People talkin’ (open thread #1)

Further to recent requests by commenters for a place to raise issues not raised in recent posts by Bryan or myself, and to encourage people not to stray off-topic in those discussions, here’s an open thread. Use it wisely. Usual rules. Keep it polite.

[Lucinda Williams]

267 thoughts on “People talkin’ (open thread #1)”

  1. I've transferred Girma's last comment on the Merchants of Doubt thread to this open thread in an attempt to save the Merchants of Doubt thread.

    He said:

    Bryan Walker,

    You wrote:
    I can perhaps make you relevant to this thread by remarking that you are an example of the failure to understand how painstakingly the conclusions and predictions of the science have been arrived at, a failure on which the authors of the book spend a good part of their final chapter.

    Let us see "how painstakingly the conclusions and predictions of the science have been arrived at":

    Example 1: Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones, Folland and Chris

    I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
    ….
    We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=94….

    Example 2: Mick Kelly wrote to Phil Jones

    Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a public talk and noted that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so and 2008 doesn’t look too hot.
    …
    Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing! http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=92….

    Bryan, what is you response?

    My response is that they seem to me to be saying that they’d like to be able to better account for some of the variations in the upward trend. Taking pains, in other words. But I’m not a scientist, and I suspect you’re not either. And you are predisposed to see villainy where there is none.

      1. Is a qualification required to see whether IPCC’s projections are right or wrong?

        <This is IPCC’s Projection:
        Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.
        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…

        CO2 emission had NOT been kept constant at year 2000 levels and the warming trend for the last 12 years is ZERO deg C per decade.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

        That is, the actual global mean temperature observations with no constraint on CO2 emission are LESS than the corresponding projections if CO2 emission had been held constant at 2000 level, showing no relationship between CO2 emission and global mean temperature.

        No qualification is required to see IPCC’s projections of global mean temperature are wrong.

        1. Girma, there is also no qualification required to see that you are fastening irrationally on a variation in a steady upward global temperature trend. Or to understand that the upward trend is to be expected as a result of increasing greenhouse gas levels caused by human activity. Or to notice that, as is to be expected, glaciers are melting, Arctic sea ice is diminishing, Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are losing mass, sea level is rising, weather patterns in many places are changing. More than enough evidence for drastic steps to curb emissions – not that many have been taken or proposed as yet, partly because of the delaying tactics of the organised denialism of which you are so faithful an acolyte.

          1. From 1970 to 2000, the global mean temperature was at its warming phase, exactly similar to the period from 1910 to 1940 as shown in this chart:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

            The warming rate from 1910 to 1940 was 0.15 deg C per decade. The warming rate from 1970 to 2000 was also 0.15 deg C per decade. The ice melts because that is what it does during the warming phase of the globe. The sea level rises because that is what it does during the warming phase of the globe
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

            From the first chart above, we see a global temperature turning point at year 2000. What is the warming rate since 2000?
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

            Only 0.03 deg C per decade, which is 1/5th the warming rate from 1910 to 1940!

    2. If I was being really pedantic I would point out that "the last 12 years" is actually this.

      I'm sure it was just a mistake on your part – you put "2009" as the end point of your graph, but WFT treats the end date as exclusive, so your graph only included data up to Dec 2008. Nevertheless, even assuming you meant to plot temperatures up to the end of 2009, why would you miss out the last 6 months? You see, when you do little "tricks" like that, it kind of looks as though you are just picking the bits of data that match what you want to say.

      Incidentally, it's not all that hard to find flat periods in the temperature record. See for example 1977 to 1986 or 1987 to 1996. Both of those are 10-year periods of "flat warming trends", but that doesn't mean that warming stopped.

      Does it?

      3. I have always stated I prefer the satellite data as I rightly or wrongly perceive it to be more reliable (or at least of sat data and instrumental data are in agreement both are perceived to be more reliable). I therefore find this quite alarming:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999.5/…

        Maybe I need to change my mind on things in the not to distant future ("When the facts change, I change my mind." – John M. Keynes). I will watch this to see if this up shoot is sustained.

        (Some will argue that the facts haven't changed and that I am simply slow, but whatever, we can disagree on that point).

        1. Good stuff, C3. 🙂

          But to be suitably even-handed, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on a single up-tick (however dramatic) in any single data series. The UAH dataset has had a history of corrections, most recently for a seasonal anomaly (can't remember the details, but Roy Spencer has posted about it). There's a good chance, thanks to El Nino, that 2010 will be the warmest year in every data set, but the last 12 months is already the warmest in GISS (see Hansen's recent paper), and may well be in others. However, the potential for a rapid transition into a La Nina might drop global temps for a bit, though it might warm up NZ (see Jeff Masters' latest post).

        2. I see why you prefer the sat data but you do realise that the published temperature figures are not the raw data? Errors have been found (and corrected) in the past in the data processing at UAH, which is why RSS is often preferred. These days they agree pretty well and show a very warm 2010 so far. Of course, the odd month or 2 doesn't prove much.

  3. It certainly isn't science

    and I'm not sure if it's good English ether, how does one have a 'flat warming trend'?

    /pedantry for the day

    One quick question: that Wood Through Trees site looks fun. Is it credible?

    1. Aye, WFT is credible. Real temperature data. Lots of choices of how it's presented. A valuable learning tool, or a playground for those determined to fiddle the stats. You choose… 😉

      2. I like WFT. We can all see graphs that others produce and we can see how they did it. We can tweak their parameters to see what changes. We can even see the raw data.

        When someone produces their own graphs with a spreadsheet or whatever, we have to take them on trust or ask for the data and any processing of that data.

        WFT also has excellent sections on reconciling the main data sources and a warning about misusing trends under Notes, and Examples of how to use it.

        I have 2 quibbles that I've sent to the author. One is that I don't like the default colours and would like a choice, and the other is that adding series would be much quicker if each additional one defaulted to the previous one. For some reason I've had no reply on either point.

  4. terence

    You wrote, One quick question: that Wood Through Trees site looks fun. Is it credible?

    You can verify it for your self as follows:

    Here is the data from Wood for Trees for Annual Global Mean Temperature for hadCrut3

    Here is the data from Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia for hadCrut3 (Right hand column)

    For example, for 1998, the global mean temperature from both site is 0.53 deg C.

    As another example, for 2008, the global mean temperature from both site is 0.33 deg C.

    As a result, the Wood For Trees site is credible.

    1. Will Girma bother to read it, I wonder? Just in case he doesn't, here's the relevant bit from Easterling and Wehner that Michaels and Knappenberger didn't select –

      It is true that if we fit a linear trend line to the annual global land-ocean surface air temperature … for the period 1998 to 2008 there is no real trend, even though global temperatures remain well above the long-term average. The unusually strong 1997–1998 El Nino contributed to unusual warmth in the global temperature for 1998 at the start of this period resulting in only a small, statistically insignificant positive trend. However, if we fit a trend line to the same annual global land-ocean temperatures for the 1977–1985 period or the 1981–1989 period we also get no trend, even though these periods are embedded in the 1975–2008 period showing a substantial overall warming. Furthermore, if we drop 1998 and fit the trend to the period 1999–2008 we indeed get a strong, statistically significant positive trend. It is easy to ‘‘cherry pick’’ a period to reinforce a point of view …

      [Cue repetition of the same point for the 30th time?…]

      1. When we calculate trends it is only meaningful between global mean temperature turning points (1880,1940 & 2000 for maximums and 1910 & 1970 for minimums).

        It is like finding the slope of a mountain. During your climb, the slope is positive; At the top, the slope is zero; During your decent, the slope is negative. You must start at the top calculate the downhill slope. If you start before the top, you are calculating the trend that starts at the uphill side of the mountain and passes through the mountain and comes out on downhill side of the mountain. This is not the trend for the profile of the mountain. This trend is only applicable for building tunnels through the mountain.

        Let us stick with the profile, and calculate trends between global mean temperature turning points.

        1. The 1998 el Nino mountain is only part of the trend.
          It is not the trend.
          The whole idea of a thirty year trend is to eliminate the temperature noise that el Nino's and la Nina's add to the mix.
          The tunnel, as you put it, is the trend.

        2. That's not how you do time series analysis. There are many excellent text books on time series analysis, but obviously you have never read any of them.

          You cannot simply pick arbitrary points in a time series and call them "turning points".

