If you can show me previously released code and procedures that shows why the temperatures for 1936 fluctuate up and down by as much as a degree from month to month, and I can run accurately back test it, then I will happily admit I was wrong, and that the NOAA has been open with their procedures all along, just that some implications of those procedures weren't made clear. I will also say "thank you" for clearing that little detail up for me. And what will you do if you discover I am correct? And what will you do when you admit I am correct about the temperature trends for the last 17 years?
Note I have been using 1997, BEFORE the El Nino warm year. And of course you wouldn't notice that because then you wouldn't be able to accuse me of cherry picking. See my point about 'flailing' above. I am genuinely curious though: did you notice that I used 1997, then decide to ignore it? Or did you honestly not notice at all?
Much of my effort here has been observing how you deny plain facts. The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause. You are denying the pause even exists.
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.
I hear you. I've heard of coal having a certain amount of radioactivity that is ignored when they do the accounting because it's "natural", but I can't recall the details.
One of my hopes is that people concerned with global warming can shift gears a little and focus on a) reducing real pollution like what you mention above and b) energy innovation. These are areas skeptics like myself can support. There's an ominous sounding quote from the article: "The findings will strengthen the case of those who argue that more coercive methods are needed if people’s energy consumption is to be reduced." The proposed top-down solutions reek of political agenda, and will only continue to inflame the "debate", which distracts from very real problems happening right now, whatever your views on the effects CO2 will have in a hundred years. The fact is, fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. If people weren't so determined to shove their point of views down others throats, maybe we could have a real conversation.
I'm not a big fan of the old designs, especially because there are better ones out there. But I see your point. I actually just finished reading the following from the site I found and posted above:
I can appreciate people see that as a risk for future and existing nuclear projects. But what you must do is compare the nuclear risks to those from other Energy generation schemes. When this comparison is made nuclear (by far) comes out as the least dangerous method for generating power.
A few examples: (please google them)
Banquiao dam disaster 1976. Another 1000 year event. This time resulting in dam failure. Officially 198,000 people died. But that is the Chinese government official figure. I have seen plausible accounts that well in excess of half a million died. Thousands of square kilometres were not only evacuated, they were laid waste.
If that's a bit too third world for you, how about the Vijont dam disaster in Italy in 1963. Resulting in 2000 dead and the obliteration of several small towns and villages.
So, as a result of the Banquaio and Vijont disasters, should we drain all our dams? Should we not build any more? You know - just in case? After all if the Hoover dam failed the death toll has been predicted to be in excess of 6 million.
Then how about the 13000 dying each year in USA alone from the respiratory failure brought on by emissions from coal powered generation? Or maybe the thousand or so dying each year in energiewende Germany from Biomass emissions?
One final piece. Jim Hansen recently produced a peer reviewed paper detailing (with statistical rigour) how many deaths had been prevented by nuclear replacing other generation techniques. The figure currently stands at about 1.8 million. Google "Hansen nuclear" you'll find a whole raft of comment on this paper as well as the paper itself.
I have found many people who believe in catastrophic man-made global warming are incredibly ignorant of what the science actually says.
It is difficult to find a critical voice among the global warming supporters (nobody wants to risk being ostracized as a denier I guess), so if you want to read anything remotely critical of global warming beliefs, you have to turn to the skeptics. (Who objected when James Hansen told everyone that the oceans would boil? Any exaggeration it seems, no matter how blatant, is condoned by pro-warmers.)
But when you read what the IPCC actually has to say about the issue, you get a different picture. I always see the pro-warminst sites trying their best to make these 'official reports' sound as gloomy as possible. On the other hand, check out Matt Ridley's interpretation. Or on video if you like.
Here'a an article critical of wind which reflects some of the criticisms I have heard. I have to wonder if people's support for wind power is just wishful thinking on a mass scale. People don't want their bubbles burst.
