Slashdot Mirror

Based on Tamino's analysis, continuation of the trend from 1970-2000 cannot be rejected.

Based on physics? The properties of CO2 have not changed with the new millennium, so all else being equal we should expect a continuation of the long term trend.... but of course all else is not equal.

Certainly the solar output has taken a nose dive. That will have reduced the trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/p...

On the other hand polar ice extent has decreased overall (summer ice extent more so) so reflectivity (albedo) is diminished. That will have increased the trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/n...

Aerosols are the biggest wildcard as they are difficult to measure and their impact is difficult to gauge.

Bottom line, it is simplistic and wrong to say that there has been no warming since 2000. In fact, it is very unlikely that this is true.

Based on Tamino's analysis, continuation of the trend from 1970-2000 cannot be rejected.

Based on physics? The properties of CO2 have not changed with the new millennium, so all else being equal we should expect a continuation of the long term trend.... but of course all else is not equal.

Certainly the solar output has taken a nose dive. That will have reduced the trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/p...

On the other hand polar ice extent has decreased overall (summer ice extent more so) so reflectivity (albedo) is diminished. That will have increased the trend: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/n...

Aerosols are the biggest wildcard as they are difficult to measure and their impact is difficult to gauge.

Bottom line, it is simplistic and wrong to say that there has been no warming since 2000. In fact, it is very unlikely that this is true.

Yeah, I saw that which is why I didn't specify what the trend-line signified. Whether he's using the 45 year extrapolated trend-line or the actual 45 year trend-line makes little difference, since they're practically identical. (That's the whole point of his post.) Either way he is showing how the recent data fits with a 45 year trend-line "just about as closely as one could have imagined".

This: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Not this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Yeah, I saw that which is why I didn't specify what the trend-line signified. Whether he's using the 45 year extrapolated trend-line or the actual 45 year trend-line makes little difference, since they're practically identical. (That's the whole point of his post.) Either way he is showing how the recent data fits with a 45 year trend-line "just about as closely as one could have imagined".

This: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Not this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Why not. I'll go into a little more detail since this isn't clear to you for some reason.

Tamino says: "Assuming global warming continues without slowing down, we would have expected this," with an accompanying graph that extrapolates the long-term trend from 1970.

Then he says: "This is what actually happened," with an accompanying graph clearly showing a long term trend-line from 1970-2015. The point is clear: the recent pause has not affected the long term trend.

He says the recent data fits the long term trend "just about as closely as one could have imagined." He can only be comparing the two long term trends since the recent 15 year trend is less than half that of the previous 30 years. Far from a fit that's as close as "one could have imagined".

Where does he specify how he came up with these graphs and trend-lines? He talks about "the global-warming-continues-without-slowing-down pattern", but that's about as technical as he gets. Most of the post is just a rant.

The title of his blog post is "It's the Trend, Stupid". The whole point of the post is to show how the "pause" hasn't affected the 45 year trend; that it's practically the same as the 30 year trend from 1970-2000.

At the end of the post he writes: "They just don’t seem to realize that the real embarrassment to their precious “pause” is the trend." Again, he is contrasting the 15 year "pause" to the long term, 45 year trend.

In the comments section Zeke Hausfather of Yale Climate Connections says "Looks like we both had the same idea; I made a very similar figure over the weekend for Yale Climate Connections" On the referred Climate Connections post Zeke writes: "While the trend over the past decade is fairly flat, there is a danger in over-interpreting short-term trends in long and noisy time series, as this illustration shows." It's the same theme: the recent pause doesn't effect the 45 year trend.

His illustration looks just like Tamino's and Gavin's: https://i0.wp.com/www.yaleclim... It clearly shows a trend-line from 1970 to 1999 and a trend-line from 1970 to 2015. It does not show a recent trend-line which would look "fairly flat", as he acknowledges above.

Gavin Schmidt's graph, Tamino's graph and Zek Hausfather's graph all look like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

None of their graphs look like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Does that help clarify things?

Why not. I'll go into a little more detail since this isn't clear to you for some reason.

Tamino says: "Assuming global warming continues without slowing down, we would have expected this," with an accompanying graph that extrapolates the long-term trend from 1970.

Then he says: "This is what actually happened," with an accompanying graph clearly showing a long term trend-line from 1970-2015. The point is clear: the recent pause has not affected the long term trend.

