RealClimate logo


Unforced variations: Jan 2020

Filed under: — group @ 1 January 2020

The new open thread on climate science for a new year, and a new decade – perhaps the Soaring Twenties? What precisely will be soaring is yet to be decided though.

Two things will almost certainly go up – CO2 emissions and temperatures:

But maybe also ambition, determination, and changes that will lead to reduced emissions in future? Fingers crossed.

503 Responses to “Unforced variations: Jan 2020”

  1. 101
    nigelj says:

    Victor @87, Gavin didn’t draw a line between two end points. The line in the graphs above is drawn through the approximate mid points of the various bumps and dips, thus giving a rolling trend as a finished line. This is how its supposed to be done. The graphs above have quite accurate trends lines.

    Fine ignore the 2015 – 2016 el nino ‘singularity’. You are still left with 2018 – 2019 an obvious temperature high point compared to 1997, 1998, 2004, etc. So drawing a line from 1980 – 2019 and it still slopes up, so there’s an obvious strong warming trend from 1980 to 2019 and for example 1998 to 2019. It’s not going away no matter what you try to leave out, or what gymnastics you try to do, or time frame you select.

  2. 102
    nigelj says:

    Radge Havers @95, mostly agree with your views in general, but DDS doesnt look like a classic case of dunning kruger, more like he is just playing word games and cherrypicking the science. His scepticism comes from politics if you read between the lines.

    Victor is classic dunning kruger. He actually thinks he understands trends better than scientists, and has found some sort of problem. You could put him in a text book. He cant even read a simple graph, in the way some people are colour blind but doesnt have the ability to see his own limits which is classic dunning kruger as well. However his climate science scepticism is also driven by a dislike of environmental taxes, having to make lifestyle changes, and that side of thing if you read his posts. Otherwise he probably wouldn’t be commenting on the thing.

    Why do I care? Partly because I’m interested in psychology.

  3. 103
    nigelj says:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/118600192/australia-bushfires-yellow-auckland-sky-could-return-but-wind-change-will-shift-it

    Amazing photos of orange / yellow skies in Auckland New Zealand, due to the bush fires in Australia. NZ has never had this before, just mildly pink tinged sunsets once or twice. It was so dark at one stage the house was like being in a cave at 3pm. Unreal and quite shocking. 2019 is Australia’s hottest year on record.

  4. 104
    Adam Lea says:

    26: “But the important question is, are we seeing more frequent or more severe disasters?

    –In terms of deaths, the answer over the 20th century is probably “no”. That’s because over that span, human capacity to avoid them has increased drastically. The Galveston hurricane of 1900, for example, killed 6,000-12,000 because there was little warning that it was coming. Partly that was poorly-developed science, and partly it was institutional politics and mismanagement:”

    The death toll was also high because it didn’t have a 20 foot sea wall, which was built after that devestating hurricane, and has mitigated storm surge disasters since.

    Pielke et al published a paper on normalised hurricane damage in the U.S. back to 1900 and concluded that there is no trend in damage due to climate change, the trend is due to increases in population and wealth, and inflation. Did they ever consider the effect of engineering solutions to mitigation of hurricane damage over the same time period? Building walls to keep water out and improving building codes must surely have some mitigating effect.

  5. 105

    AB 88: I’ve shoved you into a little box labeled “pencil pusher” with very little effort.

    BPL: No, it’s more like you’ve shoved yourself into one marked “Dunning-Kruger poster boy.” You’re not just wrong, you’re arrogant about it.

  6. 106
    mike says:

    Dec. 29, 2019 – Jan. 4, 2020 413.09 ppm
    Dec. 29, 2018 – Jan. 4, 2019 409.55 ppm

    Daily CO2
    Jan. 5, 2020: 413.99 ppm
    Jan. 5, 2019: 409.05 ppm

    Ugly, noisy numbers.

  7. 107
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Al Bundy,

    The issue of needing 30 years to discern the signature of climate change in the face of day-to-day to year-to-year fluctuations is not arbitrary–it has to do with the relative magnitudes of signal and noise. Knutti’s paper does not in any way upset or overturn this guideline. Indeed, you will notice that they are comparing two intervals more than 30 years apart–that is two “different climates”.

    Nor is thirty years a magic number. Some signals related to climate will emerge more rapidly, and there are probably a few that could take much longer (e.g. what has our warming trend done to the planet’s susceptibility to ice ages).

    However, I think it is misleading to insinuate that climate can be defined at an instant. It cannot, any more than a return on investment of an ongoing enterprise can be defined at an instant. Climate is inherently averages over time, and the shorter you make the time, the less meaningful the term becomes.

  8. 108
    William Jackson says:

    #105 Why are you guys going at it over this while KIA and Victor etc are laying on the nonsense?

  9. 109
    Radge Havers says:

    nigelj # 102

    I was responding to Mal Adapted’s comment to Dan H. I don’t spend as much time combing through this site and all of its trolls as I used to…

    But yeah, the denialist politics, tax talking points, etc. pretty much boils down to the effects of spreading propaganda and locking up minds. This is in opposition to a rigorous education that teaches good habits of cutting through the mind games; that emphasizes a value system that holds rigor, and the techniques of not fooling yourself dear; and that seriously deprecates bad faith and bad actors (even while loving your nut job family).

