27 thoughts on “Comments

  1. This is a comment to get things started. How dangerous will it be, to exceed the 2 degrees Celsius limit?

    Here is a practical exercise that anybody with a car can do, to check out how dangerous global warming will be.

    The temperature gradient, as you move from the poles to the equator, is about 1 degree Celsius for every 150 km travelled. So hop into your car, and drive 150 km towards the equator. When you get there, get out of your car, and walk around. You are now at the 2 degrees limit. (the whole earth has already warmed by about 1 degree Celsius, and driving 150 km towards the equator raises the temperature by another 1 degree Celsius).

    If you are feeling brave, hop back into your car, and drive another 150 km towards the equator. Now you are at the 3 degrees limit.

    Keep repeating this exercise until you get bored, or you reach the equator.

    What do people think? Is this a realistic way of simulating global warming?

    1. It’s a realistic way of experiencing a local temperature change (ie, the change that you personally feel, wherever you are).

      You could do the same by fiddling with the thermostat in an air-conditioned house/room.

      Or going into/out of a sauna.

      It isn’t a good simulation for global warming, because it’s not, well, global. And the purported dangers of global warming are not limited to a rise in temperature.

      I think the suggested experiments won’t give much insight.

      1. If the purported dangers to global warming are not limited to a rise in temperature, then what would they be because of? there has to be a rise in temperature for any danger to happen. And dont give me the bullshit of icecaps melting or that a 2C increase will cause more extreme weather events.

  2. “What do people think? Is this a realistic way of simulating global warming?”
    I think it would be better in terms of night time temperature, say 2 am.
    And traveling by boat on ocean might also better than a car, and sailboat is a greener machine.
    What important in terms of global climate is we live on a planet which has 70% of surface area
    being ocean.
    That ocean retained heat is a major part of why we have global average temperature of 17 C.
    Or global average land surface temperature of about 10 C and global average ocean surface temperature
    of about 17 C.
    Ocean retain heat and absorbs more energy from the sun- as compared to land.
    Or in short, traveling by land will not give the complete picture.

  3. Oops, I meant ….a global average temperature of 15 C.
    Not 17 C.
    Entire Earth average temperature is 15 C
    Ocean 17 C
    Land 10 C.
    Oceans warms land and land [though it can have higher daytime temperatures] doesn’t warm the ocean.
    Tropical ocean is heat engine of world and Europe would have much lower average temperature without
    having the warm Gulf Stream.

  4. Sorry, I’m new here and can’t count without neatly labeled, numbered divisions. Alternatively I may be pre-Alzheimer’s or U guys are just too subtle for me, but I barely see 1 or 2 succinct thoughts let alone 4 thoughts. Should I be thinking between the lines or what?

      1. I don’t see any graphs or maps in this section. But I use “No-Scrypt” and I have to constantly give out permissions for content on different pages. Let’s see…..

  5. Agree: I’ve spent a lot of time studying the temperature trend viewer at Nick Stock’s which is somewhat like your triangles. Several comments:

    To prevent people from interpreting noise, you really need to account for confidence intervals. If you are going to give warming/cooling trends different colors when they differ by 0.5 degC, you probably mght show the portion of the triangle where the confidence interval is narrower than +/-0.5 degC. The global surface trends with confidence intervals for roughly the last 50, 40, 30, 25, 20, 15, and 10 years are:

    0.168 +/- 0.019 (last 50 years)
    0.172 +/- 0.023 (last 40 years)
    0.176 +/- 0.037 (last 30 years)
    0.175 +/- 0.038 (last 25 years)
    0.142 +/- 0.065 (last 20 years) perturbed by 1997/8 El Nino
    0.168 +/- 0.109 (last 15 years)
    0.314 +/- 0.215 (last 10 years) perturbed by 2015/6 El Nino

    Notice that the most recent 10-year trend is not significantly different from that for any of the other periods shown. You could leave uncolored the areas of the triangle you feel have such wide confidence intervals that a difference in color is insignificant. Or you could make the colors semi-transparent in areas where one color change is insignificant, but two color changes are significant.

