warming.
            You could choose 1855 in the CRU record — it shows .8 degrees C warming. As with the trend above, we can not say it is over without many decades more data indicating cooling.
            You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis — that is its entire length. It puts today about 1 degree C above the first three centuries of that record. In that kind of analysis, today’s record will be hidden from view for many decades.
            You could choose to look at the last 1,000 years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:

            Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

            You could choose to look at the entire period of time since the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 years ago. Then the conclusion is that GHG warming has reversed a long and stable period of slight downward trend, and we are now at a global temperature not experienced in the history of human civilization — the entire Holocene. It will be many centuries until such a long view of today’s climate is available. The situation is a bit more urgent than that!”

            If you say Skeptical Science and Grist of “warmist” sites, they at least have more science cred then “WattsupwithThat” and and the the four or five scientists who could meet in large phone booth and compare the checks they receive from Koch brothers and the lecture fees on the right wing grift circuit.

            I suggest to CoRev and Bruce that there is a far better argument then denying the effects of atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. That arguement is that we are already screwed, and probably were screwed by the time Jim Hanson first sounded the alarm in 1988. There was already so much additional CO2 in the atmosphere at that point, and so little chance of slowing the rate of growth down for the following 30 years, that the momentum of warming in the system would simply unfold over the next 200 years whether we burned up all the coal and oil or not. So might as well party before the (literal) deluge and heat death!

        3. CoRev

          Sherparick, you have posted some interesting pieces from non-scientific sites. Wiki and Skeptical Science? Tsk.

          Your own comment is also quite interesting: “I suggest to CoRev and Bruce that there is a far better argument then denying the effects of atmospheric physics and thermodynamics.” When and where has anyone denied the effects of atmospheric physics and thermodynamics.” ? If anything I have been trying to elicit a discussion, since it is apparent most who unthinkingly believe do not understand them. AT ALL.

          But your understanding of the conversations is typical. See the many Joseph, Baffled and Kevin comments

          Reply
  3. joseph

    CoRev: “If you look at the left side of the graph you will see that the temperatures have much less resolution on the Communist (C) scale.”

    Possibly a real quote from CoRev.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Joseph, I see the message is getting through.

      Let’s all agree that it has warmed in the measured record since the Little Ice Age. That the warming since the LIA is a good thing. We are all better off, partially due to this warming. That the warming is measurable, but with some level of uncertainty. That the uncertainty is higher at the beginning of the record than today, and that early uncertainty effects the calculation of total warming. That the best we can do with this uncertain record is calculate ~1C total average in warming. That uncertain record is ~137 years long. And finally, we can not detect a significant anthropogenic signal in that uncertain record; therefore AGW is ill defined and poorly supported in the record.

      Argue the above points specifically.

      More importantly answer these points/question:
      1) Is the warming in the record good or bad? Be careful not to compare weather with climate.
      2) Is CO2 the climate driver? How?

      Reply
      1. Dave

        3) if the rising temps are driven by man’s CO2 production, what can we do about it?
        4) what will be the cost of (3)
        5) would it be cheaper to adjust to a warmer environment (cold weather kills many more people compared to hot weather)

        Reply
      2. sherparick

        By the way, the best data on the “Little Ice Age” was that it was a period of regional cooling in Europe and North America bordering the North Atlantic, not a world wide period of cooling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

        Further, after the initial peak in the current interglacial, there has been, or was, a gradual cooling trend line in the climate, as what happen in most of the interglacials of Pleistocene, until it stopped and wen in reverse the last 170 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation Gee, what is different now then the previous 800,000 years?

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Sherparick; I didn’t ask for a general treatise on atmospheric physics. What I was looking for was more specific: “I’m especially interested in the atmospheric “trapping” aspect of those photons exceeding the nano-microsecond time frames.”, because IR range photon “trapping” is the core of the GHE.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            I had to break up the comment as WP wouldn’t accept the form:
            Additionally, Even your reference makes a case for conductance: “There are two main cases.
            (a) Collisional or natural broadening
            The energy levels have finite lifetimes for one of two reasons:
            • there is a collisional lifetime
            τc (see Section 3.1.2);
            • excited states have a natural lifetime

          2. CoRev

            I have shown that tn to be in the nano to micro-second time frame for each molecular absorption event. How does that equate to trapping in the GHE?

        2. CoRev

          Sherparick, again you rely on a non-scientific site. you should know that evidence of the LIA has now been found on EVERY continent, including Antarctica. There are numerous peer reviewed studies, some of which I have previously referenced in other threads. which show this. I do not intend to reference them again for someone so reliant on questionable sources. Do your own actual scientific research.

          Reply
        3. CoRev

          Sherparik asks: ” after the initial peak in the current interglacial, there has been, or was, a gradual cooling trend line in the climate, as what happen in most of the interglacials of Pleistocene, until it stopped and wen in reverse the last 170 years. …
          Gee, what is different now then the previous 800,000 years?” The charts from which you are quoting are based upon 1/2 to 1 millennium SMOOTHING. You are trying to compare a 170 years cycle that wouldn’t even appear in the smoothed data.

          Reply
  4. CoRev

    Let me make one request for this comment string. When talking about the warming associated with this graphic please be specific. Climate is not just temperature. Climate Change is not just changes in Global Warming. Global warming is not anthropogenic global warming (AGW). AGW is not climate. AGW is not just increases in atmospheric CO2. Increases in atmospheric CO2 is not just increases in anthropogenic CO2.

    Too often these terms are interchanged without specifically defining them. Too often discussions become entangled in the semantics without defining the terms.

    Reply
  5. 2slugbaits

    Bruce Hall A flat trend from 1979-97 at -0.2º anomaly; a flat trend from 1998 to present at about +0.3º anomaly. That’s not consistent with a constantly increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    It’s also not consistent with any linear process, as well as being bad econometrics. You should ponder what you wrote and see if you can figure out where you went wrong. I’ll leave it as a homework assignment.

    CoRev The AMO is shifting to its cold cycle and we may be entering a la Nina.

    You’ve been promising cooling cycles of one form or another for the last couple of decades…but it never seems to happen. A couple of years ago NOAA had a very nice graphic that compared temperature growth in just la Nina years, just el Nino years and just normal years. So there were three trend lines. All three trend lines had the same slope but different intercepts. That pretty much blows your “entering a la Nina” argument out of the water. It’s the difference between trends and cycles. The underlying trend is the same, and that’s what global warming is all about.

    1) Is the warming in the record good or bad? Be careful not to compare weather with climate.

    It depends on where you live. If you live in Canada, then it’s probably a good thing. If you live in Africa or along the Indian Ocean or in Australia, then not so much. I’ve noticed that a helluva a lot of your posts seem to take an American-centric view of just about everything.

    the warming since the LIA is a good thing

    Even for those of us in North America, the fact that it’s a good thing that we’re warmer than the LIA does not mean it’s also a good thing that we’re warmer than we were in 1970. At root your argument seems confused. On the one hand you want to deny that global warming is primarily manmade, but on the other hand you seem to applaud manmade global warming because it’s improved our lives (but not necessarily the lives of others) since the LIA.

    2) Is CO2 the climate driver? How?

    CO2 is the primary exogenous driver of climate change. I’ve already referenced the detailed explanations as to how CO2 molecules cause the atmosphere to warm, but the simplified answer is that CO2 inhibits the radiation of infrared into space and absorbs that infrared radiation. You can also do a Sheldon Cooper approved little home experiment that will clearly show CO2 causes a greenhouse effect:

    http://peabody.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/education/Global%20Warming%20In%20A%20Jar.pdf

    That the uncertainty is higher at the beginning of the record than today, and that early uncertainty effects the calculation of total warming. That the best we can do with this uncertain record is calculate ~1C total average in warming. That uncertain record is ~137 years long.

    Again this is a very strange argument for you to be making. For many, many years you have been putting a lot of emphasis on supposed temperatures back in the late medieval period, but you seem less confident in temperature readings from the late 19th century. That’s just bizarre. You also don’t seem to be reading the chart correctly. Global temperature anomalies continued to drop until ~1910. Since then temperatures have increased by ~1.5 degrees. In fact, for a long time the temperatures just kind of meandered around. It’s really been over the last 40 years that we’ve seen an uninterrupted sequence of temperature anomalies consistently above the baseline, with a strong upward trend. Finally, we’d all be fine if the rise in temperatures just stopped right where it is today. The problem is that as long as we continue to pump CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere, there’s no good way to arrest that temperature growth rate. Global warming isn’t about how it affects us…you and I will be long dead and forgotten before it becomes a civilization threatening crisis. Global warming is about how our actions or inactions today affect our descendants 5 or 6 generations down the line.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      2slugs, again there is too much wrong with your understanding it is hilarious, but I will just address the major flaw in your thinking, the experiment aimed to elementary and middle school students.
      The major flaw in the experiment is that it does not test IR radiation in the jars, but the impact of reducing convection. Placing lids on the jars stops convection to the outside of the heat that entered via Short Wave light energy.