          The temperature record shows a high degree of autocorrelation, which means that short trends are extremely unlikely to be significant once autocorrelation has been removed from the residuals. Read this guide on how to determine the minimum trend length in the temperature record that tells us something meaningful – you need at least 20 years. Try playing with this applet to see how trends of different lengths look.

          Read also this on why you generally need to use filters when doing time series analysis.

          For example, look at this graph of the HadCRUT data with 12-month, 5-year and 10-year filters applied. Yes, we can see inflection points at 1880, 1910, 1940 and 1950 – but there is no sign of an inflection point at 1998 as you claim, and certainly no sign of a regular 30-year cycle either.

          To really work out what's going on in the temperature series, you need to use statistics such as ARMA.

            1. It says to me that:
              a) You didn't read any of the references I gave you
              b) You still don't know the difference between climate and weather, and
              c) There is no point talking to you because you are just going to endlessly repeat the same old garbage over and over again no matter how many times people tell you that you are wrong.

            1. Um why are you detrending the data and only looking at short term variability (i.e. the weather)?

              Given that you have done this I can answer your question:

              The charts show that there is inter-annual varability in global temperature. Which is a bit like saying that water is wet.

            2. I am detrending to see the cyclic nature of mean global temperature and to clearly show the temperature turning points (1880, 1910, 1940, 1970 & 2000)

              After all the detrending removes only 0.06 deg C warming per decade!

        3. It is like finding the slope of a mountain. During your climb, the slope is positive; At the top, the slope is zero; During your decent, the slope is negative.

          So let me get this straight, whenever you go mountain climbing, should you ever at any point of your journey start heading down rather than up, you assume that you've reached the summit?

          Blimey.

  7. Bryan Walker

    Let us see "how painstakingly the conclusions and predictions of the science have been arrived at".

    Here is the accelerating warming interpretation of the IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…

    IPCC explains the above interpretation by drawing global mean temperature trend lines for four periods from 1856 to 2005 for the first period, from 1906 to 2005 for the second period, from 1956 to 2005 for the third period & from 1981 to 2005 for the fourth period. These trend lines give increasing warming rate from a low value of 0.045 deg C per decade for the RED trend line for the first period, to a greater value of 0.074 deg C per decade for the PURPLE trend line for the second period, to a still greater value of 0.128 deg C per decade for the ORANGE trend line for the third period, and to a maximum value of 0.177 deg C per decade for the YELLOW trend line for the fourth period. IPCC then concludes, “Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming”.

    Is this a "painstakingly" made conclusion?

  8. (continued)

    If this IPCC interpretation is correct, catastrophic global warming is imminent, and it is justified for the world to be griped by fear of global warming. However, is IPCC’s “accelerated warming” conclusion above correct?

    Here is the global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) pattern from 1880 to 2009.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

    What this GMTA pattern shows is that it has cooling phases (1880s to 1910s & 1940s to 1970s) and warming phases (1910s to 1940s & 1970s to 2000s). As a result, IPCC’s comparing of the warming rate of one period that has only one warming phase with another period that has a combination of warming and cooling phases will obviously show the maximum warming rate for the first period. This is comparing apples to oranges.

  9. (continued)

    Comparing apples to apples is to compare two periods that have the same number of cooling and/or warming phases.

    One example of comparing apples to apples is to compare one period that has one warming phase with another that also has one warming phase. From the GMTA chart above, two 30-year periods that have only one warming phase are the periods from 1910 to 1940 and from 1970 to 2000.

    For the period from 1910 to 1940, the warming trend is 0.15 deg C per decade. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

  10. (continued)

    Similarly, for the period from 1970 to 2000, the warming rate is a nearly identical value of 0.16 deg C per decade. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

    Therefore, there is no “accelerated warming” in the period from 1970 to 2000 compared to the period from 1910 to 1940.

    From the above result, we see that IPCC’s conclusion of “accelerated warming” is not a “painstakingly” made conclusion.

  11. Here is the global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) pattern from 1880 to 2009.
    with its linear warming trend of 0.6 deg C per century removed.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    Based on the data, there is no argument about the long term linear global warming of 0.6 deg C per century.

    What the above oscillating GMTA pattern shows is that the global mean temperature has cooling phases (1880s to 1910s & 1940s to 1970s) and warming phases (1910s to 1940s & 1970s to 2000s).

    1. Girma,

      Why are you normalising? That is only required if you have different datasets that cannot be directly compared such as temperature anomaly and sunspot numbers. BTW your detrend doesn't look right any anyway and sure enough…

  12. To those who accuse me of denial!

    The global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) shown in the following chart
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

    can be represented as a sum of a linear component of 0.6 deg C per century of warming and an oscillating component of GMTA shown in the following link:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    From the oscillating GMTA above, we see that it is CYCLIC with cooling phases from 1880 to 1910 and from 1940 to 1970; and with warming phases from 1910 to 1940 and from 1970 to 2000.

    We also see that near year 2000, the oscillating anomaly has started its cooling phase.

    Is global warming of 0.6 deg C in a century something to be scared about?

    This is not denial. This is what the data says.

    1. Data does not actually say anything.

      It's the interpretation of data that is relevant. You have one skewed interpretation that only works in your diagrams when you remove the upwards trend of temperature increases (why not a detrend of >1 and demonstrate temperature is actually decreasing?).

      Perhaps you have been consulting with Mr. Monckton over interpretation of data. I believe he has experience of creative interpretation of data sets.

      Leapy99

      "Don’t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

  13. Leapy99

    You wrote, why not a detrend of >1 and demonstrate temperature is actually decreasing?

    Here is the global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) with its linear trend of 0.6 deg C per century shown by the green trend line.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

    To remove the linear trend line, rotate both the GMTA curve and the linear trend line clockwise (by trying various detred values) until the linear trend line becomes horizontal. The detrend value that makes the linear warming trend line of 0.6 deg C per century horizontal is 0.77, as shown below.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

    No comment on your compliment.

  15. (Gareth and Bryan, sorry about the repetition but this seems the right thread for this.)

    Girma,

    In the All Guns Blazing thread, you said

    According to historical patterns, you cannot win the bet this year. This is why:
    The global mean temperature this year up to April is 0.508 deg C.

    According to historical patterns, global temperature decreases from June until December.

    You supplied a link to Sandra Burger's graph.

    I replied

    Well, I confess that I'm surprised that NH temps don't peak in Jul-Aug, or bottom out in Jan-Feb, but it doesn't matter in any case. It is the anomaly that matters, as someone has explained to you, IOW how warm each month is, compared with the reference (baseline) for that month.

    ctg then told us that this was a redrawn version of Fig 7 in Jones et al 1999 (PDF)

    I looked at that and said

    Thanks ctg,

    That PDF's a keeper. Fig 7 there is in fact what I would expect, and the NH and GLO curves have the same shape through the year that I get in, say, the HADCET figures, although with different values, of course.

    The NH and GLO peaks are in Jul, not Jun, and in fact Aug is also higher than Jun. The troughs are in Jan, not Dec, with Feb also lower than Dec.

    Girma's German (!) graph looks odd. The curves are shifted left relative to the months, and they look too precisely sine-like. What was Sandra Burger doing?
    Report

    Any thoughts?

  18. The Effect of Human emission of CO2 on Global Temperature

    The data required to establish the effect of human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature already exist. The global mean temperature data are available from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and the CO2 emission data are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.

    For the period from 1910 to 1940, the average human use of carbon was about 1 G-ton; and for the period from 1970 to 2000, the average human use of carbon was about 5 G-ton, which is a 5-times increase in human use of carbon.
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2007…

  19. (Continued)

    For the period from 1910 to 1940, the global warming trend was 0.15 deg C per decade; and for the period from 1970 to 2000, the global warming trend was an almost identical value of 0.16 deg C
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    The above results show that with increase in human use of carbon by 5-times in the period from 1970 to 2000 compared to the period from 1910 to 1940, there was no change in the global temperature trend in the two periods.

    This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil, naught, zilch.

    1. No, this conclusively proves that you don't know what you are talking about. The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Given that the growth of CO2 emissions has been exponential (as your first link shows), we would expect to see the same rate of warming during periods in which CO2 was the dominant driver.

      So your graph in fact shows the exact opposite of what you think it shows. Well done, Girma, you have just conclusively proved that CO2 does have an effect on temperature!

      1. ctg

        How so? Please show me what you mean using numbers and figures by comparing the period from 1970 to 2000 against the period from 1910 to 1940.