    It is also worth remembering that 2.5% of trends will fall above or below the 95% confidence interval simply by chance. So if a few percent of the area of your triangle has a statistically different trend, that doesn’t mean the trend has changed.

    1. Hi Frank,

      thank you for your comments. From a traditional statistical point of view, your comments make good sense.

      However, a global warming contour map is NOT a traditional statistical analysis.

      With a single linear regression, the only way to measure the accuracy of the estimate, is to calculate a confidence interval.

      With a global warming contour map, the accuracy of any linear regression, is determined by the number of neighbouring linear regressions which give the same answer. When you have 10,000, or 20,000 neighbouring linear regressions, all giving the same answer, then you can be fairly confident that the estimate is correct.

      Also, a global warming contour map tells a story. This story must be logical and consistent, otherwise the contour map would not be believable. For example:
      if the warming rate was +2.0 degrees Celsius per century, from date1 to date2 (a 10 year interval), and
      the warming rate was +4.0 degrees Celsius per century, from date2 to date3 (a 10 year interval), then
      the warming rate from date1 to date3 (a 20 year interval) must be +3.0 degrees Celsius per century,
      otherwise the global warming contour map would be inconsistent.

      So, with a global warming contour map, which is calculated from over 150,000 linear regressions, there are literally tens of thousands of consistency tests, performed automatically.

      Every global warming contour map comes with a lifetime, money back guarantee. If your global warming contour map ever breaks down, we will pick it up, and repair it, free of charge. And we will give you the use of a free “loan” global warming contour map, while yours is being repaired.

      Isn’t that better than a 95% confidence interval?

  6. Sheldon

    According to sources you trust, what is the approximate difference in global temperature between the LIA and present?

    1. During the LIA, glaciers advanced throughout the Northern hemisphere, and here is a little of the misery in Europe:

      “The Little Ice Age, by anthropology professor Brian Fagan of the University of California at Santa Barbara, tells of the plight of European peasants during the 1300 to 1850 chill: famines, hypothermia, bread riots and the rise of despotic leaders brutalizing an increasingly dispirited peasantry. In the late 17th century, agriculture had dropped off dramatically…..”

      All that from less than 2.0 C below the current global average? For whatever reason, a couple of degrees seems to make a BIG difference.

      1. I have trouble believing that the average temperature of the earth, during a full ice age, is only 6 to 10 degrees Celsius colder than today. But that is what the graphs suggest.

        I once did a computer model of the earth, with no atmosphere. You know the one, it gives an average temperature for the earth, of about -18 degrees Celsius.

        But I looked at the temperature at different latitudes. Even though the average temperature of the earth was about -18 degrees Celsius, the temperature at the equator was just above zero degrees Celsius, for about 6 hours of every day.

        I don’t think that many people know that.

    2. Hi Snape,

      That is a difficult question, and it is not a subject that I know a lot about.

      Let me ask you a question. What was the temperature of the earth, yesterday?

      It varied from about -30 degrees Celsius at the poles, to about +30 degrees Celsius at the equator. Over land, the temperature varied by about 10 degrees Celsius over the day. Between summer and winter, there can be a difference of 20 or 30 degrees Celsius.

      And you want me to say what the temperature difference was, from today, over a 600 year period, from about 1250 to 1850.

      I can tell you one thing, the temperature varied a lot over that 600 year period. It was colder at some times, and not so cold at other times. It was colder in some places, and not so cold in other places.

      Do you want a temperature difference for a small area, like England? Or an average over the entire earth? Or an average for just the northern hemisphere?

      The question that I think of, when you ask me that question, is, “How long is a piece if string?”

      Just joking, it was exactly 1.3759 degrees Celsius, colder.

      Since a full ice age is only about 6 to 10 degrees Celsius colder than today, I am going to guess that temperatures during the Little Ice Age were maybe 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius colder than today. But that is an average. It was different at different times, and it was different in different places. I cannot be any more exact than that.