      The 2nd major flaw is that it makes another false statement right at its beginning: “Global Warming in a Jar
      Perhaps you have heard of the greenhouse effect. In a greenhouse, short-wave radiation from
      sunlight passes freely through the glass and a) is converted to long-wave radiation inside. b) But the long-wave radiation cannot pass back out through the glass.
      a) SW is not converted to LWIR inside. LWIR is emitted via radiation as a receiving molecule loses energy.
      b) Glass, unless specifically formulated to block certain wave lengths of IR, is transparent to IR, and will not block its escape.

      Just these two things make the experiment a failure. This is the common level of misunderstanding so often seen in the discussions, and in particular evidenced by you.

      Reply
        1. CoRev

          2slugs, why do you continue to misrepresent? Why is it so many with weak understanding and arguments have to establish some false narrative from which to argue? I have never said that CO2 does NOT warm the atmosphere. Please find the cite! As Baffled points out it is time sensitive.

          After being caught misunderstanding a kid experiment, you present another that is almost as bad. How does a sealed bottled filled with CO2 represent the atmosphere?

          Keep researching some of it might stick.

          Reply
  6. PeakTrader

    A government agency, e.g. NOAA, may justify or strengthen its existence, make its work more important than it really is, support a political view, that maintains or extends funding, and have the natural tendency in the belief that humans are more important than they really are, by measuring global warming with an upward bias.

    “Patrick Frank is a scientist at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL), part of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at Stanford University. Frank has published papers that explain how the errors in temperatures recorded by weather stations have been incorrectly handled. Temperature readings, he finds, have errors over twice as large as generally recognized. Based on this, Frank stated, in a 2011 article in Energy & Environment, “…the 1856–2004 global surface air temperature anomaly with its 95% confidence interval is 0.8˚C ± 0.98˚C.” The error bars are wider than the measured increase. It looks as if there’s an upward temperature trend, but we can’t tell definitively. We cannot reject the hypothesis that the world’s temperature has not changed at all.”

    Reply
          1. PeakTrader

            “Dr. Patrick Frank, a chemist at the Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SLAC) at Stanford University and author of 68 peer-reviewed publications.”

          2. Robj

            Well, that’s all you need for CoRev and PeakTrader for climate science credentials. Really, their “arguments” are embarrassing. But you have to give them Limbaugh points for regurgitating!

    1. sherparick

      Peak and CoRev are always complaining about ad hominem arguments in this debate, but of course the biggest and oldest ad hominen is that the agencies and scientists around the world who do research on climate, geology, and weather and maintain the integrity of the data are “corrupt” and have created the idea of “global warming” to obtain grants and justify their existence. NOAA and NASA came into existence long before this controversy and their work and existence as far as Earth science was pretty non-controversial, and in fact considered beneficial to all who appreciated weather forecasts and improvement in understanding the Earth and its environment. Only around 1990-92, when the concern that burning CO2 may cause severe problems long term, and thereby begin affecting the value and profits of the fossil fuel industry.

      Also, it is amazing that like wack a moles how the old denial arguments keep coming up, as Peak Trader cites a single article by a non-climatologist and non–statistician (at least McIntyre knows statistics) arguing that the surface data of the last 150 years is simply unreliable, a argument that has been refuted in hundreds of articles. https://www.skepticalscience.com/eschenbach-and-mcintyres-best-shot-at-surface-temp-record.html And the thing is its not the actual numbers, but the the trend, and the trend since 1855 has been up, with the last 3 years being the warmest in both the land surface and satellite data.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        Sherparick, at last something on which we can agree: “And the thing is its not the actual numbers, but the the trend, and the trend since 1855 has been up, with the last 3 years being the warmest in both the land surface and satellite data.”

        From that you should be able to answer my two questions.
        1) is that warming since the LIA bad?
        2) Is CO2 the climate driver?

        Your own words please to assess you own knowledge and not that of believer sites. Betcha can’t do it.

        Reply
  7. CoRev

    Menzie, your update did not improve your case. It clearly uses Mike’s Trick to make the case of exceptional warming, and it is no where near post-dinosaur era (your throw away line) time frame. i\It is just the past 2k years. Hmmm, why did you ignore the other longer graphic in your reference? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    If you need an explanation of Mike’s Trick, thin in terms of taking annual data and overlaying on prior averaged data with much longer time frames than annual.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Menzie, to be clear, if your updated graph had used like data smoothing for the overlayed measured temp data, it would have consisted of only 2 points, and ended late in the 20th century. (assuming the same smoothing period is used as the early data in the graph which appears is ~50 years) In that case your claim: “Notice the steep ascent up to 2004; the global land/sea anomaly in Figure 1 is nearly 0.4 c higher in 2016 than 2004 (12 month thru December)..” is irrelevant since any period after ~1980 would not be included in the data.

      As you well know smoothing removes the peaks and valleys during the smoothing period. Mismatching data types and smoothing period is a common mistake seen in climate analysis.

      Reply
  8. Barkley Rosser

    To those focusing on 1998, that was a year way out of line on the high side compared to those around it. For quite some time we would hear from global warming skeptics about how global temperature had not risen significantly since 1998, cherry picking that way off the upside year as a starting point. We have moved well past it more recently.

    That we have not been as warm as the world was at times further back in the geological past is a big “so what?” Humans were not around back then. In the meantime, tell the 1200 dead from excess flooding in South Asia, not to mention the smaller numbers dead in Harvey and Irma about how great global warming is.

    BTW, I happen to accept that for about another degree or so of warming, GDPs of US and China will probably rise on net due to reduced winter heating. But we are on track to go well beyond that one degree of warming, and the negative effects will then outweigh those positive ones, just as they are already doing in those poorer tropical and semi-tropical states like Bangladesh that have little clout in global power negotiations.

    As for Patrick Frank, I think his experience with handling glove boxes certainly makes him an expert on all this.

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      People have died from hurricanes even before fossil fuels were used. Of course, there are many more people now, and they like to live on or near the coasts. More died from population growth, not necessarily from global warming.

      Reply
  9. joseph

    CoRev: “If you look at the right side of the graph you will see that the temperatures using the Freedom scale (F) have much better resolution than the temperatures on the left in the Communist scale (C). This proves that warming is a hoax perpetrated by Marxist scientists. Wake up sheeple.”

    Possibly another real quote from CoRev.

    Reply
  10. mobk

    Menzie – I am not a physics denier like some of your posters, but I must say – that graph is old news.

    The last 12 month average displayed on your graph is up till August 2016. If you want a more recent 12 month average you have to choose an end date of July 2017. This is because the August average is not yet released (it will be in the next few days). 12 month average ending July 2017 shows the most recent period (ending July 31, 2017) to be the SECOND warmest on record behind the previous 12 month period (ending July 31, 2016).

    Reply
  11. 2slugbaits

    CoRev the “pause” occurred after the 98 Super el Nino until the build up to the latest

    What “pause” are you talking about? Even using a simple linear time trend from Aug 1999 thru Aug 2014 (i.e., the timeframe you specifically cited as constituting the “pause” gives you a statistically significant (t-stat of 3.24) positive trend. And FWIW, no evidence of autocorrelation in the residuals. Not exactly my idea of a “pause” unless by “pause” you mean “not going up as fast.” That’s a crazy definition of “pause” and it hardly supports your argument, but perhaps that’s what you meant. And oh by the way…I clearly remember that 15 years ago you were promising that we would see absolute cooling….not just temps getting warmer at a slower rate but absolute cooling. You were absolutely certain of it. OTOH, I provided you with a NIST analysis that predicted a positive but slower growing trend that would accelerate again in the mid-teens. Or did you forget about that?

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      2slugs, with your history its going to take cites and links to convince me you are not still just making things up. That ole false narrative thing.

      Reply
        1. Robj

          Really, CoRev in his own mind deserves the Nobel Prize for physics in climate research, since he so clearly knows everything about climate science, unlike the climate scientists.
          It’s amazing he’s not King of the World in his own Mind.

          Reply
    2. Robj

      The Russ Limbaugh “climate scientists” have now dropped the “pause” argument. Well, some of them. There are some holdouts.
      CoRev mainlines the climate denial from WattsUpMyArse.

      Reply
    3. Dave

      2006: Climate change will cause more frequent and intense hurricanes
      2007:
      2008:
      2009:
      2010:
      2011:
      2012:
      2013:
      2014:
      2015:
      2016:
      2017: See, I told you so!

      Reply
  12. joseph

    I’m making fun of CoRev, but remember, CoRev is the one who argued that Nobel physicist Arrhenius was wrong about the physics of the greenhouse effect because interactions of infra-red photons with CO2 molecules that last microseconds can’t account for temperature changes over decades.

    Really!

