Fellow climate blogger Robin Pittwood at the New Zealand-based Kiwi Thinker here brings us up-to-date on how the current 2011 – 2020 decade is doing temperature-wise.
Many readers are aware of a climate bet made with alarmists Rob Honeycutt and Mr. Know-it-all, Dana Nuccitelli. The skeptics bet the current decade would be cooler or the same as last decade – using the RSS and UAH satellite data, and not the made up surface stuff from NASA.
Robin’s latest calculations show that the current decade is (still) slightly cooler than the last one comprising 2001 – 2010.
Of course, as expected, the recent El Nino event closed the gap and will probably even push the current decade to be a bit warmer in the months ahead. The question that remains now is just how strong will the upcoming La Nina be? Will it be strong enough to send the global temperature downward over the next couple of years 2017 – 2019, similar to what we saw back in 2008?
Right now there are a number of indications that this is precisely what is going to happen.
Chart: Robin Pittwood, KiwiThinker. Spreadsheet is available here, UAH v6 Beta 5 data is available here, RSS v3.3 data is available here.
We’re still seeing the effect of the El Nino nudging the green line closer. Whether the lines cross over, and for how long, is still uncertain. The El Nino indicators seem to have peaked and are beginning to decline, but as Bob Tisdale described at his blog, ‘Every El Nino is different’.”
So it looks like we are in a very close race, something that according to the alarmists was not supposed to happen. By now this decade was supposed to be a lot warmer. By the end of the decade it’s supposed to be some 0.2°C or 0.3°C warmer.
So even if the warmists did manage to eke out a victory by a few hundredths of a degree, it would be a very hollow one indeed.
53 responses to “Despite Massive El Nino, Current Decade Still Cooler Than 2001 – 2010 Decade!”
Temperature is an intensive variable. Heat is an extensive variable.
What that means is that heat can be quantified in a meaningful way, whereas temperature cannot.
Anyone who takes a bet regarding such a meaningless non-quantity as “Accumulated Average Temperature” deserves to lose, whichever side he’s on.
“Temperature is an intensive variable. Heat is an extensive variable.”
can you please give the original source of this “idea”?
Is it Chifio again?
Are you aware of how averages are formed?
Interesting. I thought this was a widely known concept. Can you tell me what is the average temperature of your body?
“Interesting. I thought this was a widely known concept. Can you tell me what is the average temperature of your body?”
Why would you want an average temperature of your body?
I thought temperature was an intensive variable and so does not depend on system size.
The temperature of your body will be, what ever you measure with what ever method you chose.
Now please educate me, if i have 4 days of fever at around 40°C (measured each morning in the same place), why do you think forming an average out of those 4 numbers would be meaningless?
“Why would you want an average temperature of your body?”
I don’t but why would anyone want an average temperature of the Earth?
“I thought temperature was an intensive variable and so does not depend on system size.”
That has nothing to do with a body of varying temperatures. You really don’t seem to understand the concept.
“The temperature of your body will be, what ever you measure with what ever method you chose.”
That’s pretty much what I expected you to say. You never disappoint.
“if i have 4 days of fever …”
So your argument seems to be that the average morning temperature of your anus over four days could be an important number.
OK, more to you than me, but if it makes you happy, put it in your spreadsheet of important calculations and save it but be careful. If the value on day 2 showed as 43°C you are either dead, you fell asleep on a heating blanket or you have a crappy thermometer.
Now, imagine measuring the anus temperature of all the participants of a progressive anti-capitalist rally and averaging them. I expect quite a few of them to be feverish but are you saying you will get a meaningful number? And how about averaging the anus temperature averages over successive rallies?
“That has nothing to do with a body of varying temperatures. You really don’t seem to understand the concept.
That’s pretty much what I expected you to say. You never disappoint.”!
So that is the reason, why doctors constantly take measurements at different places of your body?
ooops, they do not. Apart from a very few special situations (mostly frost related injuries), the normal temperature is pretty good to tell you something about what is going on.