  7. Hi Sheldon

    My question was rhetorical, meant as a response to your conversation starter:

    “Here is a practical exercise that anybody with a car can do, to check out how dangerous global warming will be.”

    Thinking you can take a drive to simulate global warming is like thinking you can take a drive to simulate the LIA.

    1. Good one, Snape. You got me.

      Sorry, I couldn’t reply sooner. I just got back from a drive to simulate the Medieval Warm Period.

  8. LOL! Thanks for this very funny but also very convincing, down to earth “solution.”

    Oh and by the way:

    “I find it very upsetting, to see large numbers of people in distress.”

    In this case you are wrong. They are not at all in distress. If you watch the many videos predicting impending doom, the “experts” are positively quivering with glee. Who cares what the fate of humanity will be, so long as their agenda is fulfilled.

    1. Hi Victor,

      now that you mention it, I have also noticed the “enthusiasm” that accompanies predictions of disaster. I always thought that it was just the scientists competing, to see who was the “alpha” scientist.You know the sort of thing, “my predicted disaster is bigger than your predicted disaster”.

      Alarmists like to accuse skeptical scientists, and even ordinary skeptics, of receiving money from “Big Oil”. Few people realise the power that the Fruit and Vegetable Cartels hold. Back in the 1950’s, Doctors used to claim that smoking was good for you (“More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette”).

      Then “Big Fruit” got involved. The doctors changed their message. Now smoking was “bad” for you, and you should eat 5+ servings of fruit and vegetables a day.

      It is very easy for “Big Fruit”, to conceal the role of fruit, in global warming. They are ruthless, and think nothing of getting young children hooked on Mandarin oranges.

      As with most of these issues, you just need to follow the money. There is only one thing that we can be certain of. Peanuts do NOT cause global warming. The proof? Climate scientists do NOT work for peanuts.

  9. This analysis was done using the GISTEMP gridded temperature series (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, ERSSTv5, 1200km smoothing).

    Your results are only as good as the accuracy of the underlying temperature data. You say that you share the concern that they may have been “incorrectly” adjusted and that GISTEMP is not perfect.

    Could you please give your specific reasons for believing this.

    For example:-

    Are the temperatures properly adjusted for UHI?

    Is the extrapolation of temperature where measuring points are sparse and cover large areas correct and/or reasonable?

    Do you think adjustments to the historic record (eg USHCN in the 1930s) are correct?

    Thank you

    Patrick

  10. Hi Patrick,

    because I download GISTEMP on a fairly regular basis, I have seen historical temperatures (anywhere from 1880 to 2000), get “adjusted”. Why would a 100 year old temperature need to be changed? Even a 20 year old temperature. The temperature stations can’t be reporting that late! This is a mystery to me.

    I think that it is GISTEMP that adjusts for UHI, using the brightness of night time satellite photos. Poor North Korea doesn’t have much lighting at night. So GISTEMP doesn’t adjust North Korea for UHI.

    It is difficult to correct for UHI. GISTEMP is at least trying to do something. I suspect that this is not perfect.

    The extrapolation of temperature, where measuring points are sparse, and cover large areas, is another source of possible errors.

    So there are definitely possible errors, in many of the adjustments. But without any adjustments, there would also be errors. So I regard adjustments as a necessary evil. I hope that the various error cancel each other out, but there are no guarantees.

    That is why I say that GISTEMP is not perfect. But that it is probably not completely wrong.

    As a part of my research, I compare GISTEMP to other temperature series, like the satellite temperature series, UAH. You might be interested in looking at this. I made global warming contour maps (a “rate of change” of temperature graph), of GISTEMP and UAH, for the northern and southern hemispheres.
    https://agree-to-disagree.com/gistemp-and-uah

    The global warming contour maps of the southern hemisphere, for both GISTEMP and UAH, are quite similar.

