tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post4415155879475967954..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Seven in a row: April is the hottest April on record, a 7000 year record?Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69113497427019172302016-05-20T01:50:23.494+10:002016-05-20T01:50:23.494+10:00Another way of looking at it is the greenhouse war...Another way of looking at it is the greenhouse warming trend in that period was so slight it cannot be distinguished from natural variability. The signal to noise ratio is low.<br /><br />Also the temperature records are not good, and probably inaccurate. I suspect no one really cared about a margin of error of several degrees, it isn't particularly significant compared to day-night variability.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19583885431730705212016-05-18T07:35:07.157+10:002016-05-18T07:35:07.157+10:00Fair play to Sou for entertainin' him. But I&#...Fair play to Sou for entertainin' him. But I'm guessing your man Sheldon is not an honest broker. Quelle surprise.metzomagichttp://metzomagic.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67900994481259379592016-05-17T22:47:41.807+10:002016-05-17T22:47:41.807+10:00yes I was thinking about the concept of "iner...yes I was thinking about the concept of "inertia" the other day <br /><br />and actually I experience it quite a lot - although on a yearly scale<br /><br />I am a v keen windsurfer, and I have known for the last 30 years that the sea (around the UK) reaches its max temperature in November(ish) when the actual air temp can be very very cold <br /><br />likewise in spring even with high air temps the sea is very cold Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32267912465808321722016-05-17T19:06:52.231+10:002016-05-17T19:06:52.231+10:00I think folk also ignore that the northern Hemisph...I think folk also ignore that the northern Hemisphere went from a period of orbital cooling ( Had it not been cooling for over 1,000yrs?) into warming so there was a huge input of energy to halt and then reverse that cooling? Then we have the collapse of the Arctic ice shelfs along Ellesmere island ( and the formation of the floating 'T' islands?) ...which also must have taken some energy esp. coming off the "Little Ice Age"?<br />We are overcoming some of the climate inertia but I do not believe we are yet seeing the full potential of the forcings we have unleashed?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17204684636408039870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41035599010954450882016-05-17T03:32:51.179+10:002016-05-17T03:32:51.179+10:00it has made front page of the BBC main news page
...it has made front page of the BBC main news page <br /><br />or as a whutter would say the MSM "Bolshevik" Broadcasting Corporation Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91045839391565347162016-05-17T02:39:31.384+10:002016-05-17T02:39:31.384+10:00That makes sense.
So it seems we can safely say t...That makes sense.<br /><br />So it seems we can safely say that Sheldon Walker's statement of 1944 being "before man-made global warming had started" is incorrect.<br /><br />We might as well call out this error in a comment intended to highlight an error.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1209388606196835182016-05-17T02:16:24.991+10:002016-05-17T02:16:24.991+10:00Dana at SkS indicated that increasing TSI (solar) ...Dana at SkS indicated that increasing TSI (solar) and extra CO2 had about the same effect on temperature between 1910 and 1940, then the lack of volcanic activity also contributed. So maybe 1/3 human and 2/3 natural averaged over the period - roughly.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68450481216228742702016-05-17T01:59:52.219+10:002016-05-17T01:59:52.219+10:00Another point is that half the warming wasn't ...Another point is that half the warming wasn't before 1940. If you take it from the coldest year to 1940, then from 1940 to 2015 actuals then the best you'll get is that 41% of the warming was before 1940. That's the only way to maximise the percentage before 1940, and it's quite a bit less than half.<br /><br />If you take a more reasonable approach and use a LOESS smooth, it will be less. Using the <a href="http://www.hotwhopper.com/Charts/since1940.php" rel="nofollow">charts here</a> you'll get around 25% of the warming from the coldest period to now happened before 1940. You can play with the numbers some, but you'd be hard pressed to show that 50% was before 1940.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.hotwhopper.com/Charts/since1940.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.hotwhopper.com/Charts/since1940.php</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81366896502869298202016-05-17T01:24:39.996+10:002016-05-17T01:24:39.996+10:00Thanks, Bellman.
What I think you're saying (...Thanks, Bellman.<br /><br />What I think you're saying (let me know if I get this wrong) is that most of the warming pre-1950 was due to non-human causes (though coal burning likely was a contributing factor). Going beyond the data you presented, we already know that more than all of the warming post-1950 is human-caused (i.e., were it not for human activity, the climate would be cooling; we are overwhelming the natural cooling forcings).<br /><br />The denialist argument about pre-1950 is a version of saying that since I got a flat tire by running over a nail, that means I can't get a flat from someone with a knife. That is, since the pre-1950s warming was primarily due to natural forcings, that means all warming must always be due to natural forcings, and human activity has to always be discounted.<br /><br />By the same argument, previous plagues were due to non-human-produced biological agents, so we needn't ever fear germ warfare. People die every day from natural causes, so there is no such thing as murder. And so on.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6971197575848575782016-05-17T01:10:49.721+10:002016-05-17T01:10:49.721+10:00"So here's the question: Why are so many ..."So here's the question: Why are so many people so certain that the coal burning from the Industrial Revolution pre-1944 didn't contribute to increased global temperatures before 1944, using the same mechanisms that coal burning is today contributing to increased global temperatures?"<br /><br />Whilst coal burning did increase CO2 prior, it wasn't until the mid 20th century that CO2 emission.<br /><br />http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2010.html<br /><br />So as I understand it, whilst human activity probably contributed to some of the early 20th century warming, there wasn't a big enough increase in CO2 to have caused most of it.<br /><br />"This seems to be a senseless denier zombie meme that just won't die."<br /><br />Another point to consider is that the non-human factors that contributed to the early warming would not have contributed to the later warming. Skeptical Science has a page looking at this argument.<br /><br />https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-basic.htm<br /><br />The main factors causing the early warming were increased solar activity and low volcanic activity, neither of which have been a factor in the late 20th century.Bellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872924578152375407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1470717983452473392016-05-17T00:38:44.531+10:002016-05-17T00:38:44.531+10:00Thanks, Sou.
