Skip to content

Thoughts On Karl’s Pause-Buster Paper

June 5, 2015
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

 

WUWT has already thoroughly covered the latest NCDC attempt to remove the pause.  

Basically, Thomas Karl and co have adjusted sea surface temperatures down prior to around 1998, and up since, so that they now show that SST’s have carried on rising unabated.

But I will just add two comments. 

 

1) It is fundamental physics that when water is warmed up, the rate of evaporation increases. And evaporation is one of the main processes for the transfer of heat from the surface to the atmosphere, as NASA explain:  

 

Surface Energy Budget

To understand how the Earth’s climate system balances the energy budget, we have to consider processes occurring at the three levels: the surface of the Earth, where most solar heating takes place; the edge of Earth’s atmosphere, where sunlight enters the system; and the atmosphere in between. At each level, the amount of incoming and outgoing energy, or net flux, must be equal.

Remember that about 29 percent of incoming sunlight is reflected back to space by bright particles in the atmosphere or bright ground surfaces, which leaves about 71 percent to be absorbed by the atmosphere (23 percent) and the land (48 percent). For the energy budget at Earth’s surface to balance, processes on the ground must get rid of the 48 percent of incoming solar energy that the ocean and land surfaces absorb. Energy leaves the surface through three processes: evaporation, convection, and emission of thermal infrared energy.

 

Illustration of the energy balance between Earth's surface and the atmosphere.

The surface absorbs about 48% of incoming sunlight. Three processes remove an equivalent amount of energy from the Earth’s surface: evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation, or heat (net 17%). (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Photograph ©2006 Cyron.)

 

About 25 percent of incoming solar energy leaves the surface through evaporation. Liquid water molecules absorb incoming solar energy, and they change phase from liquid to gas. The heat energy that it took to evaporate the water is latent in the random motions of the water vapor molecules as they spread through the atmosphere. When the water vapor molecules condense back into rain, the latent heat is released to the surrounding atmosphere. Evaporation from tropical oceans and the subsequent release of latent heat are the primary drivers of the atmospheric heat engine (described on page 3).

 

Astronaut photograph of cumulus towers from the ISS.

Towers of cumulus clouds transport energy away from the surface of the Earth. Solar heating drives evaporation. Warm, moist air becomes buoyant and rises, moving energy from the surface high into the atmosphere. Energy is released back into the atmosphere when the water vapor condenses into liquid water or freezes into ice crystals

 

It therefore follows that, if sea surface temperatures have been increasing since 1998 as claimed, atmospheric temperatures would also be increasing. As we know, of course, they have not, they have actually been dropping.

Quite simply, Karl’s claims don’t stack up scientifically.

 

trend

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

 

 

2) We only need to go back to the ClimateGate emails to see the blatant attempts that were made to remove the inconvenient 1940’s blip by tampering with SST’s.

(Note the phrase speculations on correcting SSTs; now compare with the latest Karl paper which mentions using updated and corrected temperature observations taken at thousands of weather observing stations over land and as many commercial ships and buoys at sea. )

 

 

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

<x-flowed>
Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.

So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

81 Comments
  1. Richard Mallett permalink
    June 5, 2015 12:35 pm

    Why use RSS (which only started in 1998) to establish whether there has been a slowdown since 1998 (which is what NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC and HadCRUT4 show) ? The ‘adjustments’ or ‘corrections’ make very little difference in the overall trend; in fact, the latest ‘corrections’ actually reduce the overall trend by warming the earlier temperatures slightly.

    • June 5, 2015 12:46 pm

      Because I am looking at atmospheric temperatures. UAH show virtually the same trend as RSS.

      It is not the overall trend that is the issue, but the attempt to remove the inconvenient 18-yr pause. Hence the Science headline

      Much-touted global warming pause never happened
      http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/06/much-touted-global-warming-pause-never-happened?rss=1

      Then there is the abstract itself:

      Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 5, 2015 12:54 pm

        That headline misrepresents what the paper actually says. The paper is much more cautious, and says that there may not have been a slow down. I would say that there definitely has been a slow down in surface temperatures, which is what the paper discusses.

      • June 5, 2015 1:12 pm

        That’s not what the abstract says

        the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 5, 2015 4:49 pm

        Yes, for some unknown reason, they compare 2000-2014 with 1951-2000. There is certainly a slowdown (as shown by the ‘corrected’ NCDC) if you compare 1998-2014 with 1980-1998.