It's better than coal. Well, not the traditional designs. But there are some newer designs and potential innovations that look really interesting. It's unfortunate that peoples attitudes towards nuclear are holding back innovation. There are some fusion projects that look interesting that have none of the drawbacks that you cite, yet the research gets minimal support.
I'm looking here and I'm looking at my electricity bill that I share with my neighbor, and how many KW hours we use, and I don't see a small cost at all. It looks like a rather big cost would not work for us. Granted, that was a quick web search, but hey, I'm all ears.
Wind and solar doesn't come close to the energy density of nuclear. And no, I don't support old reactor designs. Did you contribute to the solar roadways project? It appears the wind tower sales pitch can be misleading. I'm sure there are other reports, these two just happened to catch my eye recently. Sorry to upset you.
See where I said "innovative"? Do you think I mean 40 year old reactor designs? Do you think I necessarily mean uranium? Do you think I necessarily mean fission? Since I don't support wind and solar, I am a stupid person who believes any lie told to me by some lobbyist? Pot meet kettle?
I'm more open to solar than I am to wind, but I'm not convinced solar has enough energy density, especially when all the other costs are considered. But hey, enlighten me. (Please don't post a link to solar roadways.)
Those are low energy density devices. They will never supply enough energy, and in some cases consume much more than they supply. Innovative nuclear is the only way forward, and sadly I don't see much support for it.
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.
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.
Do you even know what statistical significance means? The temperature is always fluctuating. Four hundredths of a single degree over a 10 year period is next to nothing, and is well within the margin of uncertainty. But your logic I could claim it has been cooling since 2001. The models predicted 2 tenths of a degree warming per decade.
The IPCC report says that AGW is repsonsible for 50%+ of warming since 1950, at 95% certainty. I don't know why Stocker is misrepresenting it, maybe you should ask him. Go read the report for yourself. It's easy to try to change history after predictions fail.
I don't think you know what "climate sensitivity" means. Without climate sensitivity the amount of radiative forcing per doubling of CO2 is about 1 degree. One single degree of warming over 150 years is not catastrophic. If that's all we have to worry about, then we have nothing to worry about.
As I have said, the world has been heating since the 1800's. The IPCC says that AGW is responsible for 50%+ of the most recent heating. This is what the mainstream climate science says. So do tell: what "mysterious force" is responsible for the other portion of heating, and for the majority of heating that has occurred since the little ice age?
The IPCC's claim that AGW is responsible for 50%+ of the most recent heating is based upon models which assume a high climate sensitivity. Take that sensitivity away and their estimate would have been far lower.
Since the IPCC models themselves predicted that there would be no plateaus in global warming for as long as 15-20 years (depending on who you talk to), it is not cherry picking to point out that it has not warmed in the last 17 years. You cannot simply dismiss 17 years of no warming as "noise". Climate scientists have not.
What do you propose caused the heating from ~1918 - 1945? What do you propose is responsible for the other portion of the recent temperature increase?
You keep saying "greenhouse effect" like it's a known quantity. It isn't. It depends entirely on climate sensitivity which varies wildly depending on which paper you read. I've even seen one paper which suggests a possible negative feedback, which would mean the earth's climate is relatively stable and will compensate in some way for the added CO2. On the other hand, I've seen estimates as high as 10 degrees. Does anybody seriously believe the climate will amplify every degree of CO2 heating by 10 times? (How many ordinary people are even aware that climate models assume 300% additional heating not directly attributed to CO2?) The wide range of climate sensitivity estimates should make it obvious that the greenhouse effect, as defined by climate modelers, is not hard science.
The "it must be CO2 because we can't think of anything else" argument is not very strong. Especially when the heat doesn't materialize. And how do they explain the lack of recent heating? "It must be 'natural variation' because we can't think of anything else". They want to have their cake and eat it too! How about "Our models were incorrect, and global warming may not be a threat after all." Unlikely. Nobody likes to admit when they're wrong. Try debating someone on Slashdot, for example. You will likely agree with me on that point, no? Luckily scientists are not as prone to human failings as either you or I.
