Tuesday, March 01, 2016
What Are The Chances Of Getting All These Record Hot Years Without The Extra Greenhouse Gases?
This little post is a potboiler aimed at debunking a Warmist potboiler.
Graham Readfearn labours long in the Garden of Warmism. He is a freelance writer so has to keep churning the stuff out. Hence the potboiler he has written below. I note parenthetically that he is of Northern English origin but has now settled in Brisbane, where I live. Maybe I should invite him over for a cup of tea and some cake one day and see if I can find out what makes him tick. Northern grievance? Could be.
I am mentioning his piece because similar claims are made "ad nauseam" by Warmists and yet are grossly deceptive. No one who has seen an actual graphical and numerical plot of 21st century temperatures would be in any doubt that it is utter BS. So, to start, here is one plot:
What you see is a plateaued number series. In some years the temperature goes up a bit while in others it goes down a bit -- with no overall trend, no sign of warming going on. But before that plateau, temperatures were lower. So they are all hotter than that previous period, however specified. There was some warming prior to the plateau but it has now stopped.
But Warmists never mention a plateau. They pretend that all those hotter years were hotter than one-another, when they are not. A series of "hot" years COULD indicate steady warming or it could indicate a plateau. Warmists pretend that the obviously wrong explanation is the right one.
Is there such a thing as an honest Warmist?
But it is reasonable to ask why the graph supplied by Readfearn shows a great leaping line whereas my graph above shows a flat line? What gives?
Easy: With all graphs you have to look at the calibrations on both axes. And if you do that, you see that Readfearn depicts an entirely different period from my graph above. His graph goes back to 1880 whereas my graph shows the current situation only. And during the C20, there WAS some slight warming. But that has now ceased in C21.
The rise in temperature on Readfearn's graph doesn't look slight but again the trick is to look at the calibrations. It is calibrated in tenths of one degree Celsius only. So it DOES show very slight warming. It just uses a visual trick (widely-spaced calibrations) to make the rise seem dramatic.
Since this is a potboiler, I should perhaps mention one remaining issue: Warmists don't accept that there has been a complete temperature plateau. They are always declaring some year to be the warmest, third warmist etc. But again they are being deceptive. The differences between years that they are talking about are tiny -- in hundredths of one degree -- so are not significant statistically or in any other sense
From hot to fractionally less hot, here are the planet’s ten warmest years on record – 2015, 2014, 2010, 2005, 2007, 2013, 2009, 1998, 2002 and 2006.
These are the numbers according to NASA and include measurements taken on land and at sea in a record that goes back to the year 1880.
Now that’s a pretty remarkable run of hot years for an era when, according to the rusted-on professional climate science denialists, global warming was supposed to have stopped.
But what are the chances of getting a run of “hottest on record” years like that - 14 of the 16 hottest years all happening since 2000 - without all the extra greenhouse gases that humans have been judiciously stockpiling in the atmosphere and oceans?
Well, the chances of this happening, climate scientist Professor Michael Mann tells me, are… wait for it… one-in-13000. Mann, of Penn State University, is the lead author of a new paper published in Nature’s Scientific Reports.
The study takes in data up to 2014, when the chance of that hot streak was one-in-10000. Since the study was submitted, Mann has re-run the numbers to include the new “hottest year” of 2015, giving us the one-in-13000 number.
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).