Slashdot Mirror

Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year, abnormally warm ocean water helped spawn the earliest hurricane ever recorded to make landfall in North Carolina, and a rash of heat waves have plagued cities from India to California to the Middle East.

Yikes, that all sounds alarming right? Except...

Except nothing. You can nitpick by look at this year or that, but look at the trend. Summer minimum extent has dropped by half and is accelerating: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

You are flailing around without a clue. You have no shame and will just say anything, no matter how baseless, no matter how nonsensical. It would be fun to watch if it wasn't so embarrassing.

Here the link to the code they released. They made it available to Zeke Hausfather who made it available to everyone else.

Regarding the 17 year "plateau" that you deny, apparently you can't interpret a graph, don't know what 'statistical significance' means, and Nature isn't good enough for you either. Right off the top of my head, here's a paper that tries to explain the "hiatus". According to your insightful analysis there is nothing to explain.

I've provided links directly to the temperature data, yet you accuse me of making it up and plucking those figures out of my ass. It is obvious that you are in a state of denial. How ironic that a global warming supporter denies what the data says and denies the scientific journals (when it suits him). Your behaviour here contributes to my thesis. Thank you for your time.

a) Readiing comprehension. They released the code on July 8th in response to all the controversy. I've pointed that out to you at least twice now.
b) You seem intellectually dishonest and childish, who cares so much about "winning" a meaningless debate you can't admit when you're clearly wrong. But that's a personal statement, and why start getting personal? If you think I am "angry", you are projecting.
Again, the code was kept private until July 8th. Why would they go to the trouble of releasing code that was already available (according to you - which you have not substantiated). If you have evidence that the code was released prior to July, I'm all ears.
You are saying the reason that I couldn't find the unreleased code is because of my own ignorance. It should be easy for you to substantiate that accusation. You won't because you can't. Instead you will continue to insist that I prove a negative. Logic 101... Maybe you can answer this: What evidence could I provide that would prove that the code hadn't been released prior to July?
c) Clearly you do not know what "statistical significance" means. Why do you show me a graph purporting to debunk my claim of no trend for the last 17 years that uses a trend-line that starts in 1950? Pretty sloppy. Here is what the trend looks like from 1997, using various datasets, including your GISS temps. The average temperature increase from the five models is about 4 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. That is not a statistically significant amount. Ie: it is well within the margin of uncertainty. In other words: there is no discernable trend. Or to put it another way: the planet has not warmed in 17 years. If you believe otherwise you should point it out to the Journal Nature. They say there has been a 16 year plateau. I'm sure they will be embarrassed by their amateur error once you point it out to them.

Reading comprehension is important.
a) I never said there wasn't a methodology, just that they hadn't released it at the time. You seem to be deluding yourself into believing that the code was always publicly available.
b) I was not angry, but I disagreed with their decision to keep the information private. Good for them for changing their tune. You apparently see nothing wrong with keeping scientific data hidden away from prying eyes.
c) Interesting that you still deny the recent lack of warming. The HADCRUT4 warming trend since 1997 is a statistically insignificant 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. I find it interesting how people react when confronted with plain facts that challenge their views. Maybe you should contact the Journal Nature and explain to them how they made a big, amateur blunder when they said there was a 16 year "hiatus" in global warming.

17 years is too short? You were fine utilizing the trend between 1979-1997 when the results showed a warming trend.

17 years is too short, not because of any magic about "17 years" but because the "trend" is much smaller than the possible error:

HADCRUT4 1997-2014 Trend: 0.048 ±0.112 C/decade (2 sigma)

The trend could be anything between +0.160 and -0.064. We don't have enough information to know what the actual trend is.

By contrast for 1976-1998 the trend is:

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

So there is clearly a warming trend (of between +0.246 and 0.80)

And. even clearer, from 1976-2014 the trend is:

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

The 1946-1980 trend is also statistically insignificant.

True:

HADCRUT4 1946-1980 Trend: -0.004 ±0.047 C/decade (2sigma)

By your logic that means the "trend estimation is poor" and that therefore the "period is too short to estimate a statistically significant trend."

If you want to quibble I'd say that "given the data the trend we calculated is smaller than the uncertainty". In general the uncertainty will be smaller if the period is longer.

