Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Arm wrestlers
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

'Global warming stopped in 1998'


Posted by Coby Beck (Guest Contributor) at 9:26 AM on 07 Nov 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. As mentioned above, you could choose to examine the last 30 years -- that is when both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately .2 degrees C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998.
  2. You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis -- the start of the late 20th century warming, and as such a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6 degrees C warming.
  3. You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis -- when the recent warming started in their record. It shows around .5 degrees C warming of the smoothed trend line.
  4. You could choose 1880 in the NASA record -- it shows .8 degrees C warming.
  5. You could choose 1855 in the CRU record -- it shows .8 degrees C warming. As with the trend above, we can not say it is over without many decades more data indicating cooling.
  6. You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis -- that is its entire length. It puts today about 1 degree C above the first three centuries of that record. In that kind of analysis, today's record will be hidden from view for many decades.
  7. You could choose to look at the last 1,000 years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:
    Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
  8. You could choose to look at the entire period of time since the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 years ago. Then the conclusion is that GHG warming has reversed a long and stable period of slight downward trend, and we are now at a global temperature not experienced in the history of human civilization -- the entire Holocene. It will be many centuries until such a long view of today's climate is available. The situation is a bit more urgent than that!

That about covers any period of time relevant to today's society. "It has stopped warming" is only supported by selecting a single year out of context and using a seven-year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. That's a classic cherry pick.

Warmer..and Loving It !

I was channel surfing between breaks in football Sunday and caught a few minutes of a Global Warming scare flick (I mean, PBS documentary). This one was about arctic ice melting.

First the narrator says that the ice of some lake was frozen "year round". But then the guide for the explorers says it was free "a few months a year". Well, never mind, because now it's ice free almost all year round. And guess what -- the native people there love it! Now they have free passage and trade.

The funny part is the hapless "environmentalists" who go through the village trying to get someone to say what a bad thing it is...and yet, everyone of the Aleuts seems to be liking the warm weather and open water!

There's one fellow, who they really try to arm twist. He says how its getting warmer and warmer there every year.

"Well, how do you feel about that?" says the environmentalist, a foot from the guy's face, with his enviro-buddies right behind him...looking like a bunch of hoods asking "you want this loan, don't cha?".

The guy nonchalantly says "oh, I think it's good. We're poor and warm weather means we'll spend less on fuel".

"But, but" sputters the environmentalist, "what about the polar bear!?!"

"Oh", says the Aleut, "he can go North...to where it's colder".

See, this was the first time I ever had sympathy with a tunda person, because he reacted and spoke like every other person that I know -- he likes warm weather and he likes to save money. He didn't go into some epileptic fit about "Shamanadoda" and start decrying the spirit of the Polar Bear. Nope. He wanted to sip pina coladas and watch the ice melt!

No Hockey For Cons?


Well, how come you can ignore a hockey stick in 1998 and a downtrend in 2005 and say, you have to wait to see what's happening a few years in the future and yet, Al Gore gets to project his chart up through the ceiling?

climate change is more than global warming

I think this is a perfect example of why we need to frame this debate topic as 'climate change' not 'global warming' since there are different changes happening on the globe that affect regional climates, which can't necessarily be reflected in a global average temperature change.

can someone kick this ass off of here?

Jabailo is obviously a troll.

maybe I'm too harsh

Apologies.
It's just that when you consider the style of conversation and obvious lack of understanding of the issue, jabailo's posts are nearly equal to a yahoo discussion:

you fag libs

you stupid cons

morons...

LOL

Well it really is a complex subject with immense implications
:)

Holocene Temperature Variations

Can someone help me out on interpreting this graph?  It appears the heavy black line is considered to represent the global average temperature, and all data is plotted as difference from a datum point labeled "zero."  The high point on the trend line, at a difference of about +0.3 deg., occurs a little more than 7500 years ago.  The overall trend has been downward ever since, bottoming out maybe 600 years ago at -0.5 deg and rising pretty steadily every since.  The trend seems to clearly show the medieval warming period and the little ice age that the skeptics claim are ignored in the hockey stick model.  But if the trend shows steady warming for 600 years, and we're just now back to -0.25 deg., doesn't it seem likely that non-anthropogenic factors which have been responsible for warming over most of the last 600 years are still in play?  And while the graph definitely shows an ongoing upward trend, with the exception of the the last 600 years the most recent temperature is still lower than almost every value for the last 7500 years.  What's the basis for statements that we're breaking records?    Am I just mis-reading this graph somehow?

Bob Wilson
You present no evidence, jabailo ...

But I'll take this on anyhow. This website is not manned by sneering environmentalists for you to hate.

While your story may be true, you could at least link to it or something. Climate change skeptics gloat over and massage anything that contradicts climate change theories, its effects, or its possible negative repercussions. All of it is presented as evidence of a conspiracy pushing climate change, communism, anti-Americanism, um ... communism ... Well, if the preponderance of evidence indicates that climate change is occurring and that it will negatively affect the world in X and Y ways, then I guess it could look like a conspiracy to someone who simply refuses to look at the evidence and, instead, attacks the messengers.


so why are the Inuit planning on suing the US govt

...oh, and the polar bears can't simply "go north". If the Artic becomes ice free (as is expected). Polar bears depend on ice for their survival.

Anyway this post is really idiotic and beside the point. Rather than addressing the issue of global warming it seems to be saying "hey I'm doing fine here in Bumblef**k, Texas so y'all should enjoy it too"

Levelling off.....NOW!

Former Science Mag Editor Speaks Out Against Global Warming Hysteria

The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity.



another case of looking at small amounts of data

and even if they are what about the other temperature records. What's more, it's hard to tell without a good 30 year record the overall trend. (We do tend to get mini-cycles that are periodic over several years.)

Alot of those arguments in that article seem rather weak. I'll comment on that page.

Cherry Pick

It never ceases to fascinate me the duplicity of those pushing Global Warming. For years we have all been listening and reading news reports that the earth is warming and every heat wave is proof positive of the approaching nightmare. Now, it turns out there has been no warming over the last 10 years, but that does not mean anything because we are "cherry picking". What B.S.! Laws passed, Supreme Court ruling granted incredible power to states and government to stop our death and destruction, taxes imposed, fear mongering terrifying children all based on lies, lies and more lies. If the cool down continues, Those pushing this junk science will be labeled for what they are - charlatans and con artists who were only interested in acquiring grants and prestige at the expense of science and peoples welfare. The names of these people will be remembered by history as truly wicked people who perpetuated fear to gain power.

The fatal flaw

Several years ago Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen proposed a theory linking global climate with the activity of the sun, via cosmic rays.

Svensmark's subsequent lab results demonstrated an observed link between cosmic rays and cloud formation.  Whether the CLOUD study now underway at CERN will confirm this on a larger scale is a matter of conjecture at this point.