He says the recent data fits the long term trend "just about as closely as one could have imagined." He can only be comparing the two long term trends since the recent 15 year trend is less than half that of the previous 30 years. Far from a fit that's as close as "one could have imagined".

Where does he specify how he came up with these graphs and trend-lines? He talks about "the global-warming-continues-without-slowing-down pattern", but that's about as technical as he gets. Most of the post is just a rant.

The title of his blog post is "It's the Trend, Stupid". The whole point of the post is to show how the "pause" hasn't affected the 45 year trend; that it's practically the same as the 30 year trend from 1970-2000.

At the end of the post he writes: "They just don’t seem to realize that the real embarrassment to their precious “pause” is the trend." Again, he is contrasting the 15 year "pause" to the long term, 45 year trend.

In the comments section Zeke Hausfather of Yale Climate Connections says "Looks like we both had the same idea; I made a very similar figure over the weekend for Yale Climate Connections" On the referred Climate Connections post Zeke writes: "While the trend over the past decade is fairly flat, there is a danger in over-interpreting short-term trends in long and noisy time series, as this illustration shows." It's the same theme: the recent pause doesn't effect the 45 year trend.

His illustration looks just like Tamino's and Gavin's: https://i0.wp.com/www.yaleclim... It clearly shows a trend-line from 1970 to 1999 and a trend-line from 1970 to 2015. It does not show a recent trend-line which would look "fairly flat", as he acknowledges above.

Gavin Schmidt's graph, Tamino's graph and Zek Hausfather's graph all look like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

None of their graphs look like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Does that help clarify things?

Perhaps you are in denial. I think Nasa's Gavin Schmidt is better positioned to understand what Tamino has done than you are. On the RealClimate site Nasa's Gavin Schmidt is doing exactly what Tamino is doing, and Schmidt says as much: "Tamino has a good post on this as well".

It's not a coincidence their graphs look a) similar to each other; b) similar to this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... and c) not at all similar to this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

It's too bad Tamino does not say explicitly what his graph represents. It was obvious to me from the start, but I guess it's not obvious to everybody. It would have saved you some time if he had.

Ciao.

Perhaps you are in denial. I think Nasa's Gavin Schmidt is better positioned to understand what Tamino has done than you are. On the RealClimate site Nasa's Gavin Schmidt is doing exactly what Tamino is doing, and Schmidt says as much: "Tamino has a good post on this as well".

It's not a coincidence their graphs look a) similar to each other; b) similar to this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... and c) not at all similar to this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

It's too bad Tamino does not say explicitly what his graph represents. It was obvious to me from the start, but I guess it's not obvious to everybody. It would have saved you some time if he had.

Ciao.

Lol! That's what I've been saying all along! If you wanted to compare pre 2000 with post 2000 you would do this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Suddenly you prefer that approach to Tamino's extrapolation trick? Care to explain why it's legitimate in one case but not another?

Tamino's method shows global warming is slowing down when it should be speeding up:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Lol

Lol! That's what I've been saying all along! If you wanted to compare pre 2000 with post 2000 you would do this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Suddenly you prefer that approach to Tamino's extrapolation trick? Care to explain why it's legitimate in one case but not another?

Tamino's method shows global warming is slowing down when it should be speeding up:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Lol

If you wanted to compare pre-1950 with post-1950 you would do this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Lets use Tamino's extrapolation trick to determine if AGW is real. According to the IPCC, anthropogenic CO2 started to have a real influence on temperatures since 1950. (Prior to that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 was too small to have had much of an influence.) We will do what Tamino did: we'll take the trend from 1900-1950 and extrapolate it, then compare the extrapolation to the actual trend from 1900-2015. If the world was warming because of human influence, we should see a noticeable increase in the trend from 1900-2015 compared to 1900-1950.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

!

Looking at the recent trend won't help us know what the recent trend is like?? Seriously? (Tamino is using a linear trend-line on his graph! How do you think he came up with it??)

It's easy to find out what the temperature trend is since 2000: it's 0.083C per decade, which is so small they can't be sure there is any warming trend at all. Tamino is trying to use a long-term trend to draw conclusions about a short-term trend, which is completely bogus. This is what his graph should look like:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

By the way, your numbers are wrong. (Where did you get .216C/decade from?) The upper bound is closer to 0.165C/decade, which is lower than the warming recorded from '75-'00. But sure, you could argue there is some overlap in the margins of error, and that the trend may have continued. But only if we look to the lower bounds of the margin of error from 1975-2000 and the upper bounds from 2000-2015. If Tamino had actually said that then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead he said in unequivocal terms that the warming "shows no sign of slowing down". That is simply not true.

