tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post3005840529926156940..comments2015-09-14T11:05:48.847-06:00Comments on Really Real Climate: Twelve Year Global Satellite + HadCRUT3 Temp TrendsTilo Reberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12340317421180002978noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-89011607422076392482010-03-24T22:07:39.899-06:002010-03-24T22:07:39.899-06:00Anonymous:
"No I think the common response wo...Anonymous:<br />"No I think the common response would be, "why don't you get the same graph as the experts get?""<br /><br />Eh, because I'm plotting their data since 1998 - the time period that I'm making a statement about. You are linking the time period since 1850. Now why would I want a 160 year chart to find the trend since 1998.<br /><br />Was that a serious question?Tilo Reberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12340317421180002978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-91490777248980288242010-03-12T19:21:20.885-07:002010-03-12T19:21:20.885-07:00No I think the common response would be, "why...No I think the common response would be, "why don't you get the same graph as the experts get?" http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif<br /><br />Once you get the training to see why you are horribly wrong, then maybe people will start to listen to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-33086006833453736102010-01-30T15:57:24.858-07:002010-01-30T15:57:24.858-07:00Slioch said...
Tilo Reber January 12 9:08 AM
...Slioch said...<br /><br /> Tilo Reber January 12 9:08 AM<br /><br /> Well, your one legitimate complaint against me is that I hadn't finished reading your Jan 11th post: your first three paragraphs there are little better than a rant, and I've read far too many of those. So, as I was short of time, that’s as far as I got. <br /><br />I went back and reread the first three paragraphs and I still don't see a "rant". Seems like a justification for how the graph was assembled to counter future questions (which John promptly ignored). To me a rant includes ad hominens - didn't see it.<br /><br />Loke the post BTWChrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09735574234281276971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-21487803944590564232010-01-20T18:04:53.337-07:002010-01-20T18:04:53.337-07:00You can start in 1999 and the trend is still flat....You can start in 1999 and the trend is still flat. The silly "but you're starting in 98!" argument goes away.<br /><br />Thanks anonymous. Your point is the same one that I make in my most recent post - namely - stop arguing about starting points and look at the ENSO corrected data. Then you can start any time you want and the trend will be flat. Of course you can't start before 1998 because we freely admit that temperatures were rising before 1998.<br /><br />Unfortunately, your link doesn't work and I'd love to have it. Can you give it another shot please.Tilo Reberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12340317421180002978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-36087028009838408812010-01-19T22:37:32.782-07:002010-01-19T22:37:32.782-07:00http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ull-report....http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ull-report.pdf<br /><br />"The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise."<br /><br />You can start in 1999 and the trend is still flat. The silly "but you're starting in 98!" argument goes away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-32726852322107332782010-01-12T15:18:08.524-07:002010-01-12T15:18:08.524-07:00Slioch:
"If you look at the graphs of ENSO ad...Slioch:<br />"If you look at the graphs of ENSO adjusted versus raw data (eg any of your Jan 11 figs 1- 4) what is striking is their similarity. In every single case the ENSO adjusted data is simply a somewhat damped version of the raw data – every peak and trough in the raw data is replicated in the ENSO adjusted data, though usually not so extremely. Why should that be? If an El Nino is responsible for a peak in global temperatures, then why should one expect a peak, albeit smaller, in global temperatures in the absence of an El Nino? The inescapable conclusion is that one should not, and that therefore the ENSO adjusted figures do NOT show what the global average temperatures would have been in the absence of El Nino/La Nina episodes."<br /><br />Well, at least you looked at the data. But your conclusion is not so inescapable. ENSO is an element of variation that runs for periods - roughly speaking - of 4 months to 4 years. During that time the transition into and out of the ENSO is somewhat gradual. Take a look at this:<br /><br />http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml<br /><br />But there are other, higher frequency, elements of natural variation still in the data. So what you see is exactly what you would expect from filtering out ENSO. I suggest you read Thompson's paper. He talks about how it all works. Also, Gavin has used Thompson's method to produce an ENSO corrected GISS data set. So you can probably get better details of how it works from him.<br /><br />"The lack of positive trend does not show that the signal has gone away."