      • June 5, 2015 5:54 pm

        You still have not addressed the issue I raised, which the whole paper is predicated on – whether the pause is real or not.

        They claim that “correcting” SST’s means that warming has continued unabated. If this is true, why has this heat not been taken up by the atmosphere, where satellites show no temperature increase at all since 1998? (And not just a “slowdown”)

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 5, 2015 8:00 pm

        I personally will not look at the satellite data until it has covered at least 60-70 years, and preferably 100 years.

      • June 5, 2015 8:12 pm

        How old will you be then?

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 6, 2015 9:11 am

        That’s a synonym for never 🙂

      • June 5, 2015 10:09 pm

        Do you seriously believe that we can measure global temperatures from a century ago?

        In any event, we are not talking about 1915, we are talking the last 20 yrs.

        In a way, I have to agree with you. We should not be trusting any data from the past, given that it has to be so drastically adjusted. So let’s monitor the better quality data that we now have for a few more decades, certainly through the next lot of ocean cycles. Then in, say, 50 yrs time perhaps we can start drawing a few conclusions.

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 6, 2015 9:15 am

        Thank you, that’s exactly what I meant, except that the oceanic and solar cycles are longer than 50 years.

      • June 5, 2015 4:30 pm

        @ Richard Mallett June 5, 2015 12:54 pm

        “That headline misrepresents what the paper actually says. ”

        The objective of the headline is to generate column-inches. c.f. “97% of scientists …”

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 5, 2015 7:52 pm

        Absolutely !

    • June 6, 2015 4:11 pm

      RSS started in 1979 not 1998

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 6, 2015 4:15 pm

        Absolutely. All the more reason to show the whole period, not just a subset of it.

      • June 6, 2015 4:43 pm

        Bob Green says
        It’s hard to find any estimates of ocean heating by uv. You only get 3% of solar uv penetration. It might penetration an inch. Most of the heating should be from ir.

        Henry says
        I think that is where the books go wrong or “don’t know”.
        Going by the water spectrum, you will find that there is [some] absorption of water in the UV, although not spectacular much. However, there is enormous mass in the oceans and there are meters of water, so as the ultra short wavelength (highest energy) enters, it will re-radiate and re-radiate but eventually it be will be exchanged for heat.
        So, the “inch story” does not wash with me. UV A & B & C goes deeper. Where, eventually it will change into warmth.
        Perhaps somebody should actually look into this problem, as it is indeed important for climate science.
        At the moment, there only idiots working in that profession….
        Unfortunately, nobody pays me for my work so I cannot do it either.

      • June 6, 2015 6:16 pm

        Why?

        I have shown it since 1998, as that is when the pause started.

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 6, 2015 7:05 pm

        Because we need to know the conditions prior to the pause, as well as the conditions during the pause, to assess how significant it is.

      • June 6, 2015 7:11 pm

        there is no pause.
        There is only global warming or global cooling.
        All of my graphs, for means, minima and maxima show that global cooling started 20 years ago.

      • June 6, 2015 7:31 pm

        Which has precisely nothing to do with the post

  2. Ben Vorlich permalink
    June 5, 2015 12:48 pm

    In the linked article on WUWT the following statements are made, from the actual paper I think but could be wrong.

    A. They added 0.12 oC to readings collected by buoys, ostensibly to make them comparable to readings collected by ships. As the authors note, buoy readings represent a rising fraction of observations over recent decades, so this boosts the apparent warming trend.

    then this

    A. Looking at the first adjustment, K15 take the buoy data and add 0.12 oC to each observation. They computed that number by looking at places where both buoy data and ship data were collected in the same places, and they found the ship data on average was warmer by 0.12 oC. So they added that to the buoy data. This is similar to the amount estimate found by another teams, though the bias is usually attributed to ships rather than buoys:

    but

    Therefore, buoy observations are thought to be more accurate than either bucket or ERI data… In the present study, we regard this difference as a bias in the ERI measurements, and no biases in drifting buoy observations are assumed.

    The only reason to adjust what the authors agree is more accurate data is for this reason also from the WUWT article.

    It has been noted by others previously that SST data from ships shows a more rapid warming trend than nearby air temperature collected by buoys (Christy et al. 2001).

