The Davey interview graph used by Andrew Neil

Posted: July 26, 2013 by tallbloke in Analysis, climate, Clouds, solar system dynamics

In his interview, Ed Davey took exception to the graph of global temperature referred to by Andrew Neil. Neil pointed out that the data had a reputable source, the Climate research Unit. This was the only dubious statement he made that I’m aware of. He went on to ask Davey about the ‘pause’ in warming. Personally I don’t like the description ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ as both imply a future recommencement of warming, which may of course, not happen. At least , not until after a significant cooling.  😉

The CRU document is here


Then we get the standard IPCC boilerplate conclusion:

Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.

Here’s another graph of C20th surface temperature from China, with a plot of sunshine hours in neighbouring Japan overlaid, courtesy of Willie Soon.

A much better correlation than you get between temperature and CO2. Unless you add in some curve fitted aerosols of course.

Doug Proctor published a carefully researched paper on Sunshine hours here last year.

  1. Brian H says:

    Sunshine warms the surface. Huda thunk?

  2. Roger Andrews says:

    The Soon comparison is a lot less convincing when we plot Japanese sunshine against Japanese temperatures:

  3. tchannon says:


    This is probably not anything like as simple as AB. Cloud is involved with both. One is a maritime region the other continental near maritime. Airflow needs to be known.

    Dubious but interesting.

  4. A few years ago, I plotted weather measurements against time at a nearby agricultural research station. (link)

    Temperature appeared to be “out of phase” with insolation (the amount of solar radiation measured at ground level) by about a month. So I plotted the temperature against the total insolation received during a month, a month earlier (link). There is a strong correlation between the two factors.

    One possible explaination is that the surface is acting as an insulated accummulator of insolation, “leaking” the energy into the atmosphere and space with lower “efficiency”.

    Through the corner of my eye, I spotted a “pattern” to the variations (“clusters” of points) so I plotted temperature deviations from the trendline against time and fit a curve. (link) There appears to be a seasonality in those deviations from the mean with strong positive fluctuations in the autumn and weaker negative deviations in spring.

    The data are from only the one weather station!

  5. Derek says:

    The general trend is clearly upwards on both graphs and significantly so which appears to be causing significant change in weather patterns including increasing droughts followed by intense rain leading to higher incidences of forest fires and localised flooding impacting on all aspects of life worldwide.

  6. OOPS. I wrote that

    I plotted weather measurements

    Untrue… I plotted data (monthly figures) derived from weather measurements by a government department.

    I’ll try to be more careful in future.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Derek: what evidence do you have that a small change in surface T causes all these things you list.

    IPCC SREX isn’t so sure.

  8. mitigatedsceptic says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with your complaint about ‘pause’ and ‘hiatus’ as oyu say these imply a forecast that warming will resume. ‘Likely’ and ‘very likely’ are now technical terms and, IMHO, always be accompanied by the numerical probability claimed.
    I note too the implication that all climate change is in some way or another, and to a greater or lesser extent, anthropogenic.
    The last official response to the cessation of global warming is full of attempts to divert attention away from temperature. My paranoid suspicions are that they are preparing the ground for claims for ever more research resources in different fields where signs of doom may be found.
    Davey is still touting the 97% nonsense. Instead ot trying to pick holes in the survey report, should we not just dismiss the whole ‘consensus’ case as a red herring – nothing to do with science.
    There are only two ‘scientists’ who matter in UK – the Government Chief Scientific Officer and Davey’s own Scientific Officer. No politician in his right mind would go against ‘official science’ and I sympathise with Davey on this. The real issue is how to change the minds of these two? While Nurse and the RS are alarmists, they are unlikely to become sceptical. So it may boil down to getting reform in the Royal Society?

  9. J Martin says:

    Ultimately the consequences of the abuses of statistics that have been carried out in the name of climate science may harm funding for all science and not just climate science. And indeed one would expect cuts in science and other areas as ever increasing numbers of windmills cause ever increasing damage to the UK economy. The Royal Society is the beneficiary of considerable largesse from the tax payer and yet seems to be a mostly worthless institution, an ideal target for cuts. I believe they should be de-funded, to use an American expression.

    The Government Chief Scientific Officer and Davey’s own Scientific Officer have both so far allowed themselves to have their views on co2 dictated to them by watermelons and will no doubt continue to suppress whatever individual intellect they may have until it becomes all too obvious that they and their single sided source of advice have got it badly wrong and that co2 does not dictate climate.

    I believe that they will find their views unsustainable as we approach 2020. Sunspot counts are low between solar cycles and the foretaste we had of the effects of a much reduced sunspot count during 2008/9 is likely to be even more impactful, not just on winter temperatures, but should also start to affect summer temperatures.

