How to NOT find a slowdown

Sheldon Walker – (agree-to-disagree.com)

The slowdown/pause/hiatus, would probably be only a dim memory, if Alarmists didn’t keep digging up the imaginary corpse, in order to show that it really is dead.

The website called “The Conversation”, recently featured an article called “Global warming ‘hiatus’ is the climate change myth that refuses to die”, by Stephan Lewandowsky and Kevin Cowtan.

It was dated “December 20, 2018”, and the web address is:

http://bit.ly/2RbBDmi

Both of the authors have also recently co-authored 2 scientific papers, with a large number of other well-known Alarmists (they now write scientific papers in “gangs”, to show how tough they are). The 2 scientific papers claim to “demonstrate convincingly that the slowdown/pause/hiatus wasn’t a real phenomenon”.

It is rare to find a “scientific” article, which features so much “woolly-headed” thinking. And so much misdirection.

It starts badly. Just reading the first 2 paragraphs made me annoyed. They used the word “denier” in the first sentence, and the phrase “science-denying” in the second paragraph.

When did the word “denier”, become a scientific term? What do these arrogant Alarmist jerks, think they are doing. I took a deep breath, and continued reading the article.

The third paragraph really made me sit up, and take notice.

They repeated a common Alarmist lie, about the slowdown, which I talked about in a recent article.

They said, “But, more importantly, these claims use the same kind of misdirection as was used a few years ago about a supposed “pause” in warming lasting from roughly 1998 to 2013.”

They talk about “deniers using misdirection”, and then THEY misdirect people to a false weak slowdown (1998 to 2013). This is part of an Alarmist myth, which claims that the recent slowdown only exists because of the 1998 super El Nino.

In my article, I said:

– The strongest slowdown (the one with the lowest warming rate), went from 2002 to 2012. It had a warming rate of +0.14 degrees Celsius per century. Because it went from 2002 to 2012, it had nothing to do with the 1998 super El Nino.

– The average warming rate from 1970 to 2018, is about +1.8 degrees Celsius per century. So the slowdown from 2002 to 2012, had a warming rate that was less than 8% of the average warming rate.

– If the average warming rate was a car travelling at 100 km/h, then the slowdown was a car that was travelling at less the 8 km/h. Doesn’t that sound like a slowdown?

– The strongest slowdown WHICH INCLUDED THE YEAR 1998 (the one with the lowest warming rate), went from 1998 to 2013. It had a warming rate of +0.96 degrees Celsius per century.

[this is the slowdown interval that Lewandowsky and Cowtan used]

– So the false Alarmist slowdown (1998 to 2013), had a warming rate which was 6.9 times greater than the warming rate of the real slowdown (2002 to 2012).

-If the real slowdown (2002 to 2012) was a car that was traveling at 100 km/h, then the false Alarmist slowdown (1998 to 2013), would be a car that was traveling at 690 km/h.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Alarmists don’t believe that there was a slowdown. They are not even looking at the real slowdown.

====================

Lewandowsky and Cowtan seem to be under the impression that, because “the past two years were two of the three hottest on record”, that there could NOT have been a slowdown. Have they never noticed, that when a person takes their foot off the accelerator in a car, the car keeps moving forward (but at a slower rate, i.e. a slowdown)? So the car is still setting records, becoming further from where it started, even though it has slowed down.

This “everyday” observation (about a person taking their foot off the accelerator of a car), appears to be too complicated for them to grasp. Perhaps they are chauffeur driven, everywhere.

====================

Lewandowsky and Cowtan say, “In a nutshell, if you select data based on them being unusual in the first place, then any statistical tests that seemingly confirm their unusual nature give the wrong answer.”

There is a well-known saying, “If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably IS a duck”.

We could rephrase that as, “If it looks like a slowdown, and the warming rate is lower than normal, and the statistical test says that it COULD be a slowdown, then it probably IS a slowdown”.

But Lewandowsky and Cowtan want you to believe that, “If it looks like a slowdown, and the warming rate is lower than normal, and the statistical test says that it COULD be a slowdown, then it DEFINITELY IS NOT A SLOWDOWN”.

Lewandowsky and Cowtan don’t want skeptics to look for slowdowns in places that look like slowdowns. They want skeptics to only look for slowdowns in places that DON’T look like slowdowns.

I would like to suggest that skeptics start looking for slowdowns, on the moon. There isn’t much chance of finding one, but if you do find one, it is almost certainly real.

====================

I am amazed at how Lewandowsky and Cowtan don’t seem to be able to understand simple logic. They give an example, “If someone claims the world hasn’t warmed since 1998 or 2016, ask them why those specific years – why not 1997 or 2014?”

If somebody got run over by a truck in 1998, would you ask them, “Why 1998, why didn’t you get run over by a truck in 1997 or 1999”? If something happens in a particular year, or over a particular interval, then that is a fact. There is little point in questioning why it didn’t happen at a different time.

The reason that Lewandowsky and Cowtan ask, “Why those specific years – why not 1997 or 2014?”, is because they CAN’T PROVE that there wasn’t a slowdown since 1998, and they want to misdirect people, with a stupid question.

