How Tamino proved himself wrong

Agree to Disagree

Debate in a non-hostile environment

.

.


How Tamino proved himself wrong


.

Tamino recently published a post on his website, called “The Global Warming Signal”.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/09/the-global-warming-signal/

In this post, Tamino adjusted the GISTEMP Global Land and Ocean temperature series, to remove the influence of ENSO (the El Nino Southern Oscillation), Volcanoes, and Solar variation. This would make the “real” global warming signal more visible.

If you are interested, then you can look at the graphs on Tamino’s website, which show the size of the 3 individual factors, and the size of the combined effect, from 1950 to 2017.

Tamino has made it clear, that he is a slowdown, pause, and hiatus, denier. By avoiding looking at the facts, Tamino has managed to maintain his fact-free belief, even though many people have tried to educate him (including me).

But in his recent post, Tamino has made a stupid mistake. In his eagerness to show how bad global warming is, Tamino has reduced the size of the recent slowdown, that already exists in the GISTEMP temperature series.

Remember that Tamino doesn’t believe that the recent slowdown exists. But how can you reduce the size of something, if that something doesn’t exist?

Can you eat an apple, if the apple doesn’t exist?
Can you catch a tennis ball, if the tennis ball doesn’t exist?
Can you slow your car down, if your car doesn’t exist?

You obviously can’t do any of these things, unless the object that you are affecting, exists.

So you can’t reduce the size of a slowdown, unless the slowdown exists.

Tamino has accidentally acknowledged that the recent slowdown really does exist. He won’t want you to know about this. He is probably frantically trying to think up an alternate explanation, that doesn’t involve slowdowns.

All that remains, is for me to show you the evidence that Tamino has reduced the size of the recent slowdown, that already exists in the GISTEMP temperature series.

To make the explanation easier to follow, I will call the real GISTEMP unadjusted temperature series, “GISTEMP”, and the Tamino adjusted version of GISTEMP, “TAMINO−TEMP”.

I am going to show you 3 pairs of graphs. Each pair of graphs consists of one GISTEMP graph (on the left), and one TAMINO−TEMP graph (on the right).

The first pair of graphs

The first pair of graphs are “Warming Rate Graphs”. This type of graph uses colour to show what the warming rates are, for every possible date range. Don’t worry if you find these graphs hard to understand. Many people find them confusing, until they become familiar with them. I will provide a brief description of what this pair of graphs shows. If my explanation doesn’t make sense to you, then look at the following 2 pairs of graphs. They will clearly show how Tamino reduced the size of the existing recent slowdown.

Note that there is a Legend following the first pair of graphs, which shows the range of warming rates, that each colour represents. For example, red represents warming rates from +2.5 to +3.0 degrees Celsius per century.

.Tamino - Graph 1 and 2

.

Legend

I have included this first pair of graphs for completeness. It allows people who know how to read these graphs, to see exactly what Tamino’s adjustments did.

Look at this pair of graphs, and notice the red and blue areas that run across the bottom of each graph, that look a bit like flames. The red areas are warming events (like El Nino’s), and the blue areas are cooling events (like La Nina’s, and the cooling phase of El Nino’s). See if you can find the blue area on the GISTEMP graph (the one on the left), that is just to the left of X=2000, next to the X-axis. That is the cooling phase of the 1998 super El Nino. Now look at the red area, that is just to the left of the blue area that you just found. That is the warming phase of the 1998 super El Nino. That red area and blue area combined, are the 1998 super El Nino.

Now look at the TAMINO−TEMP graph (the one on the right), in the same place, just to the left of X=2000, next to the X-axis. There is not much red or blue to see, because Tamino has removed the 1998 super El Nino (because it is part of ENSO).

In general, the red and blue areas are less intense on the TAMINO−TEMP graph, because Tamino has tried to remove the influence of ENSO (the El Nino Southern Oscillation), Volcanoes, and Solar variation. This means that the extremes tend to be removed, leaving the “bland” global warming signal.


Notice also, that on the GISTEMP graph (the one on the left), that there is a blue/green/grey/yellow/light-orange triangle, with its apex at about (X=2008, Y=14), and the base running from X=2002 to X=2013. This is the “real” slowdown, that is in the GISTEMP temperature series. We will see this more clearly, later on.

On the TAMINO−TEMP graph, there is a similar triangle, with its apex at about (X=2010, Y=11), and the base running from X=2005 to X=2015. This is the “false”, “reduced” slowdown, that Tamino created by his adjustments. We will see this more clearly, later on.