        1. Er, Girma – I was pulling your leg.

          If you actually read some of the real science on climate, instead of relying on the misinformation at WUWT and such like, you would know that attribution of climatic changes to specific forcings relies on much more than drawing trend lines on temperature graphs.

          For example, read Gavin Schmidt's recent article On Attribution.

          The graph you drew earlier is meaningless without a complete breakdown of all the known forcings over the time periods in question (CO2, SOx, CH4, water, solar, volcanic etc.)

          Your conclusion is that because both periods have the same slope, but CO2 was different, CO2 couldn't have been the driver behind both warming periods. Well, I'm sorry, but that is just flat out wrong.

          First of all, I was semi-serious in my reply – CO2 really does have a logarithmic effect. The equation for radiative forcing due to CO2 is: RF(CO2) = 5.35 ln(CO2)

          So, IF CO2 was the only forcing that was changing during those two periods, then I would expect to see exactly what you showed, i.e. the same rate of warming, because CO2 has been increasing exponentially since the 18th century.

          But I'm not for a minute saying that CO2 is the only forcing that has changed. The reality is that there are many different forcings, negative and positive, and the balance between them all changes all the time.

          However, the simple fact of the matter is that the only forcing that is changing enough to explain the recent warming – particularly over the last 50 years, is CO2. A regression of temperature against ln(CO2) for the last 150 years shows that CO2 explains about 60% of the variation in that time. None of the other forcings can explain as much of the temperature variation.

          1. Ctg

            Okay let us take the natural logarithm of the ratio of the increase (5-times) in human carbon use in the period from 1970 to 2000 compared to the period from 1910 to 1940, which gives a value of ln(5) = 1.6.
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

            However, during the 30 year period, the change in global mean temperature in the periods from 1910 to 1940 and from 1970 to 2000 is a nearly identical value of 0.0155*30 = 0.46 deg C for both periods. You expect to see increased change in global temperature with logarithmic increase in the ratio of carbon of 1.6, but there is none. As a result, the effect of CO2 on global temperature is none existent.

            1. Err, no. The greenhouse effect is not dependent only on the CO2 (and other gases) produced by us.

              It is dependent on the total in the atmosphere. Total CO2 has gone up not by x5 but by about 9% between 1850 and 1940 and by 24% between 1940 and now. For your comparison you should use ln(1.24), which is about 0.22. This gives the change in forcing, not the temperature itself; that's another matter.

  20. Is the Global Mean Temperature Pattern Cyclic?

    The chart for the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia is shown in the following web link:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    To clearly see the GMTA turning points, a detrend value of 0.775, an offset of 0.518 and a 60-months (5-year) GMTA averages are used to produce the following chart:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

  21. (Continued)

    This chart shows the cyclic nature of GMTA. In the period from 1880 to 1910 and from 1940 to 1970, the GMTA was in its cooling phase. Successive cooling phases were 1940-1880=60 years apart.

    In the period from 1910 to 1940 and from 1970 to 2000, the GMTA was in its warming phase. Successive warming phases were 1970-1910=60 years apart.

    The above results show that the global mean temperature is cyclic.

    If the GMTA pattern continues to behave the way it behaved for the last 130 years, there will be global cooling by 0.42 deg C until 2030 as shown in the following chart.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…

    1. You are doing exactly the same thing as McLean et al – removing the warming trend, and then claiming that the residual variation explains the warming trends.

      So, how did that work out for McLean et al? Ooh, crashed and burned…

  25. Have you read any of the references I have pointed you to that explain why it is invalid to do what you are doing?

    Obviously not, or I wouldn't need to ask the question.

        1. If you replace "alternative interpretation" with "totally bogus, unscientific interpretation" you might be on to something.

          But then, that's not really censoring, just filtering out bullshit.

          1. And what a load we have had to suffer here! Frankly after one or two exchanges with an ignoramus I give up. There is far too many gaps in their understanding to make any significant impression. Girma has no appreciation of the Carbon cycle, no understanding of the heating lag and equilibrium in global warming, no comprehension of the difference between climate change and weather patterns, chooses to ignore the effects of La Nina and El Nino on global temperatures, flagrantly cherry picks data to support his flawed hypothesis, and has a completely infantile understanding of statistical method – to name but a few of the glaring gaps revealed so far. So where do you start?

  28. *sigh*

    You are just going to keep posting that graph over and over again, no matter how many times people point out the flaws, aren't you?

    Well, I have to admire your infinite capacity to ignore reality, Girma, but really, you are looking a bit delusional right now.

  29. I am impressed with the graph as it shows the 30-year cooling and warming phases of the globe.

    It is just priceless.

    I wish Nature could publish it and release the world from its current fear of man made catastrophic global warming!

    1. Well, okay then – write it up as a paper. I have contacts with the Royal Society of New Zealand, and I can arrange for your paper to be peer-reviewed. If it passes peer review, it will be published.

      This is a genuine offer, with only one condition – stop posting here. Deal?

        1. Well you are not, as far as I know, banned at the RSNZ.

          As I said, if you write a genuine scientific paper detailing your theories, I can guarantee that it will be given serious treatment, and at least sent for peer review.

          Time, I think, for you to put your money where your mouth is.

          1. Please note – all I am guaranteeing is that you won't fail the "laugh test". Your paper will still have to go through peer review, and I give absoutely no guarantees as to what happens then.

            I'm not saying this to discourage you – if you feel that you have genuinely made a new discovery, then you should publish.

            I would be delighted to learn that we don't need to worry about global warming, so if you have discovered something of genuine merit, it should be published.

            1. Based on the data, I genuinely believe that there is no man made catastrophic global warming.

              Fortunately, we will find whether there is man made global warming within the next 5 to 10 years.

              If there is global cooling for the next couple of decades, then the alarm is wrong.

              However, if there is a warming trend of 0.2 deg C for the next couple of decades as IPCC projected, then the alarm is warranted. In this case, I will become a believer of AGW.

  30. I think the time may have come to accept that Girma is immune to reason, and to move on to better and more productive discussions. One hopes he might do the same, but I'm not holding my breath…

    1. It wouldn't be so bad if he actually responded to questions. He's still ignoring my post about seasonal temperatures.

      BTW he's Dr Orssengo (yes, he's got a PhD).

  31. ctg

    you wrote, no matter how many times people point out the flaws

    Be more specific so that I can respond to you. To say it is flawed is not sufficient.
    What exactly is its flaws?

    1. Well, there are two main flaws:
      1) You can't do attribution from a temperature graph alone, and
      2) You can't do attribution from a temperature graph alone

      Now, I realise that technically that is only one flaw, but it's such a big one I felt it was worth repeating.

      There are several specific problems with that graph which I will move on to in a bit, but the first thing you have to realise is that the temperature graph only tells you about the net result of all of the climate drivers in operation.

      CO2 is not the only factor that can force climate, which has been pointed out to several times already. Therefore, if you are trying to explain the temperature graph in terms of climate forcings, you would need to do a multivariate analysis so that you can work out the relative contribution of the different factors. The RealClimate post I referred to earlier describes how this process works, and it becomes obvious fairly quickly that linear regression – even multivariate regression – is a fairly poor tool for doing this.

      So it doesn't matter how much you contort or distort the temperature graph – you simply cannot use the temperature graph itself to disprove – or prove the link between CO2 and temperatures.

      On, then, to some more specific problems…

      1. I very strongly disagree.

        The single issue is whether human emission of CO2 causes additional global warming.

        The only two variables that are required to verify man made global warming are human emission of CO2 and global mean temperatures.

        The following plot shows that the global warming rate from 1910 to 1940 had a global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade. The plot also shows that the global warming rate from 1970 to 2000 had a global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade.
        During the two periods, human carbon use did increase by 5-times. However, there was NO change in the global warming rate or change in global mean temperature between the two periods. This result alone put into question the theory of man made global warming.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

        1. No!

          During the period 1880 to 2010, CO2 was NOT the only climate forcing that changed, so you cannot look at CO2 alone.

          Because you refuse to accept this simple point, EVERYTHING else you say on this matter is null and void. Still four strikes against you.

          I'm done talking to you now, Girma, until you go away and learn some science. Goodbye.

          1. ctg

            How about putting your money where your mouth is?

