Shift On Hadley And Rotate

Tamino describes the period since 1975 as the “period of modern warming” – implying that CO2 has altered the behaviour of the climate. But we can see in the HadCRUT Northern Hemisphere video above that the warming from 1910 to 1940 was nearly identical to the post 1975 trend. This in spite of the fact that CO2 levels were well below Hansen’s safe 350 ppm, and were rising very slowly.

This similarity in itself is enough to show that Hansen’s theories about 1980s warming are highly questionable.

The eventual warming for these gases added during the 1970s is about 0.2C if the climate sensitivity is near 2C for doubled C02, but almost 0.4C if the sensitivity is near 4C.

Therefore, although the observed warming in the 1970s (Figure 2-1) is consistent with the increased trace gas abundances, the changes cannot be confidently ascribed to the greenhouse effect. However, if the abundance of the greenhouse gases continue to increase with at least the rate of the 1970s, their impact on global temperature may soon begin to rise above the noise level. For such a rate of Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases increase the total warming at equilibrium due to gases added in the 1970s and 1980s would be about 0.5C, for a climate sensitivity of 3C.

Moreover, one would expect that for a 20 year period, a large part of the equilibrium warming would appear by the end of the period. This possible warming should be compared to the standard deviation of observed temperatures, which is about 0.15C for a 20 year period. This comparison is the basis for anticipating that significant warming is likely to occur by 1990

Now, let’s take this one step further. Earlier I discussed how older temperatures have been adjusted downwards, and recent temperatures have been adjusted upwards. This creates the effect of a rotation.

What happens if we rotate the shifted HadCrut graph in the opposite direction of the data manipulations?

Interesting!! The second half of the Hadley graph becomes a repeat of the first half.

It looks to me like the “period of modern warming” is primarily a combination of natural variability and highly questionable data manipulation.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Shift On Hadley And Rotate

  1. steve384 says:

    The similarities would be more apparent if the corrections and UHIE are removed. No doubt we would see a similar match up if we were looking at a (full) temperature record from the 1880’s.

  2. Greg says:

    All this money going to NASA for stupid climate change, the moon and mars are canceled, then they do a stupid study that they are going to other worlds?? I mean they are so cut back by climate change that they can’t go to the moon anymore and we did in the 1960s it’s a total disgrace

  3. J says:

    Steve, you might wanna check a plot i made:

    Volcano-adjustments for Pinatubo are made from the values presented by Hansen:
    And from this graph to El Chinchon by extrapolating the Hansen results:

    With adjusted to volcaenoes the rotated Hadcrut does nothing except correlate with the ocean dynamics.

    Therefore 1975 to date is cherry picking, since AMO+PDO has a positive trend too causing the wobbling in temperatures.

    Also, if we dont rotate HadCRUT and just look at the volcaeno-adjusted data we see that there would be no net warming in the troposphere for at least 20 years, and even 30 years could very well be statistically non-significant, if neither of the eruptions had occurred.

    We can just guess what was Hansens motive on making the Pinatubo-study: “It would have been warming more…”. Now when the warming has stalled he is definitely pissed off that he ever made that research.

    Only thing unexplained is the long term trend around 0.72K/century, which might as well be from adjustments, UHI, returning from LIA, and YES partly: carbon dioxide.

  4. Brendon says:

    “Interesting!! The second half of the Hadley graph becomes a repeat of the first half.”

    Except the first half was caused by an increase in solar forcing. The second half was not.

  5. J says:

    Brendon, ignore the sun for a moment and look at the oscillations. They explain all of the 30 year fluctuations on the data. What is left unexplained is 0.8K/decade which is unalarming and might aswell be explained with UHI effects combined with CO2. Ocean dynamics still dominate, and indicate cooling for the next 30 years.

    Therefore any trend different than 60 or 120 years leads to cherry picking, including the ones presented by you.

    • Brendon says:

      “They explain all of the 30 year fluctuations on the data.”

      See figure 2. Simply looking at the sun is not enough to explain the fluctuations. If you did want to focus on one effect that explained most of the surface temp fluctuations, I would suggest you look at El Nino.

      “What is left unexplained is 0.8K/decade which is unalarming “

      Did you mean per century?

      “and might aswell be explained with UHI effects combined with CO2.”

      UHI – the scientists do know about this and account for it in their analysis. Rural stations show almost the exact same warming trend as urban stations. Remember it’s the trend (change in temp over time) that matters, not whether one station is always two degrees hotter than a rural neighbour.

      • J says:

        I am NOT LOOKING AT THE SUN. Your argument is totally missing mine. That is so typical you guys just cant shoot straight, including JOHN COOK.

        I was speaking about the 60 year OCEAN DYNAMICS, which start to have a lot of support in the peer-reviewed literature and they consist a LOT more than just El Nino. Just look at the papers I linked here few messages before. And they are not the only ones. They explain the 1940 blip, the cooling since, and the recent acceleration. What they do not explain is the 0.8K/century which I find completely UNalarming.

        Studies about UHI which John Cook present do not address the issue. There is no such study which would compare the GLOBAL unadjusted data, and many of them even unreplicable. NOAA even adjusted the USHCN so that the trends of nearby stations would mach each other – in other words they transferred some UHI to rurals. Its not corrected, its being hidden. And this effect is most likely tenths of degrees since a lot from the stations which were once rural have become slowly urban. When population density and concrete builds up slowly in time, the absolute temperature increases thus the trend increases. Stations which have been urban since the beginning without a significant increase in population density will not be affected.

        I am completely not interested what John Cook thinks his agenda is just to cherry pick the desired datasets and studies to deny any criticue expressed on climate science. He is the biggest denialist in the Internet. I am familiar with his articles and I could write a book about the errors and cherry picking he has done.

  6. Robert says:

    Hansen’s Adjustments?

    You’ve already seen that using GSOD and GHCN that amateurs can make the global temperature record and it looks similar to hansen’s. When are you gonna stop making allegations of fraud and start realizing that if even skeptics can reproduce it and acknowledge that there’s no arbitrary factor thrown in to cause the warming then there’s actually something to the warming. In other news

    Hansen’s got the satellite fooled too

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s