Slashdot Mirror

Yup. RSS is the minority report. BP is to disregard the minority report in favour of the corroborating reports, not pick the report that best supports your position. Even the RSS team has concerns about their data set. Here are GISTEMP,CRU,UAH, and RSS compared. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

Now re-run your calculations using the data from RSS

Please pay no attention to notorious warmist Dr Roy Spencer telling you that this cherry pick is a bad idea.

Fun moments in denialism:

#1 when, just after "climategate" they decided that HADCRUT3 was the best dataset
#2 the breathless wait for BEST to overturn the applecart
#3 the switch from UAH to RSS as the "reliable" (aka wrong) datasource.

It has warmed 0.15C over the last 18 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Just where are you getting your 'facts'? You may want to reconsider your sources.

Wow. 0.1C of warming in 30 years.

Nope. Nearer 0.5C.

That's statistically indistinguishable from 0.

If it's not, then you have no basis for claiming there's a pause. A pause is when you can show that there has been at most 0 increase.
Perhaps you should test against the weaker criteria, that it is distinguishable from 0.16C. Then at least you could claim there's been a slowing.

Even the IPCC would admit that; that's why they're in a panic trying to explain "the pause."

Dude, the AR5 was last year. IPCC aren't doing WG1 publications now.

In terms of climate science, analysis of deeper ocean warming is now consistent with radiative forcing from other calculations. You're ten months behind the science.

18 years of no warming is just temperature,

This 18 years?. Because that's warming.

No, no, no, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to use RSS because Roy Spencer is a warmist stooge.

Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014.

No, that's just the USA.

Thats right, more record highs means global warming, but more record lows is just temperature.

No, it's that record highs globally means global warming, record lows in the USA only means that 1.9% of the planet is cooler.
The reason that this is not inconsistent is that 1.9% of the planet doesn't have to have the same temperature trend as the global mean.

18 years of no warming is just temperature,

This 18 years?. Because that's warming.

but 6 months of warmer is climate.

Six months of warmest.

No one believe your lies anymore

This from the guy who tried to pass off the USA as the globe, the last 18 years of warming as not warming, and restated the latest 6 months that were the warmest ever recorded as 6 months warmer in the context of 18 years (falsely) not warmer.

Care to explain yourself on any of those points?

It looks like the RSS team agrees: "A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets." - http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

The RSS satellite temperature reconstruction is the minority report. The UAH satellite temperature reconstruction agrees largely with the surface station datasets. The contrarians want to hang their hat on the minority report. Strange that.

Here is satellite vs land. Which one shows the hiatus? They look about the same to me. It also looks like the trend over the last half of the satellite record is greater than the trend in the first half. So what are you talking about?

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.

Land based measurements are much more directly related to temperature, than satellites, and don't have the problems of interpreting the MSU readings as temperature, orbital drift, the fact that there have been fewer than three instruments in orbit for much of the time making calibration guesswork, and correcting for what the satellite orbits are passing over.

I would be very surprised if NOAA every claimed that satellite derived near-surface temperatures were more accurate than met stations. Do you have a link to one of the places that they make this claim? (Or did you just make it up yourself, and hope that people would believe you?)

And in what way did they ignore their own satellite records?

The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record.

Okay, again you're going to need to provide a source. I know of two groups interpreting satellite data. There's a couple of skeptics at UHA, and their satellite temperatures show this over the last 15 years. As you can see, it shows a warming trend.

The other is by a private company called Remote Sensing Systems. Their data looks like this. A very slight cooling, that I cannot believe would be "real cooling trend", if by real you mean statistically significant.
(The fact that the difference in warming trends spans the difference in the warming trends of the land-based measurements is indicative that the satellite temperatures are in fact, less accurate than land based ones.)

Also, sea level is not rising. That is to say, it isn't rising any faster today than it has for the last couple of hundred years.

If the sea is rising, then it is warming. Sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion and by melting land ice. Both require energy in.

But your claim that it is not accelerating does not have any consensus from the scientific community. Most people would say that it is accelerating. For instance: There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year2, respectively. - Church and White (2011)

The amount of fudging that NOAA and its NCDC have to accomplish to make this year actually look warm, much less a record, is nothing short of incredible. I mean that word literally: in-credible.

Given your questionable points above, I also question this conclusion. What is the basis of your claim of "fudging". Are you one of these conspiracy theorists who claim that the vast majority of scientists advance their careers by producing papers that claim results that aren't reproducible? Because that is literally in-credible.