“OK, more to you than me, but if it makes you happy, put it in your spreadsheet of important calculations and save it but be careful. If the value on day 2 showed as 43°C you are either dead, you fell asleep on a heating blanket or you have a crappy thermometer.”
You are bringing up random points. You need to tell me, why an average temperature over several days can not be taken. That is, what your claim says.
You also need to tell me, what “intensive variable” has to do with this.
Concentrate, sod, concentrate. Slow down and read sentences word by word until you think you comprehend the meaning.
Then do it again because you probably didn’t.
“Concentrate, sod, concentrate. Slow down and read sentences word by word until you think you comprehend the meaning. ”
my concentration is fine.
This line of discussion, started by yonason is about intensive variables and their effects on averages.
So all you need to do is, show us what your arguments have to do with intensive variables.
People who pay attention and concentrate don’t contradict their standing narratives or, when they do, realize something is wrong with their world view and show some introspection.
If you have a pig iron ingot and measure the temperature of one end at 24°C and 26°C at the other end, what is the average temperature of the metal?
“If you have a pig iron ingot and measure the temperature of one end at 24°C and 26°C at the other end, what is the average temperature of the metal?”
What is the connection of your reply to intensive variables?
There simply is none.
What is the connection of your reply to global temperature which is measured in a grid?
Again, there is none.
And again my question:
Why would the average of temperature of the same thing being measured over several day be meaningless?
Please explain and please include an explanation of the connection between what you talk about and the term intensive variables.
your pig iron actually is a perfect example of gridding:
you measure the temperature of each piece and then simply form an average.
And that is pretty exactly what is being done.
“If you have a pig iron ingot and measure the temperature of one end at 24°C and 26°C at the other end, what is the average temperature of the metal?
Come on sob, give us an answer…. let’s see just how wrong you can be ! 😉
“Come on sob, give us an answer…. let’s see just how wrong you can be !”
I am not sure what you are trying to tell me.
It is obvious that you can calculate an average in this case (for example an arithmetic mean) and that the result would be more accurate than a single measurement.
although you would prefer a measurement at the centre and one at the outside of the iron ingot. such an average would have more meaning.
You folks are making a serious logic mistake. You are translating the phrase “in general, an average of temperatures has no meaning” (this one is right) into “an average of temperatures never has a meaning” (which is false).
You are also seriously confused about abstract concept in an ideal world (temperature as an intensive variable) and measuring stuff in the real world.
Now please answer my simple question: Why do you think that an average over the temperature taken on a hospital patient each morning will not have any meaning? Please factor in, what “intensive variable” has to do with it.
It is obvious that you can calculate an average in this case”
Well done sob.. you have excelled your self at ignorance this time, just as I predicted you would.
Can’t say we didn’t try.
He doesn’t get it.
“He doesn’t get it.”
You need to bring arguments, not insults.
So what does ” intensive variable” have to do with measuring the temperature of a patient every morning and forming an average?
“He doesn’t get it.”
Why do you think it’s an insult, sod? You seem very vulnerable.
Since you punted on the pig iron ingot, can you calculate the average temperature of Africa?
“Since you punted on the pig iron ingot, can you calculate the average temperature of Africa?”
No problem. Put a grid over Africa, measure temperature in the centre of each grid point.
That is, what is basically done.
Please remind me again, what has “intensive variable” to do with it?
Why can t we form the average over temperature measured on a hospital patient at the same time each morning again?
Just curious. At what mean temperature is the earth healthiest?
“That is, what is basically done.”
only by satellites.
“Why can t we form the average over temperature measured on a hospital patient at the same time each morning again?”
Well. You’re so funny.
If he’s 43 centigrade in the morning and 30 centigrade at noon I can tell you he’s dead.
A warmunist would say, he’s on average 37 centigrade, he’s healthy.
“Just curious. At what mean temperature is the earth healthiest?”
This is a difficult question.
But there is a simple answer: For mankind and most animals and plants, having little change is much better than having a lot of change.
For mankind we could even say: If changes do not improve the situation for basically everyone, then they most likely have disastrous consequences (causing migration and serious conflicts).