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Yes really! Tell us how those physics work. I’m especially interested in the atmospheric “trapping” aspect of those photons exceeding the nano-microsecond time frames. Just what is the likelihood of a photon colliding with another CO2 molecule or the surface after 1st collision, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Just how does this trapping/warming work at speed of light speeds? It’s relatively simple arithmetic. Just some knowledge and not blind belief required.

      After you’ve done that exercise tell us how accurately we can measure solar radiance differences for the surface of the planet. Compare the magnitudes.

      Reply
    2. Dave

      Climate prediction science is immature at best. All of the IPCC models over-predicted warming. Yet, we blindly follow their predictions today. I’m old enough to remember the ice age predictions of the 1970’s

      Skepticism is an integral part of the scientific process. The best scientists in history ignored consensus.

      Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.

      Reply
      1. baffling

        “The best scientists in history ignored consensus.”
        actually, the demonstrated why the consensus is wrong and produced the new models which improved our understanding. deniers have done none of this. that is why you do not see any of the “best scientists” in the denier camp. they are not very competent.

        “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
        brilliant. this comes straight out of the anti-science rhetoric common in right wing media. why listen to the experts who have studied a topic for years, when you can listen to an ignoramus such as corev opine about the details of climate science, because he slept in a holiday inn express last night. populism at its best!

        Reply
        1. Dave

          @baffling

          You keep falling into the same logical fallacy trap.

          Do you know from whom I stole that quote?

          “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”

          Perhaps you should Google it and get back to me. Tell me if you still think that this quote is anti-science. I’ll wait

          Reply
          1. baffling

            If you are a Nobel laureat, you have the right to make a statement such as that. If you are not a nobel winner, and you make the statement, it does make you look foolish. Since you did not quote it, and i am quite positive you are not a noble winner, your use of the comment is rather foolish. But you knew that already.

          2. Dave

            @baffling

            So I need to be a Nobel laureat to quote one of the best scientists in my generation?

            Skepticism is in integral component of the scientific process. You claim AGW. I’m asking for evidence.

            Name calling does not help your arguments here. Rather, it makes you appear foolhardy

          3. baffling

            Dave, you go beyond skepticism. It is outright denial. There is an enormous body of evidence sitting out there, whose “bias” indicates man has been a significant contributor to global warming in the past century. The evidence exists. Why ask me to provide that to you? Is my presentation of the evidence requisite for you to accept what is happening? Don’t use me as your excuse. The evidence exists, but you choose not to acknowledge its existence. That is not skepticism. It is ignorance.

          4. CoRev

            Baffled , we all agree with: ” There is an enormous body of evidence sitting out there, whose “bias” indicates man has been a significant contributor to global warming in the past century. ” man’s significant contribution can be classified into 2 major categories, 1) changes in land use, 2) changes in make up of GHGs. No one has been able to well define impacts of Natural versus man’s significant influences.

            But, if you are an alarmist you believe that man’s influence on the increase of a lesser GHG, CO2, and particularly ACO2, is the near total cause of the recent increased warming. But the impacts of anthropogenic GHGs have been know for some time:

            TABLE 4a.

            Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the “Greenhouse
            Effect,” expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
            Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of Greenhouse Effect

            —————————————-% Total GHE——— % Natural ——- % Man-made
            Water vapor ———————–95.000% ———– 94.999%————–0.001%
            Carbon Dioxide (CO2) ———-3.618% ————- 3.502%—————0.117%
            Methane (CH4) ——————–0.360%————– 0.294%————–0.066%
            Nitrous Oxide (N2O)————-0.950%————– 0.903%————–0.047%
            Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.)——–0.072%————– 0.025%————–0.047%
            Total ——————————–100.00%————– 99.72%—————0.28%

            The 0.117% of total GHE for ACO2, and the total impact for all significant
            GHG contributions
            have been known/calculated for many decades, but folks like you think it man’s influences in these GHGs are responsible for nearly all of the increase in global in temperatures. All the while you ignore the impacts of nature, Column 2 above.

            For that reason I entreat you to do the math.

          5. CoRev

            Baffled i forgot to include the link from where this data was drawn: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

            I want to be perfectly clear to art lest shine some light into your over powering bias. If the impact of total of anthropogenic GHG increases is 0.28%, that must b e applied against the ~0.9C increase if we use the measured temperature record from 1880. Or if you believe AHGs are ~100% responsible for warming that impact is ~0.25C, but even you admit man’s influence is “significant”, not TOTAL, so that ~0.25C may be closer to half, ~ 0.12c,

            And you folks have your panties in a wad over this possible ~0.12c -~0.25C man caused change in temps since 1880.

            Is there any wonder why we laugh at your unsupported belief? You can/will not do the simplest math for fear a little doubt may encroach on your religious belief. Yes religious, as it certainly is perverted science. For to accept it you must believe that the ~0.9C of warming since the end of the LIA, 1880, is all bad.

            Preposterous!

        2. Dave

          @baffling

          The use of the term “denier” is lazy and reckless. Nobody denies AGW. We skeptics simply understand that there is absolutely zero evidence that the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration (from 240 to 400ppm) contributes to the mild warming we’ve observed over the past 50 years or so. AGW may be real. Truth is, nobody knows for sure.

          As it relates to the “best scientists,” you research is lacking.

          Reply
          1. baffling

            Wow, “zero evidence”! Just like with corev, i would imagine there would never exist any measure of evidence which would convince you of your ignorance. That is what allows the same trolls to continue to populate these web sites over time. Very scientific approach.

          2. Dave

            @baffling

            “I would imagine there would never exist any measure of evidence which would convince you of your ignorance.”

            You may image all you wish, but I never made such a claim.

            You need to provide evidence. That’s all I ask of you

      2. sherparick

        I just want point out that the statement “All of the IPCC models over predicted warming” appears to be incorrect, or at best not properly defined. Some models under and some overpredicted, but the best seem to fall within 3% range of the actual observations according to 3 papers referenced in this Guardian article. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/27/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming

        Reply
  13. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev writes: “We might need to watch the N. Atlantic/Pacific oceans and Arctic ice for the next few years. The AMO is shifting to its cold cycle and we may be entering a la Nina.

    Yes, global cooling is just around the corner. Gonna start tomorrow, or the day after, or maybe the day after that. LOL Where have we heard *that* before? CoRev’s been predicting global cooling right around the corner for years now.

    Is this the same CoRev that was lauding satellite temperatures who didn’t even know what they measured? Is this the same CoRev that claimed GCM’s never made any accurate predictions? Or that AGW theory never made any accurate predictions? Is this the same CoRev that cannot use the term ‘strawman argument’ correctly? Is this the same CoRew that cites WUWT and Bob Tisdale, yet doesn’t recognize the name David Archer when it comes to climate science? Is this the same CoRev that believes GCMs represent science?

    Years pass and CoRev cannot update his wetware. He’s stuck in that ol’ pseudoskeptic rut and can’t change. Sad, really.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Hey, Kevin, I missed you in the past couple of GW articles. Yes, its the same CoRev. I do admit to making a mistake in the satellite discussion. One that I admitted and corrected in later comments.

      It’s not jsut me who have predicting *Global Cooling*. Quite a few climate scientists are also, just not those wedded to the AGW hypothesis.

      Most often I, and skeptics get accused of not believing in teh Global Warming. When we have accepted it forever. What we do not agree with is the catastrophic consequences so often predicted by those wedded to the AGW theory and their GCMs.

      Which brings me to my basic questions which no one has attempted to answer.
      1) Is the warming in the record good or bad? Be careful not to compare weather with climate.
      2) Is CO2 the climate driver? How?

      Reply
      1. baffling

        “Most often I, and skeptics get accused of not believing in teh Global Warming.”
        you spent a lot of time arguing for a hiatus, if you are a believer.

        Reply
      1. CoRev

        Robj, don’t be so ignorant. The pause will only re-occur if the la Nina or temperature changes are deep and/or long enough to effect the linear trend.

        Only alarmists take a short term rise due to el Ninos as evidence that AGW is rampant.

        Reply
  14. Erik Poole

    Barkley Rosser wrote: BTW, I happen to accept that for about another degree or so of warming, GDPs of US and China will probably rise on net due to reduced winter heating.

    ———————

    Per capita wealth might go up but otherwise reduced heating expenditures will lead to a decrease in GDP.

    That is why President Trump should be and some investors are excited by the two recent hurricanes: US GDP will go up thanks to the post-Hurricane cleanup, recovery and rebuilding expenditures.

    Trump should be excited because his supporters do not understand how GDP is measured. It will look good on the man unless of course his rhetoric and actions put a damper on consumer and business confidence.

    Reply
  15. joseph

    CoRev: “Tell us how those physics work. I’m especially interested in the atmospheric “trapping” aspect of those photons exceeding the nano-microsecond time frames.”