Maybe you are having difficulty expressing yourself, but it appears as though your thinking is not being applied consistently. And I don't think you know what "statistically insignificant" means.

I think I'm being consistent - If the calculated trend is larger than the uncertainty I assume the trend is statistically significant. (Yes I know the real definition is more complicated, but this is slashdot FFS)

The OLS method is useful in this case to show (you guessed it) a linear trend, but can be misleading when applied to non-linear data, ie: curves. I've adjusted the dates so the curve is easier for you to spot.

So. how do you explain that the 1977-2001 trend is exactly the same as the 1977-2014 trend.

Your posts above serve as a good example, showing why long term trends can't disprove claims of short term trends. At best you can try to argue that the long term trend shows that the 17 year pause is not that meaningful. But in this case the pause is almost as long as the recent warming period itself, and [some] climate scientists themselves have said that a 17 year pause is meanigful (although some are now trying to change the goalposts.)

You're trying to claim that short term trends that are by your own admission not statistically significant can disprove statistically significant long term trends.

Anyways, if you still have doubts, take it up with Nature. If you are correct, they have made a big, amateur blunder. You should let them know.

I don't have to let them know. They already know. From the article you keep quoting in your attempted appeal to authority:

The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability.

17 years is too short? You were fine utilizing the trend between 1979-1997 when the results showed a warming trend.

17 years is too short, not because of any magic about "17 years" but because the "trend" is much smaller than the possible error:

HADCRUT4 1997-2014 Trend: 0.048 ±0.112 C/decade (2 sigma)

The trend could be anything between +0.160 and -0.064. We don't have enough information to know what the actual trend is.

By contrast for 1976-1998 the trend is:

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

So there is clearly a warming trend (of between +0.246 and 0.80)

And. even clearer, from 1976-2014 the trend is:

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

The 1946-1980 trend is also statistically insignificant.

True:

HADCRUT4 1946-1980 Trend: -0.004 ±0.047 C/decade (2sigma)

By your logic that means the "trend estimation is poor" and that therefore the "period is too short to estimate a statistically significant trend."

If you want to quibble I'd say that "given the data the trend we calculated is smaller than the uncertainty". In general the uncertainty will be smaller if the period is longer.

Maybe you are having difficulty expressing yourself, but it appears as though your thinking is not being applied consistently. And I don't think you know what "statistically insignificant" means.

I think I'm being consistent - If the calculated trend is larger than the uncertainty I assume the trend is statistically significant. (Yes I know the real definition is more complicated, but this is slashdot FFS)

The OLS method is useful in this case to show (you guessed it) a linear trend, but can be misleading when applied to non-linear data, ie: curves. I've adjusted the dates so the curve is easier for you to spot.

So. how do you explain that the 1977-2001 trend is exactly the same as the 1977-2014 trend.

Your posts above serve as a good example, showing why long term trends can't disprove claims of short term trends. At best you can try to argue that the long term trend shows that the 17 year pause is not that meaningful. But in this case the pause is almost as long as the recent warming period itself, and [some] climate scientists themselves have said that a 17 year pause is meanigful (although some are now trying to change the goalposts.)

You're trying to claim that short term trends that are by your own admission not statistically significant can disprove statistically significant long term trends.

Anyways, if you still have doubts, take it up with Nature. If you are correct, they have made a big, amateur blunder. You should let them know.

I don't have to let them know. They already know. From the article you keep quoting in your attempted appeal to authority:

The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability.

17 years is too short? You were fine utilizing the trend between 1979-1997 when the results showed a warming trend. The 1946-1980 trend is also statistically insignificant. By your logic that means the "trend estimation is poor" and that therefore the "period is too short to estimate a statistically significant trend." Maybe you are having difficulty expressing yourself, but it appears as though your thinking is not being applied consistently. And I don't think you know what "statistically insignificant" means.

Just to be a bit pedantic, and to help explain what you are seeing, the warming didn't literally "stop" in 1997. 1998 is the third hottest year on record. But the temperature trend from 1997 evens out because of the slight cooling later on, showing no significant net warming.

The OLS method is useful in this case to show (you guessed it) a linear trend, but can be misleading when applied to non-linear data, ie: curves. I've adjusted the dates so the curve is easier for you to spot. Your posts above serve as a good example, showing why long term trends can't disprove claims of short term trends. At best you can try to argue that the long term trend shows that the 17 year pause is not that meaningful. But in this case the pause is almost as long as the recent warming period itself, and climate scientists themselves have said that a 17 year pause is meanigful (although some are now trying to change the goalposts.)

