tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7975754875888992251.post6719404089779514474..comments2023-12-20T01:30:25.239-08:00Comments on Climate WTF: March MadnessThe Blobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16066953906631389108noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7975754875888992251.post-80488463035142516942010-06-06T10:53:32.646-07:002010-06-06T10:53:32.646-07:00This is probably irrelevant due to previous (other...This is probably irrelevant due to previous (other) postings, but I'll comment anyway: the selection of reference temperature periods is critical to analysis of what is an AGW signature in an otherwise normal temperature increase coming out of the Little Ice Age. The alarmists commonly use the pre-Industrial period as the time that humans began to influence the climate, and to which we should direct our effects in undoing our planet-wide harm. However, no one back in the LIA or even the 1850s would agree with that, as crops suffer and humans starve in cold periods. Plus, it isn't fair: CO2 changes didn't reach a theoretically influential level until perhaps the 1940s. European articles seem to like the 1940s as the starting period, but North American favour the mid-'70s as the population recalls the climate scientists' fear of a new ice age approaching in the early '70s. To take the temperatures of the early '70s as the reference point is to use the time of an approaching time now as the start of a warming trend. Can't have it both ways. (Actually, can, but it is cherry-picking.) 1980 is not a bad start if you want to focus on the current AGW component AND you believe prior temperature trends are irrelevant. Big Al likes to have it both ways: use 1850 (or earlier) times to show that the evils of man show up immediately upon the invention of the steam engine, and post 1950 or 1980 to show how these evils are accelerating in our world. Philosophically we are seeing a bait-and-switch argument at play. <br />To get back to point: 1980 is a good year for Hansen because it avoids discussion about, first, the "natural" temperature rises since the LIA, and, second, the occurrence of the "global cooling" trend of the '70s. Both these subjects diminish the actual possible AGW temperature rise to-date, and the contribution of significant temperature rises in a rise-and-fall natural (solar induced) cycle.Doug Proctornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7975754875888992251.post-44411754301228849402010-04-04T06:17:28.912-07:002010-04-04T06:17:28.912-07:00Good point, I missed that assumption.Good point, I missed that assumption.The Blobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16066953906631389108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7975754875888992251.post-85731526577046048192010-04-03T14:55:55.464-07:002010-04-03T14:55:55.464-07:00A more obvious issue is that the climatecentral.or...A more obvious issue is that the climatecentral.org article is about the future. Nowhere do they state or imply that this started on the order of 30 years ago and the trend should be visible in Wisconsin already. It may well be more complicated than that. Goddard has simply pulled this strawman out of his ass. <br /><br /><i>Once again, we see a case of Goddard trusting his bowels ahead of basic reading comprehension.</i><br /><br />Moreover, Tamino has shown that 1975, not 1979 is the natural turning for GISS as a whole. This is not cherrypicked but rather emerges from the data itself when using sliding regressions (see tamino's site for this - perhaps the same technique could be used on the state level and as you say this would certainly be better than arbitrarily choosing).Frank O'Dwyerhttp://www.frankodwyer.com/blognoreply@blogger.com