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.

Land based measurements are much more directly related to temperature, than satellites, and don't have the problems of interpreting the MSU readings as temperature, orbital drift, the fact that there have been fewer than three instruments in orbit for much of the time making calibration guesswork, and correcting for what the satellite orbits are passing over.

I would be very surprised if NOAA every claimed that satellite derived near-surface temperatures were more accurate than met stations. Do you have a link to one of the places that they make this claim? (Or did you just make it up yourself, and hope that people would believe you?)

And in what way did they ignore their own satellite records?

The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record.

Okay, again you're going to need to provide a source. I know of two groups interpreting satellite data. There's a couple of skeptics at UHA, and their satellite temperatures show this over the last 15 years. As you can see, it shows a warming trend.

The other is by a private company called Remote Sensing Systems. Their data looks like this. A very slight cooling, that I cannot believe would be "real cooling trend", if by real you mean statistically significant.
(The fact that the difference in warming trends spans the difference in the warming trends of the land-based measurements is indicative that the satellite temperatures are in fact, less accurate than land based ones.)

Also, sea level is not rising. That is to say, it isn't rising any faster today than it has for the last couple of hundred years.

If the sea is rising, then it is warming. Sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion and by melting land ice. Both require energy in.

But your claim that it is not accelerating does not have any consensus from the scientific community. Most people would say that it is accelerating. For instance: There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year2, respectively. - Church and White (2011)

The amount of fudging that NOAA and its NCDC have to accomplish to make this year actually look warm, much less a record, is nothing short of incredible. I mean that word literally: in-credible.

Given your questionable points above, I also question this conclusion. What is the basis of your claim of "fudging". Are you one of these conspiracy theorists who claim that the vast majority of scientists advance their careers by producing papers that claim results that aren't reproducible? Because that is literally in-credible.

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.

Land based measurements are much more directly related to temperature, than satellites, and don't have the problems of interpreting the MSU readings as temperature, orbital drift, the fact that there have been fewer than three instruments in orbit for much of the time making calibration guesswork, and correcting for what the satellite orbits are passing over.

I would be very surprised if NOAA every claimed that satellite derived near-surface temperatures were more accurate than met stations. Do you have a link to one of the places that they make this claim? (Or did you just make it up yourself, and hope that people would believe you?)

And in what way did they ignore their own satellite records?

The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record.

Okay, again you're going to need to provide a source. I know of two groups interpreting satellite data. There's a couple of skeptics at UHA, and their satellite temperatures show this over the last 15 years. As you can see, it shows a warming trend.

The other is by a private company called Remote Sensing Systems. Their data looks like this. A very slight cooling, that I cannot believe would be "real cooling trend", if by real you mean statistically significant.
(The fact that the difference in warming trends spans the difference in the warming trends of the land-based measurements is indicative that the satellite temperatures are in fact, less accurate than land based ones.)

Also, sea level is not rising. That is to say, it isn't rising any faster today than it has for the last couple of hundred years.

If the sea is rising, then it is warming. Sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion and by melting land ice. Both require energy in.

But your claim that it is not accelerating does not have any consensus from the scientific community. Most people would say that it is accelerating. For instance: There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year2, respectively. - Church and White (2011)

The amount of fudging that NOAA and its NCDC have to accomplish to make this year actually look warm, much less a record, is nothing short of incredible. I mean that word literally: in-credible.

Given your questionable points above, I also question this conclusion. What is the basis of your claim of "fudging". Are you one of these conspiracy theorists who claim that the vast majority of scientists advance their careers by producing papers that claim results that aren't reproducible? Because that is literally in-credible.

You won't have been told that by the scientists. Perhaps you are visiting contrarian web sites? All that scientists have said is that the sun cannot account for our recent warming because it has been cooling over the last 40 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

there is a direct correlation between the rise in fossil fuel use starting with the Industrial Revolution (~1850) and the incremental rise in global average temperatures.

No question it has been warming since at least 1850. Nothing unusual since then.

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

If you have a graph plotting CO2 emissions over that time period I would LOVE to see the correlation.

Good luck.

Apparently, the sun has nothing to do with climate.

Not sure I should engage with the "Science=cult" crowd, but... Of solar output affects surface temperatures, just not enough to counter the warming effect of CO2. Solar output has been dwindling since the 80's while global temperatures have been rising: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/p...

Here are ALL TEN global data sets included in one graph. Every single one shows warming. Can you seriously look at that and still claim no warming over the last 18 years?