1) The first was a poll which asked if the world was heating and if humans were having an effect of any significance. Ironically, most scientifically literate skeptics would answer 'yes' to both questions. That in itself should make one wonder whether it's a meaningful survey, since the scientific debate is very rarely about whether warming is happening or whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (But every group has its fringe elements, even skeptics.) Over 3000 scientists responded to the survey with 82% answering yes to both questions. The 97% number is based on a mere 77 of those ~3000 responses. While some have argued that those 77 scientists are the ones with the most expertise, the 97% number is widely used to convey an image of broad scientific consensus. In that case, the 82% number would much be much more representative of the views of the scientific community as a whole. Instead, the media and global warming supporters appear comfortable spreading misleading information. (As a Canadian lefty, I always thought this was something only the unscrupulous right wing would do.) In November, a survey by the AMS revealed that only 52% of Meteorologists believed humans were responsible for the majority of global warming. An earlier survey suggested 59% of Meteorologists believed humans caused global warming and only 30% were "very worried". Some other survey results regarding whether humans are contributing to global warming: Among earth scientists: 82%, ocean sciences: 91%, and geophysics: 88%. While these numbers indicate a generally high acceptance rate among scientists, they do not indicate the overwhelming consensus that we continually hear about.
2) The second source for the 97% number was complete trash and originates from the website skepticalscience.com. I would be happy to discuss it further if you like.
The theory that CO2 is the major driver of global warming is based on faulty climate models, which assume high climate sensitivity. So when you say you don't need to understand climate sensitivity to figure out that CO2 is the major temperature driver, you've got it backwards. High climate sensitivity forms the very basis for the theory that CO2 drives temperature. Without high climate sensitivity, CO2 has relatively little effect.
The earth has been heating since the Little Ice Age. What do you think is the primary driver for that? What was the primary driver for the heating between ~1915-1945, which was very similar to the most recent period of heating? If "natural variation" is responsible for the sudden 17 year "pause" in global warming, why is natural variation rejected as an explanation for the 1979-98 heating?
I don't care for your stove analogy because it leaves out a pretty major player when it comes to temperature. Maybe if you argued that CO2 was akin to putting a mesh lid on the pot it might be better. But we'd have to assume the water temperature had already reached equilibrium with the stove, right?
When you turn up the heat on your pot of water, does the water heat up instantaneously, even if the heat output from the stove stays constant thereafter? What do you think caused the warming starting from the 1800's until today? What changed? Do you think the earth would heat up all at once? How can we be so certain these "natural factors" which are responsible for most of the heating since the 1800's aren't continuing to drive temperatures?
The problem is that the theory that CO2 is a prime driver of climate change is based largely on climate models, which assume a high climate sensitivity. Likewise, they rely on computer models when they say that AGW is responsible for at least half the recent warming. Since the models have failed to predict the 17 year "plateau" in warming, and since recent sensitivity estimates are much lower, I think it's fair to reassess.
If climate sensitivity is low, then we have at least 80 years to switch energy sources (hopefully to some kind of innovative nuclear energy source) with no net negatives from global warming.
If I truly believed the planet was in big trouble from CO2, I would push hard for increased funding for a variety of small, independent, innovative nuclear research projects. I don't see that happening.
CO2 itself only causes 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2, which may happen in about 150 years. The additional warming is said to be due to earths hyper-sensitivity to CO2 warming. The models say the earth amplifies CO2 warming by 3-4 times.
I don't think you understand what the models are saying. The models say that for every degree of CO2 warming, climate sensitivity will amplify that warming by an additional 3-4 times. They are saying the earth is hyper-sensitive to CO2. There is no evidence for this and the latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower.
What this means: assuming we don't find another energy source in the next two hundred years and continue burning fossil fuels (unlikely), and that a doubling of co2 will occur every 150 years:
With high climate sensitivity: In 150 years temperatures increase by 3 or 4 degrees.