            If the annual global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) trend according to hadcrut3vgl.txt from 2000 to 2015 (inclusive) is greater than 0.1 deg C per decade, you pay $100 AUD to The Australian newspaper for charity. Otherwise, I do it.

            Mind you, a warming rate of 0.1 deg C is half that is projected by the IPCC. If you believe what the IPCC says is correct, then you have an easy win.

            Here is the GMTA trend projection by the IPCC:

            For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.
            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…

            1. sorry

              If the annual global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) trend according to hadcrut3vgl.txt from 2000 to 2015 (inclusive) is greater than 0.1 deg C per decade, [I ] pay $100 AUD to The Australian newspaper for charity. Otherwise, [you] do it.

    2. All the remaining comments relate to the graph that impressed you so much, which you claim shows that temperature is cyclic, namely this one

      First off, you say that the cycle has a 60 year period. But your graph starts in 1880, even though the HadCRUT data goes back to 1850. That's a whole half cycle you missed out. Why miss the chance to provide even more evidence for your case? Er, maybe because the missing 30 years does the opposite of what you want it to do?

      Strike 1…

    3. Second is that curious offset – 0.518. You are arbitrarily moving the baseline in order to make it appear as if there is a cycle that moves from positive to negative. See this for a comparison of your cycle against the same plot without the offset. A cycle that goes from -0.3 to -0.7 about an average of -0.5 doesn't sound quite so convincing.

      Now, the offset in WFT graphs is mainly used to enable comparisons between series that use different baselines (for example to compare HadCRUT and GISTEMP on the same graph, you would use and offset of 0.09 on the HadCRUT series).

      But you still really need to use a baseline that can be derived from the same dataset. In the case of HadCRUT, the lowest baseline period I can find is 1891-1920 (climate normals always end with a year ending in zero). This period has an average anomaly of -0.42°C compared to HadCRUT's 1961-1990 baseline.

      So I suppose you could use that as your baseline, but that would give you this, which has your trend line at an inconvenient -0.1°C.

      Strike 2…

      1. Here is the graph of the annual global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) with its trend.

        Graph: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

        Data: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

        From this data, the linear warming trend from 1880 to 2010 is given by the equation Linear GMTA = -0.52 + (Year-1880)*0.00596. From this equation, for year 1880, Linear GMTA = -0.52 deg C. Therefore, in the above graph, the green trend line crosses the vertical temperature axis at –0.52 deg C.

        From this data, for future reference, note the year and the GMTA pairs (1880,-0.25), (1998,0.53) & (2008,0.33)

      2. (Continued)

        We detrend the GMTA graph by rotating both the GMTA and its trend line clock wise about the point (1880,-0.52) until the green trend line becomes horizontal. This is achieved when dtrend=0.77 as shown below.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

        This graph shows the oscillating component of the GMTA. In this graph, we know that the y-intercept of –0.52 deg C is the value of the linear trend for the year 1880. As a result, this initial value can also be removed from the oscillating component of the GMTA by shifting both the GMTA and the horizontal trend line upwards by 0.52 deg C as shown in the following graph.

        Graph: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

        Data: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

      3. (Continued)

        Now, the above graph shows only the oscillating component of the GMTA. Note that GMTA = Linear GMTA + Oscillating GMTA.

        To check the validity of the Oscillating GMTA shown above, we can use it to calculate the GMTA.

        For example, from the oscillating GMTA data, we have the following year and temperature pairs: (1880,0.27), (1998,0.34) & (2008,0.08).

        From the equation Linear GMTA = -0.52 + (Year-1880)*0.00596, the corresponding values for the above years are: (1880,-0.52), (1998,0.19) & (2008, 0.25).

        As GMTA = Linear GMTA + Oscillating GMTA, using this equation, the corresponding values for the above years are: (1880,-0.25), (1998,0.53), (2008, 0.33). These values agree with the values noted at the beginning of this post. As a result, the oscillating GMTA graph shown above is a valid presentation of the data.

      4. (Continued)

        Unfortunately, there is short-term noise in the Oscillating GMTA. To smooth this, a 5-year average (compress=60 months) of the GMTA are used as shown in the following graph:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/comp…

        This graph shows GMTA turning points in 1880, 1910, 1940, 1970 & 2000. It also shows a 30-year cooling phase of GMTA from 1880 to 1910 and from 1940 to 1970; It also shows a 30-year warming phase of GMTA from 1910 to 1940 and from 1970 to 2000. This shows that the GMTA pattern is CYCLIC, and the effect of human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil.

    4. Then we come to the compress.

      The first thing to note is that compress:60 is a very aggressive smoothing. This basically takes the average of 60 (monthly) data points, and represents that as one data point, then just draws the line between those points. So the 1560 monthly data points get compressed down to just 26 points, spaced every 5 years. By doing this, you have eliminated a huge amount of the variance. Look at how different values of compress affect the variance. The light blue line is the one you used – it's not really a very good fit to the red line. Now comparing that to a more traditional approach to smoothing, a 5-year moving average.

      The side effect of doing this compress is, oddly enough, that you have actually enhanced the warming trend. If we look at your compressed graph without the detrend, we can see that that trend line looks really quite convincing. In fact, an OLS regression on that trend gives an astonishing r² of 0.808. Significant? I'll say – Student's t of 10.056 with df=24 gives p less than 0.0005!! Wow. So the warming trend – which you casually discard, explains over 80% of the variance in your compressed data. So the cycle that you are so impressed with only accounts for less than 20% of the variance in the data, and yet you claim this is the major feature of the data, not the highly significant warming trend? Yeah, right.

      Amusingly, you even managed to overstate the case for warming. A linear regression of the uncompressed data gives an r² of only 0.55 – still a significant relationship, but only explaining 55% of the variance instead of your 80%.

      Strike 3…

    5. Now, if this was baseball, you'd be out already. But…

      Last but not least there is the detrend. You say that you are only doing this to see the cycle inherent in the data, but there is a problem with that. The way that WFT does the detrend is to take whatever value you enter, divide that by the number of data points – 1, and then subtracts multiples of that amount from the raw amount. So in this case, that is 0.775/25 = 0.031. The second point has 0.031 subtracted from it, the third point has 0.062 subtracted, and so on up to the 26th point which has 0.775 subtracted from it.

      Then WFT draws the lines between these new points. So it is the points that get translated, not the lines. This is not a rotation of the graph, it is a transformation, so the resulting line has a different shape to the un-detrended line. Compare the blue line and the red line – note for example after the sharp peak in 1940 how the blue line and red line progress at distinctly different angles relative to the peak.

      So, much of the appearance of your cycle is just an artefact of the transformation you have applied, rather than being a real feature of the data.

      That's Strike 4.

    6. So, to summarise: you can't tell if CO2 is the cause of warming or not from the temperature graph alone, so your basic premise is null and void in the first place.

      Even if you could, the tricks you have performed on the temperature graph have no statistical merit, and the "cycle" you have conjured up is merely an artefact of your distortions, and ignores the basic fact that, all things considered, it has been warming fairly consistently for the last 150 years.

      Is that specific enough for you?

      1. it has been warming fairly consistently for the last 150 years.

        Yes, but only by 0.6 deg C per Century!

        Very important, this warming is reduced when the oscillating GMTA is during its cooling phase but enhanced when the oscillating anomaly is during its warming phase.

  32. Thank you to all.

    I have mostly said what I wanted to say regarding to the relationship of human emission of CO2 and global temperature.

    I am extremely grateful for the website hosts for giving me this forum. It is just like releasing a caged bird to fly. Thank you again.

  33. Disproving Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming.

    Looking at the following single chart alone is sufficient to come to this conclusion that there is no catastrophic man made global warming.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    This chart shows the same warming trend of 0.15 deg C per decade for the period from 1910 to 1940 as the period from 1970 to 2000, though there was a 5-times increase in human emission of CO2 between the two periods.

    1. Why don't you read previous responses before repeating your claims? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 24% (x1.24) since 1940, not x5, and the relationship is logarithmic, not linear.

  34. (continued)

    And what is the warming trend since 2000?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    Only 0.03 deg C per decade, which is 1/5th the warming rate from 1910 to 1940!

    Fortunately, we will find whether there is man made catastrophic global warming within the next 5 to 10 years.

    Based on historical global mean temperature pattern, there should be global cooling for the next couple of decades. If this is true, then the current alarm is not warranted.