-

when you shorten up the series to 2013-2014.5 the UAH to the eyeball appears to have a stronger cooling trend than the RSS data!

Let me help you with that.
Here is the graph you're looking for, showing continuous cooling trends from 1965 to 2013.5

The bottomline is there has been no warming statistically different from natural variation for at least 18 years

The bottom line is that you have given absolutely no rational reason for ignoring vast bodies of data proving your assertion is false.

You eagerly embrace the RSS graph for the sole reason that, on this arbitrarily selected time interval, it happens to give a linear trend line with a small enough warming to dismiss as negligible.

I asked if you had an rational reason from selecting the RSS data set, and you had none. I asked what you would do if I selected a different time interval, one where RSS showed warming and UAH didn't. You did not deny that you would have irrationally reject the RSS dataset and irrationally latched onto the UAH set.

You are flatly ignoring a MULTITUDE of global surface data sets showing the earth has in fact warmed over the last 18 years.

You have flatly ignored the ocean data set, a data set which you have not contested carries 45 times more weight than any atmospheric data. A data set which reflects 90% of the climate warming as opposed to the 2% warming that happens in the atmosphere. A data set which shows a perfectly steady warming rate for many decades. A data set which shows there has been absolutely zero slowdown in warming over the last 18 years.

You ignored virtually the entirety of data. You latched onto one cherrypicked fragment that most nearly fit what you wanted to find, tailored to this utterly arbitrary 18 year example. You have given no rational reason for latching onto this cherrypicked datapoint.

Can you really not see that this is a textbook case of Confirmation bias?

Can you really not see that what you have just done is exactly what I did in the 1965-2013.5 graph I linked above?

-

when you shorten up the series to 2013-2014.5 the UAH to the eyeball appears to have a stronger cooling trend than the RSS data!

Let me help you with that.
Here is the graph you're looking for, showing continuous cooling trends from 1965 to 2013.5

The bottomline is there has been no warming statistically different from natural variation for at least 18 years

The bottom line is that you have given absolutely no rational reason for ignoring vast bodies of data proving your assertion is false.

You eagerly embrace the RSS graph for the sole reason that, on this arbitrarily selected time interval, it happens to give a linear trend line with a small enough warming to dismiss as negligible.

I asked if you had an rational reason from selecting the RSS data set, and you had none. I asked what you would do if I selected a different time interval, one where RSS showed warming and UAH didn't. You did not deny that you would have irrationally reject the RSS dataset and irrationally latched onto the UAH set.

You are flatly ignoring a MULTITUDE of global surface data sets showing the earth has in fact warmed over the last 18 years.

You have flatly ignored the ocean data set, a data set which you have not contested carries 45 times more weight than any atmospheric data. A data set which reflects 90% of the climate warming as opposed to the 2% warming that happens in the atmosphere. A data set which shows a perfectly steady warming rate for many decades. A data set which shows there has been absolutely zero slowdown in warming over the last 18 years.

You ignored virtually the entirety of data. You latched onto one cherrypicked fragment that most nearly fit what you wanted to find, tailored to this utterly arbitrary 18 year example. You have given no rational reason for latching onto this cherrypicked datapoint.

Can you really not see that this is a textbook case of Confirmation bias?

Can you really not see that what you have just done is exactly what I did in the 1965-2013.5 graph I linked above?

-

The difference between the UAH data and the RSS data is not as great as your implying, RSS data, has a statisticaly insignificant trend which appears to be cooling to the eye, the UAH data also has a statistically insignificant trend that appears to be warming to the eye. It's also interesting that the RSS data set shows a lower anomally in 1996.5 than the UAH data set but presently in 2014.5 they appear very close, yet when you shorten up the series to 2013-2014.5 the UAH to the eyeball appears to have a stronger cooling trend than the RSS data!

The bottomline is there has been no warming statistically different from natural variation for at least 18 years and none of the 95 climate models predicted a cesation of warming, if reality is going to catch up with the model predictions, it going to take some spectacular warming.

The difference between the UAH data and the RSS data is not as great as your implying, RSS data, has a statisticaly insignificant trend which appears to be cooling to the eye, the UAH data also has a statistically insignificant trend that appears to be warming to the eye. It's also interesting that the RSS data set shows a lower anomally in 1996.5 than the UAH data set but presently in 2014.5 they appear very close, yet when you shorten up the series to 2013-2014.5 the UAH to the eyeball appears to have a stronger cooling trend than the RSS data!