With low sensitivity: In 150 years temperatures increase by 1 degree.
With high climate sensitivity: In 300 years temperatures increase by 6 to 8 degrees.
With low sensitivity: In 300 years temperatures increase by 2 degrees.
Yeah, but we weren't talking about the proposed explanations for the "discrepancy". You were denying the "discrepancy", the 17 year "pause" in global warming, even existed.
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.
I've read it several times. Most of the article is about an explanation for the lack of surface warming proposed by Trenberth and Fasullo. It does not deny the lack of warming like you are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can show me previously released code and procedures that shows why the temperatures for 1936 fluctuate up and down by as much as a degree from month to month, and I can run accurately back test it, then I will happily admit I was wrong, and that the NOAA has been open with their procedures all along, just that some implications of those procedures weren't made clear. I will also say "thank you" for clearing that little detail up for me. And what will you do if you discover I am correct? And what will you do when you admit I am correct about the temperature trends for the last 17 years?
Note I have been using 1997, BEFORE the El Nino warm year. And of course you wouldn't notice that because then you wouldn't be able to accuse me of cherry picking. See my point about 'flailing' above. I am genuinely curious though: did you notice that I used 1997, then decide to ignore it? Or did you honestly not notice at all?
Much of my effort here has been observing how you deny plain facts. The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause. You are denying the pause even exists.
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.
I hear you. I've heard of coal having a certain amount of radioactivity that is ignored when they do the accounting because it's "natural", but I can't recall the details.
One of my hopes is that people concerned with global warming can shift gears a little and focus on a) reducing real pollution like what you mention above and b) energy innovation. These are areas skeptics like myself can support. There's an ominous sounding quote from the article: "The findings will strengthen the case of those who argue that more coercive methods are needed if people’s energy consumption is to be reduced." The proposed top-down solutions reek of political agenda, and will only continue to inflame the "debate", which distracts from very real problems happening right now, whatever your views on the effects CO2 will have in a hundred years. The fact is, fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. If people weren't so determined to shove their point of views down others throats, maybe we could have a real conversation.
@1 min 20 seconds
Shoot first, ask questions later, eh? Pretty shameless fear mongering if you ask me.
Thanks! I'll check it out.
I have found many people who believe in catastrophic man-made global warming are incredibly ignorant of what the science actually says.
It is difficult to find a critical voice among the global warming supporters (nobody wants to risk being ostracized as a denier I guess), so if you want to read anything remotely critical of global warming beliefs, you have to turn to the skeptics. (Who objected when James Hansen told everyone that the oceans would boil? Any exaggeration it seems, no matter how blatant, is condoned by pro-warmers.)
But when you read what the IPCC actually has to say about the issue, you get a different picture. I always see the pro-warminst sites trying their best to make these 'official reports' sound as gloomy as possible. On the other hand, check out Matt Ridley's interpretation. Or on video if you like.
Here'a an article critical of wind which reflects some of the criticisms I have heard. I have to wonder if people's support for wind power is just wishful thinking on a mass scale. People don't want their bubbles burst.
If you are looking for some support for wind power this is definitely NOT the place to be.
It's better than coal. Well, not the traditional designs. But there are some newer designs and potential innovations that look really interesting. It's unfortunate that peoples attitudes towards nuclear are holding back innovation. There are some fusion projects that look interesting that have none of the drawbacks that you cite, yet the research gets minimal support.
I'm looking here and I'm looking at my electricity bill that I share with my neighbor, and how many KW hours we use, and I don't see a small cost at all. It looks like a rather big cost would not work for us. Granted, that was a quick web search, but hey, I'm all ears.
Wind and solar doesn't come close to the energy density of nuclear. And no, I don't support old reactor designs. Did you contribute to the solar roadways project? It appears the wind tower sales pitch can be misleading. I'm sure there are other reports, these two just happened to catch my eye recently. Sorry to upset you.