    That’s not to say that some people aren’t addled or whatever. But the problem is the fever swam of garbage that we all have to swim in and how it damages so many people otherwise healthy or not.

  10. 110
    Ric Merritt says:

    There’s a call came in for Victor. It’s the 1990’s, and they want their childish right-wing trolling points backs.

  11. 111
    nigelj says:

    https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/doubling-down-researchers-investigate-compound-climate-risks/

    This article looks important, about three months old. “Doubling down: Researchers investigate compound climate risks. Climate researchers are increasingly exploring risk potentials associated with compound climate change events.” Sorry if its already been mentioned / discussed, but can’t recall this.

  12. 112
    Dan h. says:

    Zebra @98,
    Actually, it was mal-adapted who incorrectly attributed his “rule of Ockham” (@28) to his statement that whoever does not claim extraordinary results (in this specific case – hundreds of thousadns of excess deaths), bears the burden of proof. Hopefully, you can see the folly in his claim. Apparently, I did not do an adequate job explaining it to him, as most of his responses were riddled with insults and false statements.

    BTW, I agree with your post @67, which is similar to my post @33, stating that OR did not apply in this case.

  13. 113
    Dan H. says:

    Adam Lea @104,
    Careful, you may upset some obstinate posters here, who refuse to accept data, when it conflicts with their closely-held beliefs.

  14. 114
    Al Bundy says:

    Killian: 1. Are you so stupid to be such a hypocrite? You are no better. So, yes, you are.

    AB: A hypocrite says, “Stop, sinner!” while surreptitiously sinning. I’ve been quite clear that this is a dance that I’m a fully-complicit part of. “Lets stop” is my request/goal.
    ______

    BPL: BPL: No, that’s weather, not climate.

    AB: You’re stuck. Perhaps you should blank out your axioms and read F&R2011 and consider how much noise/error will be left over once humanity’s analysis of climate systems is complete, say in 33,924 AD. If ya can measure to 0.001C and have essentially complete knowledge of the last 30,000 years, ya can surely derive ‘climate’ from ten year’s data, especially when you’re only looking for a crude global temperature average to a tenth of a degree or so.

    The 30-year rule give you more data points, smearing error into accuracy. But since data are collected continuously and diffusely and orbital mechanics are constant on decadal scales, this seems minor, as compared to, say, ten years.

    The 30-year rule gives you enough rolls of the weather dice that you don’t
    have to bother considering the weather. But if you know ENSO’s current phase and how it affects things you don’t have to go through an entire ENSO cycle or three so as to average them out. Same with other cycles. And then again with how said cycles interact with each other.

    Current conditions are current weather overlaying current climate. You can use a long period of time to let weather average out, which smears the climate value into a trend, or you can back out the weather, leaving current climate. Video or snapshot. Both work.

    If you were tasked with predicting the climate of the 2030s, that is the average weather of the 2030s, would you rather have the length and quality of the data easily available in 1935 and a 30-year window of current data to use or the length and quality of the data easily available in 2020 and a 10-year window of current data to use, given that you’d use all techniques then available? So no F&R2011 type tricks in 1935 but all such massagings in 2020.

  15. 115
    Edgar Ramirez says:

    @Sam Kinder Lol they don’t have an answer. Watch as they dance around and ignore actual scientific papers that blow up their whole hypothesis. If solar irradiance can explain most warming, all the carbon taxes in the world won’t change anything. Willson and Scarfetta put a knife into the heart of the whole movement, it’s just a matter of time till everyone finds out and this whole house of cards comes crashing down.

  16. 116
    Jim Balter says:

    “Two things will almost go up”

    This is almost certainly a typo.

  17. 117

    @Victor Grauer, #24, #50; Re: “Sixteen years of flatline followed by an abrupt rise lasting 2 years does NOT constitute a trend, sorry.
    So. Which is it? You pays your money and you takes your choice, as my old clarinet teacher used to say.”

    People have been over this with you multiple times on this forum, for years. I even explained this to you in the comments section of potholer54’s videos. Yet you keep peddling these myths anyway, frustrating people. This might lead newcomers here to erroneously think you’re being treated unfairly or too harshly when people brush you off.

    So I’ll again explain some of the flaws in your claims. When you evade those points (as you almost always do) this should help illustrate to newcomers why many people get fed up with you. You’re a non-expert who repeats the same distortions over and over again, no matter how many times experts in this topic correct you; the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

    There are at least 4 problems with what you’re doing:

    1) Endpoint bias, where you falsely claim a recent, short-term, non-statistically-significant fluctuation negates the longer-term, statistically significant, ongoing warming trend.
    2) To help combat the endpoint bias from point 1, scientists use mathematical/statistical methods to see if there was a statistically significant change-point in the surface warming trend post-1970s. There wasn’t such a change-point, including at your cherry-picked start-points of 1998 and 2000. Thus there is no sound statistical basis for not accepting that the longer-term surface warming trend continued post-1970s [or post-1960s] to the present.
    3) You don’t statistically account for your use of broken trends [i.e. trends that start and stop sharply at an endpoint, instead of the trend being continuous with the rest of the data].
    4) You don’t statistically account for your biased selection of start-points and end-points. This is often called “the multiple testing problem” or “selection bias”. It’s akin to p-hacking, in which one keeps looking around in data to mine a desired result, without taking into account how those multiple chances at getting said result affect the statistical significance of finding that result.