You’re ducking the question.
“If he’s 43 centigrade in the morning and 30 centigrade at noon I can tell you he’s dead.
A warmunist would say, he’s on average 37 centigrade, he’s healthy.”
No. The “warmist” scientists use a lot of data.You folks typically make conclusions based on two data points.
But even you could not explain, why the average temperature taken each morning does not have any meaning (and what the term ” intensive variables” has to do with that).
Forming an average always changes the data structure. You win some information, but you also lose some information.
In general, averages make it possible to work with huge amounts of data.
Nobody so far was able to explain to me, why we can not form the averages for the temperature data taken on that patient each morning. Temperature is an intensive variable. There must be some really serious problem with it, and a dying patient can not be the problem of the variable type.
sod 16. April 2016 at 9:36 AM | Permalink
“No problem. Put a grid over Africa, measure temperature in the centre of each grid point.
That is, what is basically done.”
So you don’t even know that there is no such grid. Why doesn’t this surprise me.
There is not a temperature station in Bolivia. Temperatures there are simply imagined by assuming a magical teleconnection to temperatures in the Amazons – which is, contrary to Bolivia, a low-lying region.
Surface temperature msrment stations are concentrated in Europa and North America. The rest? Well why don’t you just go and find them. It’s on the Internet. Hint. They’re few and far between.
“No problem. Put a grid over Africa, measure temperature in the centre of each grid point.”
That’s fantastic. You’re building up self confidence. We must be bold to save the Earth from man.
So what’s the average temperature of Africa?
sod 16. April 2016 at 2:03 PM | Permalink
“But even you could not explain, why the average temperature taken each morning does not have any meaning (and what the term ” intensive variables” has to do with that).”
I didn’t even try to! And why would I? Have you ever been to the Doctor to complain about your AVERAGE TEMPERATURE? *I* haven’t.
Do you have kids? Do you compute their AVERAGE TEMPERATURE? *I* haven’t.
Has a nurse ever told you, we’re putting you on medication, you’re AVERAGE TEMPERATURE is worrying??? Wait. ?????ß???ß?? That’s better.
One of these days I will blog about the concept of pulse width modulation, which is of course a complete mystery to the warmunist brain, and how it relates to weather. But not now.
“Have you ever been to the Doctor to complain about your AVERAGE TEMPERATURE? *I* haven’t.
Do you have kids? Do you compute their AVERAGE TEMPERATURE? *I* haven’t.”
This is getting a little strange. Most of the time, i do not have to compute an average temperature, because this has been done in the past already.
Doctors have figured out a average body temperature by doing experiments.
The terms generate thousands and millions of hits on google search.
You can also find some informations about this in medical scholar articles. This one for example investigates the different temperature means found during operations with different methods:
“Has a nurse ever told you, we’re putting you on medication, you’re AVERAGE TEMPERATURE is worrying???”
This has not happened to me, but it can happen. Mostly to people, who are found to have below average temperature on average.
“can you please give the original source of this “idea”?” – sod
That “idea” is a fundamental scientific principle
“the sum over intensive variables carries no physical meaning. Dividing meaningless totals by the number of components cannot reverse this outcome.”
I.e., the average of intensive variables is MEANINGLESS!!!
Meant for this to be first link
brief intro to what the concepts mean.
“brief intro to what the concepts mean.”
Very interesting. But the video does not mention global temperature at all.
Neither does it say anything about meaningful averages.
But watch the video and hear about two glasses:
and let us change the example a little. Obviously, taking a couple of glasses, with different amounts of water and different temperatures would not produce a useful average.
But an average of temperature taken about glasses with similar filling will obviously produce a meaningful average.
Now have you ever heard about the way in which global temperature is measured?
“But watch the video and hear about two glasses:” – sod
It’s the same material at the same temperature with the same heat capacity. It’s the kind of thing a concrete thinker would find relevant, but no one else.
Engineers do sometimes use a kind of “average temperature” (LMTD)
when calculating heat exchange in very specific situations.