    However, if there is a warming trend of 0.2 deg C for the next couple of decades as IPCC projected, then the alarm is warranted. In this case, I will become a believer of AGW.

    1. However, if there is a warming trend of 0.2 deg C for the next couple of decades [STARTING FROM THE GMT TURNING POINT OF YEAR 2000] as IPCC projected, then the alarm is warranted. In this case, I will become a believer of AGW.

  35. TrueSceptic

    I am not sure how to interpret this graph.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9…

    It shows global mean temperature (GMT) decreasing from June until December. Does this mean that the GMTA will on average also decrease until December?

    You wrote, It is the anomaly that matters, as someone has explained to you, IOW how warm each month is, compared with the reference (baseline) for that month.

    It is my first time to see this graph, and I am not sure how to interpret it. You may be right.

  36. Global Mean Temperature Turning Points

    When calculating global temperature trends, thou shall only use points within successive turning points (1880, 1910, 1940, 1970, 2000, 2030 etc) as shown in this chart:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    For example, a trend from 1950 to 1990 is meaningless as there is the year 1970 turning point between the two end points. As another example, a trend from 1990 to 2010 is also meaningless as there is the year 2000 turning point between the two end points.

    1. Thanks. (I've noticed that I sometimes miss replies when they're indented.)

      Well, you already did, when you claimed that in the NH the 2nd half of the year is colder than the 1st. You first did this 3 days ago.

      As I've said all along, in the NH Jul & Aug are warmest and Jan & Feb are coldest, as shown by Jones's Fig 7.

      I can't make any sense of Sandra Burger's version.

      Lets take an example from the SH. As expected, Jan is warmer then Dec, and Jul is cooler than Jun. Yes, I know it's just one example but this tallies with Jones's graph, not with Burger's.

      On your other point, I think you still don't understand anomalies. It makes no difference which part of the year is warmer or colder on average. The anomalies are differences between the figures for each month and the baseline for that month. As an example, we could have (all figures °C)
      Jan baseline 4.0, 2007 7.0, anomaly 3.0
      Jul baseline 16.0, 2007 15.0, anomaly -1.0
      The temp was much higher in Jul but the anomaly was much lower!

        1. Good. So you agree on which halves of the calendar year are warmest and coldest in each hemisphere, and that it doesn't matter anyway when it comes to anomalies?

            1. Messages and replies sometimes get confused on these blogs/forums, so I just wanted it to be clear.

              Thanks,

  37. TrueSceptic

    Could we change our bet?

    If you are okay with it, is the following suitable to you?

    If the annual global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) trend according to hadcrut3vgl.txt from 2000 to 2015 (inclusive) is greater than 0.1 deg C per decade, you win. Otherwise, I win.

    Here is the GMTA trend projection by the IPCC:

    For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…

    I wanted to change our bet because the result of this new bet has more significance on the validity of the theory of man made global warming.

    1. No.

      Firstly, we agreed on the bet last year.

      Secondly, 5 years is far too short to show a trend that we know can be hidden by noise.

      Thirdly, you claimed that cooling is already happening, yet you now want to bet on a positive<i/> trend being less than projected.

      How does all this fit in with your cyclical idea? Will it cool or warm over the next 10 years?

  38. Try again (preview would be nice).
    … a positive trend being less than projected.

    How does all this fit in with your cyclical idea? Will it cool or warm over the next 10 years?

  40. Global Mean Temperature Projections

    Let us regularly come back in the coming years to see which of the following two global mean temperature projections are realized:

    1. IPCC’s accelerated warming of about 0.2 deg C per decade: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…

    OR

    2. Cyclic global warming and cooling:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…

    By the way the current rate of change in global mean temperature is 0.03 deg C per decade, which is 1/6th the IPCC's projection of 0.2 deg C per decade. (Disregarding the shouting about the x th highest of temperature records)
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    As year 2000 was a turning point of global temperature, the starting point of future warming trends up to 2030 should start at year 2000.

    Unfortunately, when the IPCC's projection for the global warming trend completely falls apart, they will start to say global mean temperature is not an indicator of global warming! Some have already started to say this.

  41. Richard Feynman’s Caltech 1974 Commencement Address
    http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCu…

    … we all hope you have learned in studying science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards.
    ….
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
    ….
    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

    Has the IPCC followed any of Feynman’s advices?

  42. If the IPCC’s projection of 0.2 deg C per decade applies, the global anomaly will increase by 1.8 deg C by 2100. Fortunately, according to the data, this is an exaggeration.

    The actual observed warming rate is 0.03 deg C per decade and if this rate continues, the global anomaly will increase by 0.27 deg C by 2100. Where is the catastrophic man global warming?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

  43. (sorry)

    If the IPCC’s projection of 0.2 deg C per decade applies, the global mean temperature anomaly will increase by 1.8 deg C by 2100.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…

    Fortunately, according to the data, this is an exaggeration.

    The actual observed warming rate is 0.03 deg C per decade and if this rate continues, the global mean temperature anomaly will increase by 0.27 deg C by 2100.

    Where is the catastrophic man made global warming?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    1. Nobody here agrees with you

      Leave me out for a second!

      Everybody and IPCC:
      Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…

      CRU:
      The observed global mean temperature rate is 0.03 deg C per decade, with no constraint in CO2. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

      Identical global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade for the period from 1970 to 2000 as the period from 1910 to 1940 (i.e. 100 years ago!). http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

      Either IPCC or CRU is wrong. Who is it?

  45. Girma, do the phrases "complex non-linear system" "exponential forcing" and "tipping points" mean anything to you?

    What, exactly, is your field of expertise? Classics?

  46. Girma, I recommend you read the Gluckman speech referenced earlier; it contains a section particularly relevant to yourself, IMHO, namely:

    "It is this unique positioning of climate change science as a predictive science that causes discomfort for a few scientists, especially those from those components of disciplines such as engineering or physical sciences that do not deal with complex systems and uncertainty and who may regard climate science as a trivial application of basic physical science principles rather than appreciating that while based on physics, it involves particularly complex interactions including those with the biotic world."

    1. Thanks Rob.

      I wish we wait about five or so years to be perfectly sure which way to go. The observed current rate of change of global mean temperature is 1/10th of IPCC projections (0.02 against 0.2 deg C per decade). This has given us some more time to compare theory with observation. In the mean time, let us leave CO2 alone and focus on real problems like poverty, deforestation etc.

      1. Some people have been focussing on poverty, deforestation, etc., for a long time, since before anyone had heard of climate change or global warming, in fact. Do you imagine that those people have stopped doing so, and just who are they anyway (I'll give you a clue: they tend not to be free-market enthusiasts)? Who do you imagine benefits from poverty and deforestation?

        I'm all for halting and reversing deforestation. I have been for a very long time. Have you? What do you imagine would change if we were to "leave CO2 alone"?

        I'm all for addressing world poverty. I have been for a very long time. Have you? What do you imagine would change if we were to "leave CO2 alone"?

  47. The question is wheatear the theory that human emission of CO2 causes global warming is supported by science. If governments choose to restrict CO2 emission based on political consideration, that is fine with me, and they can go ahead and do it. However, when they say science says so then it is every science graduates responsibility to check this assertion.

    Science is about the facts, the truth, and the data. As Rchard Feynman’s said, it is about a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards.

    Examination of the data does not support the theory that human emission of CO2 causes global warming as shown in the following graph.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

  48. (continued)

    The first period is from 1910 to 1940 & the second period is 60-years latter from 1970 to 2000. After human emission of CO2 for 60-years, the rate of change of global mean temperature of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000 is nearly identical to that from 1910 to 1940. This data alone strongly contradicts the theory of man made global warming.

    In addition, the data shows the pattern of the global mean temperature is cyclic as shown in the following chart:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

  49. (continued)

    This chart shows the following:
    1) 30-years of global cooling from 1880 to 1910.
    2) 30-years of global warming from 1910 to 1940.
    3) 30-years of global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
    4) 30-years of global warming from 1970 to 2000.

    Based on the above pattern, assuming there is no shift in climate in the coming 20 years, it is reasonable to predict:

    5) 30-years of global cooling from 2000 to 2030.

    If this prediction is realised then the cyclic nature of global mean temperature will be confirmed. Otherwise, it will be rejected. This will be clear just in the next five to ten years.

      1. We just started the cooling phase. We are still at the peak of the previous warming. Just wait about five years and you will see it with your own eyes the increasing freezing winters and snow covers like the 1970s.

