You got me. The actual trend is as high as 0.254C/decade for GISS. By your logic: If we cannot reject that trend then we clearly cannot claim that warming was any less than 0.254C/decade. And since we cannot reject a trend as low as 0C we can clearly say that it has not warmed. So warming is >= 0.254C/decade but less than or = 0C. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect!
There is no other year with as great a claim on the title of the hottest year. Usain Bolt won in 2008 by only 0.02 seconds. Who holds the gold? Does uncertainty allow for others to make the claim for gold? Who gets to take it home? Is there maybe a conspiracy to hide the uncertainty? Did the Olympic judges fail to mention uncertainty? What, not even hidden in the press release?
It occurred to me that I should qualify EACH AND EVERY statement with "statistically significant"
Otherwise skeptics could argue that the earth has cooled since 1997, according to RSS data
You appear to think that 0 holds some special position on the graph. According to RSS the world HAS cooled over the period. Skeptics Spencer and Christy believe that satellite orbit degradation is more likely since RSS is using older satellites that do not maintain orbit. You may prefer to disregard all other evidence in favour of the minority report.
Apparently not. By the same token we cannot rule out warming of less than 0.046C/decade and therefor we cannot claim that warming was any less than twice the IPCC projections. What are you some kind of alarmist? Clearly there is evidence that warming was less, even just considering the period in question.
therefore it has continued warming for those 15 years
Q: What temperatures would you have predicted for the last 15 years if warming continued just as fast as the fastest period of warming prior?
Yes - they were cleverly hidden and directly addressed in the press call when the record was announced. Only the cleverest of deniers could have possibly found it hiding in plain site and released during the announcement. Only the cleverest denier could claim another of these years was hottest: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i...
Tell me clever, clever bloke. Which of those years is hottest?
skeptics start their trend-lines at the height of the '98 peak to manufacture a negative trend. Which skeptics were doing that?
You need to understand what statistically significant means. It doesn't mean no warming. It doesn't mean warming has slowed. If you fail to find statistical significance then you have failed to reject a hypothesis - you have not proven a hypothesis. If you wanted to show that the recent warming was significantly different from the previous trend then you would need to find that with statistical significance. Look at the three graphs here for an illustration: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
Does the recent trend fall outside of the error bars projected from the warming up to 2000 or is it bang on what you would have projected based on the warming up to 2000?
The last 17 years show warming: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Regardless, there is very rarely a time when you cannot find a value of x such that you can say "There has been no warming since x!" For instance, this year was a record hot year. Unless next year is another record year we will be able to say "There has been no warming since 2014!" So what? For the entire record you can find a value of x that satisfies the statement. Yet we have warmed over the entire period: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
You're not getting it. Since 2000 we have seen exactly the warming we would have expected if the warming from 1970-2000 had continued at the same pace: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
This is good for Canada which is concerned about the 'brain drain' and would welcome U.S. companies thinking of setting up shop in Canada to take advantage of the cheaper labour.
Over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate "skeptics" could have argued (and often did...) that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). - http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Not sure what is meant by 'dire', but warming is in line with expectations. Here is a quote from the IPCC TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario" That is exactly what we have seen.
Regarding fuel supplies, Saudi Arabia plans to pump everything they can while people are still interested in oil. They do not believe they will run out:
"Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil."
"in a world where a producer sees the end of its market on the horizon, then every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that will never be sold. Current Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi had this to say about production cuts in late December: "it is not in the interest of OPEC to cut their production whatever the price is," adding that even if prices fell to $20 "it is irrelevant." Implied, if not explicitly stated, is that Saudi Arabia wants its oil out of the ground, regardless of how thin its profit margin per barrel becomes." - http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...
Regarding starting at 1970 - a local minimum as you say: this would make the baseline trend between 1970 and 2000 much steeper. It would be even less likely that the recent trend since 2000 would be in line with the expectations set by the baseline -BUT IT IS!
So it looks like we are right in line with expectations. If you are concerned about accuracy (as you imply above) then you should quote a source or double check your statements before you post.