Critics of Svensmark's theory point out that, while it may have shown fairly good correlation with global temperature in earlier years the link after around the mid-1980s is poor.

This is often referred to as the "fatal flaw" in Svensmark's theory.

This argument may be valid, but it raises the question:
Is there an actually observed link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature?

The Hadley Centre has a published record of "monthly globally averaged land and sea surface temperature" that goes back to 1850.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ... ...

Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration only started in 1958.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.htm ... ...

IPCC estimates based on ice core readings go back to pre-industrial times. These show an estimated gradual increase from around 285 ppm in 1850 to 315 ppm in 1958, when actual measurements started.  See the IPCC 2007 SPM report:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

CO2 concentrations have risen steadily over the entire period.  The rate of increase has accelerated slightly over the period, particularly following WWII.

Global temperatures have risen over the period, but a closer look at the record shows that this has been anything but steady.

Period.......Trend....Years..Change    

1860-1879    +0.196    20    +0.39    
1879-1906    -0.047    27    -0.13    
1906-1940    +0.161    35    +0.56    
1940-1976    -0.020    36     -0.07    
1976-1998    +0.175    22    +0.39    
1998-2008      0.000    10     .0.00    
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
Change is linear change over period in degreesC

Over the past 150 years since the record started temperature has increased by around 1.1C.

Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a slight cooling trend.  

This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (at +0.196C per decade this period shows the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken) and represents around 30% of the total warming recorded since 1850. There was essentially no increase in CO2 during these "horse and buggy" years.  

This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906 (-0.047C per decade).  

Then came another warming trend until around 1940 (+0.161C per decade), representing around 40% of the total warming recorded since 1850.

This period was followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976  (-0.02C per decade), during the post-war boom period of rapid increase in CO2

Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase (+0.175C per decade) from 1976 to around 1998.  This trend occurred during a period of rapid CO2 increase and represented 30% of the total warming from 1850 to today.  This period has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).

Since the end of the 20th century, this rapid warming trend has stopped.  Over the ten-year period since 1998 there has actually been a very slight cooling trend, despite the continued high rate of increase of CO2.  Starting the trend with the year 2001 rather than the strong El Niño year 1998 shows the same flat to slight cooling trend.

In summary, there were three warming periods that contributed to the overall warming plus two periods of cooling and the most recent "plateau" showing essentially no change.

And it appears that last 25 years of the 20th century provide the only observed link between CO2 and temperature.

The immediately preceding period had CO2 increase with cooling.

The immediately ensuing period since the end of the 20th century shows slight cooling with high increase in CO2.

The late 19th century warming period showed the highest rate of temperature increase of all periods recorded, with essentially no CO2 increase whatsoever.

The early 20th century warming period also showed warming, with relatively small increase in CO2.

In summary, the actually observed data show that there does not appear to be a very "robust" link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.

IPCC has used the late 20th century warming cycle to demonstrate the anthropogenic cause stating in its AR4 WG1 report Chapter 9 (p.681):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1- ...

"The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used,... stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming."

In other words, since no other cause can be identified to explain the observed warming other than anthropogenic forcing (from greenhouse gases), this must be the cause by default.

This assumption is based on the rather weak foundation of greenhouse theory, 25 years of observation, model studies, and conjecture.  

Most damaging for this assumption is the fact that no analysis has been made of the two prior warming periods in order to support this suggestion, despite the fact that these periods together count for 70% of the warming observed over the entire record.

Strangely IPCC does not even mention the late 19th century period that showed the highest decadal rate of temperature rise of all periods since measurements started.  Nor has an analysis been made to determine the causes for this period of rapid warming.  It is obvious that it could not have been caused by increased CO2, as there was no significant increase.  Sunspot records show no unusual solar activity that could have been a factor. What, then, were these "unexplained" causes?  Why have they not been investigated?

As regards the warming period of the early 20th century, IPCC states (p.691):
"Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming."

Again there are apparently "unexplained" causes resulting in "uncertainty", but, again, no studies have been made to clear up this uncertainty and attempt to understand how large an impact these "unexplained" causes might have had.

Could these same "unexplained" causes have been the principle forcing factor for the late 20th century warming, rather than the assumed "anthropogenic forcing" from greenhouse gases?  How can we be sure this is not the case?

Only by making these analyses and clearly identifying that there were no major "unexplained" factors in the two earlier warming periods can one make the claim that AGW is the predominant forcing factor for late 20th century warming

To simply assert that this is so "by default" since no other explanation can be found is no argument at all.

Is this the "fatal flaw" in the AGW theory?

Max


debating with intelligence

J. Bailo and amtr, please debate with intelligence. Pouting, superstition, ignorance and conspiracy theory don't mix well with science.

J. Bailo, your arguments are petty and small. What an eskimo thinks of climate change has no bearing on whether his ecosystem will successfully transition through rapid changes. A rapidly changing ecosystem is most likely an unbalanced one, and an unbalanced ecosystem is ripe for invasive species, disease, extinctions, drought, flood, and famine.

amtr, "those pushing this junk science" are many hundreds of scientists all over the world who publish in peer-reviewed journals. Not ONE article in the legitimate scientific journals over the last ten years has refuted global warming, and not ONE has strongly doubted there is at least an anthropogenic component. About half of the hundreds of climate-change-related articles in these publications the last decade have asserted that man's contribution to the problem is somewhere between likely and nearly certain. If you can't trust that, then I suppose nothing can convince you.

Manacker, thank you for presenting a smart counterargument. My thoughts on all this:

(1) On a macro, philosophical level, scientists don't form a consensus for their health. Any scientist would be happy to be the one to make a final proof for or against something as huge as climate change. The scientific community tends toward facts and proofs since the work of any one scientist rests on the foundations established by the others, and it invalidates one's own work if the foundations are proven unsound. So scientists like to check each others' work and explore new possibilities. I cannot believe that your arguments have not been specifically addressed to some extent in studies up to this point. I don't have anything to point to to back it up, though. Take a look--I bet it's out there.

(2) More specifically, I understand our climate to be one of cycles on many different levels. Ice ages operate in the tens of thousands of years, sunspots in eleven-year turns, etc. So why is it at all surprising to you that the data isn't in a straight line? I think that specific matter is addressed in the section of the IPCC report you linked to.

(3) The environment is a more complex system than most skeptics (yourself excluded, I imagine) seem to realize. There are innumerable climatalogical and meteorological cycles to consider, along with countless factors from cow methane to deforestation, water vapor to glacial movement. Any computer model of this sort of system will be imperfect, and I feel uncertainty from fifty to a hundred years ago is likely due to the fact that we now measure and track so many things in so many more ways than we did then. And all this aside, CO2 is just one of those many factors being studied (and potentially blamed) for warming. Looking on page 684 of the IPCC report you cited, there are a couple of graphs that would seem to suggest that when all anthropogenic factors are considered (not just CO2), only since about 1935 has there been any trend away from what the climate might be doing without our influence. So apparently your CO2 vs. temperature chart alone doesn't paint the bigger picture that these scientists are seeing.