        1. "Your" predicted cooling started in 2000.
          This is 2010 and you ain't doing too good.
          Your 5 years were up 5 years ago.
          You are past due.
          Go away.

          1. You can not change from a warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade of the 1970 to 2000 to a negative trend suddenly. You must first pass through a zero warming rate as shown below:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

            The negative rate will follow. Just wait and see the next five to ten years.

            Fortunately, if the current trend continues, there will be no global warming by 2100. Six degree centigrade by 2100 was a massive exaggeration made by the callous.

            1. Wait a minute, that's the first time you've said anything about passing through a flat period in between the warming and cooling. Are you changing your story?

              Your oh-so-impressive graph has a very sharp and sudden turn around at 1940 – where was the flat period then?

              So your graph shows two different types of warming-then-cooling cycles, thus proving conclusively that temperature is not cyclical (using your logic).

  50. Ctg

    If you see closely, the slope of the global mean temperature anomaly is flat for about a decade in the 2000s as shown in the following graph:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…

    My “oh-so-impressive graph” shows sharp turning points because it shows a 5-year average of global mean temperatures.

    Honestly, are not you surprised that there is a reasonably legible cyclic signature in the global mean temperature data? You don’t like to see this signature, but to avoid confusion about what we are talking about, here it is:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    I accept that the cyclic nature of global mean temperature has yet to be verified by comparing it with observation. If the global temperature trend is for cooling in the next couple of decades, then it is a valid pattern. Otherwise, it is an invalid pattern and will be rejected.

    1. Now it's the "next couple of decades" that we need wait to see if there is a cooling trend. You said before that we would be able to tell in 5 years.

      Your story is changing every time you post – quick, better post the same links another ten times so that people won't spot the great gaping holes in your story.

    2. Your graph sucks.
      Your "model" as you describe it, doesn't match up to past data.
      How on earth can you possibly make any sort of prediction of the future when your "model" can't even get the past right?

  51. ctg

    Only a cooling trend until 2030 ("next couple of decades") and then a warming trend after about 2030 will validate whether global mean temperature is cyclic.

    A cooling trend in the next five years will only support the cyclic pattern, but not confirm it.

  52. A cyclical global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) model is shown below.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…

    How well the observed data is modelled by this cyclic pattern can be established from a scatter plot of the observed and model GMTA values as shown below.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…

    For example, for year 1998, the observed GMTA was 0.53 deg C and the model GMTA is 0.47 deg C. In the above figure, for year 1998, the pair (0.47,0.53) is plotted as a dot. In a similar manner, all the paired data for model and observed GMTA values for years from 1880 to 2009 are plotted as shown.

    1. And the story changes yet again. Now it's not a cycle, it is linear warming plus a cycle.

      Is there any chance that you can just tell the same story for two posts in a row, Girma? I'm getting a bit lost as to which version of your theory we are on…

      1. ctg

        Is there any chance that you can just tell the same story for two posts in a row, Girma?

        That is unfair!

        Yes the global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) is modelled by the sum of a linear and cyclic patterns.
        http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…

        What does the equation, Linear GMTA = -0.52 + 0.0059(Year-1880) in the above graph signify?

        What does the equation, Cyclic GMTA = 0.3Cos(((Year-1880)/60)*2*3.1416) in the above graph signify?

        2. So, earlier you said:

          This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil, naught, zilch.

          Now you are saying that temperature record is compose of a linear warming trend plus a cyclic trend. So I'm confused – is the linear portion of your graph due to CO2 or not due to CO2? If it is due to CO2, that would seem to contradict your earlier statement that the effect of CO2 is "nil, naught, zilch".

          If, on the other hand, you are saying that the warming trend is not due to CO2, do I understand that you are now claiming that there are not one, but two mystery drivers of climate, previously unknown to science – one that induce the cyclic trend, and one that induces a warming trend?

          What, exactly, are you proposing that the physical mechanism behind these two mystery forcings are?

            1. Actually, the current rate of global warming is only 0.03 deg C per decade, less than the 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940 (100 years ago!)

            2. Just answer one question, Girma – yes or no.

              Does the IPCC claim that CO2 is the only factor that influences climate?

              Yes or no?

            5. It's interesting that you chose not to answer my question, but instead answered a completely different question. Why is that, I wonder?

              Okay, so I will state it again: Does the IPCC claim that CO2 is the only factor that influences climate?

              As I very much doubt you will ever answer this question, I will answer it for you: No.

              As you can see here, there are many different forcing agents, some of which are positive, and some of which are negative. (There are also some other natural forcings that are not shown, as these have not changed significantly in the last 150 years).

              At the bottom of the graph it shows the "net radiative forcing", which is the sum of all the negative and positive values. Not that the net forcing is a bit less than that of CO2 alone, and substantially less than the total of all the manmade GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, halocarbons) – because of the offsetting effects of aerosols and cloud albedo.

              Note also that this graph refers to the forcings in 2005 as compared to pre-industrial. The relative contributions of each of the components has varied over time.

            8. So, what does that mean for your graph?

              Well, you are doing a univariate analysis of temperature against time. This means that in your analysis, temperature is acting as a proxy for the net radiative forcing, not just for CO2.

              If you wanted to see what contribution CO2 has made to temperature changes, you would need to do a multivariate analysis, including temperature, CO2, CH4, N20, O3, Black carbon, aerosol direct effects, cloud albedo, solar irradiance and volcanic activity.

              But you haven't done that – you are only looking at changes in temperature, so all that tells us is that the net radiative forcing has changed over time.

              The flat period in the 1940s – 1970s is easily explained due to the massive increase in aerosols from the spike in industrial activity starting in WWII. The various clean air acts and acid rain legislation led to a drop in aerosol production (relative to CO2), which then reducing the offsetting negative forcing.

              In short, then: all your graph shows is that net radiative forcing has changed over time. It does not, and cannot show the effects of CO2 alone. Your conclusion is therefore 100% incorrect.

            9. The flat period in the 1940s – 1970s is easily explained due to the massive increase in aerosols from the spike in industrial activity starting in WWII. The various clean air acts and acid rain legislation led to a drop in aerosol production (relative to CO2), which then reducing the offsetting negative forcing.

              It is extremely hard to believe that half a century ago when the world population was half its current value the level of pollution was greater. It is just unbelievable.

            11. No it's not! During the 1960's – 70's it started to become very apparent that the huge outpourings of unscrubbed smog from factories in Europe and the USA were having a dramatic effect on lakes and forests in the Northern Hemisphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
              The resulting acid rain was turning the lakes acidic as well as the ground killing aquatic life and forests. The damage was so obvious that clean air acts were instigated in almost every country and the grubby emissions of the 1940's to 1970's were "scrubbed" of particulates. The result was much clearer air. Anyone who lived thru the 1940's to 1970's will vouch for this. We have seen what it was like recently in the 2008 Olympic in Shanghai. Obviously China still hasn't quite acheived the same level of clean air as that of the of the West – they still use rather old technology in coal fired power stations. But let me assure you Girma that there were times in the 1960's when the air in our major cities was much like that of Shanghai in 2008. When China catches up with arresting air pollution – your "cooling period" will receive another major warming trend.

  53. (continued)

    This chart shows a strong linear relationship (correlation coefficient, r=0.88) between the model and observed GMTA. With high correlation coefficient of 0.88, the chart shows the important result that the observed GMTA can be modelled by a combination of a linear and sinusoidal pattern. The positive slope of the trend line indicates a positive relationship between model and observed GMTA. That is, global cooling from the model indicates observed global cooling, and global warming from the model indicates observed global warming.

    As a result, global cooling until 2030 is predicted by the model.

  54. 2) After human emission of CO2 for 60 years, the global warming rate from 1970 to 2000 of 0.16 deg C per decade is nearly identical to the value of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, showing the effect of human emission of CO2 on global temperature is nil, zilch, naught!.
    ” target=”_blank”>http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend

  55. Data Disproves Accelerated Global Warming of the IPCC

    1) Observed global warming rate of 0.03 deg C per decade is about 1/6th the IPCC projections of 0.2 deg C per decade.

    IPCC Projections: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…

    Observed Trends: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    2) After human emission of CO2 for 60 years, the global warming rate from 1970 to 2000 of 0.16 deg C per decade is nearly identical to the value of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    1. Oh look, another story – now it's 0.03ºC per decade, but you said it was 0.06ºC per decade a couple of posts ago.