    Point 1’s discussion of endpoint bias is covered in sources such as:

    “Overcoming endpoint bias in climate change communication: The case of Arctic sea ice trends”
    “Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends”
    “Leveraging scientific credibility about Arctic sea ice trends in a polarized political environment”
    “A blind expert test of contrarian claims about climate data”

    Memes illustrating this endpoint bias:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:ArcticEscalator2012_med.gif
    https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    Sources on the remaining points 2 to 4:

    “A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence”
    “Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls”
    “Trend analysis of climate time series: A review of methods”
    “Debunking the climate hiatus”
    “Lack of evidence for a slowdown in global temperature”
    “Change points of global temperature”
    “Change point analysis of global temperature records”
    “Distinguishing trends and shifts from memory in climate data”
    “Regional trend changes in recent surface warming”
    section 1 of: “Decadal ocean heat redistribution since the late 1990s and its association with key climate modes”
    pages 145 and 150 of: “Signal detection in global mean temperatures after “Paris”: an uncertainty and sensitivity analysis”

  18. 118
    Jim Balter says:

    VG: “Take it up with Gavin, Bart. He’s the one who drew that line, not me.”

    The line isn’t straight, and it was calculated, not drawn … there’s a legend that says how it was calculated.

    What do you think you achieve by posting here? What you actually achieve is to give the impression that climate science denial is the province of stupid intellectually dishonest ignoramuses … i.e., you would further your cause by remaining silent.

  19. 119
    Mr. Know It All says:

    Australian wildfire news:

    Leader of leftists around the world makes appearance to survey fires:

    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/spooky-demon-face-spotted-in-smoke-from-australian-wildfires

    :)

    Digital visualization of Australia fires misrepresented as satellite image:

    https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2020/jan/06/facebook-posts/digital-visualization-australia-fires-misrepresent/

    Model selling nude photos for Australian wildfire relief:

    https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/model-nude-photos-australia-wildfire-instagram-claims

    :)

  20. 120
    All the turtles says:

    Hey guys, what do you thing about the recent marriage of BigOil and BigTech? https://youtu.be/v3n8txX3144 I’m worried the world’s oligarchs will lose their minds with so much concentrated wealth, media control, and surveillance power.

  21. 121
    Killian says:

    Re #100 nigelj said Killian @86 saying to denialists “shut up you disgusting criminal” wont shut them up in the main, it will harden their attitudes.

    Moot. See if you can figure out why.

    Does name calling make you change your mind?

    I am not the answer to the suggestion above, so your question does not apply. And, yelling has zero to do with jack. See if you can figure out why.

    You are really just expressing your frustration.

    False. I used to engage them any chance I had, and in those days never failed to correctly identify a denier, even the most “concern troll” types attempting to mask their intentions. I no longer do. I hit them hard with the facts re what/who/the kind of person they are and the effects of their criminality. See if you can figure out why.

  22. 122
    Killian says:

    Re #74 Timothy Havard said You can argue all you like about this graph , that graph, that difference etc. Unless someone is lying there (I believe Gavin) seems to be one hell of a storm going on out there. Considerable numbers of small lochs, lakes and ponds in Scotland have tended to go “green” for three years in a row now. Maybe we need to actually start on what we intend to do to repair the ecological damage.

    A small percentage are. Any ecovillage, any land rewilding/landscape restoration plan, any permaculture design and some more specific programs, such as Ecosystem Restoration Camps.

    We need several magnitudes more of this.

    I suggest my own concepts: Regenerative Community Incubators and Regenerative Governance.

  23. 123
    Al Bundy says:

    Zebra: But my question about the 30-year thing is… what question are we answering?

    AB: Your skill is drilling down to where combining up to the meta works. How to structure a search or an analysis or even a discussion with a GOPper.

    In general, “What’s the trend?”, which tends towards a long dataset. But sometimes, “Where are we?”, which might be more concerned with, um, residuals? such as the aerosols that will disappear when we quit burning fossils.

    And then there’s change point analysis, which can combine vastly dissimilar data in the search for inflections and tipping points.

  24. 124
    Al Bundy says:

    BPL: No, it’s more like you’ve shoved yourself into one marked “Dunning-Kruger poster boy.” You’re not just wrong, you’re arrogant about it.

    B: The obsolete rarely advance.

    And seriously, you’ve known me long and well enough that you know your insult is stupid. More importantly, nobody else here agrees with your laughably inaccurate label. I could be wrong about this or that topic but I’m smarter than…

  25. 125
    Nemesis says:

    Just wanted to say happy new year from Germany, today +10°C, tomorrow +13°C and +15°C on thursday :’D Can I believe my calendar anymore?! It say says “WINTER”, harr harr.