(4) I am waiting for someone to discover that this tremendous upturn at the far right side of the graph is due to some oversight in measurement, recordkeeping, tolerances, or calibration, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely given the number of people now studying the problem. Have you seen the number of different ways that past climates are being studied and quantified? Tree rings, ocean salt content at various depths, animal and plant fossil records, core sampling, and on and on and on. There are lots of checks and balances here.

Again, good to hear from a skeptic who's at least thinking about it. It's good brain exercise to have a quality argument with someone you disagree with.

People Are People...So Why Should It Be?

What an eskimo thinks of climate change has no bearing on whether his ecosystem will successfully transition through rapid changes.

That statement challenges me at two levels.  First of all, I tend to think of an Eskimo as primarily a human being...an intelligent adaptive sentient person.   You seem to think of an Eskimo as a species that might best be kept in a zoo...that he can only live in one ecosystem unlike all other people.   As far as "his ecosystem" again, he is a person.  As long as he can get on a 787 and fly to Hawaii then that is his ecosystem too and I'm sure he'd have a ball there just like you and me (well, me anyway).

A rapidly changing ecosystem is most likely an unbalanced one, and an unbalanced ecosystem is ripe for invasive species, disease, extinctions, drought, flood, and famine.

Nature is never balanced.   Nature is dynamic and ever changing.   Have you read "The World without Us" (short form, rent "I Am Legend")?  Left to its devices, Nature, by nature, is "invasive".


missing the point

As always, I feel you're missing the point. In being concerned for humans, we must be concerned for other species, and the environment. If you don't understand this, you should learn about the life cycles of food, fuel, plastics, pollution, and other important elements of our lives and then return to the debate. I'll continue on the assumption that you do understand how the condition of our environment affects our lifestyle, consumption, and quality of life, and how these things affect the condition of our environment.

You have to be able to see it's not the Eskimo I'm worried about. He'll be fine if it gets a little cooler, or a little warmer. Or probably even a whole lot warmer. But your arguments reflect a startling lack of understanding that other animal species, which lack clothes, insulated structures, tools, and such, are slower to adapt. And plants are even slower, as it takes an enormous amount of time for one habitat to replace another. Even if animals can keep up with rising water, shifting weather patterns, and temperature changes, their food supplies somewhere down the food chain cannot. On top of that are enormous logistical problems posed by rising sea levels. If that theory pans out, there may be a period of such rapid sea rise that tens of millions of people need to relocate in an impossibly short amount of time. And not just that, but the infrastructure (roads, homes, factories, gas stations, chemical plants, oil refineries, sewage systems) they leave behind will be underwater, leeching toxins into the sea on an unprecedented scale.

So what we're talking about here is not a normal imbalance of nature. Nature is normally quite balanced on the scale we're talking about--years and decades. Wildfires and invasive species remake localities, but it is only with the influence of man that we see massive destruction of habitats, extinctions of species, and now, probably, climatological shifts.

Please don't try to use philosophy, guesswork, or spring break as rationales to ignore science.

Adaption

Jbullfrog

Putting aside some of the extreme imaginations in your post above, here are a couple of questions for you:

How did polar bears manage to survive the MWP, and other warm periods (warmer than today) in recent millenia?  How do they survive in warm climate zoos....are they fed live seals?

The UK was mostly covered with ice during the last ice age, but several species continue to enjoy staying-on there.  They still have signatures of their ice-age background.  For instance, baby grey seals still have white fur, but seldom see any snow.

Day and Night


How did polar bears manage to survive the MWP, and other warm periods (warmer than today) in recent millenia?  How do they survive in warm climate zoos....are they fed live seals?

And what (during the pre-Warming days) was the maximum temperature differential between day and night?   Between summer and winter?

Today it was 35F when I woke up and 50F at midday.  I survived a 15F temperature increase!   And I will do the same tomorrow!

useless

This is just narrow-minded and short-sighted. Do you want to keep dragging the debate back to one species in a gradual climate shift or can we talk about entire ecosystems in a change that's so sudden it may be closer to a natural disaster in its scope? Again, maybe the polar bear can keep up, even given the relative quickness of the recent transformation. Can its prey? And their food supply? Can other food chains and habitats migrate in their entirety?

As for "extreme imaginations," I suppose you think that at we won't get to a point where a sea level rise of one foot is catastrophic? Or do you believe that our government will succefully plan for the mass migration of coastal folks and the careful dismantling and cleansing of all the potentially toxic facilities and infrastructure near the ocean? I only see these scenarios as extreme if you believe one of these two things.

Or maybe you imagine you'll just hop on a plane to somewhere that's "not affected" by what's going on.

Debating techniques ?

Jbullfrog
You commented in part to Max in your comment 14:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...

"4)    [A] I am waiting for someone to discover that this tremendous upturn at the far right side of the graph... [B]...is due to some oversight in measurement, recordkeeping, tolerances, or calibration, ...[C]...  but it seems extraordinarily unlikely given the number of people now studying the problem...  [D]... Have you seen the number of different ways that past climates are being studied and quantified? Tree rings, ocean salt content at various depths, animal and plant fossil records, core sampling, and on and on and on. There are lots of checks and balances here.

Since Max must be busy elsewhere, and we often work together in these debates, I could not overlook your point 4:

[A]:  You must be referring to the first graph, which does not show actual temperatures but what is known as an anomaly from an arbitrarily selected level.  One could just as well have set the zero base-line to 1850, but then all the vertical blue and red lines would be different, and mostly red.  Or, if it had been set at 1908, they would ALL be red.  OK, let's ignore the red and blue bars entirely, and just trust the black wiggly line as their average, starting at say 20 degrees C in 1850.  Perhaps copy the figure into a graphics or picture editor (e.g. MS Paint), and remove the red and blue.

Now look at the black line between ~1908 and ~1941 and compare it with your so-called tremendous upturn at the far right side of the graph.

What made you think it was a tremendous upturn?....it isn't unusual is it, regardless of CO2!   Think about!

There are at least three other more difficult things that could be discussed about this graph, but I want to see if you are receptive to this simple rational info first.

[B]:  The published global surface temperatures are what everyone uses and accepts at least in the short-term.   However, there are definitely a variety of problems with much of the surface instrumentation in terms of quality variation, and temporal and spatial concerns.  If you are genuinely interested, there are some interesting references available.

[C]   Not sure what you mean by [C]

[D]   The topic is the global surface temperature record, as has been measured and arbitrarily averaged.  I don't think any of the proxy records you mention are relevant, and for instance the tree-ring divergence problem which is contradictory, has not yet been resolved as far as I know

You like to debate; Bullfrog?