    Once that is taken into account whoever paid for this study should demand their money back!

  3. June 5, 2015 1:00 pm

    The NASA quote has the energy “budget” with 29% reflected, 23% absorbed by the air and 48% absorbed by the land. It makes you wonder how the ocean warms. I guess the first figure says “surface” and subsequent statements mention water. Surely NASA has an idea how much incoming radiation is absorbed by the water. Their explanation is confusing if you take it literally and don’t assume they really mean something else.

    Until I started reading climate science stuff, the only time I heard “energy budget” was in relation to budgeted operating costs. Money. Tracking energy in and out was an energy balance. An energy balance was a pretty precise term. Energy budget is not. Maybe that’s why they rarely include any uncertainty in their numbers.

    • June 5, 2015 5:12 pm

      The oceans are heated largely by the incoming UV – or let me re-phrase that: by the UV that is allowed through the atmosphere. What [UV] is allowed through the atmosphere depends again on the amount of Ozone, Peroxides and Nitrogenous oxides being formed TOA. That, in its turn, depends on how much of the lowest wavelength particles are allowed to escape from the sun, When the solar magnetic fields are weaker, more of the most energetic particles are able to escape from the sun.

      Hence it is currently globally cooling.

      • June 6, 2015 1:23 pm

        It’s hard to find any estimates of ocean heating by uv. You only get 3% of solar uv penetration. It might penetration an inch. Most of the heating should be from ir. My comment was NOAA’S seeming confusion of land and surface

  4. June 5, 2015 2:09 pm

    On the constant adjusting of values in climate science:

    Consider: You go to your physician and he weighs you. He then subtracts the 2 lbs he guesses your shoes weigh. Your blood pressure reading seems a bit off. There were problems with the cuff in the past, so he subtracts 10 points top and bottom to cover the cuff not being accurate. Then he takes your temperature. This is adjusted by 2 degrees because he has not been able to get the thermometer properly calibrated. When writing your prescription, he gives you 80 tablets for 90 days at one per day because most people skip a few days so why include those days? He then bills you for a 15 minute visit and adjusts the cost based on his computer software not calculating accurately. At some point in all of this, one should begin to wonder about how accurate your doctor’s diagnosis and examinations are. The cumulative error starts to grow and grow.

    Yet this kind of constant adjusting seems the norm in climate science.

    • June 5, 2015 4:39 pm

      Then you wonder if your body will self-correct, so decide to not take the medicine. And lo, you recover to full health.

  5. June 5, 2015 5:58 pm

    @Ben
    people will continue to “adjust” the data to fit in with an agenda.
    With multi millions of our pension funds now being allocated to so-called “green funds”, it is even beyond intelligent guys like you and me to tell them: there is no man made warming. None whatsoever, is what I could find. I you cannot get the media behind your cause, you are lost.

    • Richard Mallett permalink
      June 5, 2015 8:01 pm

      How do you distinguish man made global warming from natural global warming ?

      • June 5, 2015 8:26 pm

        by trying to find a de-trending in a natural trend
        especially in minimum temperatures, as AGW theory proposes that increasing GHG cause minimum temps to rise, forcing up mean temps.

        it is not there? perfect curve only

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 6, 2015 9:12 am

        From a sample of 54 stations ?

  6. FTOP_T permalink
    June 6, 2015 1:41 am

    It has reached the point where climate scien”scam”tists are forced to manipulate the crumbs of the temperature records. One can only imagine the depression that set in when satellite data proved them wrong vs. vindicating them.

    Yet, why is no one pouncing on the absurdity around using faked SST temps to prove CO2 forcing?

    CO2 “back radiation” is unable to penetrate water
    Ocean has 1200 times the thermal capacity of the atmosphere

    Thus, the atmosphere would have to be over 1200 degrees C to raise ocean temp 1 degree via conduction.

    Warmth that can only be found in the ocean proves AGW wrong. Faked warmth in the ocean only proves AGW is a scam.

  7. June 6, 2015 2:01 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  8. June 6, 2015 10:48 am

    Richard Mallet asks
    From a sample of 54 [weather] stations ?

    Henry says
    Answer my question: Why would I need more? I got 100% correlation? There is not much that can go wrong with reading the minimum temperatures for the day at a station? So the curve I have shown represents 54 x (2014-1974*) x 365 = 788400 measurements.
    But there is a catch: you must balance your sample on latitude and 70/30 @sea and inland.
    [longitude does not matter, if you look at the average annual change per annum. Do you know why?]
    * = average
    Perhaps a more intelligent question would have been to ask me: how did you collect the data?