The bottomline is there has been no warming statistically different from natural variation for at least 18 years and none of the 95 climate models predicted a cesation of warming, if reality is going to catch up with the model predictions, it going to take some spectacular warming.

I prefer Satellite Data

UAH NSSTC lower tropical global mean is also Satellite data.
Can you give me any reason..... can you give yourself any reason... why you ignored one set of satellite data and embraced another set of satellite data? Note that this is a past-tense question. If you research the UAH NSSTC satellite data and the RSS MSU satellite data, you'll find that they are substantially comparable satellites, and that they face substantially equal equal difficulties measuring temperature, and substantially equal corrections trying to fix serious problems of long term skew in the data. But for my question here, doing a new look up on the satellites is irrelevant. I'm asking, at the time you picked that ONE dataset out of a long list of data sets, did you have any reason from picking that one, other than the fact that it most nearly fit your prior position?

Satellite Data, it has been "corrected" as much

I assume that was supposed to read "hasn't been corrected as much". Actually they are heavily corrected. Amongst other difficulties, the satellites are in decaying orbits which steadily skews their readings more and more each year. They also have a lot of difficulty separating the signal of lower troposphere warming from the cooling in the stratosphere (itself a central evidence of man-made global warming).

The satellite data is important, but like all methods of global measurements, there are challenges. That is why scientists don't cherry pick one data set, they take a comprehensive look at all data from MULTIPLE satellites and multiple means of ground measurements and from sea measurements and everything else they can get their hands on.

Why did you ignore one satellite over another. Why did you ignore all ground data. Why did you ignore the sea data I linked, especially after I pointed out that atmospheric temperatures only accounted for 2% of global heat being captured and sea temperatures accounted for 90% of the heat being captured.

Is it possible that you dismissed multiple lines of strong evidence because it doesn't fit your prior conclusions on the subject? Is it possible that you eagerly embraced the isolated RSS MSU satellite data set because that graph generated a negligible amount of warming on that exact 18 year time interval?

Question: If I select a different time interval than the last 18 years, and I show you that the RSS MSU satellite (the one you picked) graph shows warming or greater warming compared to the other (UAH NSSTC) satellite, would you ever arbitrarily abandon the RSS satellite data and arbitrarily embrace the UAH satellite, merely because it better fits the prior argument you wanted to make? Is that a reasonable, objective, unbiased evaluation of all available evidence?

-

I prefer Satellite Data, it has been "corrected" as much, nor has it been gridded to correct for geospacial inconsistencies.

I assume you mean it has [not] been "corrected" as much.

If you do, you're wrong.

The problem with the satellite data is that it doesn't measure temperature, it's a proxy, and like all proxies needs some amusing massaging to work out what temperatures the satellite measurements correspond to.

Historically UAH fucked this up pretty badly, over time they've fixed their many errors and now get something that seems to correspond to the measured temperatures.

RSS however are having a big problem at the moment - their figures are out of line with everyone else's.

Roy Spencer says:

Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in yearswe use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

I prefer Satellite Data, it has been "corrected" as much, nor has it been gridded to correct for geospacial inconsistencies.

Which "AGW denying bit" would that be? It can't be the part about observation because it hasn't gotten any warmer for the past 18 years, so there would be no warming to be observed.

When one activist website tell you that the earth is warming, and another activist website tells you that the earth isn't warming, it's a good idea to check the actual scientific data to determine which activist website is getting the facts wrong. Here's an 18 year graph. The earth has in fact been warming over the last 18 years.

Here's the 50 year graph. That's a neat website that lets you generate graphs over any date range. If you want to play with it, just be sure to update the year-values for both series 1 (the red graph) and series 2 (the green graph).

There was also an unexpected surge in heat being pulled from the atmosphere into the deep ocean. This has recently pulled a vast amount of heat off of the typical graphs of surface-level atmospheric temperature. This is why air-temperature-graphs gives a false impression of somewhat slower warming the last few years.

Air is extremely low density. Very little of the global heat resides in the atmosphere, and what does show up in the air is extremely variable as heat shifts between the air and the land&sea. In fact the atmosphere only accounts for 2% of global heat content. The land surface temperatures are about 8%. The massive oceans account for 90% of the planet's heat content. Here's a graph of ocean heat over the last 50-odd years. The vast majority of heat ultimately goes into the oceans. That graph shows that there has been absolutely no slowing in the rate of global heat increase. Global warming hasn't paused. Global warming hasn't stopped. Global warming hasn't slowed.