In response to your debating with intelligence post headed "Useless"

Aha, so it looks like you agree that the polar bear, so oft pitifully pictured marooned on a splinter of ice lapped by cruel waves would do fine, even if all the ice melts.  What about those poor arctic seals that currently hide under the snow though?   Crikey!  Well, they'd have to adapt the same way they did in the past.  (Somewhat like the UK grey seals),  Of course they would have to birth on rocks, and the predators would flourish, but they will probably survive in reduced numbers.  Of course, mankind can step-in and interfere with nature and set-up survival zones for the seals, if the activists were sufficiently active, as undoubtedly they would be.

Meanwhile, with warming oceans, at the top of the food chain, photosynthetic life would flourish in ever increasing areas, coral would grow in new areas, and so-forth.   Looks pretty rosy to me!

I must quote your next bit of  debating with intelligence:  

"...Or do you believe that our government will succefully plan for the mass migration of coastal folks and the careful dismantling and cleansing of all the potentially toxic facilities and infrastructure near the ocean? I only see these scenarios as extreme if you believe one of these two things. Or maybe you imagine you'll just hop on a plane to somewhere that's "not affected" by what's going on..."

I don't think those thousands of scientists that you worship at the IPCC have gone that far have they?   Got any references?

PS  Your penultimate sentence context, and the first few lines not quoted are not entirely clear to me


Polar Bears

I think we need to stop worrying about the polar bears. They love global warming and are thriving. Just like the Inuit they find food far more abundant in a warmer clime.

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.

Just like the environmentalists claimed the Caribou population would be wiped out by the Alaska pipeline the Caribou population has exploded upward from 5000 to 25000 since the pipeline was built because the Caribou are far more "amorous" when they are near the heated pipeline. Looks like the Polar bears are now laying some pipe of their own !

Environmental Concerns

Hi Michigan Pete,

Hope you have been enjoying your global warming in Michigan!
This report on a proposed cull of overcrowded kangaroos, may make you smile.  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Outrage at kangaroo cull  

Sharri Markson;  Sydney Daily Telegraph
March 16, 2008 12:00am
JAPAN is using the slaughter of hundreds of eastern grey kangaroos in Canberra to undermine Australia's anti-whaling crusade.

Japanese television and radio yesterday covered a small protest over the culling of as many as 500 kangaroos in the northern suburb of Belconnen.

Tokyo Broadcasting System reporter Hiroki Iijima said Japanese people would regard the kangaroo cull as hypocritical.
Read Full Story @
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23381 ...
~~~~~
BLOG Responses; 59

I am ashamed to call myself an Australian and we all should be this is a bloody disgrace.
Posted by: Sarah of Glenmore Park 5:16pm today
Comment 59 of 59
~~~~~
Most foreigners believe there is only one type of kangaroo rather than the 47 or so different ones. Not all are endangered and some, like the eastern grey are in plague numbers. And just a little reminder to the the Japanese, humpback whales are an endagered species !
Posted by: sg of syd 5:14pm today
Comment 58 of 59


a response before I go

B.W., I figured I'd give you some specific answers to your specific questions before I drop out of this debate for a while.

[A]
First of all, I can't tell if you don't understand this yourself, or if you think I don't understand it, but we need to be clear that a graph is either accurate or it isn't. In the case of anomaly, the absolute levels reflected are accurate (within stated "uncertainty" values) regardless of what zero level is chosen or what color the bars go. The bars  themselves are only useful for representing the value of this arbitrary anomaly; but the endpoints still represent temperature averages for each year.

The "tremendous upturn" refers to the fact that if there were a cycle--one can imagine a cycle about every fifty years, with a low in 1860, a low around 1910, and a low near 1950 or 1960--then where is the next trough? Wouldn't it be right about now? Instead of continuing in a predictable cycle or persisting in a statistical range of temperatures that has held true since 1850 (and according to various long-term records, for thousands of years) there has been a long upswing since around 1940. And much of what has happened the last 20 years has been entirely outside of the range of even the extremes anywhere in the prior 130 years (and again, maybe much much more). So, in terms of pure, unadultered statistics and statistical averaging, can you find a cycle that leads you to believe it is likely temperatures will fall significantly anytime soon? I don't see any. But again... not a scientist, not a statistics guru.

In other words, you compare the right side of the graph (which for you, I think, meant since perhaps 1970 or 1980?) to the period between 1908 and 1941. Here's the difference: The upswing between 1908 and 1941 (a) fell in a range of temperatures that seems to be consistent with long-term recent history, and (b) was followed by a downturn (albeit a smaller one). We cannot, on the whole, say the samething for the period from 1950 to the present. It travelled well outside the expected range and the trend has not yet reversed. Of course, I understand this year is so far looking much cooler, so if that kept up, it could be the start of a downturn.

[B]
No thanks, I've read a few things and it's not something that interests me. Just saying it would be nice to know we're wrong about rising temperatures for some simple, clearly explainable reason.

[C]
Well, inaccuracies persist only when they are allowed to--when no one questions them. There are so many scientists in so many fields studying climate change that if there were problems with the fundamental methodology, techniques, or equipment associated with things like temperature records, I hope they would have surfaced by now. So I don't think that technical inaccuracies will be found to account for the theory of AGW.

[D]
Other temperature records are entirely relevant in that the climate works in cycles, and statisticians work in averages. If all we have to work with is the past 150 years, we may be missing cycles that can explain this warming, or we may be comparing our ranges and averages to a period of time which is itself an anomaly. We need a longer-term point of reference to truly know the significance of our short-term observations.

A few simple examples: what if some proxy record suggested the past 200 years were actually colder than average (an anomaly), and that we're just now getting back to a level that's been generally consistent for at least a few thousand years? That would probably cause us to stop looking at our situation as a crisis, wouldn't it? Or what if upswings of this rate and magnitude we part of a few-hundred-year natural cycle of some sort? The Hadley record could not reveal things like these. So it's important to view the more accurate surface temperature record in the context of as many longer-term records as possible.

continuing response

Since you were so thorough with all this I thought I owed you a response, B.W. So, continuing with this next post, "You like to debate"...

First of all, I don't agree that the polar bear would do fine. I have no idea and I'm not qualified to predict these things. Apparently in some areas, they're doing very well. That's great for them. Again, I'm asking for a more sophisticated view of ecology, habitat, and change, on that acknowledges our interdependency as human beings, species, and ecosystems. Let's say the polar bears stay put the course of the next ten years as temperatures rise further. They begin to adapt to their new habitat. Babies that can't adapt die, and evolution speeds up a bit to give us: polar bears that do fine birthing on rocks, feeding on foxes, antelope babies, different kinds of fish than they're used to, or whatever. But as temperatures change everywhere, species of all types will be either adapting, migrating, or becoming extinct. Not being much of an ecology professor, I can only throw out speculation... let's assume that some new animals and plants migrate into the polar bears' territory. Some may be predators looking for habitat or food, and they then compete with these bears. Some may be insects, diseases, algae or other organisms that can plague a habitat or a body of water and cause rapid changes. Furthermore, some of the prey the polar bear was hoping to chase down begins to die out because its food is no longer available, or its habitat no longer suits it, and it cannot adapt quickly enough.