Ironically that's the same argument I made about the "hottest year". Lol. The best you can say is that the trend *may* have continued (however unlikely), and that 2014 *may* have been the hottest year (but probably not).

Maybe you should reread my post. The trend from 2000 - 2015 has not continued as Tamino stated: it is less than half that from 1975 - 2000. If the trend had continued GISS data would show an additional ~0.14C of warming since 2000 and we would not be having this discussion.

What he's doing is comparing the differences between the trend-line from 1970 - 2000 and the trend-line from 1970 - 2015, which are small. That's because 15 years of no significant warming won't effect a long term linear trend-line that much.

Tamino could make the same claim with the RSS data to turn a 15 year cooling trend into warming that "shows no sign of slowing down". It's truly absurd.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

It should be clear by now that Tamino's "clever" approach is misleading and his claim that warming "shows no sign of slowing down" is flat out wrong.

Gavin Schmidt said there was only a 38% chance 2014 was the hottest year. Take it up with him.

It occurred to me that I should qualify EACH AND EVERY statement with "statistically significant" rather than just the first but I thought there was no way you would be so pedantic since the context should have been obvious.

Regardless, even unqualified the statements are accurate since you can't claim a warming trend if a cooling trend or a trend of zero can't be ruled out. Otherwise skeptics could argue that the earth has cooled since 1997, according to RSS data. (And I'm sure there are some unscrupulous skeptics somewhere making that specious argument.) http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Regarding Hadcrut4 data, there has been no *statistically significant* warming for 17 years, since mid-1997. It will be 18 years of no *statistically significant* warming in about 4 or 5 months. Shouldn't have been hard to figure out if you'd thought about it for half a second, since we're only a few weeks into 2015. But then you would have lost an opportunity to throw mud.

It seems we have reached the point where you are grasping at straws.

It means you can't claim a warming trend because a warming trend of zero can't be ruled out. Grade school stuff, no?

I've seen those graphs, and they show a trend line from 1970 which is not how you determine if a trend exists from 2000. Here are three trend lines. You can see that yes, there is a trend from 1970-2015 that is very similar to the trend from 1970-2000. I've also included a trend line measured from 2000. It is much different.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

The same thing happens with the RSS data but more exaggerated: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Linear trends are not very good with curves. If you want to know the temperature trend for the last 15 years you don't start your trend at 1970. As you can see with the RSS data, even 15 years of slight cooling will not effect the long term trend that much. But can you seriously argue that therefore it has continued warming for those 15 years? No, you can't.

It means you can't claim a warming trend because a warming trend of zero can't be ruled out. Grade school stuff, no?

I've seen those graphs, and they show a trend line from 1970 which is not how you determine if a trend exists from 2000. Here are three trend lines. You can see that yes, there is a trend from 1970-2015 that is very similar to the trend from 1970-2000. I've also included a trend line measured from 2000. It is much different.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

The same thing happens with the RSS data but more exaggerated: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Linear trends are not very good with curves. If you want to know the temperature trend for the last 15 years you don't start your trend at 1970. As you can see with the RSS data, even 15 years of slight cooling will not effect the long term trend that much. But can you seriously argue that therefore it has continued warming for those 15 years? No, you can't.

Nasa forgot to mention the error bars

Yes - they were cleverly hidden and directly addressed in the press call when the record was announced. Only the cleverest of deniers could have possibly found it hiding in plain site and released during the announcement. Only the cleverest denier could claim another of these years was hottest: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i...

Tell me clever, clever bloke. Which of those years is hottest?

skeptics start their trend-lines at the height of the '98 peak to manufacture a negative trend. Which skeptics were doing that?

No skeptic, clearly. But this guy sure was: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Hadcrut4 shows no warming for 17 years

What - starting from 1998? But no one does that! Anyway - easily shown to be wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

UAH for 18 years

Now I know you can use woodfortrees.org so you must know this is also wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

Hadcrut3 for 20 years

Wrong again! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

RSS for 22 years

Now I am starting to see a trend.... WRONG! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...

