Just a quick item on the pause in global warming that is said to have happened over the last X number of years. I took NOAA's instrumental record since the late 19th century and calculated the average deviation for "surface" temperatures from a baseline for the entire period. Surface temperatures refer to the lower part of the atmosphere and sea surfaces. When you look at a graph of "global warming" expressed in temperatures, this is almost always what is meant (this leaves out a lot of things, including the poles, much of Africa, and deeper ocean waters). But it is a standard and a fairly useful one.
If there was a significant pause in the overall upswing of temperatures for any period of time, I reasoned, it would show up as a cluster of negative years ... years where the temperature for that year is lower than the previous years. More to the point, "hiatuses" (and I actually don't like that word because it is being used correctly .... "pause" is a better word) if they happen on a regular basis should show up as a cluster, not necessarily continuous, of negative years.
Look at the graph above. This is simply a graph that shows a point for each year that is cooler than the previous year. There are tests that one could do on this data. For example, a sign test or a run test would tell if there was any clustering of negatives. But I'm not going to bother with this at this point.
It seems to me that negative years are fairly uniformly distributed at the large scale and seem random. There may in fact be some real clusters in here, but if they are, they are not recent.
So there you go.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I have no idea what you are trying to show here.
Well, the, I guess that's a fail on my part!
What I'm showing is that the distribution of years of lower temperature is not very concentrated at any point of time, certainly not the last X years where X is the purported period of hiatus.
Looking at it another way, I'm showing that there is long term variability, wigglyness if you will, in the record.
This is something that you can see if you look at a basic anomaly graph. But those who claim a pause apparently can't see that, so I'm trying to show it another way. To help them.
> “hiatuses” (and I actually don’t like that word
> because it is being used correctly
Eh?
I get it - there is no substantial length of time during which subsequent years X1, X2, X3, etc. are all colder than previous subsequent years X1 -1, X2 - 1, X3 - 1, and so on. Thus, no substantive evidence of prolonged, climatologically sginifant cooling. Thanks for this useful exercise!
Hiatus can mean pause, but pause is a better word.
No offense but I think Tamino does a better job explaining the "hiatus". Despite this I enjoy your blog.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998…
Glad you enjoy the blog. I’m not attempting to explain the hiatus here, just putting a graphic out there that I thought might be useful. I discuss the so called pause here developing a possibly useful analogy, here in relation to Curry’s stadium wave model vis-a-vis Michael Mann’s research, here where I attempt some more graphics to help people understand it, here where I talk about how we draw conclusions from scientific data, and a couple of other places.
Tamino does a great job of course, such as here, discussing Cowtan and Way and elsewhere. Also, Skeptical Science has this excellent two level post.
I was probably little to harsh.
Another way to see the hiatus is always good.
Keep up the god job and is nice to see a site with um..not so many "sceptics". They are usually very active with their um..theories all over the net.
I only allow them on certain threads.
"Probably because they, like you, choose to ignore the science."
You are talking about you my dear.
Have you reviewed how much the NOAA has manipulated the data that you used for input?
Quiz time: which climatologist said, "I suspect future revisions [of the data] will bring it into ever-closer agreement with the models."
I agree with Jaget, no offense, likewise. Both yours and Tamino are effective, yours in showing that you can have downward tends in any large-scale upswing, Tamino's in that the Hiaitus isn't there when you look past the "onset" of the 21st century "ice age"... But if you REALLY want a good visualization on how cherry picking data I recommend Lacatena & Cook's "Escalator" plots which shows how cherry picking "flat" or even "cooling" periods that start with a local annual maxima can be strung together to debunk the practice completely. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
I would like to believe my friends about climate, but I can't. It's just too much to swallow.
Is there any other scientific field where there is the same short term/long distinction weather/climate?
I think climatology is making up stuff and not a real science. I would like to be proven wrong, because I don't like the idea that some of my friends are crazy.
OTOH, people on WUWT don't seem crazy, they seem to have common sense, a lot of it. They may be wrong on many things, but they seem like regular guys.
Yes, the escalator plots are in the post I linked to in the comment. The escalator really shows how the cherry picking is done!
Probably because they, like you, choose to ignore the science.
Reconcile that comment with the implication that you have an open mind or have tried to understand the issues.
re #12 (I'll pretend this is a real comment, though the comments on other topics by the same author let me know it is unlikely).
Other fields of study that need to reconcile multiple scales, components, and timelines include: ecology, physiology, statistical mechanics, astrophysics, and metallurgy. That's just off the top of my head. As for more informative places than WUWT, try the Royal Society website, or the National Academy of Sciences. One of their jobs is to explain the science to the layperson, without assuming that 97% of scientists are fools or frauds.
"(I’ll pretend this is a real comment, though the comments on other topics by the same author let me know it is unlikely"
Let's begin with a personnal attack, so clever.
"ecology, physiology, statistical mechanics, astrophysics, and metallurgy"
Which of these fields use "weather models"?
"97% of scientists are fools or frauds."
Only some climatologists are. 97 % of less than 100.
In case you failed common sense 101: there is no working physiology "weather" model, or ecology "weather" model. Metallurgy climate is the same as metal weather. Same for statistical mechanics, and astrophysics.