See where I said "innovative"? Do you think I mean 40 year old reactor designs? Do you think I necessarily mean uranium? Do you think I necessarily mean fission? Since I don't support wind and solar, I am a stupid person who believes any lie told to me by some lobbyist? Pot meet kettle?
I'm more open to solar than I am to wind, but I'm not convinced solar has enough energy density, especially when all the other costs are considered. But hey, enlighten me. (Please don't post a link to solar roadways.)
Those are low energy density devices. They will never supply enough energy, and in some cases consume much more than they supply. Innovative nuclear is the only way forward, and sadly I don't see much support for it.
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.
Do you even know what statistical significance means? The temperature is always fluctuating. Four hundredths of a single degree over a 10 year period is next to nothing, and is well within the margin of uncertainty. But your logic I could claim it has been cooling since 2001. The models predicted 2 tenths of a degree warming per decade.
The IPCC report says that AGW is repsonsible for 50%+ of warming since 1950, at 95% certainty. I don't know why Stocker is misrepresenting it, maybe you should ask him. Go read the report for yourself. It's easy to try to change history after predictions fail.
Have fun looking for that code.
What other evidence shows that 97% of the scientific community believes the earth is likely to warm to dangerous levels because of CO2?
I don't think you know what "climate sensitivity" means. Without climate sensitivity the amount of radiative forcing per doubling of CO2 is about 1 degree. One single degree of warming over 150 years is not catastrophic. If that's all we have to worry about, then we have nothing to worry about.
As I have said, the world has been heating since the 1800's. The IPCC says that AGW is responsible for 50%+ of the most recent heating. This is what the mainstream climate science says. So do tell: what "mysterious force" is responsible for the other portion of heating, and for the majority of heating that has occurred since the little ice age?
The IPCC's claim that AGW is responsible for 50%+ of the most recent heating is based upon models which assume a high climate sensitivity. Take that sensitivity away and their estimate would have been far lower.
Since the IPCC models themselves predicted that there would be no plateaus in global warming for as long as 15-20 years (depending on who you talk to), it is not cherry picking to point out that it has not warmed in the last 17 years. You cannot simply dismiss 17 years of no warming as "noise". Climate scientists have not.
What do you propose caused the heating from ~1918 - 1945? What do you propose is responsible for the other portion of the recent temperature increase?
You keep saying "greenhouse effect" like it's a known quantity. It isn't. It depends entirely on climate sensitivity which varies wildly depending on which paper you read. I've even seen one paper which suggests a possible negative feedback, which would mean the earth's climate is relatively stable and will compensate in some way for the added CO2. On the other hand, I've seen estimates as high as 10 degrees. Does anybody seriously believe the climate will amplify every degree of CO2 heating by 10 times? (How many ordinary people are even aware that climate models assume 300% additional heating not directly attributed to CO2?) The wide range of climate sensitivity estimates should make it obvious that the greenhouse effect, as defined by climate modelers, is not hard science.
The "it must be CO2 because we can't think of anything else" argument is not very strong. Especially when the heat doesn't materialize. And how do they explain the lack of recent heating? "It must be 'natural variation' because we can't think of anything else". They want to have their cake and eat it too! How about "Our models were incorrect, and global warming may not be a threat after all." Unlikely. Nobody likes to admit when they're wrong. Try debating someone on Slashdot, for example. You will likely agree with me on that point, no? Luckily scientists are not as prone to human failings as either you or I.