Now this is just one very hypothetical situation, yet it echoes the sorts of changes that happen on a regular basis in response to multi-year weather patterns, pests, contaminated water supplies, etc. If it happens every day on a small scale in response to small adversities, can you not see that it seems likely to happen on an enormous scale if temperatures continue to fairly rapidly?

And if this happens, can you not see that farms, hatcheries, fishing operations, lumber operations,  parks and conservationists all suddenly have widespread rapid change to cope with? That new animal populations will bring new problems to human populations with an increasing rate of speed? That human and animal populations will be exposed to unfamiliar pollens, toxins, predators, pests, and diseases more and more?

Add to that the complications from a rising ocean. We may have several decades or more before this becomes urgent, but if I ignore any selfish temptation to bequeath this issue to my daughter, and I find myself wondering... As the ocean invades sewer systems, gas stations, treatment plants, refineries, military installations, chemical plants, and other toxic structures and infrastructures that might happen to be near the coast, what happens? What happens in Sacramento? New Orleans? Venice? How does that impact the surrounding ecology? The economy? The more heavily burdened infrastructure? The more strained health care system?

And while all these problems (aside from seeming like a pipe dream to some people) might appear less daunting living in a first-world country, imagine the death and destruction if a few diseases, plagues, or droughts hit the third world. Wait... that's happening now, and it's causing war, famine, and enormous refugee migrations.

I don't know if scientists are thinking about these things. These are at least as much about policy as about science; I think such decisions must be based in science, but beyond that are entirely up for debate. In other words, policy-makers must look at science to describe what is happening analyze what has happened before, and predict what may happen in the future, and then they need to set a course of action. Hopefully as evidence mounts for AGW, people will begin planning for realistic scenarios based on predictions of rising sea levels due to rising temperatures.

J. Bailo referred to these scenarios as extreme. I would like to think so. I have to wonder though, if a few degrees of temperature change occurs in a relatively short time span, won't it be enough to trigger exactly this sort of natural-disaster-type response from our environment? That last paragraph you questioned was a response to J. Bailo's skepticism. Assuming you believe the sea level will rise a fair amount, then to me the only reasons to be skeptical that the environment (and we) would be severely affected by this are (1) if you thought that the predicted amounts of sea level rise really wouldn't cause any damage like I've postulated, or (2) if you thought we could plan our way out of it, efficiently relocating many millions of people, relocating or replacing industries from the coast, and effectively mitigating or preventing the release of unspeakable amounts of toxins being leeched into the ocean, all before any disaster did actually strike.

I personally don't belive we're proactive enough as a culture (certainly here in America) to plan sufficiently ahead of time (see: Katrina) and I do believe that the predicted sea level rise will be enough to cause enormous problems. This makes me think the disastrous scenarios I posed may not be so "extreme."

Hopefully I cleared that up. Far from my most eloquent writing, sorry! I think I've covered all the posts I care to answer, so... see y'all later.

Realistic?

First of all, no argument can be complete without my NOAA-based interactive analysis of the warming trends...posted here recently:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49/#60 ...

Hopefully as evidence mounts for AGW, people will begin planning for realistic scenarios based on predictions of rising sea levels due to rising temperatures.

Realism is usually based on past behavior.   That is the basis for all global warming predictions.  Based on that, you'd have to look at the "sea level rise" during the period of "earth's most intense global warming -- on record".

The effect: not much.  In fact, there are many areas of the world were the seas have been receding.

J. Bailo referred to these scenarios as extreme. I would like to think so. I have to wonder though, if a few degrees of temperature change occurs in a relatively short time span, won't it be enough to trigger exactly this sort of natural-disaster-type response from our environment?

Here in Kent it's been around 50 every day.   Then, Saturday it went up 70F.   Somehow we survived.   You have to say how hot for how long.  Remember, every winter to summer we experience tens of degrees of "climate change" in a 6 month period....some how the world manages....

That last paragraph you questioned was a response to J. Bailo's skepticism.

I am not a "skeptic".  I present an equally compelling model and theory to explain the data.

I am a competitor -- so I expect name calling and calumny rather than rational discourse.  

That's the price of being in the ring!

(1) if you thought that the predicted amounts of sea level rise really wouldn't cause any damage like I've postulated, or (2) if you thought we could plan our way out of it, efficiently relocating many millions of people, relocating or replacing industries from the coast, and effectively mitigating or preventing the release of unspeakable amounts of toxins being leeched into the ocean, all before any disaster did actually strike.

The Bailo Model predicts sea levels falling.   So I wouldn't do any of that stuff.

Hey Taddy Daddy

When you say:

see y'all later.....

What you really mean is that you'll take sneaky peekies but not comment; right?

So we can still fondly imagine that you are there!

Oh!
Oh!
Oh!

wow power leveling ?

Hello User ID 19464  (ss....www)?

How did you end-up here; poor thing?

Should we try to find you some medical help?

Do not be alarmed, help is at hand, and there are others like you, so do not feel alone:

Josullivan58
Atreyger
Pangolin
Jbullfrog

To name off-hand but four!!!!

Cherry-Picking Perhaps?

Coby Beck,
In your lead article you illustrate a global temperature graph from 2005, whilst there is a background discussion of an evident plateau in temperatures over the past decade.

Here is a 2008 version to which I have attached some comments.

Why did you not use the 2008 version instead of 2005?

SORRY HERE IS THE LINK

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...

Cherry-Picking Perhaps?

Coby Beck,
In your lead article you illustrate a global temperature graph from 2005, whilst there is a background discussion of an evident plateau in temperatures over the past decade.
Here is a 2008 version to which I have attached some comments.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...

Why did you not use the 2008 version instead of 2005?

maybe

Maybe because the article was written in late 2006.

by the way

The recent "plateau" is no more "evident" than those around 1880 and 1940, and look where we've gone since then.

The questions scientists must try to answer are whether this LONG-TERM trend will continue (they feel it will likely do so), whether we humans are contributing to it (they feel it's likely we are), and at what point the consequences of such a continuing trend become undeniably negative for us in any way.

The existence of another little trough in the graph doesn't change its overall direction.

back to topic

I believe it is fairly straightforward to demonstrate that the global temperature trend has risen, even over the ten years since 1998 (this post having been written 2 years after the top post, we now have more data).

Firstly, it's my understanding that the period is too short to establish a climate shift - 30 years is the minimum recommended by the WMO. In that regard, I don't think the period covered in this topic is sufficiently long. Nevertheless..

This is the simplest way I can think of to establish a trend. I do not know if there is a shortcoming in the methodology (aside from a too-short period), and I hope that if there is, someone knowledgeable will point it out to me.