    If you are interested to know: you just need to know a little bit about maths, statistics and linear regression, so you can understand my summaries of all the data.
    Otherwise you must ask someone who knows a little of statistics to help you a bit. (a pass in first year stats is sufficient)
    My Rule no. 1: I decided to look at the change of weather (temperatures), over time, rather than absolute temperatures.
    As an example I can attach a [separate] result sheet for George (South Africa).
    My original data come from http://www.tutiempo.net
    I specifically used the data from this website as I distrust the various Anglo Saxon websites, like BOM, NOAA, Best, etc.
    You can type in the city that you are interested in and search the website.
    In the case of George, the link to the original data is here:
    http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/George_Airport/688280.htm
    It gives the average yearly mean, max. and min. temps, in that order, as per the first three columns.
    I copied that data to my Excel sheet.
    For the years with missing data (red), you have to go to the individual months and look at every month’s average. Click on the relevant (blue) year and chose the month.
    (for the results: see far below in the my file: 1983, 2002 and 2005)
    [For months with less than 15 days data I applied the rule that I would rather take the average of [same] month of the preceding year and the following year, thereby adhering to Rule no. 1]
    The overall result for George is an average decline of -0.0131K per annum since 1978, that is -0.5 degrees C, in total, since 1978, as shown in the graph (blue line)
    (the value before the x)
    For minimum temperatures the decline is -0.0266K per annum since 1978
    By selecting different periods of data [in the graph] you can get the various inclines/declines from more recent times {i.e. the values before the x}, getting at least 4 points for the speed of warming/cooling.
    George is just one single result of the 54 weather stations. Let me know if you there is anything that is not clear to you as to how I obtained the data.
    Best wishes,
    Henry

    • Richard Mallett permalink
      June 6, 2015 11:24 am

      Thank you, I will look at your links (another good site for station data is http://www.rimfrost.no ) but my first question was motivated by the fact that there are about 30 different climate types in the Koppen Geiger classification system, so how can you be sure that your 54 stations are representative of all these different types of climate ?

      • June 6, 2015 11:52 am

        You see, that must the reason then why my score on Rsquare on average temps. is lower, e.g. typically 0.88, on a binomial, whereas on Max. temps and Min. temps I always get above 0.99 on a binomial or nat. log graph
        [we are talking here of the rate of change in temperature)
        Most probably, when concentrating on minima or maxima you are looking more at the amount of heat escaping or allowed through the atmosphere. That is governed by clear factors of nature as explained by me higher up in this thread.
        I did balance my sample also 70%/30%@sea / inland. [I think] this also helps to neutralize that factor.

  9. June 6, 2015 4:44 pm

    Bob Green says
    It’s hard to find any estimates of ocean heating by uv. You only get 3% of solar uv penetration. It might penetration an inch. Most of the heating should be from ir.
    Henry says
    I think that is where the books go wrong or “don’t know”.
    Going by the water spectrum, you will find that there is [some] absorption of water in the UV, although not spectacular much. However, there is enormous mass in the oceans and there are meters of water, so as the ultra short wavelength (highest energy) enters, it will re-radiate and re-radiate but eventually it be will be exchanged for heat.
    So, the “inch story” does not wash with me. UV A & B & C goes deeper. Where, eventually it will change into warmth.
    Perhaps somebody should actually look into this problem, as it is indeed important for climate science.
    At the moment, there only idiots working in that profession….
    Unfortunately, nobody pays me for my work so I cannot do it either.

  10. June 6, 2015 6:11 pm

    As a general comment to all:
    we must look at the behavior of sun, and chose the periods of years to look at.
    it is the sun via the atmosphere that warms the oceans….
    currently the sun has very few spots

    in fact, lowest activity since 1928, i.e. the beginning of the Gleissberg cycle.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1972/to:2016/offset:10/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1972/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/trend

    follow the sun,
    and you will figure it all out
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/thoughts-on-karls-pause-buster-paper/#comment-44170

    • June 6, 2015 6:18 pm

      In fact, I hope to see the big switch, going uphill again, around now, 2016.
      If it does not happen, global cooling could become quite bad….