So funny. First you say the data shows no global warming. Then you are shown the data, and the data shows a clear continuation of the trend with no pause whatsoever. Suddenly, when it is clear that the data no longer confirms your preconceptions, you turn against the data and say that it is not trustworthy. Then you go on to talk about how preconceptions can result in biases - but you seem to have no self awareness whatsoever! Classic:)
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7C cooling through the middle to late Holocene ( 5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios. - http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
"These warmings may not sound like much until you realize that the warming since the last ice age — a warming that completely reconfigured the planet — was 9F-14F (5-8C). The upper limits of projected warming over the 21st century would therefore herald a literal remaking of the Earth’s environment and our place within it." - Andrew E. Dessler
Right - Warming from the last ice age peaked about 8000 years ago. Since then we have had a very gradual cooling trend - until about the last 100 years where we appear to be in a warming trend again.
The post notes:
While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña.
Curiously, last year was warmest even though the ENSO trend was neutral. Typically it would take an El Niño to nudge us up past the previous El Niño year, but not so last year. This means that the next El Niño will probably mean another record temperature.
in a world where a producer sees the end of its market on the horizon, then every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that will never be sold. Current Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi had this to say about production cuts in late December: "it is not in the interest of OPEC to cut their production whatever the price is," adding that even if prices fell to $20 "it is irrelevant." Implied, if not explicitly stated, is that Saudi Arabia wants its oil out of the ground, regardless of how thin its profit margin per barrel becomes. - http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...
In 2000, Sheikh Yamani, former oil minister of Saudi Arabia, gave an interview in which he said:
"Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil." - http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...
science being run by government officials and scientists alike with an enormous conflict of interest — can not be trusted either.
Oh lord. It always devolves into some conspiracy theory. Somehow skeptics Roy Spencer and Jon Christy must be in on it as well because they have a satellite temperature reconstruction that corroborates the land based temperature reconstructions: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
when it is cold in North America, well, that's a fluke. But when it is hot in Australia — that's evidence of Global Warming.
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen this happen.
Possibly everyone else is wrong and you are right.... possibly.
You got me. The actual trend is as high as 0.254C/decade for GISS. By your logic: If we cannot reject that trend then we clearly cannot claim that warming was any less than 0.254C/decade. And since we cannot reject a trend as low as 0C we can clearly say that it has not warmed. So warming is >= 0.254C/decade but less than or = 0C. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect!
Gavin Schmidt said...
There is no other year with as great a claim on the title of the hottest year. Usain Bolt won in 2008 by only 0.02 seconds. Who holds the gold? Does uncertainty allow for others to make the claim for gold? Who gets to take it home? Is there maybe a conspiracy to hide the uncertainty? Did the Olympic judges fail to mention uncertainty? What, not even hidden in the press release?
It occurred to me that I should qualify EACH AND EVERY statement with "statistically significant"
It occurs to me that you do not know what 'statistically significant' means.
Otherwise skeptics could argue that the earth has cooled since 1997, according to RSS data
You appear to think that 0 holds some special position on the graph. According to RSS the world HAS cooled over the period. Skeptics Spencer and Christy believe that satellite orbit degradation is more likely since RSS is using older satellites that do not maintain orbit. You may prefer to disregard all other evidence in favour of the minority report.
Grade school stuff, no?
Apparently not. By the same token we cannot rule out warming of less than 0.046C/decade and therefor we cannot claim that warming was any less than twice the IPCC projections. What are you some kind of alarmist? Clearly there is evidence that warming was less, even just considering the period in question.
therefore it has continued warming for those 15 years
Q: What temperatures would you have predicted for the last 15 years if warming continued just as fast as the fastest period of warming prior?
A: Exactly what we have seen!
So.... what's your point? We've seen exactly what we've expected and that is somehow proof that atmospheric physics is a hoax?
Nasa forgot to mention the error bars
Yes - they were cleverly hidden and directly addressed in the press call when the record was announced. Only the cleverest of deniers could have possibly found it hiding in plain site and released during the announcement. Only the cleverest denier could claim another of these years was hottest: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i...
Tell me clever, clever bloke. Which of those years is hottest?
skeptics start their trend-lines at the height of the '98 peak to manufacture a negative trend. Which skeptics were doing that?
No skeptic, clearly. But this guy sure was: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Hadcrut4 shows no warming for 17 years
What - starting from 1998? But no one does that! Anyway - easily shown to be wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...
UAH for 18 years
Now I know you can use woodfortrees.org so you must know this is also wrong: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
Hadcrut3 for 20 years
Wrong again! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...
RSS for 22 years
Now I am starting to see a trend.... WRONG! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...