Take the five tears from 1998 - 2002 (inclusive), add up the global temperatures and then divide by 5 to get an average.

Take the five years from 2003 to 2007 (inclusive) and do the same thing.

Here are three different sources for the data;

UK Met Office
NCDC
NASA

All show a warming trend, even limiting the data to the last ten years, with the first year being the very high 1998. That is, the average the the last five years is higher than the first five.

The amplitude of trend falls short of that projected by IPCC (1995, 2001 and 2007 - although the latter is not strictly applicable to this time series, being published towards the end of it), but then I would recommend that the results are skewed by starting from the anomalously high 1998.

Comments?

Welcome!

Hi Barry Schwarz,  You wrote in part:

"Firstly, it's my understanding that the period is too short to establish a climate shift - 30 years is the minimum recommended by the WMO. In that regard, I don't think the period covered in this topic is sufficiently long. Nevertheless.."

I would recommend that you do not select short spans of data from tabulations.  (and 5 years is definitely too short!). It is much better and easier to understand trends from graphical representations on a less selective and wider time-span, both sides of what you are considering.

I present to you a link to a marked-up version of the relevant Hadley (UK Met Office) data which may better explain what appears to be happening over the last ten years, compared with what appears to be a remarkably similar event around 1940
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471 ...
It will take a year or three to be absolutely sure or not, but I can also show strong evidence of a regular periodicity, that appears to be  breaking-over right now.

Please note that the Hadley graphical data comes with an arbitrary 20-year (or 21-point) smoothing, which breaks-down in the final ten years.  To apply the same code logic through to say 2007, data is required through to 2017, which of course is impossible.  Thus, debatable methods are used by Hadley for the last ten years.

That will do for now.  If you would like to digest this and then ask any questions, please do.

Regards BobFJ, (AKA Black Wallaby)

topical but no more than that!

Hi guys;
So what! water vapour is more important - big deal. global warming stopped - fantastic great news!

well done on this significant and revealing and very topical dare I say sexy presentation of facts.

Did you consider what impact water vapour has on human consumption or maybe related depletion of natural resources. Hey here's one for you to argue 'depletion of natural resources is not related to human consumption'. Lets see you rap data around that argument.

Now that should keep you busy for awhile.

Levels of carbon dioxide happen to be an important metric for assessing human impact. Human consumption has many diverse impacts making it difficult to report to the public. Carbon dioxide happens to be a tangible and probably currently the only decent indicator.

Knock Knock - who pays your bills then?

Hi Black Wallaby

Hi Bob, thanks for the welcome and reply.

No argument that the period is too short. I was working from the meme this thread is about, replying, as it were, to a common skeptical POV in the semi-popular literature. Quoting from the top post; "Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over." Coby has already dealt with that well in the top post. I was interested in finding a way to work out a trend over the ten years in line with the skeptical constraints. I'm not aware of a more sophisticated (skeptical) approach dealing with the trend over the longer term.

Is there a particular reason why the 1940 down-curve was chosen in comparison? Why not the 1875-1880 curve, or the downturn just before 1900, or the one around 1960, which appear, at least to the naked eye from that Hadley chart, to better match the curve of the current trend?

If I get the gist of that chart correctly, it is being suggested that the 1940 downturn is something that might be occurring now, but I see no reason for that. The comparison seems arbitrary, perhaps even a little opportunistic if whoever put that graphic together is trying to suggest that we may headed for a mid-century-like cooling period.

I'm afraid my skills at statistical analysis are about as sophisticated as my initial attempt demonstrates. My maths is poor, but I'm pretty good at grasping things conceptually. If you can educate me in line with my strengths, I'm very much up for it.

Questions:

If we do constrain the period to that as put by the skeptical meme (last ten years), is my attempt satisfactory?

If the last five years is on average hotter than the previous five, should not a smoothed analysis recommend we're still warming? I believe this applies for any number of years larger than five to present, whether decadal, dodecadal (I may have made up a word here) etc.

Can you explain (without arcane math symbols) how the downward trend is arrived at in the last few years of the Hadley trend?

I realize this is all probably statistics 101.00001, but if you've the patience, I'll commit to applying myself.

From your user name; you're an Aussie? I am, posting from wintery Bondi, Sydney.

Cheers, mate!

Just in general

Everyone should admit that

  1. The climate has more than one variable affecting it
  2. 1998 had a lot to do with the El Nino that year
  3. 2008 had a lot to do with the La Nina that year
  4. 2008 had a lot to do with the PDO which coincided with the La Nina
  5. That cherry picking trendlines dominated by either of those two years, and insisting that "Aha! See CO2 rise isn't causing a direct 1-to-1 correlation to temperature, therefore it's wrong."  Is absolutely an unscientific argument.


"had"?

3. 2008 had a lot to do with the La Nina that year

2008 is only halfway done. Aren't you jumping the gun a bit?

Smoothing graphical data

Barry and GreyFalcon,

This is my lunch time quickie:
I would say that most people who deal with data and graphs, if asked to draw a trend-line through the following would draw a horizontal line at 0.6C
This is from GISS.....the notorious alarmist James Hansen is head guru http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

Also, La Nina's and O's, have been frolicking around for a long time, and that in the following graph from Hadley, 1998 is not unusual as spikes go, and such events are just part of the noise in the data.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

Look carefully and you will see that almost every time that there is an up or down spike, it is followed by a two-year correction, or reversal.  For example 1998 is a high spike, but then 1999 and 2000 are a sharp reversal.  Because this is typical of the 150-year past record, it is statistically significant to say that the spike of 1998 is not important, because it is corrected by 1999 and 2000.  Hence we are on a plateau.

plateau?

it is statistically significant to say that the spike of 1998 is not important

Elsewhere I put it that 1998 is an anomaly and it would be statistically valid to excise it (and other spikes downward or upward similar in magnitude) from the profile in order to get the underlying trend. For the same purpose, in some reconstructions the ENSO signal has been removed - el Nino and la Nina - to reduce the amount of noise from 'weather'.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in ...

(3rd graph)

How do you arrive at the conclusion that we've plateaued? Perhaps you are not speaking of trends but of recent movement in interannual variability. I hope to learn something more of statistical analysis. Eyeballing graphs is ok for starters, but no good for getting down to brass tacks.

Graphical smoothing again

Hi Barry,
As a matter of principle, I do not open links to SkepticalScience or RealClimate (or Tamino/RayPierreH references), because in the first instance, I hold little credence for what they claim and manipulate.  Furthermore, the last thing I want to do is give them any benefit by increasing their website hit-count.

However, I will quickly answer what you wrote, quote:
"Elsewhere I put it that 1998 is an anomaly and it would be statistically valid to excise it (and other spikes downward or upward similar in magnitude) from the profile in order to get the underlying trend. For the same purpose, in some reconstructions the ENSO signal has been removed - el Nino and la Nina - to reduce the amount of noise from 'weather'."