Anyways, if you still have doubts, take it up with Nature. If you are correct, they have made a big, amateur blunder. You should let them know.

What one can do it compare the observations with various hypotheses. Your hypothesis is, as I understand it that "warming stopped in 1997".

If that were the case we'd have a line like this, yes?

    - - - - -

  /
/

Temperatures after 1997 would be below an extension of the 1976-1997 trend line and the 1998-2014 trend line would start around the end of the 1976--1997 trend line.

But that isn't what we see: the (not statistically significant) 1998-2014 trend line is way above the end of the 1976-1997 trend line, and most years since 1997 have been above where the 1976-1997 trend line would have predicted them. Both of those facts falsify your hypothesis.

If fact, your original contention, that 1918-1946 is comparable to the trend from 1976-1998 allows us to check this out.

Hypothesis: warming stopped in 1946.
Prediction: years after 1946 are colder than predicted by the 1918-1946 trend line

Observation:
HADCRUT4 1918-1946 Trend: 0.139 ±0.057 C/decade (2sigma)
HADCRUT4 1918-1980 Trend: 0.032 ±0.020 C/decade (2sigma)
HADCRUT4 1946-1980 Trend: -0.004 ±0.047 C/decade (2sigma)

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1918/to:1980/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1918/to:1946/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1979/trend

Wow. look at that. Global warming did stop in 1946. Clearly.

Contrast: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:2014/trend

What one can do it compare the observations with various hypotheses. Your hypothesis is, as I understand it that "warming stopped in 1997".

If that were the case we'd have a line like this, yes?

    - - - - -

  /
/

Temperatures after 1997 would be below an extension of the 1976-1997 trend line and the 1998-2014 trend line would start around the end of the 1976--1997 trend line.

But that isn't what we see: the (not statistically significant) 1998-2014 trend line is way above the end of the 1976-1997 trend line, and most years since 1997 have been above where the 1976-1997 trend line would have predicted them. Both of those facts falsify your hypothesis.

If fact, your original contention, that 1918-1946 is comparable to the trend from 1976-1998 allows us to check this out.

Hypothesis: warming stopped in 1946.
Prediction: years after 1946 are colder than predicted by the 1918-1946 trend line

Observation:
HADCRUT4 1918-1946 Trend: 0.139 ±0.057 C/decade (2sigma)
HADCRUT4 1918-1980 Trend: 0.032 ±0.020 C/decade (2sigma)
HADCRUT4 1946-1980 Trend: -0.004 ±0.047 C/decade (2sigma)

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1918/to:1980/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1918/to:1946/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1979/trend

Wow. look at that. Global warming did stop in 1946. Clearly.

Contrast: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:2014/trend

What's your point? The warming trend hasn't stopped since the earth began heating after the little ice age.

I'm sorry, didn't you say:

Simple. That's [1998] about the time the warming stopped.

Which is it? Warming stopped in 1998 or warming hasn't stopped since the end of the little ice age?

The active warming period ended around 1997.

So temperatures since 1997 have been below the 1979-1997 trend?

I've grown 6 feet over 40 years. I'm arguing that I stopped growing decades ago, and that my previous growth rate, when I was actively growing, was not abnormal. You are arguing that the trend shows a growth rate of 1.5ft/decade. When my height starts to diminish as I get older, you will still be claiming a long term growth trend.

Wrong. You grew 6 feet over around 20 years, a growth rate of 3.6 inches a year.

If I made the incorrect assumption that your growth was linear over 40 years I'd calculate that your growth rate was 1.8 inches a year.

You claim that "The active warming period ended around 1997", but when we calculate the trend we find that warming 1979-1997 was 0.163 ±0.083 C/decade (2sigma) and 1979-2014 was 0. 164 ±0.037 C/decade (2sigma). I.E. warming hasn't stopped, and the warming 1979-2014 is more statistically significant (believable) than warming 1979-1997 (as one would expect).

Hypothesis: Warming stopped around end 1998.

    - - - - -
  /
/

Prediction:
Temperatures after 1997 are on average below a naive extension of the 1979-1997 trend line.

