Saturday, February 01, 2014

Five-year average temps and a betting update

That's the GISS 5-year average. It may look somewhat stuck, although it's important to remember that the now-measly-looking 2002 5-year average was at the time, the highest in the instrumental record. The 1998 5-year average was 0.44 C above the 1951-1980 mean.

The 1979-1986 period was similar to the 2003-2011 time. 

The .06 C drop from 1982 to 1984 is interesting - it's the biggest in the instrumental record since the warming restarted in the 1970s. It's a safe bet (as in, I'm willing to bet) that we will never ever get back together with a 5-year average lower than 2002's.

And speaking of betting, while that upstart antipodean Brian Schmidt hogs all the attention, my own 2007 bets plod along to their 10-year through 20-year finish lines. My bet with David Evans wasn't as generous to my side, comparing five year averages to 0.1/decade and 0.15/decade increases (details here from my 2007 post). Last year, fortunately, I was getting creamed with slightly declining average, -0.06/decade. Unfortunately that's now changed to straight zero, which still means I'm getting creamed (temps have to warm substantially or I pay out). If you compare even noisier data of 2012 to 2011, that's a warming rate of 0.2/decade, and I win.

I think the real lesson is not to worry about year-on-year changes. I said in 2007 that my worst-case personal outcome was to lose one bet, void some others, and win most. If the 2017 average is 0.68 or less, then I lose two bets. An increase of 0.09 in six years or less has happened plenty of times in the last 40 years. The warming we've been sticking in the ocean is going to come out at some point, and I think China and India will start to wrestle with their particle emissions soon.

I no longer think I'm safe from losing more than one bet, but unfortunately I feel pretty good about the ultimate outcome.


Russell Seitz said...

We shall not weep for you, Eli, lest our tears augment the thermal mass of the ocean.

Gaz said...

"..I feel pretty good about the ultimate outcome."

Except for the actual climate, of course.

Brian said...

Gaz - yes. Best case scenario is I lose all my bets over the 20 year time period.

Fred Staples said...

Whatever you do, Eli, avoid doubling your bet every year.

Actually, your data precisely identifies the warmist case - an increase of about 0.4 degrees C between the eighties and the noughties.

Before that, back to the previous peak in the forties, nothing.

So what caused the increase? As a long time subscriber to your web-site I can fairly say that I have no idea. However, you would have to work very hard with the data to see any correlation with the steady increase in CO2 over the period.

dhogaza said...

"Actually, your data precisely identifies the warmist case - an increase of about 0.4 degrees C between the eighties and the noughties.

Before that, back to the previous peak in the forties, nothing."

I know that some people think the earth is only about 6,000 years old but ... only 70 years old?


(no, the "warmist case" is not based merely upon recent warming, though you are free to parade your ignorance in public to your heart's content, at least as far as I care)

Fred Staples said...

Useful comment, Dhogaza. I suspect that you have adopted the subtle change in the warmist position from asserting "AGW" to discussing "Climate Change".

I remain interested only in the impact (or otherwise) of industrial CO2 emmisions, as predicted by the warmist models.

Thanks to China, India, and the USA, we are conducting a world-wide experiment to test the models against the temperature record. You can see the results in Roy Spencers chart.

Never glad confident morning again, Dhogaza.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Fred, not only are you an idiot, you're a shill. Get over yourself. Go find a warmer deeper hole to spew your nonsense. And I believe the proper term is 'warmista'. Didn't you get the memo?

cRR Kampen said...

O yes, never forget. In 1988 the IPGW was erected then during The Hiatus the name was changed to IPCC and they never told anyone!

So now climate revisionists are drowning England. When will they pay up?

Fred Staples said...

It is hard to argue with warmist's logic.

Here is a set of data from the Central England Temperature Record, analysed by successive decades.

Central England Temperature record covers 34 decades, from the end of the first decade in 1679. A warming trend in any period would be indicated by a preponderance of warming decades. Conversely a cooling trend would show as a preponderance of cooling decades. Equal numbers of cooling and warming decades would suggest no trend either way.

The results are illuminating, at least from my sceptical point-of-view.

The first 22 decades, to 1889, show 10 warming and 12 cooling decades, randomly scattered, with negligible overall change.

The next 6 decades to 1949 are all warming as temperatures climb out of the Little Ice Age, from about 9.1 to 9.6 degreesC.

For the last 6 decades, to 2009, we are looking for the impact (or non-impact) of exponentially increasing CO2.

There are 3 warming decades and 3 cooling decades.

Now, admittedly, the temperature increases in the last two decades were significantly greater than any previous, taking the decadal averages above 10 degrees for the first time. The average temperature in the decade ending 2009 was 10.4 degrees C.

Our worst floods were in 1947, and our worst blizzards in 1940.

dhogaza said...

"The results are illuminating, at least from my sceptical point-of-view."

What are you skeptical of? The existence of a world outside central england?

That's the only logic I can think of that would lead one to think that the CET record represents global temperatures: that central england is the world.

Which is even sillier than the common US-based denialist belief that the US is the world.

"Equal numbers of cooling and warming decades would suggest no trend either way."

Well, it's dead simple to create artificial datasets where equal periods of increase and decrease exist yet a statistically positive trend also exists.

You don't know much math or statistics, do you? Along with your lack of geographical knowledge, that is.

Garhighway said...

Fred seems to have a hard time with the "global" part of global warming. Oh, well. I guess we'll have to settle for one out of two.