    But the global warming contour maps of the northern hemisphere, for GISTEMP and UAH, are very different. I suspect that this is due the greater warming on the land, in the northern hemisphere. UAH measures temperatures in the lower troposphere, and this does not show the same amount of warming.

    The UAH contour map of the northern hemisphere, is similar to the UAH contour map of the southern hemisphere. A little more warming, but not a lot. Nothing like the dramatic warming visible in the GISTEMP northern hemisphere.

    Have a look at the global warming contour maps. The colour differences are dramatic.

    You can read about global warming contour maps, on my website, if you are interested.
    https://agree-to-disagree.com

  11. I have been looking at your map of warming since 1880 and it is obvious that you are a warmist and not a skeptic. I take issue with the level of color infill that the map shows, when the reality is that a great deal of the temperature data from the southern hemisphere is simply estimated.

    IE there are no actual weather stations in almost all of the southern hemisphere. Is is possible that you too have been hoodwinked by warmist scientists who work for official reporting agencies?

    A perfect example is the map of Africa. It doesn’t take much research to realize that there are few actual readings taking place, and there are certainly no records from 1880 or even 1980.

    Thanks for starting a site where opposite views can be shared without the nastiness………

    1. Dan, many people (usually skeptics), do accuse me of being a warmist. However, I can assure you that I am a skeptic (I have a dog licence, with the word “dog” crossed out, and the word “skeptic” written in with a crayon).

      Sometimes I pretend to be a warmist, to make people realise how silly warmists are. There are different types of skeptics. I am a cynical skeptic (a subclass of the class “Monty Python” skeptics).

      Most historical temperature data is estimated. Even a lot of the modern temperature data is estimated. They don’t have temperature stations everywhere. If you want to draw a map, then you have to use something (a blank map is not very interesting).

      I use warmist data (often GISTEMP), as a weapon against warmists. They can’t claim that I am using the wrong data, because it is their data. I try to show that their data is inconsistent with reality (i.e. global warming should be causing terrible catastrophes, with the amount of warming that we have already had).

      I hope that no warmists read this comment, and see what I am doing. I am already in trouble at school, and I don’t want any more detentions. As a punishment, they make you write essays about how terrible global warming is.

      1. I should add that the warming visual I was referring to is the “This is what Global Warming looks like” page. Being new to your site I hadn’t realized that you had created many series of illustrations, from multiple source records.

        Thanks for the reply. I think I was schooled at the same skeptis college.

  12. @Patrick Harcourt

    There will always be debate about what are legitimate adjustments to reported temperatures. Obviously there is room for bias, which is why I personally like to view the raw data, and compare trends to the reported data.

    I am not going to make outright claims of fraud and manipulation, but will leave you with some food for thought. The US record, which is the most extensive in the world, reports raw daily data, as well as monthly adjusted data. In the recent past, the number of stations with missing daily reported data averaged between 10-20%. It is entirely legitimate to infill data based on other area temps, in this case. The amount of missing data currently is reported at about 40-50% of stations.

    For those willing to do the heavy lifting, there are some bread crumbs that can be followed. Individual station data is available to the public. Statistical analyses of this data tends to contradict whatever headline grabbing data is reported, as the reported data is based on adjusted monthly rather than raw daily data.

    Also when examining the missing and estimated data, some interesting (and troubling) trends present themselves. It appears, on the surface, that many of the missing data points come from rural stations, which would not be affected much by UHI.So by default the infill data is based more heavily on urban stations, which very well may be influenced by UHI. This essentially could create an upward bias to reported temperatures.

  13. Same problem with this post
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/misleading-trends-sea-level-version/
    from Tamino

    If you follow the link you will find that he was critical of a post of mine on WattsUpWithThat

    And the astute reader of that post will realize that my response isn’t there. Not that I didn’t have a response, it’s just that when I posted it and retried to post it several times it never appeared.

    I assume I am banned from commenting on Tamino’s blog.

Leave a Reply