  26. 126
    Nemesis says:

    Meanwhile:

    “ELON MUSK welcomes SPACE FORCE by Tweeting ‘Starfleet begins’ (Episode 29)”
    https://youtu.be/_ZL2kM3oHIs

    ” Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines”
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318341092_Biological_annihilation_via_the_ongoing_sixth_mass_extinction_signaled_by_vertebrate_population_losses_and_declines

    ” How tech’s richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse…”
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularity

    Hurry up to get some ticket to dead Mars, if you can afford it.

  27. 127
    Nemesis says:

    Addendum to my recent comment:

    Elon Musk in his very own words:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1170424775149117440

    I don’t like american war policy, I don’t like Elon Musk. Cheers from Europe.
    Anyway, see you on dead Mars quickly, if you can afford a ticket :’D

  28. 128
    Mal Adapted says:

    Radge Havers:

    re D-K effect
    I think it’s a natural feature (bug) for humans to start out naive with poor, self-serving heuristics. It’s natural enough to out grow it in the proper environment; but that’s hard to do if you’ve been weakly educated compared to being strongly propagandized. It’s not entirely a personal failing, it’s also a social disease, imo.

    First, speaking as an evolutionist who is also an atheist: IMHO human vanity or pride is an outcome of conflicting selection forces, both natural and cultural (a false dichotomy actually, as culture is wholly within our nature). In that sense, there is no sin resulting in eternal damnation: the Mediocrity Principle at least assures us of that! Although it limits our scope to the vicinity of Earth currently, the MP can otherwise counter our propensity for folly only if we recognize it in ourselves. Thus, “folly” does secular service for “sin”. “Morality” must also be judged without reference to the supernatural: if we agree it’s immoral to allow one’s private vanity to resist an appropriate collective response to a shared global crisis, then climate-science denial for any motive is immoral. So sayeth I, ex officio.

    RH:

    Hate to say it, but Dan H. is a lost cause. How many years has he spent here impervious, repeating the same tired b.s. word games over and over and over?

    Yes, he’s a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect! Bear in mind, he’s not necessarily the target audience for gleeful buttrebuttals: everyone needs to learn about the D-K effect, including RC’s hypothetical uncommitted lurkers ;^).

    Now, recognizing my own vanity: I should not have linked the rule of Ockham (aka Occam’s Razor) with either my claim that 10^6 net deaths from AGW to date is within the consensus range, or Dan H.’s claim that net mortality could just as easily be zero or even net negative. As I’ve said, I can’t document any estimates of as high as 100,000. I also said:

    IMHO, Occam’s (or Ockham’s) least hypothesis rule broadly applies to these two competing theories: either Dan H. (or some other DK-afflicted denier) is right and the peer community of climate experts is wrong; or vice versa. The latter theory is favored by OR, as it entails fewer assumptions than the former.

    I acknowledge that was a little far afield. I’ll strive to write less obscurely 8^}.

    BTW, Al Bundy::

    You’re ignoring fully half of DK. DK states that those who are capable generally deny their capability.

    If you insist. Is false humility folly ;^)? OTOH, perhaps Impostor syndrome is involved 8^(. Let’s not forget random existential irony, either (“To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself.” –Einstein). Seriously though, the more a person knows about a narrow topic, the more they know how little they know in the broadest scope. IOW: within the limits of “free will”, the MP can potentially hold us back from folly!

    AB:

    Why do people focus on morons? As if they matter, eh?

    Well, there’s always those hypothetical lurkers. We don’t want them to think lukewarmism is respectable! Besides, we’ve all got multiple motives for being here. What’s wrong with releasing a little savage glee against petrified (heh) denialists, along with verifiable evidence 8^D?

  29. 129
    Mr. Know It All says:

    28 – Mal Adapted
    “..Absent unsupported assumptions, parsimony suggests that an accurate enumeration of (total deaths caused) – (total deaths prevented) by AGW over the last 50 years, would show net mortality in at least the 100,000s…”

    To calculate the actual net effect would be very difficult. With a warmer planet (whatever the cause), there may be fewer cold related deaths, there may be greater survival of people in arid climates due to greater moisture allowing better crop yields – with resulting better nourishment, increased CO2 from FFs may also increase crop yields reducing famine,….. Perhaps that’s where Dan is coming from.

  30. 130
    Mr. Know It All says:

    62 – Dan H.
    “Mal,
    …..You can try all the smear tactics you like, but lacking sound scientific data, your musings fall on deaf ears. Science is more than just name-calling and schoolyard bullying. Your crude attempts are pathetic, and anyone here can see that.”

    Well said Dan. Name calling and bullying is all they’ve got.
    Dunning-Kruger; Scientific Meta Literacy; Occam’s Razor; My ass! Run the numbers – show your data – more science, less flowery blather.