1 – It isn’t a “statistical average” which would give in incorrect answer.
2 – It is only used on the same, not different materials, because applying it that way would also give an incorrect answer.
3 – Finally…
“this approach cannot be used for the cases where phase change occurs in the heat exchanger. Also, if the specific heats of the fluids change then the LMTD approach cannot be used.”
IThe earth is composed of sand, mud, rocks, water, ice, air (dry and humid), wood (trees), vegetation, etc., There are different amounts of each, and they all have different heat capacities. Additionally, ice, water and water vapor are different phases. Those are just a few of the facts that make this method totally inappropriate. And as I’ve already pointed out, a statistical average is meaningless on all counts.
Please, sod, don’t blather on about something you know NOTHING about. If they ome up with a workable method, and validate it, then you can support it. But it ain’t happened yet.
replace “statistical average” with “arithmetic average” in my last.
“the video does not mention global temperature at all.” – sod
It was just to define the terms for you. That’s why I included the second link which DOES address “global warming,” and why an average of temp data is an abuse of the science and the math.
“an average of temperature taken about glasses with similar filling will obviously produce a meaningful average.” – sod
No. If the substance in the two glasses was the same, then mixing them would give a temperature you expect from an arithmetic average of the temps of both. But it’s what scientists call a “trivial” result, and as such it’s “meaning” is about as profound as “if you mix green pigment with more of the same green pigment you get more green pigment.” Wow-NOT!
And, no, averaging the temperatures of just air around the world isn’t any good, either, for reasons which I now see I would be wasting my time trying to explain to you.
“1 – It isn’t a “statistical average” which would give in incorrect answer.”
That is false. You would not get an “incorrect” answer, you would just get a result with less meaning.
The right type of average, be it arithmetic mean, root square sum, geometric mean or a logarithmic mean depends on the data set and what you are looking for.
You will chose the right average (or mean) for your dataset.
So according to you, temperature in a heat exchange scenario is not an ” intensive variable”?
“2 – It is only used on the same, not different materials, because applying it that way would also give an incorrect answer.”
Yes. there are some limits on averages of temperature. Typically you will want to compare temperature of similar things.
In an ideal world, things would be exactly the same. In the real world, being similar enough will have to do.
“3 – Finally…
“this approach cannot be used for the cases where phase change occurs in the heat exchanger. Also, if the specific heats of the fluids change then the LMTD approach cannot be used.””
This is a very specific effect in this particular case and has very little meaning in typical temperature measurements that we talk about.
“IThe earth is composed of sand, mud, rocks, water, ice, air (dry and humid), wood (trees), vegetation, etc., There are different amounts of each, and they all have different heat capacities. ”
So we take the temperature at the same place at the same time each day. Looks perfect to me. Where is the problem?
“Additionally, ice, water and water vapor are different phases. Those are just a few of the facts that make this method totally inappropriate.”
Can you please tell me, when your thermometer was affected by a phase change the last time? Please a single example!
“. And as I’ve already pointed out, a statistical average is meaningless on all counts.”
No, it is not. If you want to, use the log mean instead. In wont actually change anything. You really do not know what you are talking about, do you?
” If they ome up with a workable method, and validate it, then you can support it. But it ain’t happened yet.”
Do you notice, that your long reply did not mention “intensive variable” at all?
Because what you are actually talking about is the simple fact, that the globe and temperature measurements are not prefect. Biut that is not a real problem.
When the equipment you designed fails due to overheating because you got the wrong answer calculating how efficient your heat exchanger was, try explaining to the judge in the wrongful death suit how “meaningless” the trial is.
FINAL TO SOD
Global Average Temperature Is Meaningless.
“Global Average Temperature Is Meaningless.”
no it is not. and the article does not offer any evidence why it should be, nor does it mention what intensive variables have to do with it.
Instead it says, averages are possible, you just have to chose well:
“These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.”
By the way, the second example is false:
“Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)”
0*100=0, the square root of zero is zero.