      It must be nice to live in the Girma universe, where a new reality comes along every ten minutes.

      1. ctg

        Ctg

        Since GMTA = Linear Anomaly + Cyclic Anomaly, we have

        Rate of Change of GMTA = Rate of Change of Linear Anomaly + Rate of Change of Cyclic Anomaly

        Substituting the known values of rate of change of GMTA = 0.03 deg C per decade & rate of change of Linear Anomaly = 0.06 deg C per decade, we get

        Rate of Change of Cyclic Anomaly = 0.03 – 0.06 = -0.03 deg C per decade

        As a result, the cyclic anomaly has started its cooling phase as shown at the top, right hand corner of this plot after year 2000:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

        1. Well, because he would have to change the content to get it published in a real journal. Like including some actual statistics, for example.

          But, no, I think our Girma is happier publishing in blog science, where physics doesn't matter, and he can make up his own statistics to his heart's content.

          1. ctg

            Show me any flow in my post at climaterealists.

            Show me a statistics that invalidate my interpretation. I will learn. But to just say “it is flawed” is easy and none of us get closer to the truth.

            1. I showed you several reasons why your chart is bogus. You responded by simply repeating your original assertions.

              But the first and foremost problem is that your whole approach is simply invalid, as I have pointed out several times.

              You cannot say what is causing changes in temperature just by looking at the temperature graph, no matter how you twist it, detrend it, turn it upside down or whatever.

              Cannot. End of story.

              Your conclusions about whether CO2 is causing warming or not are completely without scientific merit, as you would very quickly discover if you did submit a scientific paper to a real scientific journal.

              Frankly, your stuff is so unscientific, I doubt even E&E would publish it.

    2. Here's more on that 30 years of Global Cooling of Girma's.

      <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=5&submitted=Get+Report"&gt http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=5&submitted=Get+Report” target=”_blank”>;http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=5&submitted=Get+Report

      Of course,if you <a href="http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/09/cycles.html?showComment=1253465997904#c5784651098724826467">plot it against a rising trend hard enough it's a veritable ice age! WWWWWW eh , Girma? Shouldn't that be WWWWWWooooooooooo?

      Dr Girma Orssengo, PhD – the poor man's Lord Monckton!

  59. ctg

    Frankly, your stuff is so unscientific, I doubt even E&E would publish it.

    What?

    Here is the data. No spin. No obfuscation. No statement with out backing it with data! Just the science.

    IPCC: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/…

    Let us verify the above statement of the IPCC using the global mean temperature data from the climate research unit of the University of East Anglia shown in the following graph.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

  60. (Continued)

    This graph shows the rate of global warming for the period from 1910 to 1940 was 0.15 deg C per decade, and that for the period from 1970 to 2000 was 0.16 deg C per decade. This result shows that in the second period, after human emission of CO2 for 60-years, there is no increase in the rate of global warming. This data conclusively disproves the theory that human emission of CO2 increases the rate of global warming. It just does not!

    In addition, the current rate of global warming is only 0.03 deg C per decade since 2000, which is only 1/5th the rate of 0.15 deg C per decade for the period from 1910 to 1940, hundred years ago.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    ctg, show me which paragraphs above are wrong and how they are wrong?

    1. All of the above is wrong, as I have explained before.

      For a start, as I said before, even if CO2 were the only forcing agent (which it's not), then seeing the same rate of warming at two different periods would not disprove CO2's effect, as CO2 has a logarthmic effect.

      But as I have also said, you are not looking at the effects of CO2, you are looking at the net radiative forcing. The IPCC does not dispute the fact that net radiative forcing has changed over time.

      You are arguing against a straw man, Girma.

  61. Thank you Bill, I had missed DenialDepot insightful appreciation of Girma's work. Faced with such glowing tributes from the emeritus skeptics there, I feel I must withdraw my criticism of Girma's posts here.

  62. Girma, since you seem to ignore every correction, I dont whether posting this will help.
    However, a proper comparison would be the graph at Model data comparisons – you know with error bars and such like. The models do not predict short term trends as has been stated to ad nausuem. And yes, data counts. Lets your "natural cycle" account for upper stratospheric cooling, TOA energy imbalance, observed IR radiation spectrum, contraction of upper atmosphere etc.

    2. Another excellent look at this was Tamino's Bet. Obviously, ignoring error bars is simple-minded in the extreme.

      I tried to interest Girma in this, but we settled on the simple "warmer than 1998" bet.

      1. It would interesting to extend Tamino's bet idea to the ETS.

        People (and businesses) should be free to choose their tax rate under the ETS. The actual taxes due would then be linked to temperature. If you chose a rate that was more than the actual warming that occurred, you would get a rebate. If you chose a rate that was lower than the actual warming, you would be liable for the difference between what you had paid and what you should have paid.

        It's then up to everyone to make their own decisions about what is actually going to happen, rather than just hoping AGW is going to go away.

        Girma, for instance, is so firmly convinced that there is going to be cooling any day now, that he would pick a zero tax rate, because then he doesn't have to pay any tax now, and will make money once temperatures start to drop.

        Of course, in the real world, he'd be faced with mounting evidence of the folly of his ways, but hey – that's his choice.

  63. Oh, but that is what the models predict and what hadCrutv3 measure so surely that is what you compare. Climate models predict FAR more than just global mean temperature so you evaluate one model ("its a natural cycle") with another ("its mostly our emissions") by comparing ALL the predictions of both. Now you show me how any postulated cause for a natural cycle is going to cool the upper stratosphere whereas the observations on stratosphere so fit well with predictions from AGW.

  65. Rate of global warming decreased by 1/5th from 0.15 deg C per decade for 1970 to 2000 to the current value of 0.03 deg C per decade for 2000 to 2010 as shown in the following graph.

    1970 to 2000: rate of warming of 0.15 deg C per decade http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    2000 to 2010: rate of warming of 0.03 deg C per decade http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    Where is the catastrophic man-made global warming?

  66. Girma, what, exactly, is your problem? Some form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or just wilful ignorance masquerading as pseudo-science?

  67. Rob Taylor

    When you scare the world with catastrophic man-made global warming, my "obsessive-compulsive disorder" is the least I could take to show there is no catastrophic global warming and to do everything I can to release the world from this fear.

    100-years ago, from 1910 to 1940, the rate of global warming was 0.15 deg C per decade. 40-years ago, from 1970 to 2000, the rate of global warming was 0.16 deg C per decade. That is, human emission of CO2 for 60-years did not have any effect in the rate of global warming.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    After 90-years of human emission of CO2, the rate of global warming from 2000 to 2010 was only 0.03 deg C per decade. That is, after 90-years of human emission of CO2, the rate of global warming decreased by 1/5th. This invalidates the theory that increase in human emission CO2 results in increase in the rate of global warming.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

      1. Statistics for me? Direct your advice at the IPCC that projected:

        For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

        Observation shows a global warming rate of 0.03 deg C per decade. That is, the IPCC projection is an exaggeration of the actual warming by 6-times. Why does IPCC likes to exaggerate?
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

      1. Rob Taylor

        Rob, how about this one?

        For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

        Rob, just for you, the observed rate of global warming is 0.03 deg C per decade.

        Is IPCC’s projection based on “numerology” or astrology?

  68. And for something completely different… who thinks the "intense debate" system is a backward step?

    To me its slow to load, and infuriating in way the "jump to" often just doesnt work – takes you page but not comment and then have hunt through the threads.

    2. Yes, I've noticed the same thing. Sometimes on a slow connection — and my broadband link is often flakey — the comments don't load at all. I'll change back, if that's what people want. Means a bit more work for me, but I suppose I can live with that… Opinions please…

      1. Gareth

        Is it possible to tag each post with a number, and for every new post to go to the bottom of the thread?

        I think, if possible, this will be an easier system.

        1. If we revert to the native WordPress system, yes, that's possible. If comments are \”nested\” though (as they are now), those numbers are liable to change… If they're not nested, you have to scroll up and down the page to follow a conversation. Again, let me know what you prefer, and if I revert I'll take that into account.

          1. Yes I find it very slow at times as well, and sometimes impossible to follow the conversation – or more to the point pick up where the conversation left off when there are a lot of comments such as here. On the other hand there are some nice touches which would be a shame to loose – perhaps more aesthetic than practical but a far nice look to the page. But then you are the one who has to do all the work Gareth far be it for us to say. And thanks for the opportunity to participate.