Sorry, falsified.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend

Simple. That's about the time the warming stopped.

You didn't read my comment

But why did you stop in 1998? the trend didn't

Or, to put it another way:

1918-1946 HADCRUT4 Trend: 0.139 ±0.057 C/decade (2sigma)
1976-1998 HADCRUT4 Trend: 0.163 ±0.083 C/decade (2sigma)
1976-2014 HADCRUT4 Trend: 0.164 ±0.037 C/decade (2sigma)

I.E. the 1976-... trends are bigger than the 1918-1946 trend, and the 1976-2014 trend is more significant than the 1918-1946 trend, as one would expect.

(Slashdot - fix your fucking unicode! It's 2014!)

Cherry picking will never win scientific points.

Try this for size.

Don't forgot an important part of the science: climate sensitivity.

4.8) The earth's climate is hyper-sensitive to heat from CO2.
4.9) The climate amplifies the CO2 heating by 3-4 times.

"Climate sensitivity" is the whole basis for the belief in dangerous global warming. And there is nothing solid about it. The latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower. Lower climate sensitivity would explain why it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years.

You forgot an important part of the science: climate sensitivity.

4) CO2 absorbs energy from IR
5) CO2 radiates that energy, causing some heating.
6) The earth's climate is hyper-sensitive to heat from CO2.
6) The climate amplifies the CO2 heating by 3-4 times.

"Climate sensitivity" is the whole basis for the belief in dangerous global warming. And there is nothing solid about it. The latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower. Lower climate sensitivity would explain why it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years.

Simple. That's about the time the warming stopped. I was comparing two periods where temperatures were actually rising, not the plateaus. The point was to show that the recent warming period was not unusual, even in the last 100 years. The planet has been warming since the little ice age.

As I've said elsewhere, there has been no statistically significant surface warming for the last 17 years. The RSS data show no warming for around 18 years.

And now I've been told (by an AGW supporter no less) that the Antarctic land ice has not been melting. Go figure.

Global temperatures have been increasing since the 1800's. The temperature increase where CO2 was supposedly a driver practically mirrors the temperature increase earlier in the century,

Yes, the trend from 1918-1946 is comparable to the trend from 1976-1998.

But why did you stop in 1998? the trend didn't.

Global temperatures have been increasing since the 1800's. The temperature increase where CO2 was supposedly a driver practically mirrors the temperature increase earlier in the century,

Yes, the trend from 1918-1946 is comparable to the trend from 1976-1998.

But why did you stop in 1998? the trend didn't.

Maybe you should take it up with the Journal Nature? They talk about a sixteen year pause in global warming. Or the HADCRUT dataset? There is more than one dataset to look at. The RSS dataset shows no warming for almost 18 years. That's a tad more than a "few years". NASA's GISS data you reference shows no statistically significant warming for at least 16 years. The data is freely available if you want to download it and examine it for yourself.

Global temperatures have been increasing since the 1800's. The temperature increase where CO2 was supposedly a driver practically mirrors the temperature increase earlier in the century, which CO2 had nothing to do with. The IPCC recently said that increased CO2 is very likely responsible for more that 50% of recent warming. According to NASA, the earth has warmed 0.8 degrees since 1820. Most estimates I have read suggest around 1 degree increase since the 1800's, two thirds of it in recent times.

That means AGW is supposedly responsible for around a half degree of warming. And this "half degree" estimate is based on climate models that have failed to predict the last 17 years of no global warming. Please explain to me how this supposed half degree increase in global temperatures has had such a profound effect upon antarctic glaciers. Show me the scientific papers detailing how a half degree of global temperature increase is responsible for all of this ice melting?

The "pause" is real. In this nature article they characterize the pause as mysterious, and describe the various explanations scientists are piecing together to try to explain it. I find it interesting that they don't consider the simplest explanation - that the climate models grossly exaggerated "climate sensitivity", especially since the latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower than the ones used in the models. (Climate sensitivity is the hypothesis that the earth is hyper-reactive to CO2, that a little extra heat from CO2 causes a major chain reaction, amplifying that heat by 3-4 times. Climate sensitivity is a key issue in the debate, at least among the scientifically literate.)