    90 – Karsten V.J.
    “All I know about the for now about three months ongoing catastrophe in Australia (and that’s a lot) points to this minister for one being right. And that’s a small stream of light in a deeply sleeping public. This catastrophe has not emerged out of the blue, far from, it’s the highly predictable result of over twenty years of complete, planned and calculated ignorance:….”

    No, it’s the highly predictable result of the crime of arson. Time will tell what “ignorance” resulted in these crimes, but I have a pretty good idea what it will be. ;)

    https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/dozens-of-firebugs-blamed-for-destructive-queensland-fires-20191220-p53m1i.html

    One more, FYI. Sort comments by best:

    https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2020/01/07/report-arson-epidemic-not-climate-change-behind-australias-bushfires/

  31. 131
    Guest (O.) says:

    Just looking a video about climate change topic (from a scientist). Nice graphs he uses. But the problem is the same as many other scientist do: the graph does end in 2020. But IPCC-projections are targeting 2100.
    So, the projected possible future is not visible in the graph.
    Hence people have no clue about the timescale, for which the projections or CO2-limit-goals are done. They are just somewhere in the invisible area.
    The average listener/viewer might be irritated and become a victim of the denialists, if the timescale ends too early.

    I think scientists in the climate field (or in general) should take into account that there are some psychological issues for viewing graphs.
    And if scientists talk about CO2-limiting-goals, which are somewhere in the nirvana of the graph, they can’t imagine the problem.
    They are not trained to work with such abstract things.
    They look at the graph, they see that it’s just below 1.5 degrees and subconsciously might think: where is the problem? And also might think: well, the scientists just do alarming.
    The values at 2100 are 80 years away from now.
    Thats more than the average lifespan of people.
    And if it’s not shown in the graphs, people can’t cope with the issue.

    So,I think, that even non-denialiats are underestimating the problem, has – at least partially – to do with bad chosen graphs.

    So I want to ask the scientists here on the blog, to make the time scale axis long enough, to cover also the time that is used in the projections.
    If the graph does show the mearued temperature, then of course there will be a relatively large part of the image, that does not contain any data – because from 2020 to 2100 the measurements will lie in the future.
    But it will make clear the timescale on which climat science is done.
    This can be emphasized by marking the year 2100 with a vertical line.

    I know that some graphs, which show projections, are going up to the year 2100.
    But I want to ask, no, I want to urge that it’s necessary also to make the year 2100 visible in the graphs that end in earlier years (actual value 2020).

    So, here is the vieo I’m looking (the graph at 5min, Slides page 4):
    https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10991-science_for_future

    Here in this article an example graph that has the same problem:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/10/more-than-500-people-misunderstand-climate-change/

    It may look like waste of space in the image, but IMO it would things more clear.
    Some more space for the higher temperatures might also make sense…

    For the time scale it’s just setting ylimits to 1860,2100 and things are done. if it looks unusual, no problem… scientists are also just humans.

    If you completely disagree, ask your local psychology department, if they could research on how perception of graphs works, and maybe they can start research on it. Topic: how do people understand projections into the future (possibly after their lifetime) better: with graphs that just end today where they cope with their daily lives, or when the time-axis goes until the time, for which the projections are done.
    Limiting the time scale to the available data is cutting out 80 years to year 2100.
    Just imagine to cut out 80 years back from now. You will end in 1940.
    So, try to draw the data just until 1940 and let the people imagine, how it will look in 2020.

    You see the picture?

  32. 132
    Guest (O.) says:

    To show what I was talking about (extending time-axis of climate graphs):

    http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=09961059227088836820

  33. 133
    b fagan says:

    Victor #87 said: “The El Nino in question actually peaked in 2015, so the flat trend to which I referred ended at the outset of 2015, not 2016. Sorry for the confusion”
    I assume you’ve already read Kevin McKinney #99 response.

    Hysterical that you have to shift the end goalpost by one year to get what you claim is in any way significant. If a “trend” changes that much in a year, your interval’s far too short to mean anything. By the way, NOAA shows a +0.15°C/decade for your re-picked interval – could it be why you didn’t use the same charting tool I did?

    Then Victor #87 said: “The “trend” you found at the NOAA site includes the El Nino singularity, which makes it a trend only in a purely statistical sense, since a singularity can’t be part of a trend. And yes, Virginia, statistics can be misleading. In the words of mini-AOC: “Did you know that?”
    According to the trend calculator at Skeptical Science ( https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php ), the NOAA data for 1998-2015 shows a trend of only .098 per decade; Hadcrut4: .068; RSSv4.0 TTT: .007; UAHv6.0 TLT: -.041 (yikes!). That’s 16 years. As the man said, “you pays your money and you takes your choice.””

    Laughing my head off now because I watched what you did when you first suggested the trend was 2000 to 2015, then snuck your starting goalpost back TWO years.
    You wanted me to remove an El Niño “singularity” from the end of the trend, then thought nobody would notice you put a big, fat El Niño at the START of your new goals. Then you tried to cover your tracks by claiming 1998-2015 is: “That’s 16 years”. No. It isn’t.