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 6, 2015 7:08 pm

        As I said, with the oceanic cycles and the solar cycles turning downward, we are likely to see cooling before we see a resumption of warming. See ‘The Neglected Sun’ by Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Luning.

  11. June 6, 2015 8:08 pm

    Richard:
    we are likely to see cooling before we see a resumption of warming.
    Henry says
    [ I think] you still don’t get it. We already had 20 years of cooling. See where [my] graph cuts the zero point. That was 1994-1995 on three of my graphs (for means, max and min)
    There will be another 22 or 23 years of cooling before it starts warming again – put a mirror to my graph around 2016 and see it turning into a hyperbole instead of a parabola.
    It will still take more than two decades before it cuts the zero line again?
    My results simply prove that the Gleissberg exists,
    although this is/was ancient climate science.
    It is crazy that we must start to teach this again.
    Gleissberg=85-87 years= 4 x 20-23 years Hale-Nicholson = 8 x 10.7 Schwabe
    There is also the DeVries cycle (210 years), but I have not yet figured out exactly where we are in that cycle.

    • June 6, 2015 8:31 pm

      Don’t forget that Pinatubo artificially reduced temps till around 1995, so the cooling you are looking for would have been delayed a few years.

    • Richard Mallett permalink
      June 7, 2015 10:50 am

      The Neglected Sun, by Fritz Vazhrenholt and Sebastian Luning, pages 338-9, plots sawtooth diagrams of the various cycles, and describes them on pages 336-340.

      Gleissberg cycle 60 / 70-120 / 130 years average 87 years

      maximum 1760 1850 1940 2005
      minimum 1710 1810 1910 1965 2030-40

      Suess / de Vriess cycle 180-220 years average 208 years (suppressed during Maunder minimum)

      maximum 1915
      minimum 1810 2020

      Eddy cycle 800-1200 years

      maximum 0 Roman WP 1000 Medieval WP 2000-2100 Modern WP
      minimum 500 BC 500 Dark Ages 1500 LIA 2500

      They add these effects to the PDO AMO NAO ENSO CO2 to give a minimum around 2030-40 and a maximum around 2095 (page 349)

      • June 7, 2015 12:35 pm

        Max on Gleissberg was 1995, not 2005. Check my results. Next Min is 2038.

  12. June 7, 2015 9:09 am

    The CO2 in the eruption does nothing, as intelligent people have figured out…
    The SO2 and SO3 quickly gets neutralized by water and water vapor.
    The dust scatters the radiation around, but remember: the radiation has already arrived in the atmosphere. In fact, I doubt that much of that scatter will leave through space. All that happens is that in certain places on earth where it will get cooler and somewhere else, where the dust settles, mostly at the poles, it will get warmer. That is why I say that such an event [besides many other factors] causes more variation in means.
    [it is also exactly what my results show, if you look at them objectively]
    Remember that the mean for the day is the average of many measurements. From around the seventies we started with loggers and measuring every minute or second of the day, as opposed to the past, when somebody had to record the temp., usually 4 or 6 times per day, if you were lucky and nobody got sick. I am also worried that people in the past did not always necessarily saw the night as part of the day……[I cannot imagine somebody sitting up at night to take a temp. reading]
    hence the reason why I doubt very much that you can compare current data with data from more than 50 years ago or even 100 years ago.
    Anyway, my results are very interesting and all show natural curves with high correlation. I could mention many other reasons / factors why you will never get a perfect curve on the speed of [global] cooling for means.
    But look at maxima and minima and you will be surprised!
    Either way, even with a correlation of 0.88 is it still very significant on any statistical test. We are globally cooling. Anyone telling you something different are having an agenda.
    Why not publish my results here?

    • June 7, 2015 10:16 am

      USHCN stations still only report once a day, to the nearest degree.
      I suspect you would be surprised how many other stations around the world do the same.

  13. June 7, 2015 5:33 pm

    Are we all agreed here then that there is no pause?
    It is either warming or cooling
    if we go with RSS:
    the trend is down from 1998 (as shown in this post by Paul), when earth reached its highest output, apparently by about -0.1 after reaching maximum input 1994-1995 (when rate in temp. change crossed zero to go negative). Up until 1995 it was positive, i.e. adding warmth, so the maximum was 1995 (going by energy input)
    My own results

    show -0.1K down on minima, from 2000. For sure. 100% sure, to be exact.