    CoRev can’t find his own *ss with both hands. That’s because he is not certain it even exists since he can’t account for the vibration of every molecule to nanosecond resolution.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Joseph, it is a relatively simple arithmetic exercise. If you can not do the arithmetic, do a logic exercise in how temperature changes within and between days and or seasons. What is the main driver(s)? If you do that then follow up with how and why the warming is mostly in night and Winter temperatures.

      All it takes is some critical thinking to add more questions and identify holes in the hypotheses. Doing the simplest arithmetic is critical to testing if the numbers add up to the claims.

      Or if all of that is too difficult, maybe you can answer the current meme going around the internet: “Florida has received 119 hurricanes only Irma has been caused by Global Warming.” Why?????

      Reply
      1. sherparick

        Actually, physics and atmospheric thermodynamics is not arithmetic, its calculus. So that might be your first mistake.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Sherparick to answer the question takes only a little knowledge and simple arithmetic. If you want you can apply the appropriate formulae from your text book reference, even though unnecessary.

          Reply
  16. baffling

    For those in the denier camp, we have just had 2 significant tropical storm events, producing excessive wind, rain and flooding. FEMA is responsible for funding the rebuild of much of this damage through the national flood insurance program. should FEMA consider the affects of a warming globe on these areas, and provide revised requirements on rebuilding to accommodate rising sea levels, and increased storm intensity and activity? or should it ignore the changing climate, and maintain its current standards. in which case, its costs will continue to rise every year from climate change, as we rebuild the exact same structures that just failed? closing fema and the flood insurance program is not a valid option, politically or otherwise.

    Reply
  17. Not Trampis

    I think we have positive evidence that no matter how much evidence shows that the temperature is warming significantly denialists will always reject this.
    It is a world wide phenomen as it occurs down under as well.

    Reply
        1. sherparick

          You do change your arguments, so is hard to figure out what exactly you are saying.

          1.) You (or was it Peak Trader) argue that we can’t even say the Earth’s ocean and troposphere is growing warmer because the surface temperature data is unreliable.

          2). Even if it is growing warmer, that is a temporary natural phenomena or

          3) Caused by the Sun putting out more solar energy during the current solar cycle or

          4) The warming is good anyway so even if humans are causing it with CO2 and Methane, no problem.

          5) Ocean acidification from higher CO2 in the atmosphere, that problem is just ignored.

          This is not skepticism, this is about serving an ideological and economic agenda. And a crazy one at that.

          Reply
      1. Menzie Chinn Post author

        CoRev: You did. On March 30, 2008, you wrote:

        why has the temperature stopped climbing while GHGs are still rising? Sounds like ole Ma Nature is playing around in this issue too.

        There are several other comments of a similar nature back a decade ago.

        Reply
        1. Robj

          CoRev is now beyond the “pausist” arguments that were so subsidized in ’08-’13 by the Koches. He’s now gone one to denying the greenhouse effect and arguing the benefits of warming, at least until the next big La Nina because. . . .
          well, that’s what the self-proclaimed climate anti-science experts do.
          In the next spike down, we will hear from the “pausists” all over again, as if temps had to go up every year in a metronymic pattern; otherwise, of course, warming is “disproved” to those brave 1% of climate “scientists.”

          Reply
        2. CoRev

          Menzie, that same statement can be made for your main graph in this article. What caused the cooling in 2017 compared to 2015-16? The hiatus/pause was prominent in discussions in 2008. Although the subject of the at comment was scientific consensus

          Context is always important! Whit did you ignore this earlier comment? http://econbrowser.com/archives/2008/03/antarctic_ice_s#comment-135757
          Where I said even back then
          “For the record, most skeptics agree that there is Global Warming, AND some may be caused by “Man.” What is most often argued is represented by your article. Alarmists, Al gore et. al., are just too far over the top, and their solution(s) are going to cost way too much for a scientific issue still under serious debate. An iceberg, even a big iceberg, is still just a single event. Don’t overinterpret a few observations,”

          Over-interpretation of a few observations, is common in climate science. So common to be given a name “Mike’s Trick” as evidenced in your updated graph. In fact much of climate science may be based upon this issue. Using the overly short recorded temperature records as the interpretation base line, when the climate is made up of longer term cycles, is a possible major flaw. From this short term focus we may be getting all the exaggerated claims of unprecedented events.

          Reply
    1. Dave

      Nobody is dismissing the slight warming we’ve observed over the past 50 years. The question is, what % is mans contribution? Nobody can answer this with certainty.

      Reply
        1. CoRev

          Menzie, I often mentally compare the economics and climate sciences. Models’ based predictions fo dubious value and as you said great amounts of uncertainty. When fundamental elements are ill defined: ” I don’t even know what proportion of GDP is consumption spending in 2010Q4 for sure…” and “The question is, what % is mans contribution? Nobody can answer this with certainty.”, it can be hard to accept some of the extraordinary claims by each science.

          Reply
  18. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev – The more optimistic papers on global warming gave the first 1°C increase above pre-industrial temperatures a net beneficial role. After that it warming is considered to be detrimental. We’ve already passed that 1°C mark.

    Some of the ‘benefits’ attributed to warmer temperatures may not be benefits at all. The agricultural community is only now becoming aware of CO2 directed nutrient decline. Politico just did a story on it: The Great Nutrient Collapse

    CoRev – please read what you copy and paste: The AMO is a *multi-decadal* oscillation. ENSO is *NOT*

    There is no correlation between the AMO and ENSO. I.e., it doesn’t matter where we are in the AMO cycle, it won’t help you predict ENSO.

    As for “ Quite a few climate scientists are also, just not those wedded to the AGW hypothesis.”

    Wyat and Curry’s Stadium Wave? LOL.
    Tsionis? LOL

    Those predictions didn’t turn out very well did they? Or did you have some other dim-witted bulbs in mind? Please do tell us who these climate scientists are and where we can find their predictions.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      CoRev – The more optimistic papers on global warming gave the first 1°C increase above pre-industrial temperatures a net beneficial role. After that it warming is considered to be detrimental. We’ve already passed that 1°C mark.
      Yet we have empirical that says otherwise. Early papers versus opposing later experience is common in science.

      Some of the ‘benefits’ attributed to warmer temperatures may not be benefits at all. The agricultural community is only now becoming aware of CO2 directed nutrient decline. Politico just did a story on it: The Great Nutrient Collapse
      Kevin in reading the non-scientific Politico article, it says most of the nutritional scientists did not agree with findings. They found a singular scientist that agrees.

      CoRev – please read what you copy and paste: The AMO is a *multi-decadal* oscillation. ENSO is *NOT*

      There is no correlation between the AMO and ENSO. I.e., it doesn’t matter where we are in the AMO cycle, it won’t help you predict ENSO.
      Who was predicting the ENSO from the AMO??? Another “false narrative”when the effect of each is well known. These effects may very well be amplified when both occur simultaneously.

      As for “ Quite a few climate scientists are also, just not those wedded to the AGW hypothesis.”

      Wyat and Curry’s Stadium Wave? LOL.
      Tsionis? LOL

      Those predictions didn’t turn out very well did they? Or did you have some other dim-witted bulbs in mind? Please do tell us who these climate scientists are and where we can find their predictions.
      Your opinions on these few references of your choosing matter? No!

      Here are a handful of papers, some with discernible predictions on the subject above
      http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/11/12-new-papers-north-atlantic-pacific-and-southern-oceans-are-cooling-as-glaciers-thicken-gain-mass/#sthash.qIxqe0gq.dpbs
      I haven’t read them so can not make any specific comments, but you asked for examples. With the change in administration focus, I will predict an increase in papers with alternative hypotheses/explanations.

      Reply
    2. CoRev

      Kevin, Tsionis? I think you mean Tsonis. Since you referenced a non-peer reviewed political/Politico artilel I will reference a GWPF article by your favorite
      http://www.thegwpf.com/ocean-cycles-not-humans-may-be-behind-most-observed-climate-change/
      In it the article says: “Professor Tsonis says:

      “We can show that at the start of the 20th century, the North Atlantic Oscillation pushed the global climate into a warming phase, and in 1940 it pushed it back into cooling mode. The famous “pause” in global warming at the start of the 21st century seems to have been instigated by the North Atlantic Oscillation too.”

      In fact, most of the changes in the global climate over the period of the instrumental record seem to have their origins in the North Atlantic.

      Tsonis’ insights have profound implications for the way we view calls for climate alarm.

      It may be that another shift in the North Atlantic could bring about another phase shift in the global climate, leading to renewed cooling or warming for several decades to come.

      These climatic cycles are entirely natural, and can tell us nothing about the effect of carbon dioxide emissions. But they should inspire caution over the slowing trajectory of global warming we have seen in recent decades.

      As Tsonis puts it:

      “While humans may play a role in climate change, other natural forces may play important roles too.””
      And this last statement is the crux of the unending arguments. Climate science has been unable to clearly define nature’s impact on temperatures.