I see...
"AOTEINEEMTDASAAEEDE"
in the Morse code above the graph.
Regarding WUWT and "common sense" - common sense is good for many things, such as "the sky appears to be blue," "gravity is real," "apple pie tastes good" and "people respond positively to kindness" - but not so good for other questions, such as "Is the Earth round or flat?", "Does the sun circle the Earth?" "Are all objects are made of tiny particles between which are mostly empty space?" and "Are humans are too puny to make the climate change?" The former class of observations can be made with ordinary human senses and sensibilities on a constant basis with ordinary hour-to-hour or day-to-day timeframes. The latter class of much bigger things, and much smaller things, or things on much longer or shorter timeframes, are "common-sense-proof" - that is, common sense works poorly for these types of questions, and the greater rigors of the scientific method must be used to tease out the factual truth. Those fellows at WUWT who seem to have "common sense." well - it ain't gonna do much good when something as big and durable as climate change, and the effects of 7,000,000,000 humans, is concerned.
I knew you wouldn't like the common sense, cos" you know, you have none.
You are fake scientists.
Morons.
What a brilliant retort. Are you real scientist? Are you even qualified to say who, or what, *is* a real scientist?
I did not think so.
Real scientists spend years or decades, dedicated to finding the factual physical evidence and letting it lead them to wherever the truth lies.
Fake scientists ignore much of that evidence and instead use "common sense" to choose which evidence fits their bias.
Please dftt. But note, this is what happens when parents don't properly supervise their little twerps.
"Real scientists spend years or decades, dedicated to finding the factual physical evidence and letting it lead them to wherever the truth lies"
They find the truth how?
USING COMMON SENSE.
Moron.
Wrong. Real scientists do not use common sense to find the truth. They use the scientific method.
Learn the difference.
WRONG
The scientific mathod is based on common sense.
You are an idiot.
Sigh. OK, you know everything. Let us know when you figure out how common sense informed us of relativity, a round earth, electron tunneling, the distances to the nearest quasars, the speed of light, the diameter of an atom, the forces that create tornadoes, ball lightning, the human genome and quarks.
Good luck.
BTW, name calling and insistence on a gut feeling each constitutes a logical fallacy - something which scientists try to avoid.
For additional ways to paint yourself into a logical corner, see here, Mr. Scientist.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.pdf
Then there's this. Like it or not.
http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/communicating-science-…
"BTW, name calling and insistence on a gut feeling each constitutes a logical fallacy – something which scientists try to avoid."
Does not.
Shitpile.
@Greg Laden, recommend that XXX be banned here. No contribution whatsoever to intelligent discussion.
"Based on observations we make, science operates under theories, constantly revised and checked by experiment."
Then how is climatology in any way scientific?
@corrector
"I have no idea what you are trying to show here."
Well, it's quite easy. As there are quite few stations in Africa and Antarctica (where warming is very likely) suitable for long term records, increasing surface temperature will result in cooler or stagnating NOAA temperature data.
@Bruce Jensen (#33):
I agree that there's no intelligent contribution there. But xxx is a troll — like most, afraid to give his real name. Ban him and he'll be back under another 'nym.
As recommended in #25, DFTT.
ezezezeg: In case you failed common sense 101: there is no working physiology “weather” model, or ecology “weather” model. Metallurgy climate is the same as metal weather. Same for statistical mechanics, and astrophysics.
You mean the way astrophysics predicts a star can go for billions of years producing an essentially steady output, then pass a tipping point and go nova? Yeah, no short-term/long-term distinction there.
/sarc
"You mean the way astrophysics predicts a star can go for billions of years producing an essentially steady output, then pass a tipping point and go nova? Yeah, no short-term/long-term distinction there."
EXACTLY
You have no short-term/long-term distinction here.
Moron.
@Argon (#21):
Nice to see someone else looked at the graphic and thought, "That must be Morse code."
corrector: OTOH, people on WUWT don’t seem crazy, they seem to have common sense, a lot of it. They may be wrong on many things, but they seem like regular guys.
Most of the posters I've seen on WUWT make assertions without backing them up, and resort to name-calling when faced with arguments they dislike. If that's how you define common sense, it's a definition I don't share.
This has been a wonderful example of the bankruptcy of climate denialism. Ignore all the examples of complexity in science, deny the existence of the many statements by the national bodies of scientists about the reality and concerns of climate change, and lie, lie lie. All while using multiple pseudonyms to hide the fact it's a small group trying to make a lot of noise.
They even ignore the meanings of English words — as in this latest burst of "brilliance" from xxx.
Explain star weather and climate.
Moron.
Figure it out for yourself.
Troll.
xxx is gone.
So, you have no real example of weather/climate in other fields?
So, you have no real example of weather/climate in other fields?
Do you have a REAL example of weather/climate in other fields?
Funny how the three of you are asking the same question.
And studiously missing the point. Ecology is a perfect example of local and network effects. Of course, reading and thinking would disrupt epistemically closure.
"OTOH, people on WUWT don’t seem crazy, they seem to have common sense, a lot of it. They may be wrong on many things, but they seem like regular guys."
XXX, you definitely belong at WUWT. Solidarity for the brotherhood of regular cretins. Not even special ones.