====================

Lewandowsky and Cowtan are concerned that skeptics will cherry-pick intervals which “look like” a slowdown, but are not really a slowdown.

I developed a method to analyse date ranges, for slowdowns and speedups, which does NOT cherry-pick date ranges. It does this, by giving equal weight to EVERY possible date range. So when I analyse 1970 to 2018, I calculate about 150,000 linear regressions (one for every possible date range). Then I look at which date ranges have a low warming rate. To make it easier, I colour code all of the results from the 150,000 linear regressions, and plot them on a single graph. I call this graph, a “Global Warming Contour Map”.

If I find that 2002 to 2012 has a low warming rate, then that means that it had a low warming rate, compared to the thousands and thousands of other date ranges that I checked. Every date range has an equal chance of being a slowdown or a speedup, based on its warming rate. The warming rate is an objective measurement, based on a temperature series.

But wait. I don’t stop there. I check every temperature series that I can find. This includes GISTEMP, NOAA, UAH, RSS, BEST, CLIMDIV, RATPAC (weather ballon data), etc.

But wait. I don’t stop there. I check every type of measurement that I can find. Land and Ocean. Land only. Ocean only. Lower troposphere. Upper troposphere, Stratosphere.

But wait. I don’t stop there. I check every region that I can find. Northern hemisphere. Southern hemisphere. Tropical. Extratropical. Polar.

But wait. I don’t stop there. I check every latitude that I can find. 90N to 48N. 48N to 30N. 30N to 14N. 14N to Equator. Equator to 14S. 14S to 30S. 30S to 48S. 48S to 90S

When I say that there was a slowdown, that means that I have found evidence of a slowdown, in most of the major temperature series, types of measurements, regions, and latitudes.

I have made literally hundreds of global warming contour maps, for nearly every type of global warming data, that you can imagine. Each one, based on about 150,000 linear regressions.

I have probably done more linear regressions, than any other person in the world. I may have even done more linear regressions, than everybody in the world, put together.

And all of those linear regressions, tell me that there was a slowdown, sometime after the year 2001. It was strongest from 2002 to 2012. You can measure it in different ways, and get slightly different results. But there is overwhelming evidence for the slowdown.

I didn’t cherry-pick 2002 to 2012. This interval leapt out of my computer screen, slapped me on the face, and yelled, “I am a slowdown, stop ignoring me !!!”

Alarmists, are the real “Deniers”. They ignore the evidence that they can’t explain away. They insult the people who try to show the truth. They lie, when other methods don’t work.

It is time for Alarmists to admit the truth. There was a slowdown. It was not enormously long. It was temporary. It is now over. The fact that it existed, didn’t prove that global warming isn’t happening.

My personal belief, is that the slowdown was caused by ocean cycles, like the PDO and AMO. There are climate scientists, who believe the same thing. We need to acknowledge the slowdown, so that we can learn more about climate. Lying about the slowdown, won’t solve global warming. Understanding the slowdown, might help us to understand global warming.

If anybody would like to learn more about my method, and “Global Warming Contour Maps”, then there are lots of them, on my website. I wrote a special article, called “Robot-Train contour maps”, which explains how contour maps work, using simple “train trips”, as an analogy for global warming.

Here is a small selection of articles about slowdowns, and “global warming contour maps”.

– No, I am not obsessed with slowdowns.

– I didn’t choose slowdowns, they chose me.

– Being the “proud father” of “global warming contour maps”, I am always happy to answer questions, and show you pictures, of my clever baby.

[ this article shows how “global warming contour maps” work ]

https://agree-to-disagree.com/robot-train-contour-maps

[ this article shows why Alarmist thinking on slowdowns, in one-dimensional ]

https://agree-to-disagree.com/alarmist-thinking-on-the-slowdown

[ this article investigates the Alarmist myth, that the slowdown was caused by the 1998 super El Nino ]

https://agree-to-disagree.com/was-the-slowdown-caused-by-1998

[ this article shows why the slowdown is so special (No, no, no, no, no! It only LOOKS special. It isn’t really special.) ]

https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-special-was-the-recent-slowdown

[ A guide to the CORRECT way to look for slowdowns. Please try to stay quiet. Slowdowns scare easily, and then they run away and hide. ]

https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-to-look-for-slowdowns

[ this article investigates warming in the USA, using NOAA’s new ClimDiv temperature series ]

https://agree-to-disagree.com/usa-warming

[ this article investigates regional warming, by dividing the earth into 8 equal sized areas, by latitude]

https://agree-to-disagree.com/new-regional-warming

[ this weather balloon article has global warming contour maps with very nice colours ]

https://agree-to-disagree.com/weather-balloon-data-ratpac

[ this article uses global warming contour maps to compare GISTEMP and UAH ]

https://agree-to-disagree.com/gistemp-and-uah

via Watts Up With That?

http://bit.ly/2VsU3gV

January 4, 2019 at 08:07PM

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: