Significance of Global Warming

[Haruo]

Yep, mid-60s here today.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

I understand in they're chemically retarding the tulips so they don't bloom before the tourists arrive.

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

David, your methodology of doing a trend line is bogus. I take it you drew a horizontal line from the first red data point and read the last red data point as being 0.3C higher than that line.

Read about how to do it right . Find the data set (all the square points) and EXCEL can do it for you.

As an exercise one can easily see that after 1980 there are more points above that line (23) than below it (8) while in the period before 1920 is pretty well balanced - 13 above and 13 below.

The average before 1920 is about -0.8C (David’s line) while the average after 1980 is +0.7C (by drawing horizontal line a +0.7C that equalizes points above and below that line for years 1980 until 2014). That is about 1.5C rise in a 120 year span or 1.25C/century (about the normal global trend for that span).



Do not be fooled by the difference in y-axis scale. And the reason for the greater data spread (noise) in the plot two above (from that one above) is that the one one above is averaging over data stations from the whole world not just the NE US which amounts to <1% often earth.

For now that will have to do - have to go tutoring.

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

David’s been harping on all the cold weather at spots over the world recently complete with cartoons.

But the GLOBAL jury is in and Feb 2015 is the second hottest February in measured history (only peak El Nino year of 1998 is higher) and is 0.36C higher than Feb 2014.

Scroll to bottom.

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

Thanks David, that explains what was said in last Wednesday’s Huntsville Times (HT)



where Christy is quoted as saying the UAH data showed a 0.2C increase since 1975 while the climate scientists show a 0.8C increase since 1975. That seemed inexplicable since the UAH data did not start until 1979 and I know that the various data sources ( 2 satellite data -UAH and RSS and 2 thermometer based data - GISS and Hadley) all agree quite well.



What is shown by Sessions is a comparison of models vs UAH data (not data vs data as the HT article suggested) with all the modeling done in 1975 that Sessions and Christy still trot out to attempt to discredit climate models. Truth is climate models wrt the surface air temperature were not very good in 1975 and they still need work to match predictions with data. In addition to using very old model data, the Christy / Sessions chart does not show the spread in the model predictions which was and is quite wide.

To get an honest and up-to-date portrayal of climate models today read the latest IPCC 2014 chapter

particularly Fig 9.8a on page 768 (sorry but attempts to print it here came out blurred).

It still shows that almost all models for the surface air temperature are higher than measurements but by somewhat less than Christy and Sessions indicated especially in the 2003- 2014 timeframe (the so called “pause” in GW). There is no doubt that the models are not catching the “pause” period correctly - that is well known.

What has continued to rise in both the models and the DATA is the ocean heat content - see Figure 17a page 782 (again sorry but attempts to print it here came out blurred).

As far as UAH funding, UAH GW research began under primarily Exxon funding prior to 2001 when they found a ready source of funding from the government of GWB. They have switched and still get their money from a combination of federal funding under Obama’s EPA and more from the State of Alabama which even paid for a new “cyclone shaped” building. It is neat looking and one day I’ll get a snapshot and post it.

[David Flick]

[KeithE]