The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

Nope! With you guys, it is definitely 'ignorance and anti-science reality denial'.....all the way to the bank, if you happen to be a paid troll for EXXON.

 

Here's your assignment. Make at least one post a week not about AGW and not in this sub forum but in current events or somewhere else. That will give me some hope that I'm not trying to have a rational conversation with an irrational totally obsessed nut job. Can you do that?

 

Here's your assignment. Debate the actual science around the topic of the current rapid global warming and its consequent climate changes, using actual scientific evidence rather than empty unsupported assertions of your ignorant opinions or using fraudulent smears on the world's climate scientists.

That would give me some faint indication that you might not be a irrationally delusional and severely brainwashed troll....as you now certainly appear.

Can you do that? ......right, I didn't think so!

 

There is no rapid current global warming. Your debate topic fails.

 

Delusional denial of reality is what fails....reality eventually slaps you in the face. Too bad you can't understand graphs of the scientific data.



Murphy et al. (2009) examined the Earth's energy balance since 1950 including ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. They considered the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite data and show that the heat gained since 1950 is already quite significant. Their findings are illustrated below. (Cook, 2009)


Figure 7.23: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (ibid)

The oceans are taking in almost all of the excess heat since the 1970s which underscores the point that ocean heat content is a better indicator of global warming than atmospheric temperatures.

Another way to illustrate where the heat is going is shown in Fig. 7.24 below:


Figure 7.24: Components of global warming for the period 1993 to 2003 calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3 (Cook, 2010)

 

The trend is the same for 1905 - 1940 and 1950 - 2000. And where is the pause starting in 2000 ?? And the trend is ~ 0.7 deg C in 70 years.

 

The usual denier cult ignorance, lies and misinformation.

In the real world....

It has not been a good year for global-warming skeptics
Business Insider
Henry Blodget
May 21, 2016, 7:43 AM

From NASA and asset-manager Jeremy Grantham at GMO, an update on global temperature trends.

The global-warming skeptics had an encouraging run for a while. But the acceleration of warming over the past year is alarming.

NASA, GMO

Here's Mr. Grantham:

"Global warming accelerates: “so much for the pause”

Because 1998 was an outlier warm year due to a large El Niño effect in the Pacific, many subsequent years, including 2013, had lower global temperatures and led some to believe, or claim to believe, that global warming had ceased. But it turned out to be, after all, just another series...with a little steady signal often obscured by a very great deal of noise.

As it turned out, the below-trend 2013 was followed immediately by a modest new record in 2014. And then came the real test as a new powerful El Niño started to build up in 2015. Ten of the twelve months of 2015 set new all-time records, an unheard of event, and 2015 in total became a monster, not only the warmest year in recent millennia but by a record increment.

Yet, the early months of 2016, still under the influence of what had become one of the most powerful El Niño effects, showed temperature increases that were even more remarkable. This current El Niño has accelerated underlying warming caused by increasing CO2 – as all El Niños do – but this time the combined effect has been far ahead of scientific forecasts that in general remain dangerously conservative. January 2016 was the hottest January ever on the NASA series and by a new record amount. It was a full 0.22 degrees Celsius above the previous high for January. Then February became the new shocker, washing away that record by being 0.33 degrees Celsius above the previous February record. Most recently, March was once again the warmest ever March, although not quite by a record amount (see Exhibit 2).

The exhibit makes the scary point clear: global temperature is not just increasing, but accelerating. The average increase from 1900 to 1958 was about 0.007 degrees Celsius per year. From 1958 to 2015 it doubled to 0.015 degrees Celsius per year, and from February 1998 to February 2016 it rose by an average of 0.025 degrees Celsius per year! Time is truly running out."

 

The poppycock cherry picking is amusing. What caused the same warming rate from 1900 to 1940?

 

So now it's peak to peak that is the new alarmist metric. You can't make this up.

 

Too bad you are so ignorant and clueless about science.

 

I can see dishonest deception. And that is what the peak to peak is all about.

 

You see what you want to see.....and you can't comprehend the science when you are so misinformed and full of denier cult myths. Current temperatures are soaring way above the previous trend lines. You want to ignore or deny that fact.

 

The data and the science prove you wrong.

 

And yet you can never come up with any actual "data or science" that does that.

All you ever post are unsupported bullcrap pronouncements of your ignorant denier cult myths and lies.