There doesn't exist ONE scientific body of national or international standing that still denies man-made global warming. The last national or international scientific body to dissent was, comically, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists back in 2007. Yep, even the oil geologists stopped denying it seven years ago.

-

Which "AGW denying bit" would that be? It can't be the part about observation because it hasn't gotten any warmer for the past 18 years, so there would be no warming to be observed.

When one activist website tell you that the earth is warming, and another activist website tells you that the earth isn't warming, it's a good idea to check the actual scientific data to determine which activist website is getting the facts wrong. Here's an 18 year graph. The earth has in fact been warming over the last 18 years.

Here's the 50 year graph. That's a neat website that lets you generate graphs over any date range. If you want to play with it, just be sure to update the year-values for both series 1 (the red graph) and series 2 (the green graph).

There was also an unexpected surge in heat being pulled from the atmosphere into the deep ocean. This has recently pulled a vast amount of heat off of the typical graphs of surface-level atmospheric temperature. This is why air-temperature-graphs gives a false impression of somewhat slower warming the last few years.

Air is extremely low density. Very little of the global heat resides in the atmosphere, and what does show up in the air is extremely variable as heat shifts between the air and the land&sea. In fact the atmosphere only accounts for 2% of global heat content. The land surface temperatures are about 8%. The massive oceans account for 90% of the planet's heat content. Here's a graph of ocean heat over the last 50-odd years. The vast majority of heat ultimately goes into the oceans. That graph shows that there has been absolutely no slowing in the rate of global heat increase. Global warming hasn't paused. Global warming hasn't stopped. Global warming hasn't slowed.

There doesn't exist ONE scientific body of national or international standing that still denies man-made global warming. The last national or international scientific body to dissent was, comically, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists back in 2007. Yep, even the oil geologists stopped denying it seven years ago.

-

"there can't be AGW and an ice record at the same time!" Yes there can, if you believe otherwise, explain why :)

I don't believe otherwise. You are putting words into my mouth.

define significant

Significant as in "statistically significant", or "so slight as to be undetectable". Anthropogenic CO2 emissions prior to 1950 were quite small, especially compared to recent years where CO2 levels increased by about 25% since 2000. (Strangely enough there has been no additional warming during this same period.)

There was, in fact, a slight cooling trend from 1950 to 1976. And global warming has indeed "paused" for the past 17 years or so, depending on what data set you use. This image shows the various datasets where the warming trends hit zero. Taking the margins of error into account (where a zero trend can't be ruled out), there has been "no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years."

For UAH: Since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666
For GISS: Since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249
From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

You say the IPCC writes "nonsense", nsidc.org links are "retarded", and you give precedence to your own anecdotal experiences over mainstream scientific data. Who is the one denying science?

The PDO cycle dominates over the short term, so if PDO is negative then atmospheric temperatures will be negative. PDO does not have a trend.over the long run so while it has a great effect on the 10 or 20 year trend, it has no effect on the long term trend.

I'm not in support of using the minority report. I would quibble about basically flat and could argue that some of the slopes qualify, but thanks for pointing out the data link to get the slope of the line.

I think the more likely issue is just a matter of bias, not deliberate malfeasance. It's really hard to see errors in something when you get the results you expect. For TOBS adjustments for USHCN in particular, a mathematical artifact from the way they try to correct for it seemed more likely. That's based solely on my intuition as a mathematician though. Since we know they have engaged in deliberate efforts to conceal disconfirming evidence, and to punish journals for publishing papers whose conclusions they didn't like, I don't consider malfeasance completely implausible.

It's interesting to just plot the trendline of various sets. I especially find it interesting when you do so from the year I suggested previously, 2002.

CRU Global Average is how they described in on their page. Going by the link, it was HADCRUT3. Which shoes only .01C over the period. They didnt specifiy variance adjusted or not, and their choice of endpoints were on specific months, so i'm going to go with some cherry picking there as well.

I meant to include this in my previous line. The way NOAA wrote that note in 2008 did not exclude peak to trough periods of 15 years or longer. It's a reasonable exclusion to make though, so I decline to hold that against them.

Yes, the RSS is an outlier. Should we put our faith in the minority report? Woodfortrees will show slope if you click the 'data' link at the bottom of the graph.

