Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5

Posted on 14 October 2012 by John Hartz

This is a sampling of the multitude of news articles and bolg posts about the many facets of climate change that were published and posted during the course of the past week. You are more than welcome to add links to articles and posts that you believe would be of interest to our SkS community in the comment thread of this post.

blue line



Calls for Action

Calls for Innovation


Central America

Civil Rights

GHG Emissions

European Union

Global Action

Global Threats



Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) 

North America Weather


Well Being

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 9:

  1. I see that David Rose has another dreadful piece of creative writing in the Mail this weekend. I am trying to track down the Ben Weller of that 'temperature graph' to discover what it is based upon as I smell a Monckton Manoeuvre here.
    0 0
  2. Lionel A - Well, to start with, the graph in that article is mislabeled. Using either the SkS Trend Calculator (1997.7) or WoodForTrees (1997.6, zero based decimal year) it's clear that the graph data from the Mail starts in September 1997, excluding cooler temperatures earlier in that year - while the Mail axis is (mis)labeled as if it were the start of 1997. And that displayed data has a rising trend, albeit small and rather noisy - the autocorrelation corrected (i.e., conservative in uncertainty) data shows: Trend: 0.071 ±0.166 °C/decade (2σ), a 2σ range of -0.095 to 0.237. While an upward trend, that's not enough data to exclude either the null hypothesis or the ~0.17 °C/decade long term trend given the variations. And whoever compiled that graph failed to show the statistics. Hmmm... So - this is an argument from insufficient, statistically insignificant data at the 2σ level. If you include enough data to exclude either 0.0 or 0.17 °C/decade (which using the Trend Calculator on HadCRUT4 is two more years of data to ~1995.6) that data indicates that the zero warming null hypothesis is false with a trend of: 0.142 ±0.139 °C/decade (2σ). So when looking at sufficient data to statistically call either warming or no warming? Warming. This is yet another 'skeptic' claim from insufficient data, with cherry-picked intervals, and absolutely no statistics - to put it bluntly, bullpucky.
    0 0
  3. Lionel A - I should also note another deceptive bit of graphing in that piece from the Mail; the labeling of single timepoints at the start and end of the graph with equal values. That is ridiculous given the variations in the data. I could choose points (from that graph) in mid-2000 and mid-2006 and show a difference of 0.7C, or late 1997 to mid-2007 and show a difference of -0.6C. None of these choices is statistically justifiable. On the other hand, looking at the trend of the entire set of data, even over this statistically insignificant period, you see a trend of 0.071 °C/decade. The very data the Mail graphed disproves their assertion - it is warming.
    0 0
  4. I'd like to point out that the UK Met office has almost immediately issued a thorough rebuttal of Rose's article, which clearly reveals how cynical has been his deception of the Daily Mail's readers.
    0 0
  5. KR @2; Your calculated trend of 0.071+/-0.166 C/decade is higher than the historical one stated (or at least implied) by Rose himself in the article; 0.75/13 = 0.057 C/decade. So Rose not only presents evidence for continued warming but also that the warming is accelerating - shame about his headline !
    0 0
  6. @KR#2 The HadCrut4 data in the SkS Trend Calculator as well as in the WoodForTrees link does not go any further than December 2010. Using the HadCrut4 monthly data from September 1997 to August 2012 I get (using the SkS Trend Calculator uncertainty calculation): +0.033 ± 0.145 °C/decade The range is clearly cherry-picked, it starts with the extraordinary 1998 El Nino. The range ends with the La Nina years 2008 and 2011. In this short period the influence of ENSO and the sun on the global temperature is clearly negative and one would expect the trend to be lower than the long term average. The trend for the last 30 years for the new HadCrut4 is +0.165 ± 0.051 °C/decade, so I would say your conclusion still stands when the data are extended to august 2012. It is absolute nonsense to state that 'Global Warming has stopped' based on such a short time-frame. When you just start 1 year later with the HadCrut4 data, from September 1998 to August 2012, the trend more than doubles: +0.078 ± 0.147 °C/decade Using the same 15 years interval from May 1992 to April 2007 HadCrut4 gives a trend of +0.287 ± 0.151 °C/decade. About 5 years ago the Mail On Sunday would probably have concluded that global warming was getting totally out of control. They should have a look at the SkS Escalator.
    0 0
  7. It's also of course important to remember that surface temperatures are a very small fraction of overall global warming, which Nuccitelli et al. (2012) shows has not slowed.
    0 0
  8. As for making claims using short time periods, we can only follow the sage advice of Roger Pielke himself (I think it's from Junior, not Senior), who thinks that even thirty years is not enough:
    "Thirty years is not an appropriate length of time for a climate analysis, much less finding causal factors like climate change," says Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
    (as quoted in USA Today)
    0 0
  9. Further to the Met Office's rebuttal (see #4 above) I'd just like to point out that Judith Curry has a problem with David Rose's piece too.
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us