    • June 7, 2015 5:37 pm

      i.e. -0.009 * 14 = -0.12K
      (last result, for the average rate in cooling from 2000)

    • June 7, 2015 9:11 pm

      The “pause” is simply the absence of a trend , warming or cooling.

      To deny the pause, you need to prove a trend.

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 8, 2015 8:51 am

        There is a trend, since 1880 (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC and HadCRUT4) of 0.63 C per century. The trend since 1976 is 1.62 C per century.

      • June 8, 2015 9:47 am

        Who’s talking about 1880 or 1976?

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 8, 2015 11:24 am

        The records from NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC started in 1880, so that is important to provide context. The current increase in global temperatures started in 1976, so that is also important.

      • June 8, 2015 11:29 am

        ????

      • June 8, 2015 11:01 am

        As I said, there is a negative trend, i.e. it is cooling.,..it shows up very clearly in my results and that of others.

        There is no pause. It is either cooling or warming. there is no middle way, except maybe for the day that the graph line crossed the zero?

      • June 8, 2015 11:22 am

        Depending on what year you pick, you can get warming or cooling. That’s why you need to prove that any trend is statistically significant

      • Richard Mallett permalink
        June 8, 2015 11:34 am

        Can you please tell me where I can find these other results that show cooling ? Thank you in advance.

  14. June 7, 2015 11:13 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism.

  15. June 8, 2015 11:05 am

    Richard Mallet says
    There is a trend, since 1880 (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC and HadCRUT4) of 0.63 C per century. The trend since 1976 is 1.62 C per century
    Henry says
    You cannot compare data from after the 1970’s with those of before the 1950’s in the same way that it would be wrong to compare apples with pears.
    At least try to look at the rate of change like I did, if you want to prove that I am right by taking another 54 samples of weather stations [after 1973]?

    • June 8, 2015 11:08 am

      look particularly at the rate of change in maxima and minima if you want to determine the current trend.

    • Richard Mallett permalink
      June 8, 2015 11:38 am

      The whole point of taking global temperatures from a longer period is to include (and account for) effects such as the solar and oceanic cycles, etc. You cannot hope to find out much about an elephant if you only study its tail.

  16. Richard Mallett permalink
    June 8, 2015 11:29 am

    This is a reply to ‘henryp’ – I tried twice to reply to his post about the dates of the Gleissberg cycle, but they never appeared, so I will have to type it up here.

    Professor Frtiz Vahrenholt and Dr. habil. Sebastian Luning reference seven scientific papers when they say ‘the last Gleissberg maxima occurred in 1760, 1850, 1940 and 2005’

  17. June 8, 2015 5:50 pm

    @richardm
    William Arnold predicted 1990
    (see beginning of page 9)

    Click to access arnold_theory_order.pdf

    By analyzing almost 800000 daily data on max. temperatures, I got this relationship:
    y = 0.039 ln (x) – 0.1112 with Rsquare = 0.9964 for the drop of max temps. since 1973 until 2014

    [let me tell you from various other investigations that the drop must {hopefully} come to a dead end stop somewhere around 2016 but that is not relevant here for my argument]

    Now, when the speed of warming/cooling is zero then
    0.039 ln (x) = 0.1112
    and x = 17.3
    So, 2014-17 = 1997 (2014 is year when my study was conducted)

    1997 is the best I can make it for you. OK?

    paulh says
    To deny the pause, you need to prove a trend.

    henry says
    I did. The warming trend went negative some 17 (maxima) -20 (minima) years ago.
    Why don’t you duplicate my experiment, preferably with 54 other weather stations?
    but properly balanced [most popular global data sets are not properly balanced]
    In science, you do not need “consensus” or a “vote”
    You only need one man to get it right.
    I cannot help you further.

  18. June 9, 2015 5:54 am

    Paul asks
    ??????????
    Henry says
    I assume the translation of that is: how
    I explained it here
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/thoughts-on-karls-pause-buster-paper/#comment-44219

    • June 9, 2015 9:59 am

      I asked you why your figures disagreed with GISS/NCDC.

      You posted a graph showing HADCRUT also up, and claimed this supported your assertion of cooling.

      Your comments are long, repetitive, circular and rambling. They continue to clutter up threads, so in future they will be spammed unless they are directly relevant.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: