About six months ago I posted a short article and a graph attempting to show the progress of a global decadal climate bet. The graph compared the temperature of the two decades Jan 2001 through Dec 2010 and Jan 2011 to Dec 2020. I wanted to compare the two decades and make it like a horse race. To do that, I needed to track progress to date. Admittedly there’s not much scientific merit in this, but as it is still more than 7 years to the finish line, and that seems like a long time, I thought it might add amusement.
Rob Honeycutt (the leader of the warmist team) kindly visited here a few days ago and left some comments querying the validity of my graph. They were good comments that got me thinking. While I reckon the graph is technically correct, it does have some peculiarities which need consideration. I’ve checked the calculations are correct and they are based on directly downloaded data from UAH and RSS. The method shows the position between the decades by calculating a running average to date. Both decades were treated equally and fairly.
But Rob raised a valid point. The early stages of the graph show a lot of variability, ie: the left side is noisy. It makes the left side of the graph messy and possibly misleading to some. The variability is caused by the low number of elements in the sample to date. As time goes on the noise movement in the average to date diminishes. And of course, in the end it is the finish line that matters. The ups and downs only having been interesting along the way.
So thanks Rob, with all that in mind, I have tried another way to look at the race.
The new way does not use an average to date. It uses instead a simple accumulating counter, adding 1/120th of the average of the UAH and RSS monthly global anomalies to a running total. The sum of these numbers after 120 months will be the global decadal average.
So take a look at the graph. Use your eye to extrapolate to the green line to the finish point. It is still a close race and I’m not game to pick a winner … yet.