In 2009, Phil Jones suggested 15 years of no warming would be cause for concern. Judith Curry said more recently: "Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small." At what point is this theory falsifiable? How long do we have to wait? 15 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years of no warming before we can say the global warming scare was grossly exaggerated?

If you are still not convinced that the "pause" is real, you can look at the datasets for yourself. Here's the HADCRUT 4 dataset, and here's the RSS dataset. You can play with the app and the various datasets, although it's not very granular.

The "pause" is real. In this nature article they characterize the pause as mysterious, and describe the various explanations scientists are piecing together to try to explain it. I find it interesting that they don't consider the simplest explanation - that the climate models grossly exaggerated "climate sensitivity", especially since the latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower than the ones used in the models. (Climate sensitivity is the hypothesis that the earth is hyper-reactive to CO2, that a little extra heat from CO2 causes a major chain reaction, amplifying that heat by 3-4 times. Climate sensitivity is a key issue in the debate, at least among the scientifically literate.)

In 2009, Phil Jones suggested 15 years of no warming would be cause for concern. Judith Curry said more recently: "Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small." At what point is this theory falsifiable? How long do we have to wait? 15 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years of no warming before we can say the global warming scare was grossly exaggerated?

If you are still not convinced that the "pause" is real, you can look at the datasets for yourself. Here's the HADCRUT 4 dataset, and here's the RSS dataset. You can play with the app and the various datasets, although it's not very granular.

Actually, the graph you posted was quite cherry-picked, I moved the start date of each trend to the start of the indicated year or to the previous year (if it was already at the start of a year) and now they all show an upwards slope.

You're just playing games with the data.

GISTEMP has been modified, adjusted, had so many unreliable stations that it's laughable; USCRN is the only ground based network that is reliable but woodfortrees doesn't have it, but they do has satelite data, but RSS data strongly implies a cooling trend.

There has been no statistically significant surface warming in roughly 17 years. Check out the surface temperature datasets and see for yourself. While the oceans have been heating since the little ice age, they are heating more slowly than the climate models predicted. So how can we be so sure that dangerous global warming is a fact? What evidence do we have that the climate is hyper-reactive to CO2 heating and will amplify the extra CO2 heat by 3 or 4 times?

What criteria do we have to meet before we can say the climate models have failed?

Your right as far as you went, but you forgot to mention that there has been no warming for almost 18 years anyways; Oh wait no citation, Here is one.

no you need to prove your absurd comments. sun spot activity and volcano's are the driving force in climate change.there is no scientific evidence to prove otherwise.
theories,conjecture and,pre-programmed computer models are not proof.

Sorry, not seeing it.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980/mean:36/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/scale:200/mean:36

When we look at a variance adjusted set, you'll note that the trend slopes are nearly identical:

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

And if you don't like hadcrut3, you can try hadcrut4:

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

When we look at a variance adjusted set, you'll note that the trend slopes are nearly identical:

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

And if you don't like hadcrut3, you can try hadcrut4:

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

The myth is that we can wipe our ass with the biosphere continually and still live here.

If you need to feel bad to change your habits, then I hope you do. Otherwise, all else equal I would prefer that you feel good about yourself, because hurt people hurt people.

Thank you for providing supporting evidence. We're not actually doing that, but you choose to believe it anyway.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2

If you add the trend lines for each of the two graphs, it becomes clear that your statement that the temperature rises "just as fast" is simply wrong. http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... Of course, the whole comparison is very simplistic. At the very least, some effort should be done to remove influence of other well known factors, such as aerosols, irradiance from the sun, and ENSO cycles.

Neighboring planets are poor proxies for solar output, especially since we have direct measurements from the sun itself. Solar output has been dwindling since the 80's: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Given that 1/4 of all CO2 emissions have happened in the last decade with no corresponding acceleration of warming that would be predicted, and even a leveling off, I think models aren't correct.

The IPCC has predicted warming at a rate of 0.15C and 0.3C per decade ever since their first report in 1990, and that is exactly what we have observed:

"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...

So temperatures have risen, and continue to rise, exactly as much as we would have expected. Although the temperature wobbles about the mean, (and if you pick small enough intervals the natural oscillations can swamp the long term signal), the trend has not changed and remains above 0.2C/decade since 1970: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

It freezes in the winter. It melts in the summer. The overall trend is down: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen.

"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...