Nasa forgot to mention the error bars

Yes - they were cleverly hidden and directly addressed in the press call when the record was announced. Only the cleverest of deniers could have possibly found it hiding in plain site and released during the announcement. Only the cleverest denier could claim another of these years was hottest: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i...

Tell me clever, clever bloke. Which of those years is hottest?

skeptics start their trend-lines at the height of the '98 peak to manufacture a negative trend. Which skeptics were doing that?

No skeptic, clearly. But this guy sure was: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Hadcrut4 shows no warming for 17 years

What - starting from 1998? But no one does that! Anyway - easily shown to be wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

UAH for 18 years

Now I know you can use woodfortrees.org so you must know this is also wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

Hadcrut3 for 20 years

Wrong again! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

RSS for 22 years

Now I am starting to see a trend.... WRONG! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...

Nasa forgot to mention the error bars

Yes - they were cleverly hidden and directly addressed in the press call when the record was announced. Only the cleverest of deniers could have possibly found it hiding in plain site and released during the announcement. Only the cleverest denier could claim another of these years was hottest: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i...

Tell me clever, clever bloke. Which of those years is hottest?

skeptics start their trend-lines at the height of the '98 peak to manufacture a negative trend. Which skeptics were doing that?

No skeptic, clearly. But this guy sure was: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Hadcrut4 shows no warming for 17 years

What - starting from 1998? But no one does that! Anyway - easily shown to be wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

UAH for 18 years

Now I know you can use woodfortrees.org so you must know this is also wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

Hadcrut3 for 20 years

Wrong again! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

RSS for 22 years

Now I am starting to see a trend.... WRONG! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...

Nasa forgot to mention the error bars

Yes - they were cleverly hidden and directly addressed in the press call when the record was announced. Only the cleverest of deniers could have possibly found it hiding in plain site and released during the announcement. Only the cleverest denier could claim another of these years was hottest: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i...

Tell me clever, clever bloke. Which of those years is hottest?

skeptics start their trend-lines at the height of the '98 peak to manufacture a negative trend. Which skeptics were doing that?

No skeptic, clearly. But this guy sure was: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Hadcrut4 shows no warming for 17 years

What - starting from 1998? But no one does that! Anyway - easily shown to be wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

UAH for 18 years

Now I know you can use woodfortrees.org so you must know this is also wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

Hadcrut3 for 20 years

Wrong again! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

RSS for 22 years

Now I am starting to see a trend.... WRONG! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...

The last 17 years show warming: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Regardless, there is very rarely a time when you cannot find a value of x such that you can say "There has been no warming since x!" For instance, this year was a record hot year. Unless next year is another record year we will be able to say "There has been no warming since 2014!" So what? For the entire record you can find a value of x that satisfies the statement. Yet we have warmed over the entire period: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Yes, I agree there has been a warming trend since 1970. But it is also true that Nasa's data shows no statistically significant warming since 2000. The data sets differ of course, with Nasa's data showing the most warming and also diverging the most from satellite data. The RSS data for example shows no statistically significant warming since '93 or so.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

The weak decline in the last decade does not make up for the total increase over the last 2 decades.

I've updated your URL to show the trend for the last 20 years. It shows a very different picture than the link you posted.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Why don't you look at the data for the past decade?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

You can add woodfortrees.org to your kill file.

They're talking about a slowdown, not a full stop, and the data is not inconsistent with the long term trend.

Here you can see it in a graph: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

The temperatures from the 10-20 years have not dipped below the long term trend line.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

Your data, plus satellite data over the same period. I followed your lead for 17 years instead of 18.
Land data, which is not very reliable, shows very slight increase over 17 years. And satellite shows no increase.

Now your implications that I was TRYING to site anything other than what I did, is a strawman argument. Look up strawman, read your post. Definition of.

I mean flatline or almost, less than 0.05 rise.
And to meat the above criteria, I can only go back 18 years and 4 months. More than that, and I start going above slightly, however ever so slightly.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...

temperatures have not significantly risen in the last 18 years.

18 year graph, yes temperatures have risen over the last 18 years.

What you were trying to cite was the was this. If you look at that graph you'll see that the earth has been on a cooling trend line (the straight lines), every year since 1965. Obviously the graph is rising, and obviously all of the cooling trend-lines are completely fictional. That's exactly how denialist websites try to quote that warming has "stopped", when it obviously hasn't. The genuine long term warming trend always breaks the fictional short-term trend lines after a few years.

-

temperatures have not significantly risen in the last 18 years.