There are very specific reasons to use a geometric average (data points on very different scales for example. If one sort of data ranges from 1 to 3 but another one ranges from 1 to 100, the geometric average will have more meaning than an arithmetic one). So it is really simple to chose, when you use it.
sorry, i missed the explanation about the temperature transfer before calculating the average.
my fault, i am sorry.
David Appell has made a nice table, comparing 1997/1998 to 2015/2016.
Even if there is a la nina coming, we will still see a positive lag in satellite temperature.
“So even if the warmists did manage to eke out a victory by a few hundredths of a degree, it would be a very hollow one indeed.”
I am some what surprised by this sentence. “warmists” already agreed to use the “sceptics” dataset. So now it only counts, if the last decade is beaten by 0.3°C in the “sceptic” dataset? What else are you asking for?
[…] Full post […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2016/04/09/despite-massive-el-nino-current-decade-still-cooler-than-2001-201… […]
You are obviously a non-reader and have been so for the last five years. One should not expect El Nino to cause warming because ENSO is a harmonic oscillation of ocean water from side to side in the equatorial Pacific. If you blow across the end of a glass tube sound you get is its natural, fundamental frequency, determined by the dimensions of the tube. Trade winds are the equivalent of blowing across a tube and the ocean answers with its own natural frequency – one El Nino peak every four-five years. It starts with the trade winds piling up warm water in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the warmest water on earth. When the water level has peaked a reverse flow starts by gravity. An elongate El Nino wave forms and crosses the ocean west to east along the equatorial counter-current. Right in the middle of that counter-current sits the Nino3.4 observation post and watches the El Nino waves go by. It gets them before they have reached South America, hence the delay in Its forecasts. The El Nino wave itself runs ashore in South America and then splits and follows the coast north and south. In the process its warm water spreads out and warms the air above it. Warm air rises, joins the westerlies, and and we notice that an El Nino has arrived. And so do the Europeans and the Japanese as the westerlies reach their land. But any wave that runs ashore must also retreat. Water level drops half a meter behind a retreating El Nino wave, cold water from below fills the vacuum. and a La Nina has started. As much as the El Nino raised the global temperature the La Nina will now lower it and the long-term temperature remains unchanged. Normally, that is, but there are exceptions. If something should block the equatorial counter-current ahead of an advancing El Nino wave it cannot get across the ocean and its warm water will simply spread out and create an Ell Nino on the spot. This is called El Nino Modoki or C.P. El Nino. It will have a problem creating a La Nina, however, and there could be a temperature change involved. You would know all this by now if you had read about ENSO in my book “What Warming?” Read the whole book to find out what else you missed.
Tellingly, this El Nino has seen surface temperatures about 0.4 C above 1998’s, which itself saw surface temperatures about 0.4 C above 1983’s.
There’s your global warming.
No 2 El Ninos are the same. It only means that one is stronger than the other. It’s truly amazing how you admonish others to get back to science when you yourself constantly make unscientific claims. You’re hard to take seriously at times.
Comes down to his science fantasy journalism roots and his overall lack of even one skerrick of basic integrity.
Once cannot expect the rotten appell to ever follow what he says others should do.
[…] 4) Despite Massive El Nino, Current Decade Still Cooler Than 2001–2010 Decade No Tricks Zone, 9 April 2016 […]
Since I have caught Pierre in lies before, unfortunately, I know I have to check every little thing he says.
And lo and behold, this claim is also false:
“Despite Massive El Nino, Current Decade Still Cooler Than 2001 – 2010 Decade!”
Looking at GISS data, we find, decade-to-date:
average(Jan 2001-Feb 2006) = +0.60 C (relative to baseline)
average(Jan 2011-Feb 2016) = +0.71 C (relative to baseline)
These, of course, are not equal.
Do you ever read? In the bet it was agreed to use UAH and RSS. Period.
Everyone knows that GISS has horrendously manipulated the data and that they are no longer a serious source outside of alarmist circles.
The Giss /HadCrut surface data is now only fit for one purpose… …
climate change™ propaganda.
You have never caught Pierre in any lies at all.
The LIES have all been from you.