      An example of nature’s impact is temperature increases shown in the build up and during the recent el Ninos. Skeptics predicted the Alarmist claims related to the 15-16 el Nino. There is no known anthropogenic causation for ENSO, but still the AGW caused claims were rampant and continue.

      Reply
  19. Robj

    “Quite a few” is . . . . quaint.
    Good point on the AMO and ENSO distinction, but I fear it went over the head of the CoRev who is busy correcting climate science on the physics of warming gases. Too bad Arrhenius is dead, or CoRev could really give him the physics what for.
    Fake Nobel, you know.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Robj, again why such ignorance? Only Kevin made the linkage: “There is no correlation between the AMO and ENSO. I.e., it doesn’t matter where we are in the AMO cycle,it won’t help you predict ENSO.

      Ignorance may be bliss, but you should learn to read better. The only one making the two highlighted points was Kevin. How did that go over your head? Oh, that’s right reading comprehension. What also is obvious is that you too don’t have the fundamental knowledge to actually discuss climate science.

      You have yet to refute any of my points. I think the Socrates quote is highly appropriate to you: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

      Reply
    2. Dave

      Robj, “the physics or warming gases” experiments work nicely in the lab. Real world climate modeling is much more complex. All of the IPCC models overestimated warming. A clear indication that the best scientists have not yet cracked this nut. A strong degree of skepticism related to climate prediction is justified here. Like it or not, skepticism is part of the scientific process.

      Reply
  20. Robj

    I’ve looked for CoRev in the physics and climate science literature. I’m sure that I have searched under the wrong name since I haven’t come up with any hits, but I’ll keep searching, since clearly the brilliance here should be broadly disseminated in the literature, as he has indicated.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Robj, it is not my background that is in question, but yours. At least I can discuss the issues. Blind belief is what is most associated with the comments here.

      Reply
      1. baffling

        corev, your background is most seriously in question. reading your posts is like following somebody with adhd. it is scatter brained and worthless in merit. people quit debating you on the science because your posts are so incoherent it is impossible to even find a place to begin. one day you deny global warming occurs. then you say it exists but is not man made. then it does not occur, as we have a hiatus. then it is occurring, and man may contribute, but we don’t know how much. then the world is cooling. some days the sun is the problem. other days it must be the moon, or jupiter is aligned in a bad position. scientists won’t debate you because you show a lack of knowledge in science in general. the only thing consistent with your positions, is you are the party of no.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Baffled, you have consistently made the same claim of I not knowing the science, but have yet to answer my questions. I doubt seriously you know where to start. I believe it was you that used the term ” temperatures are actually increasing with time. ” They are also decreasing with time. Look at 2017 in Menzies’ updated main graph.

          See how easy it is to make glaringly general comments? Notice both are correct. Both are time dependent.

          You and the several others have almost always objected to alternative explanations, and claimed they were denying warming, anti-science, idiotic, or what ever derogatory term you wished to use at the time. Taken in context and using the contextual time frame, they were all correct. But when you stop thinking and just emote, you jump to false conclusions and make false narratives.

          Reply
          1. baffling

            “See how easy it is to make glaringly general comments? Notice both are correct. Both are time dependent.”

            but one comment is actually relevant to the discussion. your comment is not relevant to the discussion. this is a common theme with deniers like yourself. instead of understanding, and accepting, the big picture of what happens. you will look for a little detail, and extrapolate from that one item that the entire framework is incorrect. if you were at a scientific conference and defended your position like that, you would be laughed out of the conference. you would be noted as the idiot who likes to argue but does not understand what he is talking about, and wastes peoples time. your comment is spurious and does not contribute to any understanding of the issue whatsoever. you are mistaking a technicality with understanding, and want to make a big deal about it. foolish behavior.

          2. CoRev

            Baffled, WOW!!! Saying this: “instead of understanding, and accepting, the big picture of what happens. you will look for a little detail, and extrapolate from that one item that the entire framework is incorrect. ” is exactly the opposite of what I have said so many, many times. How many times do I have to reference the “long term temps”, especially those related to this interglacial as opposed to the ultra-short measured temperature records?

            Here’s another thought exercise for just you, Baffled. If the hiatus was invalid because its calculation started with the 98 El Nino, how valid is the warming in the measured temp records which started at the LIA????? Only blind belief makes the temp record more valid than the hiatus. Both occurred.

            What is clear, if I was invited to defend my views of climate science you would not be there More importantly, if you accidentally wander in, you would be totally lost, because it takes a level of understanding the you have yet to achieve.

            Socrates * *

          3. baffling

            “Only blind belief makes the temp record more valid than the hiatus. Both occurred.”
            the only problem is that the hiatus really did not occur. this was supported by a continued rise in sea levels and ocean heat content throughout the “hiatus” period. something you continue to want to ignore.

            “What is clear, if I was invited to defend my views of climate science…”
            let’s deal with reality and not fantasy. there is absolutely no chance you would ever be invited to defend your views in a scientific conference. none. period.

          4. CoRev

            Baffled, claims: “the only problem is that the hiatus really did not occur.” and yet I showed here many, many times. What he relies on is it was removed from the data only after the data was changed.

            My question is why did you ignore the preamble to your quote from me? ” If the hiatus was invalid because its calculation started with the 98 El Nino, how valid is the warming in the measured temp records which started at the LIA????? Only blind belief makes the temp record more valid than the hiatus. Both occurred.”

            The hiatus is a mathematical construct, are you now denying math? Why did you refuse to answer my question above? Blind belief and fear of another small doubt evolving?

          5. baffling

            “What he relies on is it was removed from the data only after the data was changed.”
            you are relying on a data set that was observed to be inaccurate. you misunderstand the idea of “changed”. you seem to think the data which showed a hiatus was pure and unaltered. that is simply not true. that data has been manipulated as well. so when you argue the data showing a hiatus was changed, you want to imply we altered pure and correct data to remove the hiatus. the simple explanation is the data that was showing a hiatus came from a manipulated data set as well, but it was found to be not accurate. improvements in the data processing ultimately revealed a lack of a hiatus. and this correlates well with other independent data sets which indicate ocean heat content and sea levels did not show a hiatus either.

            “The hiatus is a mathematical construct, are you now denying math?”
            it has been shown the hiatus was an artifact of the mathematical construct used to create the data set you seem to embrace as “the one”. that artifact has now been removed. you seem to have a problem with that, but have unbridled faith in the previous version. as a scientist you should embrace the revisions and improvements, which resulted from observing the data, finding the errors and improving the results. that is how science works.

        2. Corev

          Baffled, there you go again with the false narrative. Yes I said the data was changed, but did not add a value judgement only a statement of fact to your denial the hiatus existed: “hiatus really did not occur.” Then later you admit:” the data that was showing a hiatus”, and that was my point, to which you just agreed. Stop the emoting it cause you to misread/misinterpret.

          The remainder of your comment just exemplifies you religious fervor of making you unable to question data adjustments.

          Reply
          1. baffling

            Corev, i have now lost track of your latest wish washy positions. Please clarify, did the hiatus exist or did it not. And is the globe warming or cooling? It’s is so hard to discuss with such a moving target as your latest beliefs.

            Now you may be stupid enough to believe i said the hiatus existed. But that is not what i was stating. It was an artifact of the data, and improperly processed. The more accurate the data has become, the less that artifact appears in the data. Your argument are becoming more and more incoherent, as you are simply returning to the party of no.

          2. Dave

            @baffling

            You spend a lot of time here insulting the nice folks trying to have an adult conversation. I’ll advise you to challenge them on the merits of their arguments instead. I offer this advise at no charge

          3. Corev

            Baffled, your anger issues, reading comprehension, and now apparent writing/logic issues are clouding you thinking. You have admitted now twice that the hiatus existed., e.g ” It was an artifact of the data, ” You then go on to explain it was removed by better data. I prefer to think it was gone due to the El Nino, and may reoccur with a deep or long enough la nina.

          4. baffling

            Dave, i would take your advice if corev and a few others were to be considered nice folks. But they are not. they are shills for a conservative movement. For instance, corev, peaktrader, and rick stryker have all defended the alt right white supremacists in recent weeks. This would not be considered “nice folks”.

          5. baffling

            “You have admitted now twice that the hiatus existed., e.g ” It was an artifact of the data, ” You then go on to explain it was removed by better data.”

            Corev, that does not mean the hiatus existed. You appear to be too stupid to understand. A trend that exists because of inaccurate data is not a trend. It is a mistake.

            Dave, i hope you can now appreciate why i am so hard on the “good folks” such as corev. His commentary is simply stupid.

  21. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev wrote: “It’s not just me who have predicting *Global Cooling*. Quite a few climate scientists are also, just not those wedded to the AGW hypothesis.”