18 year graph, yes temperatures have risen over the last 18 years.

What you were trying to cite was the was this. If you look at that graph you'll see that the earth has been on a cooling trend line (the straight lines), every year since 1965. Obviously the graph is rising, and obviously all of the cooling trend-lines are completely fictional. That's exactly how denialist websites try to quote that warming has "stopped", when it obviously hasn't. The genuine long term warming trend always breaks the fictional short-term trend lines after a few years.

-

science being run by government officials and scientists alike with an enormous conflict of interest — can not be trusted either.

Oh lord. It always devolves into some conspiracy theory. Somehow skeptics Roy Spencer and Jon Christy must be in on it as well because they have a satellite temperature reconstruction that corroborates the land based temperature reconstructions: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

when it is cold in North America, well, that's a fluke. But when it is hot in Australia — that's evidence of Global Warming.

It's the trend(, stupid).

Woodfortrees.org is a great resource for fact checking BS. according to NASA temperatures have risen 0.14C over the since 1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

The source you provide said he would accept the results of the Berkley BEST temperature reconstruction regardless of what they found. Unfortunately for him, BEST finds even greater warming with 0.39C over the period (although this is a land only index): http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... . He disavowed any preference for the BEST reconstruction once the results were published.

Satellite data shows 0.14C over the period: http://www.woodfortrees.org/da...

Any way you slice it - there is no evidence that we have had no warming since 1997.

Woodfortrees.org is a great resource for fact checking BS. according to NASA temperatures have risen 0.14C over the since 1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

The source you provide said he would accept the results of the Berkley BEST temperature reconstruction regardless of what they found. Unfortunately for him, BEST finds even greater warming with 0.39C over the period (although this is a land only index): http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... . He disavowed any preference for the BEST reconstruction once the results were published.

Satellite data shows 0.14C over the period: http://www.woodfortrees.org/da...

Any way you slice it - there is no evidence that we have had no warming since 1997.

Woodfortrees.org is a great resource for fact checking BS. according to NASA temperatures have risen 0.14C over the since 1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

The source you provide said he would accept the results of the Berkley BEST temperature reconstruction regardless of what they found. Unfortunately for him, BEST finds even greater warming with 0.39C over the period (although this is a land only index): http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... . He disavowed any preference for the BEST reconstruction once the results were published.

Satellite data shows 0.14C over the period: http://www.woodfortrees.org/da...

Any way you slice it - there is no evidence that we have had no warming since 1997.

I'm not saying global warming isn't a thing...just curious about why nobody ever addresses the data.

Here's some data for you: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... It's a graph of the global temperature in red, and the trend based on data up till 1997. Now, take a ruler or a piece of paper, put it on your monitor, and extend the trend line until 2014. Would you say the upwards trend has been broken ?

The hiatus has always existed and always will. As you can see from this chart there was a hiatus in the '80s and a hiatus in the '90s. You just have to pick the right start date. That date used to be 1998, but it is somewhat closer nowadays: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

No doubt man contributes to it, but Solar activity and earth history going back millions of years indicates this is a normal pattern shift.

The temperature seems to be defying its historical link to solar activity. Based on solar activity we should have been seen fairly severe cooling over the last few decades: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

This. We just had a Solar Maximum where you could (and I did) go out and look at the sun (with sun shades!) and see exactly no sun spot. At the maximum. The sun has been very cool lately. If it was at normal levels, global warming would be (very slightly) worse. Of course, the sun's variance is much smaller than the effect CO2 is having anyway.

No doubt man contributes to it, but Solar activity and earth history going back millions of years indicates this is a normal pattern shift.

The temperature seems to be defying its historical link to solar activity. Based on solar activity we should have been seen fairly severe cooling over the last few decades: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

1. I never declared the entire warming of the last 50 years invalid, please point to where I said that;
2. Nice talking point about the cherry picking of the hottest year. I started at 1996, not 1998. It is very well known, even by the ipcc that this is the point from where the hiatus, slowdown, pause is plotted from. But if you want to go back to your blogs for confirmation, they will only use the 1998 talking point.
Hiatus
3. Again, using blogosphere or media talking points, showing 2014 as the hottest year on record. Please point to me where on this graph 2014 is hotter than 1998 or 2010? ÀHottest year
4. The observations, so far from studies on the electron have yielded positive results. When comparing models to observations, they are no where near. In any field of science those models would have been thrown out and redone from scratch or would have not been used as the main factor in determining policy.