<br /><br />High frequency elements of natural variation are not going to make the signal go away or even disguise it. So you can leave them there and still see what the real trend is. Thompson talks about at least one other high frequency element of variation. And he shows a graph of it. But I'm sure that Thompson doesn't cover them all.<br /><br />"It would not matter if Tamino were a serial murderer:"<br /><br />No it wouldn't. But it does matter if he doesn't take contrary views. You can't assume that what your read there is correct when no one is allowed to challenge.<br /><br />"And besides, if they did start in a La Nina episode (as I think you state) then that would increase the slope and make it more, not less, difficult for the last decade to fit into the pre-2000 trend lines. Those graphs shows that there has been no statistically significant change in trend since 2000."<br /><br />I'm not sure what you are talking about here. If you start with a La Nina at the beginning of a trend line, then you are going to make the slope of that trend line go up. In regards to the pre 2000 period, there was plenty of warming going on in the 90s. So you don't have to worry about a comparison with the first five years of 2000.<br /><br />"since such evidence you provide (from HADCRUT3) shows very little difference between trends, I cannot see that it makes much difference using the five year data either."<br /><br />Actually, if you start both your adjusted and unadjusted periods in 99 or 2000 you will see a lot of difference in the trends. It is just incidental that starting in 1998 gives you a fair balance of influences when using unadjusted data.Tilo Reberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12340317421180002978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-75597440058691584392010-01-12T11:54:40.470-07:002010-01-12T11:54:40.470-07:00Tilo Reber January 12 9:08 AM
Well, your one leg...Tilo Reber January 12 9:08 AM <br /><br />Well, your one legitimate complaint against me is that I hadn't finished reading your Jan 11th post: your first three paragraphs there are little better than a rant, and I've read far too many of those. So, as I was short of time, that’s as far as I got. <br /><br />If you want people to consider what you say, please cut out the "stampede the population of the earth, for UN profit", "climategate decline hiders from the CRU", "torture the data into confession", "filled their own coffers with research grants" etc etc. It is difficult to take anyone seriously with that sort of garbage flying around.<br /><br />Before I get to some of the issues that have arisen already, let me draw your attention to one thing that puzzles me with respect to "ENSO adjusted data". (I've not seen this discussed elsewhere – maybe it has been.) If you look at the graphs of ENSO adjusted versus raw data (eg any of your Jan 11 figs 1- 4) what is striking is their similarity. In every single case the ENSO adjusted data is simply a somewhat damped version of the raw data – every peak and trough in the raw data is replicated in the ENSO adjusted data, though usually not so extremely. Why should that be? If an El Nino is responsible for a peak in global temperatures, then why should one expect a peak, albeit smaller, in global temperatures in the absence of an El Nino? The inescapable conclusion is that one should not, and that therefore the ENSO adjusted figures do NOT show what the global average temperatures would have been in the absence of El Nino/La Nina episodes.<br /><br />I appreciate you are not responsible for the ENSO adjusted figures, but you ARE using them as if they showed what average global temperatures would be in the absence of El Nino/La Nina episodes. It seems to me that that cannot be justified, and if that is correct then your entire assumption that you have removed their impact on the temperature graphs you show comes crashing to the ground. All you have shown is that if you mute the effects of El Nino/La Nina episodes somewhat then, for example, the almost zero slope of the temperature graph since 1998 does not disappear.<br /><br />In short, you have assumed the ENSO adjusted figures are really what they say they are. I really cannot see how that can be the case.<br /><br />A more general statement of the same thing is this: the ENSO adjusted temperature graph is still very noisy. Clearly, that noise cannot be attributed to rapidly varying levels of IR absorption by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In other words, the noise is caused by something else (even if it isn’t El Nino/La Nina episodes), but with respect to the signal it is still noise. Therefore, the fact that the signal is masked by the noise for extended periods is still inevitable: that is what happens when your data consists of signal plus noise. The lack of positive trend does not show that the signal has gone away.<br /><br />I've gone on about that longer than intended, so very briefly:<br /><br />1. It would not matter if Tamino were a serial murderer: the graphs to which I linked (eg. http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/uah2.jpg?w=500&h=325) <br />would still demand explanation. Merely dismissing them with a few ad hominems isn't good enough. And besides, if they did start in a La Nina episode (as I think you state) then that would increase the slope and make it more, not less, difficult for the last decade to fit into the pre-2000 trend lines. Those graphs shows that there has been no statistically significant change in trend since 2000.<br /><br />2. As far as the use of raw or ENSO adjusted figures for the last decade (eg my UAH figures) is concerned, since such evidence you provide (from HADCRUT3) shows very little difference between trends, I cannot see that it makes much difference using the five year data either.Sliochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13971784550850622504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-65288082508387927602010-01-12T09:08:16.870-07:002010-01-12T09:08:16.870-07:00Slioch:
You give absolutely no evidence of having...Slioch:<br /><br />You give absolutely no evidence of having read the article for this post or for having read the article for the post that I linked in my last comment. I don't mind debating someone on my views, but debating someone with their fingers in their ears is a waste of my time. I'm going to explain it one more time. Go and look at my chart on this post. Click on it to expand it. Then look at the ENSO periods at the top. See the 99 and 00 La Nina's. See their effect on the temperature. Remember also that the ENSO effect is delayed by 3 or 4 month. Your first five year period is an ENSO artifact when it is compared to the second five year period. Your five year period is simply not enough to remove the ENSO effect. In fact, my twelve year period is often not enough either. That is why I have an ENSO corrected chart. Also, don't bother me with links to Tamino. I have answers for Tamino, as do many other people, but he will not post our comments. Tamino is a statistical sophist that runs a propaganda site - plain and simple.<br /><br />"There, both the UAH and RSS data are plotted: in neither case is the best linear fit and limits of two standard deviations either side of it (established before the year 2000) exceeded by the data after 2000."<br /><br />Again, look at the starting point. It is in the depth of a La Nina. Of course the trend is up from there. Again, Tamino's demonstration depends on an ENSO artifact. The argument that 1998 also produces an ENSO artifact would be true if it were not followed immediately by a long La Nina. As it is, the two cancel each other out. That is why 1998 is a legitimate place to start while 99 and 00 are not. But you can end the whole argument by using ENSO corrected data, like I have. And the ENSO corrected data still shows no trend.<br /><br />"why have you not made a similar measurement throughout ALL of the UAH and RSS data series? Why have you not shown us the length of other flat periods within that data set?"<br /><br />Again you are showing that you want nothing more than to spout the common misconceptions that were fed to you by RC and Tamino. I did exactly what you asked for in the post that I linked for you here:<br /><br />http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2010/01/another-inconvient-truth-for-agw.html<br /><br />I showed that two such periods were natural variation artifacts. One was an ENSO artifact and the other was a volcano artifact. The current 12 year flat trend is not an artifact of anything. That is why it is so significant.<br /><br />Now if you want to continue this discussion, then at least show that you understand what I have already written in the articles. You don't have to agree. But at least begin by comprehending.Tilo Reberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12340317421180002978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-60884890088356159502010-01-12T03:14:46.378-07:002010-01-12T03:14:46.378-07:00Tilo Reber Jan 11 8:22pm
So, having started your ...Tilo Reber Jan 11 8:22pm<br /><br />So, having started your article with graphs constructed with raw data from UAH and RSS, you now object to me showing that raw data?<br /><br />As I explained above, using five year averages helps to remove the noise of inter annual variations in average global temperatures caused by relatively short term events such as ENSOs and volcanic eruptions It is a rough and ready method of removing such noise from the temperature series.<br /><br />If you want a clearer indication of why the last decade or so does not represent a statistically significant change in slope for the UAH and RSS data then you should consult:<br /><br />http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/#more-2108<br /><br />There, both the UAH and RSS data are plotted: in neither case is the best linear fit and limits of two standard deviations either side of it (established before the year 2000) exceeded by the data after 2000.