    NOAA shows a trend from 1998-2015 of +0.14°C, by the way.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1998&endtrendyear=2015

    I know statistics can be misleading, especially after years of watching people cherry-picking their dates to try to prove their wishes about climate. By the way, decadal trends with NOAA are +0.17°C since 1969, +0.17°C since 1979, too and +0.19°C since 1989. All those include your imaginary flat line.

    PS – why should I care about AOC?

  34. 134
    b fagan says:

    Guest (O.) #97 says: “What does the phrase “The rights of this book have been reverted back to the author.” mean? For me it reads neutral as some kind of law issue regarding authorship… and the right to publish (e.g. author wants to publish on it’s own too). …but you write, as if it means, that this is a publisher’s way of rejecting some kind of bogus “science” (like retraction of scientific papers)?”

    It means Springer is not selling the book. Someone online claimed the author claimed Springer is doing a post-publish peer review and Fleming is angry. I have no idea if any of that is accurate and don’t feel a need to check further.

    Yes, I said it sounded like bad science, because anyone who claims things like the following ( from http://rexfleming.com/books/ ) is likely quite wrong:

    “This 176 page book which gives the unique history of one of the longest scientific misrepresentations in history. The reader is taken on a journey through time as this story unfolds from around 1900 to 2030 and beyond.
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extremely important molecule for life on Earth and has no impact on climate change!”

    Before you think this lone retiree has uncovered a scientific secret, covered up for over a century, please spend less then two minutes learning a big reason why it’s extremely unlikely in the competitive world of research science.

    This is the glaciologist, Richard Alley, explaining What Drives Scientists? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WLArrksB4

    Fleming says warming is the sun and cosmic rays and says CO2 has nothing to do with it. But handwaving in the face of data proving that CO2 does act like greenhouse gases do does not make the greenhouse effect go away. It has to be accounted for in his world.

    So he’s obliged to explain how the sun and cosmic rays can cause currently measured warming while somehow precisely negating the greenhouse warming at EXACTLY the same time humans have suddenly boosted greenhouse gases, and at NO OTHER time in history. And do that as the recent solar dimming coincided with four consecutive warmest decade on record. That’s a lot of ‘splainin to do in 176 pages.

    That’s why in my original comment I linked to a study that measured changes in warming matching measured changes in CO2 concentration in open air over a decade. How would he explain the sun (or cosmic rays) mimicking downwelling IR in CO2 bands and the same in methane bands? LBL did the same study for methane. They found no increased IR during the part of the study where methane levels were stable, then IR increased when methane did. Sun? Cosmic ray tuning?

    The greenhouse effect is real and his book can’t wish it away.

    PS – we’d still have to end fossil fuel use because of the effects of CO2-induced decreasing pH of lakes and oceans.

  35. 135
    nigelj says:

    Edgar Ramirez says hopefully “If solar irradiance can explain most warming, all the carbon taxes in the world won’t change anything. ” The operative word is “If”. In fact solar irradiance can’t explain the warming since the 1970s. See if you can do some reading and figure out why.

  36. 136
    Victor says:

    #117
    Atomsk’s Sanakan says:

    “People have been over this with you multiple times on this forum, for years. (etc.)”

    V: As should be obvious, the great majority commenting here have a fixed opinion regarding so-called “climate change,” amounting, as I see it, to a rigid dogma. Without exception, anyone expressing skepticism in this regard is routinely greeted with insults, accusations of cherry picking, Dunning Kruger, lack of scientific understanding, stupidity, idiocy, etc. Whenever someone like myself chimes in with observations that challenge the prevailing view, there is sure to be gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth. I’m used to it and usually prefer to simply ignore it. I realize I represent a minority view here so, given the contentious nature of the Internet, I expect a certain amount of defensive bullying.

    And yes, I’m raising issues I’ve raised in the past. And will continue to do so when I spot a particularly egregious claim.

    AS: There are at least 4 problems with what you’re doing:

    1) Endpoint bias, where you falsely claim a recent, short-term, non-statistically-significant fluctuation negates the longer-term, statistically significant, ongoing warming trend.

    V: If I repeat myself it’s not because I’m ignoring all the many attempts to “correct” me, but because the reasoning behind these attempts is so obviously flawed. As I’ve pointed out many times, there is NO “longer-term ongoing warming trend” that could be associated with CO2 emissions. I’ve seen attempts to plot a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, but, as I pointed out some time ago in a blog post, such attempts are highly misleading. If you don’t believe me, look for yourself: https://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html

    AS: 2) To help combat the endpoint bias from point 1, scientists use mathematical/statistical methods to see if there was a statistically significant change-point in the surface warming trend post-1970s. There wasn’t such a change-point, including at your cherry-picked start-points of 1998 and 2000. Thus there is no sound statistical basis for not accepting that the longer-term surface warming trend continued post-1970s [or post-1960s] to the present.