You need to understand what statistically significant means. It doesn't mean no warming. It doesn't mean warming has slowed. If you fail to find statistical significance then you have failed to reject a hypothesis - you have not proven a hypothesis. If you wanted to show that the recent warming was significantly different from the previous trend then you would need to find that with statistical significance. Look at the three graphs here for an illustration: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
Does the recent trend fall outside of the error bars projected from the warming up to 2000 or is it bang on what you would have projected based on the warming up to 2000?
The last 17 years show warming: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Regardless, there is very rarely a time when you cannot find a value of x such that you can say "There has been no warming since x!" For instance, this year was a record hot year. Unless next year is another record year we will be able to say "There has been no warming since 2014!" So what? For the entire record you can find a value of x that satisfies the statement. Yet we have warmed over the entire period: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
You're not getting it. Since 2000 we have seen exactly the warming we would have expected if the warming from 1970-2000 had continued at the same pace: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
This is good for Canada which is concerned about the 'brain drain' and would welcome U.S. companies thinking of setting up shop in Canada to take advantage of the cheaper labour.
Over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate "skeptics" could have argued (and often did...) that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). - http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Not sure what is meant by 'dire', but warming is in line with expectations. Here is a quote from the IPCC TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario" That is exactly what we have seen.
Regarding fuel supplies, Saudi Arabia plans to pump everything they can while people are still interested in oil. They do not believe they will run out:
"Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil."
"in a world where a producer sees the end of its market on the horizon, then every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that will never be sold. Current Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi had this to say about production cuts in late December: "it is not in the interest of OPEC to cut their production whatever the price is," adding that even if prices fell to $20 "it is irrelevant." Implied, if not explicitly stated, is that Saudi Arabia wants its oil out of the ground, regardless of how thin its profit margin per barrel becomes." - http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...
2 C being a bare minimum
Here is a quote from the TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario"
So it looks like we are right in line with expectations. If you are concerned about accuracy (as you imply above) then you should quote a source or double check your statements before you post.
Look again! The trend since 2000 is exactly in line with the trend from 1970-2000! No change!
So funny. First you say the data shows no global warming. Then you are shown the data, and the data shows a clear continuation of the trend with no pause whatsoever. Suddenly, when it is clear that the data no longer confirms your preconceptions, you turn against the data and say that it is not trustworthy. Then you go on to talk about how preconceptions can result in biases - but you seem to have no self awareness whatsoever! Classic :)
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7C cooling through the middle to late Holocene ( 5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios. - http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
"These warmings may not sound like much until you realize that the warming since the last ice age — a warming that completely reconfigured the planet — was 9F-14F (5-8C). The upper limits of projected warming over the 21st century would therefore herald a literal remaking of the Earth’s environment and our place within it." - Andrew E. Dessler
Right - Warming from the last ice age peaked about 8000 years ago. Since then we have had a very gradual cooling trend - until about the last 100 years where we appear to be in a warming trend again.
The post notes:
While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña.
Curiously, last year was warmest even though the ENSO trend was neutral. Typically it would take an El Niño to nudge us up past the previous El Niño year, but not so last year. This means that the next El Niño will probably mean another record temperature.
in a world where a producer sees the end of its market on the horizon, then every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that will never be sold. Current Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi had this to say about production cuts in late December: "it is not in the interest of OPEC to cut their production whatever the price is," adding that even if prices fell to $20 "it is irrelevant." Implied, if not explicitly stated, is that Saudi Arabia wants its oil out of the ground, regardless of how thin its profit margin per barrel becomes. - http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...
In 2000, Sheikh Yamani, former oil minister of Saudi Arabia, gave an interview in which he said:
"Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil." - http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...
Regarding witch hunt by right wing politician: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
I never knew that hiring lawyers was such a crucial element of the scientific method.
I suppose it is only necessary to engage the lawyers if you are being libeled or if you and your family are the targets of death threats.
Regarding Fox News:
Alarmist much?
science being run by government officials and scientists alike with an enormous conflict of interest — can not be trusted either.
Oh lord. It always devolves into some conspiracy theory. Somehow skeptics Roy Spencer and Jon Christy must be in on it as well because they have a satellite temperature reconstruction that corroborates the land based temperature reconstructions: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
when it is cold in North America, well, that's a fluke. But when it is hot in Australia — that's evidence of Global Warming.
It's the trend(, stupid).