    Yet when asked to produce the names of these ‘quite a few’ scientists CoRev can’t produce a single name. Not one. C’mon CoRev – where are they.

    CoRev doesn’t use blankets at night to keep him warm. There’s no way that a blanket can keep his body warm. That would defy the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. LOL. Oh, wait, he’s just JAQ ing off (“ Is CO2 the climate driver? How?)

    Tell us CoRev, how can you say that AGW theory is wrong if you don’t even know what the theory is?

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Kevin, maybe you can answer this question? “Why do so many climate alarmists/liberals (but I repeat myself) need to argue from “false” naratives?”
      Only you brought up this point: “There is no correlation between the AMO and ENSO. I.e., it doesn’t matter where we are in the AMO cycle,it won’t help you predict ENSO.” No one else.
      And now you tried this one: “Yet when asked to produce the names of these ‘quite a few’ scientists CoRev can’t produce a single name. Not one. C’mon CoRev – where are they.” When asked to produce the names???? Not in this thread was that asked, until you just did.

      I see, however, that reading comprehension and failure to go to references are a common issue with climate alarmist/liberals. I provided a link above, but that might have confused you, since it was a direct answer to your previous claim. And that’s just the latest version, since I have provided references several times over the years.

      Why not just answer the question: “ Is CO2 the climate driver? How?” maybe then we could discuss the science. Or answer the other question ” is warming bad?” Citing early papers without empirical evidence backing up those predictions is a cop out. If it can not be verified it is not even good conjecture, and it appears that empirical evidence partially and maybe totally falsifies the hypothesis.

      It’s obvious having one’s religious beliefs questioned cause angry and irrational responses.

      Reply
  22. Kevin ONeill

    Dave wrote:”All of the IPCC models over-predicted warming. “

    Another denizen that gets his information from denier sites?

    Dave, that is not true.

    Here’s the CMIP 3 ensemble vs observations: CMIP 3 Ensemble
    Here’s the CMIP 5 ensemble vs observations: CMIP 5 Ensemble

    Oh, and just for the hell of it, here’s Hansen’s 1981 model vs observations : <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//Tglobal_verification_Hansen81.png"Hansen 1981

    You can read more at RealClimate: Climate Model projections compared to observations

    Thank you for playing.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Kevin, your CMIP 5 graph need the 15-16 Super El Nino to reach the prediction. Otherwise the observations ran consistently below, and for a short time fell outside the CMIP5 confidence range. I dunno why you included a CMIP3/AR4 graph . It was obviated by CMIP5/AR5, the later science.

      Were you trying to show that the earlier AR4 predictions were better than AR5?

      Reply
  23. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev writes: And now you tried this one: “Yet when asked to produce the names of these ‘quite a few’ scientists CoRev can’t produce a single name. Not one. C’mon CoRev – where are they.” When asked to produce the names???? Not in this thread was that asked, until you just did.

    Then you’d better tell Menzie someone has hacked his website. Because this comment sure has your handle on it.

    The same ol’ CoRev – can’t even admit to what he wrote earlier in a thread even though it’s there for all to see.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Kevin, I guess due to your reading comprehension problems I need to be vewy, vewy specific. Your false narrative was: ““Yet when asked to produce the names of these ‘quite a few’ scientists CoRev can’t produce a single name. Not one.” I responded with: “Not in this thread was that asked, until you just did.”

      I realize reading comprehension issues may not relate the that asked to your FALSE claim: “Yet when asked to produce the names of these ‘quite a few’ scientists CoRev can’t produce a single name. Not one. I realize logic is over ridden by emotion when your core beliefs are questioned, but you really do need to try harder.

      Why did you completely ignore the other questions? Too hard or too threatening?

      Reply
        1. CoRev

          Menzie, I did in the original response to kevin’s comment. http://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/09/12-month-global-temperature-anomaly-august-2017#comment-202064 and specifically http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/11/12-new-papers-north-atlantic-pacific-and-southern-oceans-are-cooling-as-glaciers-thicken-gain-mass/#sthash.qIxqe0gq.dpbs
          There are more references, but evidence is no one has or cares even to look at these.

          I have commented upon your update’s graph. Do you have any thoughts why padding unlike data and then making extraordinary conclusions from that very same data is sound statistical practice?

          Shaun Marcott did it in his Marcott et al 2013 paper, and was forced to make this embarrassing admission: “. . . the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes . . .” For a brief description/comment on the paper you can look here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html
          I entreat you to compare the Marcott graph http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0UtrItVc9RA/UVjnUMFb6XI/AAAAAAAACks/GEbpGKABqUc/s640/marcott1.jpg with the one you included, and how it should have looked: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-USBwfGhd5oM/UVjxNw-cO0I/AAAAAAAACk4/xUGDLM2V5Aw/s320/marcott2.jpg

          I would have presented this earlier, but you chose to ignore my criticism.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Menzie, I am disappointed you again chose to ignore the response. You of most here, know the error obviates the your conclusions from that graph.

  24. Kevin ONeill

    Dave – the effect of adjustments on surface temperatures is to *reduce* the trend. I.e., the raw data has a larger increase. Of course everyone *except* deniers knows this. Another denizen that can’t get the facts straight or admit when he’s wrong even when the evidence is placed directly in front of him.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Kevin, WOW!. This statement of yours is really frightening: “the effect of adjustments on surface temperatures is to *reduce* the trend. I.e., the raw data has a larger increase. ” Where would we be if be we just felt those *raw temperatures* instead of the reduced *trend*? *Trends are obviously scarier than *raw temperatures*. I’m sure if we knew of the *trend* differences we would feel closer to that ole runaway warming some alarmists claim is imminent/possible. Of course only *alarmists* make this claim. Another denizen that can’t get the facts straight or admit when he’s wrong even when the evidence of their *false narrative* or *weak extreme beliefs* is placed directly in front of him.

      Reply
    2. Dave

      @kevin

      I partially agree here. NOAA did reduce temps, however the adjustments we’re applied prior to 1950 data. The result actually amplified the warming trend

      Reply
  25. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev *STILL* has not provided the names of these quite a few climate scientist that are predicting global cooling. Not one name has he provided.

    Dave, that’s interesting math you have there. Please show us how reducing the temperatures amplifies the trend. P.S. – and you do realize we’re dealing with anomalies, right? Call me skeptical of your math – you should be too.

    Reply
    1. Corev

      Nope! Not a single one, except for the link I provided in my response. But, that too difficult risky to look through, as it might soil the purity of your false narrative.

      Keep up the facade, Kevin.

      Reply
  26. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev takes a quote out of context from a scientist and then tries to infer that it makes some kind of point. God knows what point he was trying to make – I can’t tell. Anyway. Let’s see what was actually said and written:

    Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

    A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2012GL054271-pip.pdf).

    CoRev – seems to forget that we don’t need proxies for the 20th century – we actually have direct observations. It’s just a matter of tying them together with proper validation and calibration.

    Reply
    1. Corev

      Kevin, I highlighted what I thought was pertinent in in the Marcott quote, but all you did repeat without making your point? You did have one?

      Kevin completely missed the point comparing long term temp data using different smoothing time lines results in errors: “Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”, but my discussion was with Menzie, and his use of another graph with the same *visual* error with Marcot’s and others overlayed temperature record.

      Kevin, you are correct: ” It’s just a matter of tying them together with proper validation and calibration.”, but we seldom see that. Not in Marcott’s, and not in Menzie’s graph.

      What’s not a surprise is your failure to recognize the error, and your backhanded support for the technique. Oh, also not surprising is your failure to understand my points and the need to translate them into another false narrative.

      Reply
  27. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev – *still* cannot name his quite a few scientists. How many times will he have to be asked before he admits he’s just making shit up? BTW – your snipe list of papers – you know, the ones you admitted to not having read, don’t include any global cooling prediction papers in them.

    And now CoRev writes : Kevin, you are correct: ” It’s just a matter of tying them together with proper validation and calibration.”, but we seldom see that. Not in Marcott’s, and not in Menzie’s graph.

    *Every* peer-reviewed proxy temperature reconstruction has to include calibration you dimwit. Read the papers. How else do you think they go from a proxy measurement to temperature? The validation period is limited to the historical instrumental record and – as Marcott et al point out, their reconstruction has 120 year median resolution. So validation would have been pointless because their 20th century numbers are not statistically significant. But you don’t understand any of this – obviously.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Kevin, we have been focusing on just the measured temperatures appended to his original graph. Su when you say: “So validation would have been pointless because their 20th century numbers are not statistically significant.”, everything would have bee BETTER, but that’s not what they did. Did they? This is how the graph should have looked: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-USBwfGhd5oM/UVjxNw-cO0I/AAAAAAAACk4/xUGDLM2V5Aw/s640/marcott2.jpg
      Instead of this: http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/258208/marcott-et-al-2013-_2_550x395.jpg
      I used the skeptical science chart to illustrate how bad their science is.