1. I never declared the entire warming of the last 50 years invalid, please point to where I said that;
2. Nice talking point about the cherry picking of the hottest year. I started at 1996, not 1998. It is very well known, even by the ipcc that this is the point from where the hiatus, slowdown, pause is plotted from. But if you want to go back to your blogs for confirmation, they will only use the 1998 talking point.
Hiatus
3. Again, using blogosphere or media talking points, showing 2014 as the hottest year on record. Please point to me where on this graph 2014 is hotter than 1998 or 2010? ÀHottest year
4. The observations, so far from studies on the electron have yielded positive results. When comparing models to observations, they are no where near. In any field of science those models would have been thrown out and redone from scratch or would have not been used as the main factor in determining policy.

The temperature has not risen in the past decade or so

Which means absolutely nothing for the trend. When the yearly statistical noise is about equal to a decade's worth of trend, you'll find that the decade long "pauses" are nothing special. This graph should enlighten you: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Note that it has the raw data in red, and two trend lines. One calculated over 1970-2000 and the other from 1970 to current. As you can see, the two trend lines are in complete agreement.

Feel free to cite the actual scientific papers predicting global cooling, as opposed to media hype about some speculation at the time. [david_thornley]

... the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

As for the mentioned announcement it is in THIS issue of Science News, in the article "NAS Warning On Climate Changes". Exactly as mentioned in the "Chilling Possibilities" article that is linked to in the page that I originally linked to, and EXACTLY as I stated it. The "NAS Warning On Climate Changes" article itself is behind a paywall. If it weren't, I would have linked to it directly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

Okay, so you read a blog which linked to an article which mentioned an announcement by the NAS. Then you responded to David Thornley's request for actual scientific papers predicting global cooling by saying "the NAS was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action."

Did you ever think it might be educational to actually read that NAS report first-hand rather than relying on third-hand interpretations of interpretations? If you did, you'd discover that the 1975 NAS report (PDF) "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" doesn't predict global cooling. Quite the opposite! Read their words:

"Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a)."

"The corresponding changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century."

How ironic! Instead of predicting global cooling, the NAS actually predicted "about 0.5C" of CO2-based warming between 1975 and 2000. To see how their prediction fared, let's plot HadCRUT4 over that timespan. The raw data shows warming of 0.47C from 1975 to 2000, which rounds up to 0.5C.

So that 1975 NAS report wasn't predicting global cooling! Its warming prediction was actually fairly accurate, and was certainly within the statistical uncertainties.

Again, that's probably why the National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane tries to explain why that NAS report predicting about 0.5C of

Feel free to cite the actual scientific papers predicting global cooling, as opposed to media hype about some speculation at the time. [david_thornley]

... the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

As for the mentioned announcement it is in THIS issue of Science News, in the article "NAS Warning On Climate Changes". Exactly as mentioned in the "Chilling Possibilities" article that is linked to in the page that I originally linked to, and EXACTLY as I stated it. The "NAS Warning On Climate Changes" article itself is behind a paywall. If it weren't, I would have linked to it directly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

Okay, so you read a blog which linked to an article which mentioned an announcement by the NAS. Then you responded to David Thornley's request for actual scientific papers predicting global cooling by saying "the NAS was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action."

Did you ever think it might be educational to actually read that NAS report first-hand rather than relying on third-hand interpretations of interpretations? If you did, you'd discover that the 1975 NAS report (PDF) "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" doesn't predict global cooling. Quite the opposite! Read their words:

"Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a)."

"The corresponding changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century."

How ironic! Instead of predicting global cooling, the NAS actually predicted "about 0.5C" of CO2-based warming between 1975 and 2000. To see how their prediction fared, let's plot HadCRUT4 over that timespan. The raw data shows warming of 0.47C from 1975 to 2000, which rounds up to 0.5C.

So that 1975 NAS report wasn't predicting global cooling! Its warming prediction was actually fairly accurate, and was certainly within the statistical uncertainties.

Again, that's probably why the National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane tries to explain why that NAS report predicting about 0.5C of

It has never been as hot in the world as 1936.

Yes, it has. Globally every year since 1990 has been warmer than 1936.

Its been a long time since Canadian border states had temps at 121 degrees Fahrenheit.