            1. The personal reputation scores are hard to replicate, as is the "reply by email" feature (which I find really useful, and Bryan & I can moderate by email as well), but most of the other stuff can be done by plug ins. I'll ponder, but I might revert to the old system with an extra plug-in that allows comment voting. We'd end up with a system more or less the same as Frogblog, if you want to take a look.

  70. Dear ctg

    Is it that hard to believe the data?

    Rate of warming from 1910 to 1940: 0.15 deg C per decade
    Rate of warming from 1970 to 2000: 0.16 deg C per decade http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

    In the two periods, the main difference in the “radiative forcing” (a term used for obfuscation) is the addition of human emission of CO2 for 60-years.

    As result, human emission of CO2 has no effect on the rate of warming.

    In addition, the data shows:

    Rate of warming from 2000 to 2010: 0.03 deg C per decade. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

  71. (continued)

    Dear ctg, if this rate of warming continues, the global mean temperature will increase by 0.27 deg C by 2100. Why are you scaring the world with a non existence catastrophic global warming?

    As 60-years of human emission of CO2 did not have any effect on the rate of global warming, why not wait 5-years to check whether we would have global cooling in the coming years?

  72. Since this is an open thread, I propose a different direction.
    Is there any interest in the proposition that Girma is certifiably insane?
    We have days worth of evidence and there is evidence on other sites, where I might add he has been banned, that do not cast a good light on said Girma..
    I also propose a second option….he is not here to make any kind of sense, nor to add to the general body of knowledge, but merely here to cause confusion and draw attention to himself.
    Since the net is such a democratic state of affairs, I propose a vote on whether the accused is of good mind or if he is a stark raving moron.
    The "stark raving" can be ignored if desired.
    Just a thought……

    1. Dear TomG

      According to TomG, “When loosing a football game, go for the leg.”

      Rate of global warming 100-years ago: 0.15 deg C per decade.
      Rate of global warming 40-years ago: 0.16 deg C per decade. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

      Conclusion: the effect of the addition of human emission of CO2 for 60-years on rate of global warming is NIL

      Current rate of global warming: 0.03 deg C per decade. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from…

      Conclusion: No catastrophic man made global warming.

      All data. All science. No obfuscation.

            1. Gareth with all due respects I will bow to your decisions.
              Afterall this is your site and I am but merely a guest.
              That said, I have observed with growing distaste Girma's wild falsehoods and actually took another's suggestion and travelled to the Deltoid site and suffered what seemed like 2 hours worth of his bizarre ravings.
              I am not a doctor so my comment on his mental health is unqualified, but what else is there?
              If he is indeed of right mind what else can his motives be to continuously spout basic nonsense after being constantly corrected by others who are obviously better qualified.
              What else?
              To be blunt, I am not qualified in the sense that I have doctorate in any field of expertise; but to be equally blunt, I am a member of the general population with family who depend on those with the degrees to guide us through times of trouble.
              Girma is not a guide in any sense of the word.
              Of that much I am sure.
              Girma doesn't have a ball and yet wants to play a game.
              But this is not a game.
              Therefore should I not play the man?
              You have the ball.

            2. TomG

              Bachelor of Technology (Mech Engineering)
              Masters of Applied Science
              Doctor of Philosophy
              Grad Dip in Computer Science

              Are these not enough qualifications?

            3. I appreciate your frustration, since Girma seems immune to logic, but the best way to deal with that is to ignore him. That's the time-honoured practice.

              Girma: we've given your theories a very good run for their money, but you aren't convincing anyone. Your only recourse, as others have suggested, is to try to get them published — but you will only run into the same objections you've encountered here.

  74. OK, I’ve switched off Intense Debate, and tried to reinstall the edit comments feature, together with comment rating, but there’s obviously a magic button to press that I haven’t found yet. I haven’t given up though…

    1. OK: I’ve got it all working, if not entirely tweaked to my satisfaction. I’ll post another open thread today – this one’s getting long and unwieldy, and I can’t fix the out-of-order confusion that crept in when I switched off Intense Debate.

  76. The majorities do not agree with Girma.

    The majorities imply the following graph shows accelerated global warming.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

    Girma says the above graph shows decelerating global warming from 0.25 deg C per decade to 0.03 deg c per decade, which is a factor of about 8.

    Who is correct?

  77. The majorities do not agree with Girma.

    The majorities imply the following graph shows accelerated global warming.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

    Girma says the above graph shows decelerating global warming from 0.25 deg C per decade to 0.03 deg c per decade, which is a factor of about 8.

    Who is correct?

    1. Those graphs actually show nothing because the results do not show the statistical significance of the fitted trend. There is too much noise (variation) over the two short periods shown to have any confidence in the lines that are presented.

      This is the downside of Woodforthetrees site. It let’s people with no apparent understanding of time series analysis loose to play with the data but with no awareness that you can torture any data set to give the answer you want unles you are constrained by and understand the difference between statistical analysis and data mining. Why does it not present goodness of fit and significance test information with the output?

      And I am sorry I don’t believe anyone really has a masters in applied science has not had sufficent statistical training not to know that what they have been presenting here as analysis is a load of cods whallop.

  78. a load of cods whallop.

    It is simple arithmetic.

    Rate of global warming rate from 1990 to 2000: 0.25 deg C per decade
    Rate of global warming rate from 2000 to 2010: 0.03 deg C per decade

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

    Conclusion: Rate of global warming DECREASED from 0.25 to 0.03 deg C per decade, by a factor of about 8.

    To ask to use statistics instead of simple arithmetic is obfuscation: there is no accelerated global warming!

  80. How did you determine the trend if you didn’t use statistics? Subtraction, addition? Woodforthetrees determines trends using OLS regression. That is statistics, based on statistical theory and subject to a number conditions that must be met.

    As the site itself states;

    “After many requests, I finally added trend-lines (linear least-squares regression) to the graph generator. I hope this is useful, but I would also like to point out that it can be fairly dangerous…

    Depending on your preconceptions, by picking your start and end times carefully, you can now ‘prove’ that:

    •Temperature is falling!
    •Temperature is static!
    •Temperature is rising!
    •Temperature is rising really fast!”

    Which is exactly what you are doing.

  81. Why would scientists allow themselves to be recruited to essentially political objectives?

    ….

    Kuhn also suggested why catastrophic man-made climate change theory — even if it is found to have been greatly exaggerated, or even falsified — will take a good deal of killing. “The transfer of allegiance from paradigm to paradigm,” he wrote, “is a conversion experience that cannot be forced.” The problem is that there is no other clear and simple climate theory to which to be “converted” at the moment.
    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/15/junk-science-week-climate-junk-hard-to-dump/.

    Exaggeration of catastrophic man-made global warming:
    The current rate of global warming of 0.03 deg C per decade is 1/8th the projected value of 0.2 deg C per decade.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

    Falsification of catastrophic man-made global warming:
    After 60-years of human emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, there was no change in the rate of global warming in the period from 1970 to 2000 compared to the period 1910 to 1940, which demonstrates there is no relationship between increase in human emission of CO2 and rate of global warming.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend

  82. Doug

    Please plot us the global warming trends for the period from 1990 to 2000 and the period 2000 to 2010 on the same plot to see whether the global warming trend is decreasing, increasing or has stayed the same in the last two decades.

    Doug, please do it.

  84. Trends in Global Mean Temperature Since 1880

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1910/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

  88. The validity of an idea is determined not by whether it is widely believed or reviled, but by whether it obeys the rules of logic.

    Rate of global warming for period from 1910 to 1940=> 0.15 deg C per decade
    Rate of global warming for period from 1970 to 2000=> 0.16 deg C per decade
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend

    Though there was human emission of CO2 for 60 years, there was no change in the rate of global warming between the two periods. As a result, the theory of man made global warming is not supported by the data.

    In addition, the global warming rate of the last decade was only 0.03 deg C per decade, which is 1/5th the global warming rate of the decade before the last one. As a result, accelerated global warming is not supported by the data.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

    We will best be rewarded if we strive to listen to the dictates of reason, not public opinion.

  90. Sure, but if you’re not on an “open thread”, please keep your comments relevant to the subject of the post. Please don’t simply repeat the arguments you have made repeatedly and at length here… Thanks.

Leave a Reply