Be careful if you are suggesting that the various groups analyzing station temperature are all colluding to show the same result - a result that agrees with the UAH satellite reconstruction compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy. The adjustments are all documented in the scientific literature. They appear to be necessary in order to make the data more accurately reflect the true global average temperature.

CRU does not have global coverage. CRU has been shown to have a cool bias due to the missing data. Even still, it does show an upward trend of 0.1C over the period. Please look again: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h....

You can use woodfortrees.org to check for yourself. The folks you cited are using data sets without global coverage, and starting at the (then) 3 sigma El Nino anomaly. The missing data is important, but even still the trend shows a rise of 0.1C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

I'm not sure why they drew a flat line through that data when the trend is actually up.

It is worth noting that the 3 sigma event that they chose as their starting point is now not that remarkable an event. Modest El Ninos will exceed that event at this point. Soon ENSO neutral years will top that event.

Satellite data compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy shows 0.08C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

The data they omit is important. Here is a data set with near global coverage. It shows a rise of 0.14C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

You can use woodfortrees.org to check for yourself. The folks you cited are using data sets without global coverage, and starting at the (then) 3 sigma El Nino anomaly. The missing data is important, but even still the trend shows a rise of 0.1C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

I'm not sure why they drew a flat line through that data when the trend is actually up.

It is worth noting that the 3 sigma event that they chose as their starting point is now not that remarkable an event. Modest El Ninos will exceed that event at this point. Soon ENSO neutral years will top that event.

Satellite data compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy shows 0.08C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

The data they omit is important. Here is a data set with near global coverage. It shows a rise of 0.14C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

You can use woodfortrees.org to check for yourself. The folks you cited are using data sets without global coverage, and starting at the (then) 3 sigma El Nino anomaly. The missing data is important, but even still the trend shows a rise of 0.1C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

I'm not sure why they drew a flat line through that data when the trend is actually up.

It is worth noting that the 3 sigma event that they chose as their starting point is now not that remarkable an event. Modest El Ninos will exceed that event at this point. Soon ENSO neutral years will top that event.

Satellite data compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy shows 0.08C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

The data they omit is important. Here is a data set with near global coverage. It shows a rise of 0.14C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

The hottest year on record was 2010 - so we're 4 years in and 11 to go on your 15 years with 0 trend: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Global warming has indeed "paused". This "cherry picking" argument is nonsense but apparently nobody has bothered to check. They hear a plausible sounding refutation, and that's good enough for them. Contrary to what you've heard, the starting point most skeptics choose is 1997, before the "particularly warm year" of 1998. Here is the temperature trend for the last decade. You can see for yourself that temperatures have not been increasing for the last decade. In fact, there is a slight cooling trend, although not statistically significant.

Regarding the "relentless" warming, before 1950 there was not enough anthropogenic CO2 to cause significant warming, and the consensus position is that humans are responsible for more that half of the warming since 1950. For the 30 years prior to 1976 there was a slight cooling trend. The warming you (and everybody else) is talking about occurred from 1976 to 1998. While it is supposed to be a period of "highly unusual warming", it closely resembles a warming period earlier in the century from 1910 - 1945. In fact, there was as much or more warming in the first half of the 1900's as there was in the second half. Most of the warming in the 1900's was natural, a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Global warming has indeed "paused". This "cherry picking" argument is nonsense but apparently nobody has bothered to check. They hear a plausible sounding refutation, and that's good enough for them. Contrary to what you've heard, the starting point most skeptics choose is 1997, before the "particularly warm year" of 1998. Here is the temperature trend for the last decade. You can see for yourself that temperatures have not been increasing for the last decade. In fact, there is a slight cooling trend, although not statistically significant.

Regarding the "relentless" warming, before 1950 there was not enough anthropogenic CO2 to cause significant warming, and the consensus position is that humans are responsible for more that half of the warming since 1950. For the 30 years prior to 1976 there was a slight cooling trend. The warming you (and everybody else) is talking about occurred from 1976 to 1998. While it is supposed to be a period of "highly unusual warming", it closely resembles a warming period earlier in the century from 1910 - 1945. In fact, there was as much or more warming in the first half of the 1900's as there was in the second half. Most of the warming in the 1900's was natural, a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Global warming has indeed "paused". This "cherry picking" argument is nonsense but apparently nobody has bothered to check. They hear a plausible sounding refutation, and that's good enough for them. Contrary to what you've heard, the starting point most skeptics choose is 1997, before the "particularly warm year" of 1998. Here is the temperature trend for the last decade. You can see for yourself that temperatures have not been increasing for the last decade. In fact, there is a slight cooling trend, although not statistically significant.