Actually, that would be Steele city in North Dakota on July 6th, 1936. No other Canadian border state has ever recorded a temperature of 121 F. Also note that North Dakota and south Dakota both recorded record lows of -60 F and -58 F in 1936. However, as previously pointed out, North America is about 4.8% of the world's surface and around 16.5% of the land area A record-shattering warm year in the U.S. might be barely noticable in the global record. On average, the 2000-2010 decade was 0.5 C warmer than the 1930-1940 decade. Which means for 1936 to lift the global average, the average temperature in North America would have be 10 C above average for the entire year, if the rest of the world was experiencing merely average temperatures for the decade.

It would also be nice if there were no more snow exactly like the Hadley Climate Research Center said in the year 2000: "We have in all likelihood seen our last snowfall. Snow would become a rare and exciting event. Children would grow up not knowing what snow looked like." Who says all that tax money given to them was a waste?

That's not an accurate quote. Even the quote you gave contradicts itself. It's also important to note that he was talking about 20 years from when he said that, and if you check your calendar you might note that it's not 2020 yet. Additionally, I'd bet he actually said "if the current trends continue" but it was dropped from the quote in the article because it wasn't pithy enough with the qualifier. Of course, we have seen a reduction in the rate of warming in surface air temperatures since 2000 so it may take longer to get there than he predicted, but the world has continued to warm, so it may still come to pass that England sees very little snow.

Mate. Sorry, but, do you understand graphics?

Imagine that what you are seeing is not the Evil Climate Hoax (we all know it a scam) but that these graphs are the usage of your hard drive.

I just take this first innocent plot: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... plain vanilla... and I see that the first value is to the left and it is more or less -0.4... now check out the point where the graph ends... that's somewhat close to 0.2

Now, take an imaginary pencil and draw a straight line from the beginning (at -0.2) to the en (at more or less +0.2)... is the line horizontal or skewed? It is certainly skewed, and that's what we seek.

If the line were more or less horizontal we would know that your hard drive's usage stays the same over time...

But it happens that the line is skewed to the right... which means...? You got it: The usage of your hard drive is increasing!!!! Time to think on getting yourself a RAID system.

Of course, this is not applicable to Climate as we all know that climate is a great hoax.

So, but you don't trust this data, right? Because this data has been all made up by the Evil Minions. That's perfectly good... there is a solution: Gather a few friends, preferentially from around the globe, buy a few cheap thermometers of these digital weather-stations, mate, you may even use data from Weather.com!!!
And now gather the data during 10 years. And after 10 years come back and explain your results.
Easy, isn't it?

But the years in-between. If you had a constant increase in heat from constant increase in CO2, we'd see atmospheric temperatures increasing regardless of EN/LN effects; those would still cause spikes, but we'd still see a continual trend. From WoodForTrees, looking at the raw data, we don't see it. It's flat - or slightly declining - between each of the large EN/LN events. The atmosphere apparently doesn't heat up until we have such an event.

And a slight drop since 1997. If you look at RSS, it was essentially flat from 1979 to 1996, then the big 1998 spike happened, then flat since then. It's not really an increasing trend, but a flat/stable with a single big step function that happened in 1998. If it was driven by man, we'd expect to see a relatively consistent, ongoing rise, wouldn't we? Rather than two basically flat/declining periods with one big step function year between...

Oh, you mean like so? http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r.... What does that remind me of?

Oh, yeah, The Escalator - "Global Warming" is nothing but long periods of stagnant temperatures with ignorable jumps in between, right?

And a slight drop since 1997. If you look at RSS, it was essentially flat from 1979 to 1996, then the big 1998 spike happened, then flat since then. It's not really an increasing trend, but a flat/stable with a single big step function that happened in 1998. If it was driven by man, we'd expect to see a relatively consistent, ongoing rise, wouldn't we? Rather than two basically flat/declining periods with one big step function year between...

Oh, you mean like so? http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r.... What does that remind me of?

Oh, yeah, The Escalator - "Global Warming" is nothing but long periods of stagnant temperatures with ignorable jumps in between, right?

And a slight drop since 1997. If you look at RSS, it was essentially flat from 1979 to 1996, then the big 1998 spike happened, then flat since then. It's not really an increasing trend, but a flat/stable with a single big step function that happened in 1998. If it was driven by man, we'd expect to see a relatively consistent, ongoing rise, wouldn't we? Rather than two basically flat/declining periods with one big step function year between...