The second pair of graphs

Now look at the second pair of graphs. These are simple temperature anomaly graphs, with a LOESS smoothed line in orange, based on a local regression size of 10 years. Notice how the GISTEMP graph (the one on the left), appears to be almost “step” like. Remember, this is the real data.

The TAMINO−TEMP graph (the one on the right), is much “smoother”. As I said before, Tamino has removed the extremes.

Now look on the GISTEMP graph, at the big step on the orange line, that runs from about X=2004 to X=2012. This is the real slowdown.

Now look on the TAMINO−TEMP graph, at the small step on the orange line, that runs from about X=2008 to X=2013. This is Tamino’s reduced slowdown.

 

Tamino - Graph 3 and 4

 

If you look at the TAMINO−TEMP graph, you will see that Tamino’s graph looks quite “unnatural” at the “step” (look at the blue monthly data). Tamino’s graph looks as if it actually goes down quite sharply, before going up. The “real” step on the GISTEMP graph (the blue monthly data on the graph on the left), does not look so “false”. It moves fairly smoothly from slowdown to increasing temperatures. This indicates that Tamino’s “adjustments” may not be correct.


The third pair of graphs

Finally, look at the 3rd pair of graphs. These are like the first pair of graphs, but they have been modified to use only 2 colours. This makes them much easier to understand. Each point on the triangle represents a unique date range.

• If the date range has a warming rate of less than or equal to +1.0 degrees Celsius per century, then it is coloured yellow.

• If the date range has a warming rate that is greater than +1.0 degrees Celsius per century, then it is coloured dark-orange.

• We can use the 2 colours to indicate the warming rate. Yellow = slowdown, and dark-orange = not a slowdown. Yellow represents a warming rate of about 55.6%, or less, of the “average” warming rate (i.e. less than about half the speed). e.g. driving in a car at 100 km/h, and having to slow down to less than 56 km/h.

You can get a good idea of how “big” a slowdown is, by the size of the yellow area. You can also get a good idea of the “length” of a slowdown, by reading the Y-axis value, of the highest yellow point of an area.

Look at the GISTEMP graph (the one on the left). There is a large yellow area between X=2004 and X= 2011. This yellow area goes as high as Y=14. This big yellow area represents the recent slowdown, that runs from about 2000.5 to 2014.5 (14 years)

Now look at the TAMINO−TEMP graph. There is a yellow area that runs from X=2007 to X=2013. This yellow area goes as high as Y=11. This yellow area represents a slowdown than runs from about 2004.5 to 2015.5 (11 years).

Notice how Tamino’s slowdown is smaller, and pushed more to the right, than the real recent slowdown.

Tamino - Graph 5 and 6


 

Conclusion

It is very clear from the 3 pairs of graphs in this article, that Tamino has reduced the size of the recent slowdown, that already exists in the GISTEMP temperature series. He probably did it accidentally. But that doesn’t matter. If you accidentally slow your car down, it still proves that your car exists.

My recommendation, which I expect Tamino to ignore, is that Tamino acknowledge that the recent slowdown really does exist in the GISTEMP temperature series. By doing this, Tamino can then enjoy his share of the glory, for helping to establish that the recent slowdown is at least partly caused by ENSO, Volcanoes, and Solar variation. After all, it was Tamino’s adjusted temperature series, that allowed me to demonstrate that the adjustments reduced the recent slowdown.

If Tamino does not want to acknowledge that the recent slowdown exists, then I guess that I will have to claim all of the glory for myself. Don’t worry Tamino, I will make sure that your contribution is recorded in a footnote, when I write my memoirs.


I think that it worth thinking about how much time has been wasted, arguing about whether there was a recent slowdown, or not. All of this arguing has delayed doing something about global warming. The graphs that I have displayed in this article, clearly show that there was some sort of a slowdown. I personally believe that the recent slowdown was temporary, and that it does not have long-term implications for global warming. I have said, for several years, that I believe that the recent slowdown was caused by ocean cycles, like the PDO and the AMO.

So why don’t Alarmists just admit that there was a recent temporary slowdown, and then we can concentrate on what we should do about global warming? I am not willing to lie, and say that there was no slowdown, because I believe that the evidence is there to support the recent slowdown. As far as I am concerned, it is up to Alarmists to accept the recent slowdown. Keep on fighting the slowdown, if you want to. I will happily continue fighting you, and making you look stupid, for as long as you want to continue fighting the recent slowdown.

Do Alarmists think that they can defeat global warming by themselves, without help from Skeptics? Good luck with that. If Alarmists are prepared to be more reasonable, then they might find that Skeptics can be more reasonable, as well. Choose your battles carefully. Will you be happy if you win the battle over the recent slowdown, but lose the war against global warming?

 

.

.