I have a denier friend who uses thi...Thanks, Sou. <br /><br />I have a denier friend who uses this as a talking point -- "Half of all global warming happened before 1940, yet humans didn't start burning oil until WW2. What's up with that?" <br /><br />I keep pointing out, to no avail, that 1) the rise in temperature since 1970 is about twice what it was in the period 1880-1945, and 2) coal is also a fossil fuel (not just oil) and also contributes carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and massive burning of coal began in the mid-nineteenth century.<br /><br />This seems to be a senseless denier zombie meme that just won't die. <br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43072444946399196592016-05-17T00:02:32.848+10:002016-05-17T00:02:32.848+10:00What's happened I think is that a lot of peopl...What's happened I think is that a lot of people latched onto the fact that probably *all* of the warming since 1950 is attributed to human activity, and decided that meant that *none* of the warming before 1950 was attributed to human activity.<br /><br />I see it so often that it goes right by me now. A lot of people seem to think it's like flipping a light switch. Up to midnight on 31 December 1949 burning coal and chopping down trees had no impact. From one minute past midnight on 1 January 1950 it suddenly did.<br /><br />Weird, I know. But that seems to be the notion on denier blogs all over. That is, that's what they think the science tells us. Of course deniers don't think that anything we do affects climate.<br /><br />Bill Ruddiman will tell you that we started affecting the climate thousands of years ago. I can't disagree.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62634019685329867942016-05-16T23:26:46.798+10:002016-05-16T23:26:46.798+10:00Something I've wondered about for a while --
...Something I've wondered about for a while --<br /><br />Sheldon Walker said 1944 was "before man-made global warming had started."<br /><br /> Coal is today one of the primary sources of carbon dioxide pollution that is contributing to global warming. Back in the 1800s, we humans began burning fossil fuels (i.e., coal) in a big way. The records that go back to the 1880s certainly do show definite warming in the period 1880-1940. <br /><br />So here's the question: Why are so many people so certain that the coal burning from the Industrial Revolution pre-1944 didn't contribute to increased global temperatures before 1944, using the same mechanisms that coal burning is today contributing to increased global temperatures?<br /><br />What am I missing here?<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12512483480206625282016-05-16T22:21:52.634+10:002016-05-16T22:21:52.634+10:00Thanks Sheldon, for picking those up. I'd chec...Thanks Sheldon, for picking those up. I'd checked the 97/98 years in particular, but obviously made an error.<br /><br />Your points are well taken and I'll correct the article.<br /><br />I'll just add - re the pre-1950 temps, there are two points as I made above. <br /><br />Firstly, there is much greater uncertainty in the observations than now (especially in the WW2 period). <br /><br />Secondly, the temperatures of the 1940s are much lower than those of this century. So while that run in the 1940s might be a "record" in the instrumental era, if you go back over the Holocene it would have happened in past periods and probably relatively recently (say the last couple of millenia or so). That means going back beyond the instrumental era over the Holocene as a whole or, say, the last 7,000 years, the 1940s temperatures wouldn't have been a record.<br /><br />By contrast, with this run, there probably haven't been temperatures as hot maybe in the entire Holocene, and almost certainly not for 7,000 years or so. That would mean they are the hottest in the record of at least the past 7,000 years or so.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13979750727319788522016-05-16T21:33:11.085+10:002016-05-16T21:33:11.085+10:00Sou,
in this article for April, and a similar one...Sou,<br /><br />in this article for April, and a similar one for March last month, you have been highlighting the number of record months that there have been in a row.<br /><br />You have made a number of statements about these record months in a row which are not true.<br /><br />==========<br /><br />The first incorrect statement was made about the 6 record months in a row that ended in March. You said:<br /><br />"This is the sixth month in a row of "hottest months", all of which had an anomaly more than one degree Celsius above the 1951-1980 mean. Update: I did a quick check and that hasn't happened before in the record since at least the 1950s."<br /><br />6 record months in a row happened not long ago, from September 1997 to February 1998. It should be no surprise that this happened with an El Nino, the same as the current record months in a row.<br /><br />==========<br /><br />The next incorrect statement concerns how long it has probably been since there was a similar run of hottest months. In this article you guessed that it was probably more than 7000 years.<br /><br />That is incorrect, it happened about 73 years ago. There was a run of 9 (yes, nine) record months in a row from January 1944 to September 1944.<br /><br />This is a more extreme record than the current 7 months in a row, and it happened before man-made global warming had started.<br /><br />The December before this run of 9 months was not a record month. But the October and November just before that were also record months. So the were 11 record months in a 12 month period.<br /><br />==========<br /><br />When you think about the significance of the current 7 record months in a row, you should compare it to the 1944 9 record months in a row, and try not to jump to any incorrect conclusions.<br />Sheldon Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69960350383644015702016-05-15T20:35:55.589+10:002016-05-15T20:35:55.589+10:00I'm sure Eric Worral can make something up inv...I'm sure Eric Worral can make something up involving ignoring basic laws of physics that will reassure us all that nothing is wrong. Well maybe not us, but the inmates at WUWT will be happy.Millicentnoreply@blogger.com