Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 Next
Comments 50101 to 50150:
-
John Hartz at 02:36 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
The controversy over the Met Office short-term climate forecasts is also reviewed and analyzed in two well-written articles posted on The Carbon Brief. They both provide insights not included in Dana’s excellent OP. Why the Met Office’s revised forecast still doesn’t show global warming has stopped by Roz Pidcock, The Carbon Brief, Jam 9, 2013 That Met Office media controversy in context by Ros Donald, The Carbon Brief, Jan 10, 2013 -
dana1981 at 02:32 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Clyde @31 and KR @59 - the link to Nuccitelli et al. (2012) in the Figure 3 caption is the free version. As I said, our OHC data comes from Levitus, which is NOAA. smerby - "facts" without context are useless, particularly in mainstream media articles where the general public does not have the expertise in the subject in question to interpret what those facts mean without the necessary context. Articles that simply say "no surface warming trend in 10 years" lack the context given in this post - for example that such 10-year periods are expected by climate models, that the planet would have cooled over those 10 years if not for the human GHG-caused warming, that 10 years is too short for a statistically significant trend, etc. etc. -
Kevin C at 01:51 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Thanks again. Yes, you are right, both Pinatubo and ENSO play a part in the 90's trend. Here's the 2-box+enso model output:
Red is the model, blue is GISTEMP. Data runs to the end of 2010.
I use this as a crude metric to determine what is unexplained in terms of climate. As you can see the model also shows the recent flattening, which comes from the ENSO term. The 40's deviations are partly explained by the SST adjustments which GISTEMP doesn't have. The late 30's deviation is still a mystery. The deviation right at the beginning is an equilibriation artefact.
-
SRJ at 01:29 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
# 57 KevinC Here is the same plot for HADCRUT4
I think that the significant 10 years trends in the nineties are related to the super El Nino of 1998 rather than the Pinatubo.
This plot, as well the one for HADCRUT3, shows that 10 year trend rarely are statistical significant.
-
LarryM at 01:13 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Oops...actually my comment #58 refers to the previous post by Kevin C, but really, the comment still stands as Kevin's animation does nicely address the 10-years comments raised here. -
Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Clyde - I would recommend as a resource Google Scholar (scholar.google.com), a search engine for papers, patents, etc. Searching there for "nuccitelli et al 2012" gives a link to an open PDF, which is not surprisingly found here. There are quite often openly accessible copies of otherwise paywalled or out of print papers available from the authors or other sources; checking "all versions" for a paper is often worthwhile. Read it, look at the references and sources for the data. Perhaps then your comments will be more relevant to the contents of the paper and the figures you have questioned. -
LarryM at 01:06 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Those arguing that a 10-year trend in surface temperature means anything, especially without considering the other influences on surface temperature from volcanic aerosols, the solar cycle, and El Nino/La Nina events, have completely missed the point of this post. Just as Kevin's animation shows that the warming trend over the past 16 years is the same as the previous 16 years after the other influences are removed, that conclusion also holds for the past 10 years. Readers should also be aware that it is a common denier tactic to cherry-pick time periods that are too short to say anything statistically meaningful about global warming, especially when the other short-term influences on climate are not considered. That tactic is nicely illustrated by The Escalator. -
Kevin C at 00:45 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Nice work SRJ. I'm matching that up against the 2-box model output: 92-02 is Pinatubo of course. 74-84 is a massive ENSO swing, so that's not unprecedented either. 64-74 is Mt Agung 55-65 is less well captured in the model but has an ENSO component. The two big swings around 1940 are interesting and probably related to the SST adjustments. The down swing is certainly the unadjusted transition from engine room temperature measurements to buckets in 1945, and should be corrected in HadCRUT4. The upswing is unaccounted for, although I have unpublished evidence (John Kennedy at Hadley has seen it) that suggests the bucket correction may be underestimated by about 1/3, which if correct would explain part of it. However even if I am right there is certainly a residual 1935-45 temperature anomaly which is not captured by any model I have seen. -
SRJ at 00:30 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
# 49 Yes it is possible to find 10 years periods in the temperature record with statistical significant trends. In the plot (click here for large version) below I show all 10 years (120 months) trends for the period 1900-2012 for HadCrut3. The confidence (95%) region is indicated as a bluish shaded area*. When this band is not including the zero line, the trend is statiscally significant.
*) Technical note:
I have corrected for autocorrelation by assuming it to be constant over the period using a correction factor nu = 3.4 for all trends.
I have not corrected for multiple comparisons.