<br /><br />Finally, you attempt to justify your use of the data starting in 1998 by claiming that you are merely interested in "how long has the global temperature trend been flat". That is a rather bizarre metric, but if you insist on using it, why have you not made a similar measurement throughout ALL of the UAH and RSS data series? Why have you not shown us the length of other flat periods within that data set? Why do you just cherry-pick the latest period of flat trend and ignore any of the others?Sliochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13971784550850622504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-53298977479926065552010-01-11T20:22:30.287-07:002010-01-11T20:22:30.287-07:00Let's break your table into two chunks. The f...Let's break your table into two chunks. The first four lines are of no importance to this post. No skeptic is arguing the fact that it warmed up to 1998. The next two lines show an increase between them because the first line is an artifact of the 1999, 2000 La Nina. I have explained, in great detail, why you cannot do that in the text of my post, as well as in the new post here:<br />http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2010/01/another-inconvient-truth-for-agw.html<br /><br />So, if you want to compare those two 5 year pieces, then get an ENSO corrected version of them and show me what you have.Tilo Reberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12340317421180002978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-75713391583830488452010-01-11T16:20:51.650-07:002010-01-11T16:20:51.650-07:00You provide graphs of the UAH and RSS global avera...You provide graphs of the UAH and RSS global average temperature series, so let us look at the five year average global temperature anomalies from those series. Using five year averages helps to smooth out the shorter-term variations, making it easier to detect trends.<br />Here is the data;<br /><br />Years.......UAH......RSS<br />1980-1984 -0.047C -0.060C<br />1985-1989 -0.050C -0.070C<br />1990-1994 -0.032C -0.022C<br />1995-1999 +0.147C +0.189C<br />2000-2004 +0.203C +0.254C<br />2005-2009 +0.238C +0.263C<br /><br />Do you agree that that information is correct (ie it provides correct UAH & RSS data)?<br />Do you agree that it shows continued warming, albeit at a lower rate recently than previously?Sliochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13971784550850622504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-12285764807659298042010-01-11T04:41:56.462-07:002010-01-11T04:41:56.462-07:00John wont be back.
Great article Tilo, I will be ...John wont be back.<br /><br />Great article Tilo, I will be linking to it.<br /><br />Thank you.Henry Galthttp://agwbs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-22817607545462986502010-01-11T04:33:42.354-07:002010-01-11T04:33:42.354-07:00John: [i]but if I only had figures since then I wo...John: [i]but if I only had figures since then I wouldn't know there was anything amiss[/]That's exactly the point. <br />'Nothing' has happened the last 12 years, although CO2 concentration has gone up more than 20 ppm in those 12 years. (ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt)<br /><br />So, what's going on then? What forces are (at the moment) stronger than Public Enemy CO2?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431366635194043065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-26874907380561741342010-01-11T00:10:36.655-07:002010-01-11T00:10:36.655-07:00John might also ask Kevin Trenberth why he calls t...John might also ask Kevin Trenberth why he calls the diverging CO2 and temp. curves over this same time period a "travesty".<br /><br />J.PedenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-40571737885711922172010-01-09T18:38:48.646-07:002010-01-09T18:38:48.646-07:00John:
I have an explanation for most of your obje...John:<br /><br />I have an explanation for most of your objections above.<br /><br />John:<br />If it were true that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998 (which it isn't),<br /><br />John, what is your evidence that the earth has warmed since 1998?Tilo Reberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12340317421180002978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-57033523895887080582010-01-08T21:06:24.950-07:002010-01-08T21:06:24.950-07:00Since we've been directly measuring temperatur...Since we've been directly measuring temperature since about 1650 (for southern England) it's just not a very useful thing to say 'I am only interested in the temperature since 1998'. If it were true that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998 (which it isn't), it would still be like saying 'It's always dark, I know this because I have data from 12 midnight-2am this morning.'<br /><br />Where I live in south-eastern Australia rainfall is about 30% down on historical norms since about 1998, but if I only had figures since then I wouldn't know there was anything amiss. As it is I do have previous data (plus lots of now dying street trees planted in wetter times and other signs).<br /><br />Oh, and this drying is caused by global warming, which is anthropogenic, of course.calyptorhynchushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13426373475735688961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5503041514417135682.post-75245149862538033442010-01-07T22:43:22.762-07:002010-01-07T22:43:22.762-07:00Trend is flat because you start it in 1998. If you...Trend is flat because you start it in 1998. If you tarted the graph in the 1970s you;d see that the trend is all up, and that this year is warmer than every year in the 19070s, 1980s and up to 98.calyptorhynchushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13426373475735688961noreply@blogger.com