In the real world....

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.


Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large uncertainty(grey area) as you go further back in time.

A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.


Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH199 compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).

While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?

Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.


Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average of HadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).

Stalagmites (or speleothems) are formed from groundwater within underground caverns. As they're annually banded, the thickness of the layers can be used as climate proxies. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while the uncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006).


Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothem reconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006).

Historical records of glacier length can be used as a proxy for temperature. As the number of monitored glaciers diminishes in the past, the uncertainty grows accordingly. Nevertheless, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years (Oerlemans 2005).


Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicate uncertainty.

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxyestimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.


Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

 

The real world does not operate as the shaft of the hockey stick and the data used in the shaft actually shows cooling in the "blade" years. The hockey stick is dishonest.

 

More moronic, unsupported denier cult myths based on bogus fossil fuel industry propaganda.

As always, you gave no science to back up your BS statements.

In the real world, 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred in this century,

 

The references have been repeatedly given.

 

Another lie. You denier cultists always want to claim that you have already, at some unknown point in the past, presented your evidence, but, when challenged, you can never actually produce any in the present moment.

 

It's clear who the cultist is. Members of cults never challenge their own beliefs and disparage information contrary to those beliefs.

 

Well, that's you to a T.

 

Thanks for proving my point. Instead of using your time to call everyone names who dispute the magnitude of the human CO2 contribution to global warming you could be doing some homework.

 

I have noticed a few problems with the MGW line. First, they always ignore the period 2000 to 2015. Second, the recent temperature measurements seem to increase the most in areas where manipulation would be easiest. Third, everyone wants to talk about fossil fuel burning (6-7% of total CO2 generation), while ignoring the fact that Brazil, India and China have destroyed over 30% of the plant life on earth (dramatically increasing the length of time CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being consumed). Then there is the question of what harm higher temperatures will bring if they do materialize? I am betting a net benefit to mankind.

 

It is actually the deniers like you who want to ignore what actually happened in that period. Since the year 2000, the Earth has sweltered through 16 of the 17 hottest years on record. 2014 was the hottest year on record....until it was surpassed by the 2015 global temperatures.....but then 2016 beat them both out by a relatively sizable margin to become the hottest year on record - three in a row, which is a record all by itself. The first seven months of 2016 were the hottest months of that name on record and August tied with July as the hottest month ever recorded. Global warming is accelerating, as the world scientific community affirms.

Global warming data that riled doubters is confirmed
By Jim Spencer
January 4, 2017
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming a set of temperature readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate science have questioned.



The adjustments , made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2015 to take into account changes in how ocean temperatures have been measured over the decades, riled a House committee and others who claimed the changes were made to show rising temperatures. The House Science Committee subpoenaed the agency’s scientists and then complained that NOAA wasn’t answering its requests quickly enough.

The new international study looked at satellite data, readings from buoys and other marine floats for ocean temperatures. Each measurement system independently showed the same 20 years of increase in temperatures that NOAA found: about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade since 2000, said the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley.

“Our research confirms that NOAA scientists were right,” Hausfather said. “They were not in any way cooking the books.”

NOAA adjusted past data to take into account old measurements by ships that often recorded temperatures from their engine rooms, where heat from the engines skewed the data. Buoys and satellite data don’t have such artificial warming, Hausfather said.

In 1990, about 90 percent of the ocean temperature readings were done by ships, now it is about 85 percent by the more accurate buoys, Hausfather said.

Scientists Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who weren’t part the original study or the more recent one that confirmed its conclusions, called both accurate.

“This paper further allays any qualms that there may have been scientific errors or any non-scientific agendas,” Trenberth said in an email.

Officials at the House Science Committee did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Hausfather’s study was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances .

 

More propaganda from the hockey team. And again why does the trend from 1900 to 1950 look steeper than the current trend on the graph ?? And why is the time scale missing ??

BTW ~ 0.2 deg F per decade is ~ 0.1 deg C per decade which is ~ 1 deg C per century which agrees roughly with the climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~ 1 deg C.

 

The consensus of economic analyses which consider both the benefits and damages of global warming indicate that the effects are net beneficial for the next 3 deg C of warming and then the most damage is done to third world countries. The best strategy for dealing/adapting to global warming is for the developed world to contribute fossil fuel electrical generation plants to the third world giving them inexpensive and 24/7/365 available power to grow their economies.