So temperatures have risen, and continue to rise, exactly as much as we would have expected. Although the temperature wobbles about the mean, the trend has not changed and remains above 0.2C/decade since 1970: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

Here are several papers from just one scientist

The first one is a book. Books are often published without peer review.

The second one gets no hits on google scholar. I assume it was never published in the scholarly literature.

The Third one gets no hits on google scholar. I assume it was never published in the scholarly literature.

The fourth one gets no hits on google scholar. I assume it was never published in the scholarly literature.

The fifth one appears, but only as two citations, both by the Author. I assume is was never published in the scholarly literature.

The sixth one appears in Energy & Environment, a publication that some place amongst scholarly journals and some amongst trade journals. In either case, it is a dumping ground for counter-consensus, and even counter-scientific opinion pieces, and is of no note as a peer reviewed publication.

The seventh was a presentation to the 2009 GSA Annual Meeting. This isn't publication or peer review. And it appears to have been mentioned only three times, twice by the author, and once by Anthony Watts.

The eight is a presentation to a denialist conference, organised by the Heartland institute. This is not peer reviewed, and the organisation is very interested in only presenting a counter-scientific view for its clients in the fossil fuel industry.

The ninth appears to be the abstract for a presentation to the AGU conference in fall 2007. Again, this is not peer reviewed, not has it attracted any interest outside the author and Anthony Watts.

The tenth is another conference paper with no citations except the same publications citing the other conference papers above.

Now how accurate is that "0% of scholarly papers" claim?

"Several papers" that were "published" is a bit of a stretch. Being very generous, and calling E&E "publication", we have 10% published peer reviewed literature. Crudely extrapolating to the list of 25, there are 2.5 papers there. Google scholar returns about 589,000 publications to the search term "Global climate change", so these (generous) 2.5 represent. This is about 0.004%, which to the implied accuracy by the number of decimal places given in my "0% of scholarly papers" is 0%.

Especially in light of the fact that Dr. Easterbrook's climate model (which does NOT base itself on CO2) accurately matches the past

I think I can see why these papers got no attention then. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing its concentration will increase the greenhouse effect.

AND predicted the current 17 year pause in warming,

17 year pause in the warming? This could be another reason the papers have received no interest.

There has been warming over the past 17 years.

The 17 graph is still showing a positive trend. http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Let's see how well sunspot activity correlates to climate: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/b...

Pretty good prior to 1980 or so, but wildly divergent since (temps up while sunspots down). I wonder why?

Nope. Not even close. Closer to 1C since 1940: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Where on Earth did you get 0.2C since 1940? That's just crazy! We've had almost 0.2C warming during the "pause" of the last 17 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Nope. Not even close. Closer to 1C since 1940: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Where on Earth did you get 0.2C since 1940? That's just crazy! We've had almost 0.2C warming during the "pause" of the last 17 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

It has raised almost 0.2C in the last 17 years - a period you claim that we've seen no warming: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

This fluctuation in tropospheric temperatures is a behavour that we see emerge in the models as well. What you have to remember is that when you measure tropospheric temperatures you are measuring one small part of the system. Tropospheric temperatures have increased by about 0.2C over the last 15 years ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... ). That is not insignificant but is somewhat slower than the previous decade. Meanwhile the ocean has also continued to accumulate energy.

Ultimately what we find is that fluctuations in tropospheric temperatures are the result of energy moving about within the system (from troposphere to ocean and back), rather than a violation of thermodynamics. So as you can see, energy fluctuations in one part of the system cannot contradict feedbacks.

In fact, we have observed many feedbacks first hand. For instance, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 4% since the 70's. The more warming, the more water vapour the atmosphere will hold. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. Likewise, on average summertime polar ice is declining due to warming. The less summertime ice we have the less solar energy will be reflected back into space. This is another feedback that we can measure and have observed.

How's this for cherry picking: The Earth has been on a cooling trend every year since 1965.

Genuine global mean temperature data, continuous coverage from 1965 to 2013.5, no tricks or manipulation other than cherrypicking 5 dates to split it into 6 cooling trends. The graph was inspired by recent claims that warming has stopped, it's a perfect illustration of how utterly fictional that claim is.

-

Here we go, with enough time and data, and enough willingness to ignore other parts of it it:
you can achieve your dreams

Even if I start a year earlier during the El Nino of 1998 we still get a warming trend of 0.14C over the period. Slightly lower, but still quite high for 16 years. Where do they come up with this nonsense?