The 97% number comes from two sources:
1) The first was a poll which asked if the world was heating and if humans were having an effect of any significance. Ironically, most scientifically literate skeptics would answer 'yes' to both questions. That in itself should make one wonder whether it's a meaningful survey, since the scientific debate is very rarely about whether warming is happening or whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (But every group has its fringe elements, even skeptics.) Over 3000 scientists responded to the survey with 82% answering yes to both questions. The 97% number is based on a mere 77 of those ~3000 responses. While some have argued that those 77 scientists are the ones with the most expertise, the 97% number is widely used to convey an image of broad scientific consensus. In that case, the 82% number would much be much more representative of the views of the scientific community as a whole. Instead, the media and global warming supporters appear comfortable spreading misleading information. (As a Canadian lefty, I always thought this was something only the unscrupulous right wing would do.) In November, a survey by the AMS revealed that only 52% of Meteorologists believed humans were responsible for the majority of global warming. An earlier survey suggested 59% of Meteorologists believed humans caused global warming and only 30% were "very worried". Some other survey results regarding whether humans are contributing to global warming: Among earth scientists: 82%, ocean sciences: 91%, and geophysics: 88%. While these numbers indicate a generally high acceptance rate among scientists, they do not indicate the overwhelming consensus that we continually hear about.
2) The second source for the 97% number was complete trash and originates from the website skepticalscience.com. I would be happy to discuss it further if you like.
The theory that CO2 is the major driver of global warming is based on faulty climate models, which assume high climate sensitivity. So when you say you don't need to understand climate sensitivity to figure out that CO2 is the major temperature driver, you've got it backwards. High climate sensitivity forms the very basis for the theory that CO2 drives temperature. Without high climate sensitivity, CO2 has relatively little effect.
The earth has been heating since the Little Ice Age. What do you think is the primary driver for that? What was the primary driver for the heating between ~1915-1945, which was very similar to the most recent period of heating? If "natural variation" is responsible for the sudden 17 year "pause" in global warming, why is natural variation rejected as an explanation for the 1979-98 heating?
I don't care for your stove analogy because it leaves out a pretty major player when it comes to temperature. Maybe if you argued that CO2 was akin to putting a mesh lid on the pot it might be better. But we'd have to assume the water temperature had already reached equilibrium with the stove, right?
When you turn up the heat on your pot of water, does the water heat up instantaneously, even if the heat output from the stove stays constant thereafter? What do you think caused the warming starting from the 1800's until today? What changed? Do you think the earth would heat up all at once? How can we be so certain these "natural factors" which are responsible for most of the heating since the 1800's aren't continuing to drive temperatures?
The problem is that the theory that CO2 is a prime driver of climate change is based largely on climate models, which assume a high climate sensitivity. Likewise, they rely on computer models when they say that AGW is responsible for at least half the recent warming. Since the models have failed to predict the 17 year "plateau" in warming, and since recent sensitivity estimates are much lower, I think it's fair to reassess.
If climate sensitivity is low, then we have at least 80 years to switch energy sources (hopefully to some kind of innovative nuclear energy source) with no net negatives from global warming.
If I truly believed the planet was in big trouble from CO2, I would push hard for increased funding for a variety of small, independent, innovative nuclear research projects. I don't see that happening.
CO2 itself only causes 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2, which may happen in about 150 years. The additional warming is said to be due to earths hyper-sensitivity to CO2 warming. The models say the earth amplifies CO2 warming by 3-4 times.
I don't think you understand what the models are saying. The models say that for every degree of CO2 warming, climate sensitivity will amplify that warming by an additional 3-4 times. They are saying the earth is hyper-sensitive to CO2. There is no evidence for this and the latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower.
What this means: assuming we don't find another energy source in the next two hundred years and continue burning fossil fuels (unlikely), and that a doubling of co2 will occur every 150 years:
With high climate sensitivity: In 150 years temperatures increase by 3 or 4 degrees.
With low sensitivity: In 150 years temperatures increase by 1 degree.
With high climate sensitivity: In 300 years temperatures increase by 6 to 8 degrees.
With low sensitivity: In 300 years temperatures increase by 2 degrees.
Yeah, but we weren't talking about the proposed explanations for the "discrepancy". You were denying the "discrepancy", the 17 year "pause" in global warming, even existed.
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.
I've read it several times. Most of the article is about an explanation for the lack of surface warming proposed by Trenberth and Fasullo. It does not deny the lack of warming like you are doing.