      Reply
    2. CoRev

      Kevin, the issue is not whether the data proxies were calibrated, but whether the same smoothing periods were used. Marctt’s original did not do so! That is neither good science nor math, to think otherwise is ludicrous.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        Sorry! Not ludicrous but ignorant and idiotic. Menizie that especially applies to your updated graph, since it was not from a scientific source, and you drew and unwarranted conclusion: “… a question is whether temperatures have changed so rapidly in such a short period of time in a time (post-dinosaur, e.g.). ”

        Post-dinosaur in a 2000 years from present study?

        Reply
  28. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev – *STILL* waiting on your snipe hunt list of quite a few ….. your silence is deafening.

    Here’s the Marcott et al methodolgy:


    1. Compiled 73 medium-to-high resolution calibrated proxy temperature records spanning much or all of the Holocene.

    2. Calibrated all radiocarbon ages for consistency using the latest and most precise calibration software (Calib 6.0.1 using INTCAL09 (terrestrial) or MARINE09 (oceanic) and its protocol for the site-specific locations and materials) so that all radiocarbon-based records had a consistent chronology based on the best current information. This procedure updates previously published chronologies, which were based on a variety of now-obsolete and inconsistent calibration methods.

    3. Where applicable, recalibrated paleotemperature proxy data based on alkenones and TEX86 using consistent calibration equations specific to each of the proxy types.

    4. Used a Monte Carlo analysis to generate 1000 realizations of each proxy record, linearly interpolated to constant time spacing, perturbing them with analytical uncertainties in the age model and temperature estimates, including inflation of age uncertainties between dated intervals. This procedure results in an unbiased assessment of the impact of such uncertainties on the final composite.

    5. Referenced each proxy record realization as an anomaly relative to its mean value between 4500 and 5500 years Before Present (the common interval of overlap among all records; Before Present, or BP, is defined by standard practice as time before 1950 CE).

    6. Averaged the first realization of each of the 73 records, and then the second realization of each, then the third, the fourth, and so on, to form 1000 realizations of the global or regional temperature stacks.

    7. Derived the mean temperature and standard deviation from the 1000 simulations of the global temperature stack.

    8. Repeated this procedure using several different area-weighting schemes and data subsets to test the sensitivity of the reconstruction to potential spatial and proxy biases in the dataset.

    9. Mean-shifted the global temperature reconstructions to have the same average as the Mann et al. (2008) CRU-EIV temperature reconstruction over the interval 510-1450 years Before Present. Since the CRU-EIV reconstruction is referenced as temperature anomalies from the 1961-1990 CE instrumental mean global temperature, the Holocene reconstructions are now also effectively referenced as anomalies from the 1961-1990 CE mean.

    10. Estimated how much higher frequency (decade-to-century scale) variability is plausibly missing from the Holocene reconstruction by calculating attenuation as a function of frequency in synthetic data processed with the Monte-Carlo stacking procedure, and by statistically comparing the amount of temperature variance the global stack contains as a function of frequency to the amount contained in the CRU-EIV reconstruction. Added this missing variability to the Holocene reconstruction as red noise.

    11. Pooled all of the Holocene global temperature anomalies into a single histogram, showing the distribution of global temperature anomalies during the Holocene, including the decadal-to century scale high-frequency variability that the Monte-Carlo procedure may have smoothed from the record (largely from the accounting for chronologic uncertainties).

    12. Compared the histogram of Holocene paleotemperatures to the instrumental global temperature anomalies during the decades 1900-1909 CE and 2000-2009 CE. Determined the fraction of the Holocene temperature anomalies colder than 1900-1909 CE and 2000-2009 CE.

    13. Compared global temperature projections for 2100 CE from the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for various emission scenarios.

    14. Evaluated the impact of potential sources of uncertainty and smoothing in the Monte-Carlo procedure, as a guide for future experimental design to refine such analyses.”

    And what would you have done differently? LOL. Rhetorical question since you obviously don’t understand – much less be able to perform — a single one of these steps.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Kevin asks, “And what would you have done differently?” I would never have appended the measured temperature record, using different smoothing criteria. If I did use the measured temperature record, I would have gone beyond just calibrating start/end/overlap, and would have validated with the same smoothing as the previous data. I would then not have to admit the error with the 20th century end points.

      Moreover, i would not ever “Compared global temperature projections for 2100 CE from the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for various emission scenarios.” If this was used to validate then it adds another level of unnecessary uncertainty. Nor would I have used AR4, when AR5 was nearly complete ready for issuance and its projects readily available. These impact the values derived from step 14.

      Nor would I have done Step 9. “Mean-shifted the global temperature reconstructions to have the same average as the Mann et al. (2008) CRU-EIV temperature reconstruction over the interval 510-1450 years….” There is too much controversy associated with Mann’s proxy efforts including Mann et al 2008, https://climateaudit.org/?s=Mann+et+al+2008

      Reply
  29. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev – *Selective* quotation much? Fig 1 in Marcott et al 2013 has 12 panels and a caption explaining it. Try showing the whole thing: All 12 panels of Fig 1

    And the caption:
    Fig. 1. Comparison of different methods and reconstructions of global and hemispheric temperature anomalies.

    (A and B) globally stacked temperature anomalies for the 5° × 5° area-weighted mean calculation (purple line) with its 1σ uncertainty (blue band) and Mann et al.’s global CRU-EIV composite mean temperature (dark gray line) with their uncertainty (light gray band).

    (CandD )Global temperature anomalies stacked using several methods (Standard and Standard 5x5Grid; 30x30Grid; 10-lat: Arithmetic mean calculation, area-weighted with a 5° ×5° grid, area-weighted with a 30° × 30° grid, and area-weighted using 10° latitude bins, respectively; RegEM and RegEM 5x5Grid: Regularized expectation maximization algorithm infilled arithmetic mean and 5°×5° area-weighted). The gray shading [50% Jackknife (Jack50)] represents the 1σ envelope when randomly leaving 50% of the records out during each Monte Carlo mean calculation. Uncertainties shown are 1σ for each of the methods.

    (E and F) Published temperature anomaly reconstructions that have been smoothed with a 100-year centered running mean, Mann08Global, Mann08NH, Moberg05, WA07, Huange04, and plotted with our global temperature stacks [blue band as in (A)]. The temperature anomalies for all the records are referenced to the 1961–1990 instrumental mean.

    (GandH)Number of records used to construct the Holocene global temperature stack through time (orange line) and Mann et al.’s reconstruction (gold vertical bars). Note the y axis break at 100. The latitudinal distribution of Holocene records (gray horizontal bars) through time is shown.

    (I and J) Number of age control points (e.g., 14C dates) that constrain the time series through time.”

    Now, is anything described not as it should be?

    As for smoothing, you’re handwaving. 73 different studies with resolution varying from annual to 500 years. You don’t/can’t treat them all the same smoothing-wise, dolt. And you’re handwaving with no discernible effect. How would you have done it? LOL. What effect would it have on the results? LOL.

    I’m quite positive that quite a few climate scientists would think you’re quite the moron.

    Reply
  30. CoRev

    Kevin, now that I’ve followed your false narrative of Marcott et al’s calibration and validation methodologies, let’s talk about my issue re: Marcott et al 2013, its misuse of the measured temperature record.

    It is apparent he got the idea to just append measured temperature record with minimal calibration (inconsistent smoothing time frames) from his reliance on Mann 2008, and previous versions, technique. If it was OK for Marcott to admit the error in his study, has Mann ever done so? Nope!

    With the near ruling on one Mann’s about to apparently go against him for not providing all the source data and methods in his studies, what does that say about his methodologies? Replication being a bulwark of science, without providing all the source data and methods, his studies have not been replicated. Synthesized, closely copied, but not replicated. It has been a consistent complaint from S. McIntyre.

    It appears that the Canadian courts are about to confirm Dr Ball’s claim. The future outcomes for Mann do not look good.

    Also, I remember you did not believe the models represented climate science, but implicitly believe they provide valuable predictive capability. A new paper shows that we are not as bad as first thought: “Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.

    He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

    Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

    “It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”. From a news article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/we-were-wrong-worst-effects-of-climate-change-can-be-avoided-say-scientists-k9p5hg5l0 and the abstract from the original paper is here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html

    BTW, I do not intend to bite on other false narrative. I provided a list of papers in my initial response, which apparently had not even looked at before calling for references. Now you claim they do not predict global cooling. That’s a continuation of your false narrative, because what I said was: “We might need to watch the N. Atlantic/Pacific oceans and Arctic ice for the next few years. The AMO is shifting to its cold cycle and we may be entering a la Nina.” No claims just a notice of probable events.

    Do the portend cooling? Absolutely! Just look at the original NOAA graph Menzie provided and tell us what has already been happening in 2017. I see an ~0.2C cooler year than that scary 2016. Entering a cooling AMO and la nina are precursors to even more cooling.

