JMW

Global Warming During 1998 - 2014

Global Warming Data: Several Graphics

Show the Same Plots Which Have Been
Used to Infer a Warming Pause During 1999
through 2014
By John Michael Williams
jmmwill@comcast.net
2016-04-06

An apparently aberrant graph is shown correct according to other

published graphs

JMW

Global Warming During 1998 - 2014

Introduction
I am sorry if this paper may frustrate some readers, but I am only dealing here with global warming
per se. I am not considering the important effects upon it by atmospheric CO2, oceanic carbon or
heat flow, Arctic or glacial melting, or anything other than global temperature.
All the relevant Ars postings of the discussions referenced below can be accessed at
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1311827.
My reason for this posting is the almost unnoticeable pause data shown in a graph posted by Voix
des Airs at 9:17 pm on Tuesday. I have been advocating the idea that such a pause should be
something drawing the attention of anyone interested in recent global warming; previous published
graphs have seemed to show a fairly obvious pause-like change in the data of ~1998 2014.
I still can't seem to post a graph here on Ars; it may be a Fedora or Mozilla problem. So, I am
describing below what I have done and have posted the graphs and all details on Scribd at
https://www.scribd.com/doc/307268156/SomeGlobalWarmingPlotsFor1999to2014Data. This also
shortens the use of Ars space, allowing me to be ignored more easily.

Step I:
First, I made literal Ksnapshot copies of the following data (sizes reduced here, but varied at
subsequent steps). Each number identifies a specific graph:

#1 Voix des Airs Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:17 pm (The reason for all this):

#2 tonylurker Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:30 am

JMW

Global Warming During 1998 - 2014

#3 tonylurker Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:04 pm

#4 & #5 IPCC 5

th

Assessment Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis at

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ :

#4 = p. 959 Global mean temperature

and [next page]

JMW

Global Warming During 1998 - 2014

#5 = p. 971 Global mean temperature projections (RCP 4.5), relative to 19862005

(observations will be the focus, only)

Step 2:
Second, I selected out the parts not within the ~ 1995 to 2014 annual time-frame:
#1 becomes

JMW
#2 becomes

#3 becomes

Global Warming During 1998 - 2014

JMW
#4 becomes

#5 becomes

Global Warming During 1998 - 2014

JMW

Step 3:

Global Warming During 1998 - 2014

(see Step 4 for results)

Third, I deleted parts of the graphs which were far above the "observations" regions, in order to put all
graphs in one line as in the following Step 4. The first two of the three #5 graphs (the third being
irrelevant) were done individually, making a total of 6 modified graphs in all. Graphs (esp. #1) distant
from their year values were moved downward, carefully not altering their horizontal positions. I used
Corel Draw, which has all these capabilities:

Step 4:
Fourth, I created an oversized graphic and positioned all the 6 graphs so that their year 2000 data points
lined up horizontally. I made no vertical size change:

JMW

Global Warming During 1998 - 2014

Step 5:
Fifth, I stretched horizontally (linearly) all graphs so that their year 2000 and year 2010 data both lined
up horizontally with the #1 data. The vertical distances happen to vary somewhat among the plots.
In the result, shown next, it is clear that the Voix des Airs data from ~1999 to ~2014 do correspond to
the other data.

However, the Voix des Aires LINE drawn through those data does not conform to the 1998 - 2014 data.
This is what caused me to go through this exercise and compare his plot with the others above.

JMW

Global Warming During 1998 - 2014

The nonconformance seems to be because that line also is drawn through the pre-1999 data, too. This
makes the line too high and with not enough horizonal-tending slope. Nothing wrong with that, but
that line does not fit the data.of interest to me or to anyone wondering about the change in the ~1999 2004 data (the "pause"). The problem is one of interpretation, not of accuracy of data.
I conclude that the #1 data do not somehow contradict my discussions of the "pause" in global
warming. Again, this is a special interest of mine not meant to be dismissive of any other warmingrelevant topic.