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

Cooling trend? Not sure where you come up with that. Here is the temperature trend over the last 15 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

That's a change of + 0.18 C over the period. That is a rather large increase for 15 years.

200% of the increase? Err... math is not your strong point is it? How do you get more than 100% of the increase? Wait, I don't want to know what passes for reasoning in your head.

It's simple. Our CO2 emissions are about twice the size of the observed CO2 increase.

Average global temp is on the rise, but has been doing so since the end of the last ice age.

Got a source for that, big boy?

Geez, go use google.

here let me do it for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

look for the chart showing temps going up since last ice age peak of 20K years ago.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

Yup, temperatures rose from about -20Ky to about -10Ky, and they have been slowly falling since. Temperatures have not been rising since the end of the last ice age.

show a correlation between any solar parameter and global average temperatures.

TSI:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisir...

easy correlation there. Match to warming trends, much stronger than CO2.

Looks like you have some serious problems reading graphs. Maybe you should see an opthalmologist.

Do you realy see a correlation here:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1975/offset:-1366/scale:0.5/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/mean:12

How about here:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/mean:12/scale:150/offset:320/plot/esrl-co2

200% of the increase? Err... math is not your strong point is it? How do you get more than 100% of the increase? Wait, I don't want to know what passes for reasoning in your head.

It's simple. Our CO2 emissions are about twice the size of the observed CO2 increase.

Average global temp is on the rise, but has been doing so since the end of the last ice age.

Got a source for that, big boy?

Geez, go use google.

here let me do it for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

look for the chart showing temps going up since last ice age peak of 20K years ago.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

Yup, temperatures rose from about -20Ky to about -10Ky, and they have been slowly falling since. Temperatures have not been rising since the end of the last ice age.

show a correlation between any solar parameter and global average temperatures.

TSI:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisir...

easy correlation there. Match to warming trends, much stronger than CO2.

Looks like you have some serious problems reading graphs. Maybe you should see an opthalmologist.

Do you realy see a correlation here:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1975/offset:-1366/scale:0.5/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/mean:12

How about here:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/mean:12/scale:150/offset:320/plot/esrl-co2

And this would mean that the absolutely catstrophic level of 4C would be reached by 2140. But we know that the response is very likely not linear at all and that if we do nothing the 4C could be reached even by 2100. Not a conforting thought is it?

Actually, we know that the response is logarithmic, not linear. We know that it is logarithmic with a very small effective coupling (the reasons increased CO_2 increases surface temperature at all are complex -- the GHE from CO_2 is "saturated" so that the change in the GHE comes from second order effects that we cannot directly calculate or measure with any particular accuracy, which is why the direct CO_2 warming by 600 ppm is usually given as a substantial semi-empirical range (of roughly 1 to 1.5 C). The semi-empirical bit means that in part, our beliefs about the forcing come from our ability to use some value of the forcing in models that then come close to observed reality.

As for starting date -- why start at 1950? Why not 1953, or 1945? Why not just examine the entire global record from 1950 to the present? One form of numerology is as good as another, unless and until you build a model. When you build a model, the model has to work before it is believable, or that isn't any improvement over what the data and your own eyes tell you. Here's what mine tell me, with the linear trend plotted only as a guide to the eye and as a measure of the total warming:

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

Facts:

1) The linear trend of global surface temperatures has been roughly 0.8 C over 164 years, or 0.05 C/decade for the entire thermometric record.

2) The pattern of increase is remarkably consistent. It is numerology, of course, but there is a clear sinusoidal variation imposed on the linear trend. One can imagine a slight amplification in the second cycle and that amplification might be CO_2, but then again, it might not -- numerology being notoriously poor as a predictor and more a motivation for understanding the structure of the past. There is no particularly strong evidence for amplification of the underlying linear trend and only weak evidence of amplification of the oscillation.

3) The oscillation is roughly synchronous with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, suggesting a causal link between warming and cooling efficiency and things like the PDO and the (coupled) distribution and sign of ENSO events.