-
Composer99 at 00:17 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Anyone coming in here and trying to argue about global warming on the basis of the surface temperature record has two "just the facts" to contend with. First is, as shown in Figure 2 and 3 of the OP: most (97-98%) of the action in global warming is not in surface temperatures. Second is, as noted by tobyjoyce, the ongoing radiative imabalance at top-of-atmosphere, such that energy out < energy in. Unless these are accounted for, anyone trying to claim "global warming has stopped" or has "stalled", or there's a "pause", or anything along that line has no case whatsoever. -
Kevin C at 00:17 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
CBDunkerson, BernardJ: Actually you can find such periods, for example by exploiting volcanoes. 1992-2002 using the large Pinatubo cooling at the start of the period is an example. There's another one 1974-1984, but they're pretty rare and usually depend on some known phenomena. Drawing conclusions from trends which include known uncorrected short term variations remains a meaningless exercise. Of course, you would expect 1 in 20 (40) to be significant by chance, so the problem with Smerby's argument stands even if we ignore the short term influences. This cartoon is a barometer of whether this point has been understood:
Finally, testing for statistical significance in the trend is the wrong test - this is an elementary statistical fallacy called the fallacy of null hypothesis rejection. You can't falsify 'ongoing warming' by checking for a trend significantly different from zero. All you can do is falsify 'no warming', which is exactly the opposite of the test Smerby wants to perform. To falsify 'ongoing warming' you have to check for a significant deviation from some predicted trend, having removed confounding factors.
Moderator Response: [RH] Tweaked image width (yes, I'm being anal about the page formatting again). -
vrooomie at 00:15 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby@23, 25,30, and 33: This strident assertion that all you want is "the indisputable facts" has been, extremely patiently I might add, explained again and again, to you and others. What you seem to want is a simple, sound-bite-y chunk of simplistic reporting: It's that type of simplistic reporting by the MSM that has led to such confusion and tripe, being passed along as "facts." Science doesn't work that way, and no amount of desperate hand-waving will change that. The fact is, indisputably and by numerous metrics (lines of evidence), global warming *overall* has NOT stopped, and that global ~surface~ warming has only slowed down to a statistically-insignificant margin, not "stopped." Warming on the globe has not, repeat, not stopped, and that is the point of many of your respondents. We'd ~all~ like this to be simple and I guarantee you, we earth scientists would love *nothing* better than the entire AGW theory to be disproven; at this point, there are no data that shows that has happened. Insisting you want a simple, factual, and at the same time, *wrong* conclusion shouted from the rooftops isn't going to help the critical mission, that being to spread awareness that this IS an issue we ~must~ address, NOW. -
DSL at 00:15 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
To add to CB's point, lillybutter, the surface temp record technically cannot falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It can only cast doubt on the model projections. In order to falsify the theory of AGW, one would have to show that the cooling efficiency of the Earth is not affected by an increase or decrease of one of a number of atmospheric gases (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.). That's not even remotely in question. With a very high level of confidence we can say that, no matter what the surface temp analysis says, it will be warmer with 300ppm CO2 than it will be with 100ppm CO2. What I'd like to see is an analysis of what global temp would be without the rise in CO2 and CH4. Oh, and the surface temp--esp. not just HadCRU4--is not the climate system, so rephrase the question to include OHC and global ice mass loss. -
DSL at 00:07 AM on 12 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby, to do so would be akin to reporting, in a mainstream news source, that "Solar Radiation Has Begun to Rise Sharply!" and not telling them that it's part of the 11-year solar cycle. Despite the decline in journalistic quality and ethics, people still view mainstream news sources as somewhat reliable. That means they have tremendous power to shape opinion, and opinion is often (but not always) the basis for action. If someone wants to know what the ten-year trend is, the information is readily available. Why does it need to presented in the mainstream news? It's not like the mainstream news is reporting the ten-year trend when it's positive. Why do you want them to report it when it's negative? The Met Office didn't even report the 15-year trend; Rose and Delingpole had to lie (that is fact, moderators) and make it appear that they did. So why do it? What's the purpose? You know the opinion of science: "climate is 30+ years." What, then, would be the reason for doing it--as I've asked you eighteen times now. I've also asked you what it means to you. I have this image of you standing with your arms folded and a petulant look on your face, saying, "I just want it that way!" -
Bernard J. at 23:23 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
CBDunkerson at #49. Frustratingly I've left the USB with my file containing the data at work, and I'm not about to redo the whole exercise, but from a causal perusal of my quick graph above I'd say that for the GISTemp data the answer is "No". If any year was going to emerge with an answer to the contrary I'm pretty sure that it would occur within the range of that graph. If a more accurate analysis confirms this, then Smerby will always be on statistical quicksand with his "we are now in a period where global surface temperatures have not warmed for the past 10 years", as we are always in a period where global surface temperatures have not warmed at the 95% confidence level for at least the past 10 years. The claim that there has been no recent warming is nothing more than a trick to close the curtains sufficiently that the signal is hidden in the noise. -
CBDunkerson at 22:35 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Are there any years in the entire global temp anomaly record (1880 - 2012) where it would not be true to say, 'There has been no statistically significant warming for the past 10 years.'? Seriously, it seems like a 'true', but almost completely meaningless statement. 'The grass in my yard has shown no statistically significant growth in the last 10 seconds. Clearly grass no longer grows!' How can denialbots get themselves worked up over such idiotic tripe? -
CBDunkerson at 22:21 PM on 11 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Doug, you are 'refuting' my claim that atmospheric CO2 levels would begin decreasing if we stopped using fossil fuels for electricity generation and automobiles with a citation of little wiggle room for some nations in the Kyoto protocol in order to avoid 2C warming... how is it not obvious that the two things are completely different? First, ceasing use of fossil fuels in electricity generation and automobiles worldwide would be a vastly greater reduction in emissions than anything called for by the Kyoto protocol. Second, I made no claim of avoiding 2C warming. Frankly, I believe that ship has sailed. I only said that getting fossil fuels out of electricity generation and cars would be sufficient for the atmospheric CO2 level to stop increasing and (very slowly) start to recover towards the previous natural level. Basically, at this point it seems inevitable that we are going to hit +2C. The only question is how far above that we are going to go and for how long. There is still time to limit the damage using realistic (i.e. not 'we must implement martial law, cease all use of technology, and return to a global agrarian society') solutions. -
mdenison at 22:11 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
The MET Office predicted temperatures in 2017 in the range 0.0.28 to 0.59 C above the average. Should 2017 have a strong El Nino like 1998 then the expected temperature is going to be at the top of the range; 0.59 C. The possibility of events like El Nino are why they provide a range. The top of the 2017 range is 0.19 C above the 1998 temperature. No one could possibly interpret that as a lack of surface warming. -
Bernard J. at 21:20 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Smerby and Lillybutter84 really do not grok the concepts of signal and noise. Perhaps something might click if they read this and consider this:
Or perhaps not...