How much do you excise and under what rules?  Regardless, you cannot "legally" do that unless you also excise the typical two year reversals which follow such spikes.  How do you do that?  Add a bit on?  How much for year 1 and year 2?  Please study the Hadley graph more carefully, and you should be able to see that the repetition of this internal "correction" over the 150 years is so remarkable and frequent, that 1999 and 2000 is just more of the same, and 1998 is just a typical spike.  The net smoothing of each spike with the following 2-year reversals is in effect an internal correction to the noise you worry about.  As far as I am aware, Hadley and others issue the raw data and apply smoothing techniques without excising anything.   Why do you think that Hadley and even GISS, and others are not smart enough to do the excising that you discuss?
Is it Tamino(?) trying to pull a fast one over you!

BTW, I posted @ 7:33 PM blog-time, and you responded @t 8:05 PM.   Even if you saw my post instantaneously, which would be "lucky", that would give you a max of 32 minutes to digest the information I gave, go and find your reference, compose a reply, and post it.   Please demonstrate a little more care-time if you would like me to continue explaining things to you.  It took me about half an hour to do my quickie post....I was watching the clock.... but it was easy and all in my head, and I had immediate access to my links.

Let's see how we go here before I respond to some other points that you raised.

Regards BobFJ (AKA Black Wallaby)  (Of NE Melbourne Oz)

reply to Black Wallaby

As a matter of principle, I do not open links to SkepticalScience or RealClimate (or Tamino/RayPierreH references), because in the first instance, I hold little credence for what they claim and manipulate.  Furthermore, the last thing I want to do is give them any benefit by increasing their website hit-count.

Ok.

Out of curiosity, where do you go to get a scientific understanding of the mainstream view? Are there sites you do visit that are not climateaudit, Pielke's site, or any of the skeptical sites? For balance, I mean. I go to Pielke Snrs site and climateaudit to get a skeptical view that seems reasonable. Where do you go for the mainstream view?

How much do you excise and under what rules?

Oh I'm no expert, but I'll dabble at an answer.

I guess you could pick a certain value, one that is a significant swing. Let's say we excise all annual temperature swings over 0.16C (+ or -). I'm guessing it's an odd way to do 'smoothing', but it would reduce the amount of noise and reveal the underlying trend, I suppose. This is the result of excising ENSO from the series. ENSO events produce periodic swings in the data. I've read that the 1998 el Nino added 0.2C to that year's temperature. As long as you take out the upswings and the downswings to the same value, I can't see how you'd be corrupting the underlying trend, just revealing it more.

Regardless, you cannot "legally" do that unless you also excise the typical two year reversals which follow such spikes.

If you think that it is needful to excise this two-year downswing, then fine by me. Perhaps you could try that. If you're a dab hand with graphics, maybe you could post the results.

How do you do that? Add a bit on? How much for year 1 and year 2?

I don't know. My method is simpler (and naive). I'd just excise them completely if the downswings are an artefact of the upswing. Not my thesis, but I say go for it if you think it's important.

I'd be happy for you to explain more about your thesis.

Please study the Hadley graph more carefully, and you should be able to see that the repetition of this internal "correction" over the 150 years is so remarkable and frequent, that 1999 and 2000 is just more of the same, and 1998 is just a typical spike.

To my eye, there are periods as you describe, as well as many other changes that don't fit that profile; spikes followed by a much smaller swing in the same direction, spikes followed by a retrogade change and then the next year reversing again, spikes followed by more than two years of the opposite direction in temps. It seems somewhat random. The only constant in the general trend upwards.

But let me come along with you a bit more. If there are regular periods where a big spike is followed by two years opposite swing, what is the minimum value of the initial upswing that gets the trio into your set? If you give me a figure, I'll check out the Hadley graph again and see for myself. (eg, is it an upswing of +0.15C or something else that qualifies as a contender for the profile you're talking about?)

As far as I am aware, Hadley and others issue the raw data and apply smoothing techniques without excising anything.

Yep. I certainly wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was following my own line of thinking - well, not my own, really. I thought of it before I came across examples on the web.

Why do you think that Hadley and even GISS, and others are not smart enough to do the excising that you discuss?

I don't understand the question. I never meant to imply that Hadley have/could/should knock any of the big swings out or saying anything about their ability to do so.... reading back on my posts, I see that I haven't implied that at all.

BTW, I posted @ 7:33 PM blog-time, and you responded @t 8:05 PM.   Even if you saw my post instantaneously, which would be "lucky", that would give you a max of 32 minutes to digest the information I gave, go and find your reference, compose a reply, and post it.

I didn't look for a reference. I looked at the graph for about five minutes, looked at some of the down trends, compared the recent downturn with others that appear after spikes and concluded that the 1940 spike was a sharper profile than the recent swing, and that there were better fits elsewhere in that record, and that's what I told you. You hadn't posted about your two-year response to spikes at that time.

Please demonstrate a little more care-time if you would like me to continue explaining things to you.

Read your first post to me and see if there was something I should have got from looking at the graph that was made clear in that first post. We may be talking at cross purposes. I refer you to my initial post. I've been assuming we were talking about trends and how they are worked out. Are you more interested in talking about this two-year drop hypothesis? That's cool. I'll try to follow, but I'd like to know if you're going to reply to the questions you invited me to ask.

It took me about half an hour to do my quickie post

I read your post twice - about four minutes, checked the graph, five minutes, and then composed my reply - ten minutes, including preview checks. About 20 minutes in all, I guess.

While I'm all for taking time and care with reading and replies, I see no profit in comparing our response times. Hopefully you'll see from my replies that I try to think carefully about the matters at hand.

From your previous post:

Look carefully and you will see that almost every time that there is an up or down spike, it is followed by a two-year correction, or reversal.

I don't see that happening "almost every time". I see it happening occasionally. But I'd need to get a better fix on how big the spike is you're working with. Let me know and I'll check it out and report back.

Meanwhile, if I haven't disappointed you yet, I'd be grateful for any thoughts on the questions I raised.

correction

I see now that you were talking about the two posts after the ones I mistakenly thought you meant. In which case, I took less time (I was responding to one point you raised in the post before) and did hunt up a link regarding the ENSO data being removed. It's a link I posted elsewhere just recently on the same point, so it was pretty easy to find (at the place I posted it). I'll try to avoid posting links to the sites you don't like. If there are any others, let me know.

Bit of spare time

so I retrieved the statistics for HADCRU and checked the record.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl ...

I looked for any spike of 0.1C (+ or -) or greater.

I included all years that showed a spike of that magnitude or greater, whether or not they appeared as part of the opposite trend in a potential trio.

In the 157 year record there were 43 instances of a temperature change of 0.1C (+ or -) between one year and the next.

The years nominated below are all the first of the trio - the year which saw the spike occur.

Most of the trios that fit your profile (spike followed by two year correction) occur in the 58 years from 1950.