    V: Once again I feel the need to repeat myself. 1998 is a date frequently mentioned in the literature as the beginning of a well-known phenomenon known as the “pause” or “hiatus.” The existence of this pause, which lasted fully 16 years is well documented and has posed a challenge to climate scientists for some time. It’s not something some Dunning Kruger victim dreamed up, but an unexpected development qualified scientists have been struggling with for many years. If change point analysis fails to spot this very obvious, widely recognized, change of trend then the method is clearly flawed. Which prompts me to repeat what I’ve written many times on this blog: statistics can be misleading.

    AS: 3) You don’t statistically account for your use of broken trends [i.e. trends that start and stop sharply at an endpoint, instead of the trend being continuous with the rest of the data].

    V: Excessive dependence on statistical methods is, as I see it, one reason why so many climate scientists can go wrong. Statistics is most meaningful when a large dataset is being analyzed. If there is too much data for the eye to comprehend at a glance, then statistics becomes a useful tool. If, on the other hand, we have a relatively small dataset that CAN be comprehended at a single glance, then there is no need for statistical analysis, which in any case is not particularly effective when a relatively small dataset is involved (see the law of large numbers). In such cases visual assessment of a graph is probably more reliable.

    AS: 4) You don’t statistically account for your biased selection of start-points and end-points. This is often called “the multiple testing problem” or “selection bias”. It’s akin to p-hacking, in which one keeps looking around in data to mine a desired result, without taking into account how those multiple chances at getting said result affect the statistical significance of finding that result.

    V: This is precisely the problem I have with the graph Gavin presents, with its clearly cherry-picked starting point. If one started with the year 1940, the “trend” would look very different (i.e., there would be no trend at all).

  37. 137
    nigelj says:

    One thing bothering me about wind power, is the quantity required, and the number of birds killed which is significant. Is there a solution? Is there some way of automatically detecting approaching birds with cameras, and generating a sound to scare them off? Or what? Otherwise theres quite a big problem.

  38. 138
    MA Rodger says:

    RSS have posted for December with the TLT anomaly of +0.80ºC, a bit of an increase on November’s +0.71ºC and the =3rd highest anomaly of 2019. 2019’s monthly anomalies came in between +0.63ºC and +0.89ºC, averaging +0.73ºC.

    December 2019 is the hottest December in the RSS TLT record (as pre UAH), just ahead of the El-Niño-boosted Dec 2015 which managed +0.79ºC, 2017 (+0.62ºC), 2018 (+0.53ºC), 2003 (+0.52ºC), 2014 (+0.50ºC), and 2016 (+0.45ºC). Thus six of the hottest seven Decembers on record occurred in the last six years.
    December 2019 is =11th highest anomaly in the all-month RSS record (=10th in UAH).

    So on the RSS record, 2019 comes in as expected as 2nd-placed warmest-year on record. (In the trend-defying UAH TLT record it was 3rd.) The top ten RSS years comprise the last seven year interspersed with three earlier El-Niño year and looks like this:-

    2016 … … … +0.79ºC
    2019 … … … +0.73ºC
    2017 … … … +0.67ºC
    2010 … … … +0.62ºC
    2015 … … … +0.60ºC
    1998 … … … +0.58ºC
    2018 … … … +0.53ºC
    2014 … … … +0.47ºC
    2005 … … … +0.46ºC

  39. 139
    MA Rodger says:

    Edgar Ramirez @115,
    I think you’ll find it is Scafetta & Willson not Willson & Scarfetta. And when you have finished LOLing, perhaps you could give us here a good laugh by explaining how the attempt of Scarfetta & Willson to make small adjustments to parts of the TSI record will “put a knife into the heart of the whole movement, it’s just a matter of time till everyone finds out and this whole house of cards comes crashing down.”

  40. 140

    AB 114: The 30-year rule give you more data points, smearing error into accuracy.

    BPL: It’s not just instrumental error you have to get rid of. It’s shorter-term effects, like the solar cycle and ENSO.

  41. 141

    ER 115: Willson and Scarfetta put a knife into the heart of the whole movement

    BPL: No, they did not. CO2 accounts for 82% of the variance of temperature over the past 169 years. Sunlight accounts for a few percent at best. So Willson and Scafetta are wrong, period.

  42. 142

    KIA 130: it’s the highly predictable result of the crime of arson.

    BPL: Despite lies being put about by deniers, “arson” did not cause 21 million km^2 of Australia to go up in flames.

  43. 143
    Nemesis says:

    Addendum to my recent comment:

    The Donald and Musk go hand in hand, conquering space:

    “Space is the world’s new war-fighting domain,” Trump said on Friday during a signing ceremony at Joint Base Andrews. He said that the US is the leader in militarizing space, however not distinct enough from Russia and China. Trump also said he is confident that the US will soon to be “far ahead of everyone.”

    https://newswire.net/newsroom/news/00115612-donald-trump-launches-u-s-space-force.html

    Hell is Real and it’s a Real Madhouse. See you there.

  44. 144
    Chuck says:

    102
    nigelj says:
    5 Jan 2020 at 9:12 PM

    “Victor is classic dunning kruger. He actually thinks he understands trends better than scientists, and has found some sort of problem. You could put him in a text book. He cant even read a simple graph, in the way some people are color blind but doesn’t have the ability to see his own limits which is classic dunning kruger as well. However his climate science skepticism is also driven by a dislike of environmental taxes, having to make lifestyle changes, and that side of thing if you read his posts. Otherwise he probably wouldn’t be commenting on the thing.”