    A straight line extrapolation of Livingston & Penn takes us to about 2020, but sunspots appear to approach the low periods in a somewhat asymptotic manner, so perhaps we might see some significant drops in sunspot numbers before 2020. By which time the MSM will likely have changed sides resulting in the mass of the sheeple also changing sides and leaving only the gullible (namely, politicians) still chanting their co2 mantra while the rats seek an exit strategy from the sinking ship named co2.

    The multi billion dollar question for the watermelons and the climate science fraud industry is, where will temperatures go once sunspots disappear ?

    I think it is highly likely that funding will follow temperature. I wonder what the climate science co2 faithful will make of that particular correlation.

  10. tchannon says:


    This is correct, complicated, no potted full explanation can be done in a few lines. At root is the correct physical application of Stephan Boltzmann, a purely theoretic construct of no direct use, which is almost invariable wrongly described and applied.

    Thermal flux bilaterally interchanges with entropy of a mass

    Thermal flux also can also be taken as bilaterally interchanging with power

    Note that the units of thermal flux do not include time.

    Assume this integrates, that is, time is involved.

    You show flux and you show a proxy for the entropy of a mass and mention the entropy lags. Of course. This is bilateral, there is also flux lagging entropy but that is not showing in the data.

    All this is the flow of thermal energy into and out of. That takes time.

    Air temperature is a bad proxy because it is loosely connected with mass. Data on body temperature barely exists in public. I can also show professional meteorologists grossly miscomprehending body heat flow, wrongly adjusting data which is then published. (I haven’t because hurting those individuals is in my judgement unfair, simply knew no better)

    Many timescales are involved. Corollary this is a highly dynamic system which has no steady state.

    And there is much more.

  11. tchannon wrote:

    Air temperature is a bad proxy because it is loosely connected with mass. Data on body temperature barely exists in public.

    The data originate from an agricultural research station which also has soil temperature probes at 4 cm depth. While the weather stations were still online and live data, updated every minute, were available via the Interwebby, (recent “improvements” produce empty data on the WWW) I noted that precipitation events after a long dry period led to sudden excursions in the reported soil temperature.

    Not only was there wetting of sensors to consider, but the confounding factors of the soil’s thermodynamic properties changing very rapidly as water covered the surface and mixed with the dry soil. And the rain, usually colder than the dry surface, would have “sucked” substantial heat from the “dry soil” in pursuit of the zeroeth law of thermodynamics.

    I suppose that one could isolate the data so that only “dry days” are used for analysis. That would however substantially reduce the dataset size. I don’t like to “homogenize” data to make it suitable for convenient analysis.

    The Department had already done some homogenizing in their published monthly summaries because their daily data had lots of holes; missing data; especially in the early years of the dataset. Their averages only averaged available data so the missing days are all implied to be average. To be fair, they also published “Full Data %” figures to give an indication of the amount of unknowns. (No data at all in May 1999)

  12. Fanakapan says:

    1850 – 2012 is a poor period with which to attempt to reach any realistic conclusions, just emerging from the Days of Dalton, its a foregone conclusion that the trend would be upwards. Add in the variable accuracy of observed measurements prior to 1900, and the widespread massaging of records since that date, and the whole proposition becomes a Nonsense 🙂

  13. Andrew says:

    Mr soon videos debunking agw, in his own way.

  14. tchannon says:

    Agricultural stations do record soil temperature and so do proper meteorological sites, eg. Met Office do widely but of course, silence.

    Soil types as you say can be a lot of effect.

    In broad terms all thermal flux domain changes to or from flux act with a thermal delay line into a thermal mass.

    Here is some fancy processing on monthly data. One data has been normalised to the other and a fractional time delay used before plotting. The point here is demonstrating the effect applies at all timescales, particularly diurnal but also annual and longer.

    An assumption newbies make is the heat flow is one direction, comes back out too.

    The lunar surface modelling (on the Talkshop) is generally applicable and is why surface/body characteristics are critical but not as much as the dynamic nature of the planet, spinning and orbiting.

    One corollary is that if the earth actually has a high thermal conductivity and has high thermal mass, given the 24 hour rotation is will be much hotter than would otherwise be the case.

  15. mitigatedsceptic says:

    If you want to be alarmed, read the history of the LIA. The winter of the Great Frost 1708/9 killed seed corn in the fields and 800,000 people starver to death in Europe alone. Pack ice in the Channel impeded shipping, half the livestock perished, there were bread riots in several cities and the currency devalued by 30% (without any monetary easing!). France was bankrupted. Even the war was postponed until June and peace declared next year! People then were well adapted to cold weather. Imagine what would happen this winter were a Great Frost to coincide with a great calm (a blocked high pressure system over Europe) – not unlikely BTW. No power, heating or light. Transport at a standstill. Supermarket shelves empty. Water supplies frozen. Telecoms down. Airports closed for months, perhaps permanently. Governments helpless – no Plan C!