2 of the two year corrections from 1850 onwards show the first year correction being larger than the initial spike (1983, 1996).

2 of the two year corrections are very slight - not much correction (1879, 1987).

From 1850:

13 trios fit your profile.

30 trios do not.

From 1900:

10 fit your profile.

22 do not.

From 1950:

9 fit your profile.

12 do not.

I chose a value of 0.1C because it was easer to work with. If you are thinking of a greater magnitude, post it here and we can test it against the record.

It would seem at first dip that the profile you recommend does not occur most of the time in the temperature record.

The years fitting your profile are (first of the trio marked for each);

1859, 1879, 1898, 1929, 1964, 1969, 1971, 1983, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1998.

The years not fitting your profile are;

1851, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1977, 1979, 1889, 1890, 1896, 1902, 1905, 1907, 1914, 1916, 1918, 1922, 1933, 1937, 1946, 1951, 1954, 1957, 1972, 1974, 1977, 1979, 1984, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001.

The years not mentioned, of course, were years where the temperature changed by less than 0.1C.

In case you're wondering

I chose the 0.1C value and greater because it was easiest to work with.

Reply to Barry Schwarz,

It is actually quite difficult to find a website that supports a moderate view of the AGW debate.   Most that are clearly AGW-centric describe the phenomena as disastrous, and us rationalists sometimes call these guys fundies.  I for one believe that there IS some warming caused by anthro effects, but that it is rather trivial.  For instance, there is clearly a regional variation in the Arctic which is warming, but then at the same time there is an opposite regional variation in the Antarctic.  
This site we are on is mostly fundie in its authorship, but I like it because it allows a surprising range of strongly opposing views.  I have only one experience of having a set of posts deleted, I don't think because of the text but because of an unpleasant photograph of a shot grolar bear, (polar-grizzly hybrid).  It was central to a longer discussion on polar bear adaptation, such as they did throughout the MWP, and also genetic diversity and learning.  The surrounding text was OK, but not anything to do with the photographic evidence!
However, the two prominent physicists here that I commonly debate and whom post lead articles, Andrew Dessler and Joseph Romm, simply ignore any questions that are difficult and contrary to the IPCC view, or you might get: Go read the IPCC report, (1600 pages), when they should have the info right at their fingertips.  Romm also has his own website, but he is famous for blocking any post or commenter that he does not like, as are RealClimate and others that I don`t go to.

Otherwise of course there is the IPCC AR4 WG1 report and its references, together importantly with the expert review comments, and the broader scientific literature, some of which the IPCC does not include.

It may surprise you to know that ClimateAudit has a bulletin board (BB) where it is a free-for-all, mostly amongst academics, and you might be interested in this thread, entitled:
The expert versus expert dilemma:
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4& ...
I think it embraces some of the issues we are discussing, and you may be surprised at the to-and-fro between these scientists

THE OPENING POST:
"Well, we seem to be at a stalemate in the climate science world. We have reputable physicists saying that the GHGs will significantly increase temperatures, due to "radiative imbalance" caused by the increases in CO2 (the so-called consensus position). We even have textbooks that expound this position (which are probably selling well). But we also have reputable physicists saying that this is not true, for one reason or another. And both "sides" look relatively rational, to a non-physicist. Even to a scientist who has considerable training in physics. Experts vs. experts.

So, what can be concluded? For one thing, the science is definitely not settled. For another, there is obviously no clear empirical evidence for either position, or the matter could be settled quickly. And it follows, I surmise, that we still just don't know much about our planet as some think.

So what do we do now? Act irrationally, or study more and wait? I say, study more and wait."  END...................

There is an immediate political response to this fairly neutral opening position from a fundie physicist and it develops into quite a lively debate for 367 posts, although we currently wait for one of the fundies to come back on another technical question he may find difficult.  BTW, I join-in on page 2 under the ID Bob_FJ

The main blog at ClimateAudit is a different thing, and Steve McIntyre asks people to shuffle-off to the BB if things are going too much off topic or too elementary whatever
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry, concerning your or Tamino's (?) idea of excising spikes, I'll  be blunt;  there is no scientific or statistical basis for doing it.   That is why Hadley, GISS, et al don't do it.  The reasons for not doing it include that there is no way of determining the composition of the spike(s).  The el Nino's a's have varying strength and duration.  For instance I think the 1998 should be described as 1997/8.   Some have even been attributed to some millennial civilization collapses.   If you know any reputable scientific source that lays claim that 1998 El Nino contributed 0.2 degrees, I would like to see the theory and maths behind it.  

I think it is an excellent idea to tag say the Hadley bar chart with oceanic oscillations and volcanic events, but the raw data should NOT be touched in any way.

Incidentally, The Hadley graph I linked to was global average air T at the surface.  The following link will take you to a very new post on the BB, and shows a comparison with the SST (which should be the driver from an el Nino), and a short exchange of views which you may find interesting
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6& ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's see how you go with these two thingies before I respond to your other stuff.
Please take your time!

reply to Black Wallaby

Meant to say, my brother lives in Melbourne. I've visited and worked there a lot and love the city. If only it wasn't quite so cold in winter, I'd probably live there (bring on the global warming!).

It is actually quite difficult to find a website that supports a moderate view of the AGW debate...

Are you saying that there is no site representing the mainstream view that I can reference that you would approve of? That doesn't leave me with much.

I don't have a problem with realclimate. I think the tone is sometimes too dismissive. I prefer Pielke's site for reasonable discourse, but I'm in no position to judge authoritatively the quality of the science of any of them. I am, however interested in learning and testing what I've learned - why I go to pro and anti sites. The science is what matters. Realclimate presents science mostly in line with the IPCC. Climate Audit and Climate Science do not so much.

I for one believe that there IS some warming caused by anthro effects, but that it is rather trivial.

This is a common skeptical viewpoint, one I like to see explained so that I can test it against mainstream theory.

For instance, there is clearly a regional variation in the Arctic which is warming, but then at the same time there is an opposite regional variation in the Antarctic.

Yes. But that is the beginning, not the end of discussion. I would point out in a discussion on it that the warming signature in the Arctic region far exceeds the cooling signature in the Antarctic, and that the Arctic cooling (almost flat-lining, really) is not unanticipated. That's not the end of the story either.

Regarding your comment on the IPCC being thrown at you, how much of it have you read?

I've read about 60% in the last year as I've researched and discussed various topics.

One bit from something you quoted caught my eye.

On GHGs raising temps/not;

there is obviously no clear empirical evidence for either position

I think that's flat out wrong. First, definitions;

Empirical

1.

a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

There most certainly is empirical evidence for AGW. The premise of the whole theory is based on an experiment that can be done in any well-equipped school laboratory. Shine a beam of (infrared) radiation through a volume of atmosphere. Record the amount that is emitted through the other side. Add CO2 to the volume. Perform the same test. Unless the parameters are unrealistic, less radiance passes out the other end of the volume when