    Chuck – And now Weaktor is trying to promote the “Arsonist Started the Australian fires” bullshit.

    https://junkee.com/arson-bushfires-australia/237148

    Is it really that difficult to ban the trolls on this site??? They’re spreading false and dangerous narratives, just like Donald Trump! If nothing else I would consider it a public safety issue.

  45. 145
    zebra says:

    #112 Dan H,

    I looked at your #33 and my reply to Guest O was correct… you don’t understand Ockham’s Razor at all.

    It does not say anything about “extraordinary claims”; this is a common blogosphere error. Mal Adapted does understand OR, as was demonstrated at #80… and his #28 was sloppily worded, but it was obvious there what he was getting at.

    There’s nothing “extraordinary” about concluding that increased weather extremes result in increased deaths, ceteris paribus. (look it up)

    It would be fine for you to offer a list of effects that might lead to fewer deaths, but you would have to provide some kind of evidence, which you haven’t.

    So you aren’t engaging in a scientific discussion, just empty internet rhetoric. (look it up)

  46. 146
    MA Rodger says:

    While we have alraedy had the global TLT anomalies for December from RSS & UAH, the Copernicus SRA5 surface reanalysis has now posted for December showing an anomaly of +0.74ºC, a bit of an increase on November’s +0.64ºC and the highest anomaly of 2019 which otherwise came in between +0.48ºC and +0.70ºC, averaging +0.59ºC over 2019.

    December 2019 is the hottest December in the ERA5 record, a whisker ahead of the El-Niño-boosted Dec 2015 which also managed +0.74ºC, and quite ahead of other Decembers – 2017 (+0.57ºC), 2016 (+0.53ºC), 2018 (+0.53ºC), 2006 (+0.39ºC), and 2014 (+0.39ºC). Thus, as per RSS TLT, six of the hottest seven Decembers on record occurred within the last six years.
    In ERA5, December 2019 sits in a toasty 4th place in the all-month anomaly record, behind the El-Niño-boosted months Jan-March 2016 and just ahead of the month preceding these El Niño months, namely Dec 2015.

    So on the ERA5 Reanalysis record, the callendar year 2019 comes in as expected as the 2nd-placed warmest-year on record. With El-Niño wobbles smaller in surface trecords, the last seven years sit within the Top-9 with only two earlier El-Niño years featuring. The top-10 looks like this:-

    2016 … … +0.63ºC
    2019 … … +0.59ºC
    2017 … … +0.54ºC
    2018 … … +0.46ºC
    2015 … … +0.45ºC
    2010 … … +0.32ºC
    2014 … … +0.30ºC
    2005 … … +0.29ºC
    2013 … … +0.26ºC
    2006 … … +0.24ºC

  47. 147
    William Jackson says:

    Meant to post #130 Breitbart…LOL! sorry…

  48. 148
    TPaine says:

    Gavin, in post #24 by Victor he seems to have trouble seeing the temperature difference from 1980 to end of the graph is the same in both graphs. I copied your graph onto a PowerPoint page as well as the graph that Victor linked, but only the 1980 forward section. I then made the graph that Victor linked transparent and moved it over your graph after adjusting the X-Y scale to match. It’s practically a perfect match. I don’t have a website so I can’t insert a link to it. Is there a way to show it here?

  49. 149
    TPaine says:

    #24 Victor

    Actually the temperature increase from 2000 to 2016 in the graph you linked is quite large at about 0.5C. (I checked the digital data the graph was made from to be sure) You should have cherry picked the years 1998 to 2012 where the end points are almost the same. That way you could have gone from one of the strongest El Nino’s to a strong La Nina and obtained the results you wanted. If you are going to cherry pick your data you should be careful to pick the right data. The data you picked shows a global temperature increase of 0.31/decade which is definitely not the results you want. And for goodness sakes don’t pick the most recent years from 2013 to 2020 as that shows an increase of 0.27C which is a rate of 0.39C/decade. You sure don’t want to be advertising those kinds of rates.

    My point is, just be careful which points you cherry pick if you want to get the results you like.

  50. 150
    Edgar Ramirez says:

    MA Roger/BPL Haha, it’s simple. Read the paper.

    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2019/1214896/

    CO2’s effect on climate has been vastly over-estimated. Why? Because the effect of Solar Irradiance has been massively UNDER-ESTIMATED. Look at the trend lines of global temps compared to TSI when the Willson/Scafetta correction is made, they match each other almost perfectly. Solar irradiance rose over the 90s, and has increased each decade by roughly +0.5.

    CO2 has an effect, but it’s tiny compared to the giant burning ball in the sky, maybe about 10% of all warming. The fact that no scientist has offered any rebuttal to this paper, published in early 2019, including any of the members of the PMOD team who are accused of cooking the data, speaks volumes. Don’t you think, if they had any evidence to back themselves up, they’d respond to such an accusation?