Regarding the "relentless" warming, before 1950 there was not enough anthropogenic CO2 to cause significant warming, and the consensus position is that humans are responsible for more that half of the warming since 1950. For the 30 years prior to 1976 there was a slight cooling trend. The warming you (and everybody else) is talking about occurred from 1976 to 1998. While it is supposed to be a period of "highly unusual warming", it closely resembles a warming period earlier in the century from 1910 - 1945. In fact, there was as much or more warming in the first half of the 1900's as there was in the second half. Most of the warming in the 1900's was natural, a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Except, of course, we're talking about a phenomenon that doesn't operate on a year-to-year basis.

just this century is still warming. You have to cherry pick hard to find otherwise.

Antarctic Ice is at record highs and arctic ice has quickly recovered since the 'great arctic cyclone' 'wreaked havoc' on sea ice in 2012. Not sure how the fraction of a degree the IPCC says we have contributed to warming (so far) can melt glaciers. ? You do realize the world was already warming?

Surface temperatures have been flat for about a decade and a half, depending on what data set you use. The RSS data shows the least amount of warming. You can see a slight, insignificant cooling trend (starting before the warming peak in 1998). The HadCRUT4 dataset shows a slight warming trend in the same timeframe that is also statistically insignificant.

Perhaps it is you that needs to learn to read a thermometer?

Antarctic Ice is at record highs and arctic ice has quickly recovered since the 'great arctic cyclone' 'wreaked havoc' on sea ice in 2012. Not sure how the fraction of a degree the IPCC says we have contributed to warming (so far) can melt glaciers. ? You do realize the world was already warming?

Surface temperatures have been flat for about a decade and a half, depending on what data set you use. The RSS data shows the least amount of warming. You can see a slight, insignificant cooling trend (starting before the warming peak in 1998). The HadCRUT4 dataset shows a slight warming trend in the same timeframe that is also statistically insignificant.

Perhaps it is you that needs to learn to read a thermometer?

Well, I chose 1999 since this was the year referenced in the article. You didn't mention it, but you have also changed the data set to one without global coverage. You have also picked an old version of that data set that had even worse coverage than it does now! As it turns out, much of the heat over the last decade has accumulated in the the gaps of the HADCRU3 data set. So what you have done is shown that if you ignore the heat --> cooling!

Here is the trend from 2001 using a data set with near global coverate: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Curiously, the satellite data compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy at UAH shows an even greater trend after 1999 - so according to the satellite data warming has actually accelerated! http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

What we've got is a steady but slow upward trend with a noisy natural variability wave transposed on top of it. Most of this natural variability is caused by the transfer of energy between the atmosphere and the ocean. When the ocean absorbs energy (La Nina) the atmospheric temperatures drop below the trend. They jump above the trend when the ocean releases energy into the atmosphere (El Nino). If you pick a sufficiently short time span you could find many periods of cooling (even in a data set with global coverage) just by playing these humps and valleys. This doesn't really show anything useful though.

Well, I chose 1999 since this was the year referenced in the article. You didn't mention it, but you have also changed the data set to one without global coverage. You have also picked an old version of that data set that had even worse coverage than it does now! As it turns out, much of the heat over the last decade has accumulated in the the gaps of the HADCRU3 data set. So what you have done is shown that if you ignore the heat --> cooling!

Here is the trend from 2001 using a data set with near global coverate: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Curiously, the satellite data compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy at UAH shows an even greater trend after 1999 - so according to the satellite data warming has actually accelerated! http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

What we've got is a steady but slow upward trend with a noisy natural variability wave transposed on top of it. Most of this natural variability is caused by the transfer of energy between the atmosphere and the ocean. When the ocean absorbs energy (La Nina) the atmospheric temperatures drop below the trend. They jump above the trend when the ocean releases energy into the atmosphere (El Nino). If you pick a sufficiently short time span you could find many periods of cooling (even in a data set with global coverage) just by playing these humps and valleys. This doesn't really show anything useful though.

Hmmm.... let's see. What if we use the unadjusted global mean, and made the cutoff 2001 instead of 1999? Hey look at that -> Global cooling!

My point is that you can slice the data many different ways, many of which are valid, and not all point to the same conclusion. But, I'll give you that the line after 1999 or 2001 is not flat.....