4) If you look at figure 9.8a of AR5 and mentally replot it against this figure, the CMIP5 MME mean goes left from 1850 to 1970 nearly flat -- starting at an anomaly of -0.1 C (that would be, 0.2C higher than the general left endpoint of the data) and ending in 1975 or thereabouts with only 0.1C of net warming to an anomaly of 0.0 C. It then rockets up like somebody turned on a switch. It is a hockey stick decorated with bounces at major volcanic events. The data is not at all shaped like a hockey stick. The model goes straight over all of the 19th and early 20th century structure as if it were not there, and deviates from the record in the 21st century as the temperature follows the established pattern instead of the GCM mean.

There is no cherry picking at all here, because I'm just describing obvious features of the actual data compared to the actual MME mean on the entire timeseries. You many find the MME mean convincing, an "excellent" fit to the data. I think the fit absolutely sucks, especially given that the only place it does a really good job of fitting it is the reference interval plus a few time periods on either side.

In the absence of any model at all one would find nothing surprising or alarming about the shape of the climate record in any of the intervals 1850 to 1900, 1900 to 1950, 1950 to 2000, or post 2000, and if one plots it (especially if one plots it to scale, not as an anomaly on a scale

Sure, by a nice, not catastrophic average of between 1 and 2 C per century, depending still on just where you select your endpoints. In fact, go all the way back to 1850, that's fine with me:

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

Then we can average 0.8C of total warming since the Dalton minimum over 160+ years for a grand total of 0.05C per decade, in two clearly visible repetitive patterns of warming that are nearly identical, only one of which could have a significant contribution from CO_2. We also see three distinct episodes of cooling, one of which started roughly ten years ago. The pattern is really evident if you run the data through a suitable symmetric filter.

It is also forever interesting that people are forever willing to move the goalposts for the number of years required for the weather to be climate as the weather refuses to cooperate with their prior conceptions of that the climate ought to be doing. Personally, I prefer to just look at the data.

In the meantime, congratulations! You've established that according to your criterion, it is impossible to either verify or falsify the GCMs for another what, ten years? Twenty? In the meantime, you will, I'm sure, feel secure in continuing to claim that they are reliable in spite of the (to you) not yet significant divergence.

Sadly, the climate scientists who wrote AR5 do not agree with you. Neither do the climate models themselves. While they sometimes produce runs as long as what has been observed with no warming, it is (increasingly) rare. That pesky p-value, you see. Hence the scramble to find the missing heat, to explain why the models are failing without actually ever using the phrase "the models are failing". Box 9.2 is devoted to this, of course, but it only includes around half of the known possible causes of failure and there could be more than one. All of the explanations, however, come with a price tag in terms of model incompleteness, initialization data sparsity, lack of reliable knowledge of model parameters, and the simple fact that the climate has a lot of natural variability within the range permitted by "the physics".

As pointed out in other responses, the issue isn't whether or not warming has occurred from 1850 to the present, that is established fact. It is whether or not the GCMs, that fail to reproduce the actual climate almost everywhere outside of the comparatively narrow timespan used as a reference period (training set), are reliable scientific predictors of the future climate. A mere glance at figure 9.8a of AR5 should convince you that they are not, not the MME mean of the models, not (most of) the models themselves.

Let me ask you a question. If we were looking at the predictions of 36 distinct density functional theory implementations in physics compared to measured spectroscopy results, would you average the 36 results and compare the mean as some sort of reliable predictor of the data, especially when some of the computations were run on PCs using matlab and represented only 20 hours of total compute time and others were run with enormous bases on huge clusters and represented 20,000 hours of compute time?

If we were comparing distinct implementations of density functional theory to spectroscopy, wouldn't you be inclined to assess each implementation separately and reject out of hand any computation that proved to be a terrible predictor of the data? Or would you just create an illegible graphic that smeared out all of the results of all of the computations into thick spaghetti graphs so that no single model can be compared to the actual data by eye and then (because the envelope of all of the computations sometimes, mostly, occasionally includes the data with a clearly visible systematic error in the mean) declare "density functional theory" a success?

Density functional theory is simple compared to the problem being solved by the GCMs. Th

You are responding to the fact that cherry picking a period of weather and claiming it is dishonest, by selecting two more short periods of weather for charting?

Here's HADCRUT4:

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

Climate is 30 years of weather averaged. Although this is still a chart of weather, you can still see clearly that if you averaged over 30 years to get climate, then the trend would be up.