    But if you are a believer/alarmist none of that matters, because we just left the record setting 2016. We just ignore that the record was due to a natural event.

    Reply
  31. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev writes: “Moreover, i would not ever “Compared global temperature projections for 2100 CE from the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for various emission scenarios.” If this was used to validate then it adds another level of unnecessary uncertainty. Nor would I have used AR4, when AR5 was nearly complete ready for issuance and its projects readily available. These impact the values derived from step 14.”

    LOL. Used to validate what? No, it wasn’t used to validate *anything* — obviously you can’t read. The comparison of the IPCC reports has nothing to do with their reconstruction or the uncertainties. Your comment amounts to gibberish.

    I’ve already said you’re handwaving with the smoothing. How would you have done it differently AND what would be the effect. Specifically – not handwaving.

    And AR5 was *nearly* ready. Yes, they should just wait …. wait … wait. Then we could complain they didn’t wait for the NEXT IPCC report. Duh.

    Oh, and quit whining about Mann. He’s only a villain in your small little mind. Here – choose one and tell us how it would have changed the paper. Or just admit you’re full of it.
    https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/recon_lj_with_others.png

    Still waiting on those quite a few.

    Reply
  32. CoRev

    Kevin, I told you I’m timed of following you down your false narrative. I’ve made my point about Marcott’s failed use of the measured temperature data, and Marcott agreed with it.. My point was clear.

    You are now just throwing soft smelly stuff against the wall in hopes some of will stick. Find some one else to nit use of earlier proxies in Marcott. It’s your issue not mine.

    Kevin a hint re: your answer to my question: “Is warming since the LIA bad? Was no answer at all. The reason it is such a critical question is because the average voter knows the answer intuitively. Only alarmists have problems with it.

    Reply
  33. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev – twice now you have denied your own quite a few scientists claim.

    Please, who wrote this comment?

    —————————————————————
    CoRev
    September 14, 2017 at 7:26 am

    … It’s not jsut me who have predicting *Global Cooling*. Quite a few climate scientists are also, just not those wedded to the AGW hypothesis ….
    ——————————————————————–

    Are you ready to stop lying yet?

    Reply
  34. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev NOW writes: “It appears that the Canadian courts are about to confirm Dr Ball’s claim. The future outcomes for Mann do not look good.”

    Any references for that from a reputable news source? Best I can find is that this originated with Principia Scientific International back in early July. PSI, the home for nutcases of all shapes and sizes. I.e., ‘fake news’ LOL. CoRev just laps up anything thrown in front of him without for a moment thinking to maybe look for a credible source.

    Reply
  35. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev – I’m more than familiar with the recent paper Millar et all (Grubb is one of the other 9 co-authors). It’s been under discussion at one of the sites I frequent for the past few days. Pretty much same ol’ same ol’. I.e., what’s your baseline for pre-industrial? By some definitions we’re already at +1.3 or +1.4°C compared to pre-industrial. How are you comparing models to observations — apples to apples or apples to tangerines? And is moving from probably impossible to still pretty unlikely a significant enough change to warrant any cheering?

    This is not some earth-shattering new paper. Obviously you haven’t read it – just copy and pasting from other people that haven’t bothered to read it.

    Read more at And The There’s Physics: More time …. really?

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Kevin, thanks for the ATTP link. I had lost it sometime in the past year or so. Now it is bookmarked. i now see where you went off the wall with the models estimates compared with reality.

      You’re right I haven’t read the paper as it is both pay walled nor earth shattering from a skeptics view point. The post-release quotes from the authors are what is often being reported.

      Reply
  36. CoRev

    Kevin timed = tired.

    It’s the graph, not the proxies that is being questioned. Wow, your ignorance is astounding. “As for smoothing, you’re handwaving. 73 different studies with resolution varying from annual to 500 years. You don’t/can’t treat them all the same smoothing-wise, dolt. And you’re handwaving with no discernible effect. How would you have done it? LOL. What effect would it have on the results? LOL.” Kevin, you keep confusing the individual proxies with their visual presentation in the graph for the total time. It’s not how I would do it, but how Marcott et al did it that you don’t understand

    With resolution varying from annual to 500 years, at some point this resolution disparity must be handled as it is unlike data. Unlike because the long resolution data does not contain the shorter resolution’s data for processing. Marcott et al went through their process to reduce the other disparity impacts of this unlike data. To remove the resolution disparity one step in the process is to break the data points into same time buckets so that the overall resolution is standardized and then smoothed to get values for each time bucket.

    Marcott et al went through their processes to reduce the impacts of the various disparities and unlike resolution data. By appending the measured temperature data he has added unlike data to the proxies without going through the process. They then graphed this unlike non-standardized data. At least after being called out Marcott admitted the measured temperature 20th century data did not have statistical significance.

    Why? The purpose of appending the temperature data apparently was to allow them to makes statements like these: “What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F. ” , and a hole raft of other hockey stick references, especially in the press. Even though the 20th century data was not statistically significant compared to the whole of their processed proxy data.

    The dolt here is the one who doesn’t understand the meaning of this common data misrepresentation. It’s the graph, not the proxies that is being questioned. Quit making false narratives.

    Reply
    1. baffling

      corev, is there any way you would accept comparing the 20th century data, which is considered quite accurate, with the proxy representation of the historical data? a graph is apparently not suitable, so neither would a table be suitable. how would you compare them, or would you?

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        What I object to is comparing unlike data. If comparing smoothed data assure that smoothing is applied the same way. If other processing is done to one set at least assure that the same processing is not required on all.

        What Marcott et al and in Menzies Wiki graph they appended the measured temperature data with different smoothing time frames. You should not compare a short term peak to a long term smoothed data peak, because their equivalents have been removed from the long term data. That largely invalidates the comparison, because the peaks and valleys are handled differently. Then to say the 20th century is (long list) of unprecedented claims.

        A real world example of the unlike data effect is how the ice core data is processed. The early demarcations are badly smeared due to friction etc, and the later demarcations do not exist since the material is different, snow and uncompressed ice versus compressed ice. At least these demarcation data are of equal length, annual, throughout, but for long periods at the ends they are not different. Appending the ice core late data with annual Global averaged measured temperature data , if calibration and validation are well well done, could result in useful information. Such an effort still results in comparing unlike data, and only adds another set of issues.

        Poorly done this appending unlike data results in Hockey Stick appearing graphs that are not supported by the data, as in Marcott and Menzie’s updated graph. Don’t confuse my HS reference with Mann’s. His is a different trick. (Climatologists word choice).

        How would I do it? Compare the proxies and temperature on a a local and or regional basis using the same smoothing/processing across all the data and weighting the longest term proxy/temperature higher than shorter term.

        Remember. we are talking about a total average change < 1C fore the entire measured temperature record, and that record starts at a very cold and inhospitable time for the biosphere. Warming unconditionally has been a benefit for the biosphere.

        Reply
  37. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev – You’ve said several times that Marcott admitted being wrong, now you say “At least after being called out Marcott admitted the measured temperature 20th century data did not have statistical significance.” That is factually incorrect . They didn’t admit to anything after being ‘called out’ — the caveat on statistical robustness was already in the original paper. Apparently you *still* can’t read.

    Reply
  38. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev – RTFP! Then perhaps you’ll understand the basis for the comparison. Of course it means actually READING the paper, but ya know, sometimes to understand something you have to put forth a little effort.

    Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P. Climatemodels project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1Bscenario (35) based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).”

    Understanding Fig 3 might help. Didn’t you ever wonder what the high-frequency addition stack was for?

    Reply
  39. Kevin ONeill

    CoRev writes:

    And what *ARE* the authors saying?

    Clarification on recent press coverage of our ‘1.5 degrees’ paper in Nature Geoscience</strong Oxford Martin School or the University of Oxford., Sep 21, 2017

    A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent.

    Both assertions are false.

    Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial (See figures 2c and 3a of our article which show the IPCC prediction, our projections, and temperatures of recent years).

    What we have done is to update the implications for the amount of carbon dioxide we can still emit while expecting global temperatures to remain below the Paris Climate Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees. We find that, to likely meet the Paris goal, emission reductions would need to begin immediately and reach zero in less than 40 years’ time.

    While that is not geophysically impossible, to suggest that this means that measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are now unnecessary is clearly false.

    Authors:

    Richard J. Millar
    Jan S. Fuglestvedt
    Pierre Friedlingstein
    Joeri Rogelj,
    Michael J. Grubb,
    H. Damon Matthews
    Ragnhild B. Skeie
    Piers M. Forster
    David J. Frame
    Myles R. Allen”

    Obviously CoRev sources will issue their own retractions/clarifications. As will CoRev. LOL. Hey, were still waiting on that list of ‘quite a few’ – or getting to the bottom of who’s posting comments using CoRev’s handle.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.