Anything wrong with this? Started where your trend lines start, 1970; showed unsmoothed; and divided the two trend lines at 1998.

Here is what the temperature trendline looked like before and after 1999: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

"flatline" is really the wrong word...

Overrated, eh? If you don't like the source here's the HADCRUT3 unadjusted vs. adjusted data from Wood For Trees: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h... Not a lot of difference there either.

It is kind of weird, though. With all the extra CO2 that we've measurably added to the atmosphere in the last decade, you'd expect there to be SOME warming.

Yeah, you would, wouldn't you.

It was warming from 1976 to 1998

HADCRUT4 1976-1998 Trend: 0.163 +/-0.083 C/decade (2sigma)

Why did it suddenly stop?

Oh, it didn't

HADCRUT4 1976-2014 Trend: 0.164 +/-0.037 C/decade (2sigma)

It is kind of weird, though. With all the extra CO2 that we've measurably added to the atmosphere in the last decade, you'd expect there to be SOME warming.

Yeah, you would, wouldn't you.

It was warming from 1976 to 1998

HADCRUT4 1976-1998 Trend: 0.163 +/-0.083 C/decade (2sigma)

Why did it suddenly stop?

Oh, it didn't

HADCRUT4 1976-2014 Trend: 0.164 +/-0.037 C/decade (2sigma)

Try looking at actual data [woodfortrees.org]. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere. That's a slightly negative trend that's going hard on twenty years...all with CO2 levels worth panicking over according to some.

Ok, what makes the RSS data better than the UAH MSU satellite data? If you're ignoring that you're just cherry picking.

Nothing in particular. Here's the last 10 years (you know, the 10 years with the highest CO2 levels in history) of UAH data, showing a dead flat temperature trend. The point being, warming has definitely paused on around a decadal time scale. Will it last longer? That's a very interesting question. Solar activity, despite being near a maximum in the 11 year cycle, is low. The interesting thing is that the next cycle (forecast to begin roughly around 2020) is predicted to be extremely low - so low that a sunspot will be a rare event for 12-15 years (weak solar cycles are also longer). Such low cycles have historically been associated with quite significant temperature drops. So, we may in fact see flat or declining temperatures through 2035 or longer. That will be quite a shock for the alarmists if it works out that way. :-)

BTW, it may not be only lower solar irradiance that's responsible for lower temperatures, there may be other effects having to do with the solar wind and/or the solar magnetic field.

The fact is that RSS is using an older satellite for their data and may have some issues with deteriorating orbits and sensors that aren't properly accounted for.

Citation? My understanding is that RSS and UAH are two independent analyses of the same data. The relevant Wikipedia article contains no mention of such a thing...

At any rate, this chart shows the close agreement between the two datasets.

Try looking at actual data. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere.

Dr Roy Spencer doesn't agree that RSS is the best.

Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in yearsâ¦we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.

I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.

Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:

I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.

You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.

A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.

So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.

[no answer]

Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?

To quote from said paper [cited by you]:

The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.

and:

Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).

The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause.

This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*

SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temperature data, right? You will say anything that you think strengthens your position, and deny the blatantly obvious when it appears to weaken your position. You are now suggesting the Journal Nature is not trustworthy. It is interesting to watch the "pro-science" side throw scientific journals under the bus when the facts don't support their positions.

This is the link you are referring to, correct?

everything you said has been debunked by actual facts.

No, it is NOT true that temperatures have been essentially flat.

Well, putting it in bold clearly means you're right...not.

Try looking at actual data. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere. That's a slightly negative trend that's going hard on twenty years...all with CO2 levels worth panicking over according to some.

The sea ice is only a "rebound" because its being compared to the previous year which was THE LOWEST SEA ICE EVER RECORDED.

2012 was the lowest (due mainly to a weather phenomenon, not climate in particular. 2013 was the rebound year, and this year looks to be continuing the trend. Will the long-term decline resume? Personally, I doubt it based on solar activity, but we'll see...

Thank you for the public service of displaying your ignorance, now go away.

I'll leave it to the readers to decide who's ignorant (or brainwashed:).

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

As for your Slate link, it's addressing one specific article. It makes the tired "the heat is hiding in the ocean" claim, which has not been verified whatsoever. How has the ocean been heating (imperceptibly) for almost 20 years while the atmosphere stays the same temperature, pray tell?

You might also want to reflect on the fact that while the Arctic ice has been generally on the decline, Antarctic sea ice has been at record extent this year, and global ice as a whole is around average...