-
Kevin C at 21:10 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
lillybutter84 at 17:08 PM on 11 January, 2013Oh the temperature records are unreliable? I didn't know that. Looking at the skepticalscience.com/trend.php calculator, it could be that the earth has been cooling since 1995, since that's the last time that the lower error bar on all temperature records is above freezing, even earlier for some. What are scientists doing to improve the reliability of temperature records?
This question arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of statistical uncertainty. The uncertainty in the trend is not dominated by uncertainty in the observations. The uncertainty in the global surface temperature is small compared to the uncertainty in the trend (although there is the issue of bias, but we can't go on to that until you have understood this first point). The vast bulk of the uncertainty in the trend arises from the fact that the underlying process isn't linear - it contains other signals apart from the trend, i.e. short term natural influences. If you go to the F&R version of the trend calculator here, which has those short term influences removed, you will see that even the old HadCRUT3 data shows a statistically significant trend on the 10 year period 2001-2011. -
ajki at 21:02 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
I'm not convinced that this article - though factual correct - will help to "resolve confusion". The problem here as I can see it is the strong(?) visual difference between the Dec 2011 and Dec 2012 graph and everywhere else both graphs are shown, while SkS shows in Fig. 1 just the Dec 2012 graph. Without a very detailed discussion about the datasets, the models, the statistical methods and whatnot used for both graphs a layman will be misguided in his interpretation by view - for sure. -
Kevin C at 20:33 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
lillybutter84 at 17:12 PM on 11 January, 2013At what point can we definitely say that anthropogenic global warming is disproven? 30, 50, 100 years?
I'll take the question as genuine, and give you the answer: The question is ill-posed. i.e. You're asking the wrong question. If we pose the question correctly, then the answer becomes obvious: Q: At what point does the surface temperature record falsify the consensus understanding of climate science? A: At the point where the consensus understanding of climate science can no longer explain the features of the temperature record to within the uncertainty bounds inherent in that understanding. If you watch the video you will see that the temperature record is very well explained by a linear trend, volcanic and solar terms and ENSO. You can get a similar result over the entire 130 year record using radiative forcing in a 2-box + ENSO model (~20 lines of code). There is currently no discrepancy which can't be explained by our current knowledge of the system. At the moment the issue is an illusion created by the media failing to explain the science and disinformation sources trying to obscure it. -
Kevin C at 20:17 PM on 11 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Oh, I see. MEI, PMOD, and the file tau_line.txt from the GISS modelforce site. There does seem to be some debate as to the scaling of the volcanic term to make a forcing - GISS and Isaac Held use the same sort of value (~-20), but the Potsdam value is rather smaller. I adopted the GISS scaling, because it gave the most conservative (lowest trend) result and because gives the best fit in the 2-box model. I'd like to look into the literature on this, but have not had time. -
tobyjoyce at 19:49 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
lillybutter84 #36, If "global warming ended 20 years ago" then how come 2010 was the warmest year ever in many records? You are not making much sense. Are you saying that the earth's TOA radiation has come into equilibrium with the input from that sun? That is the only circumstance that would lead to a stop in global warming. In the input is still > output, then where is the extra energy going? (Answer: Into the ocean, from which it will return). -
Philippe Chantreau at 19:30 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Here we are again with the BS. Smerby leads the charge. How many times were there 10 years periods during which temp flatlined in the record? Many, who cares? There were even some 10 years periods during which temp decreased. Once again, who cares? Right now we are in a La Nina dominated period with low solar activity yet we can't seem to get anywhere near the average temps of the 90s. Wonder why that is. Sheesh... -
Tristan at 19:12 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Rob @ 38 It's well past the confidence interval for the trend being positive, and suggests that the actual trend is between 0.066 and 0.268 C/dec with more central values being more likely. -
cynicus at 18:54 PM on 11 January 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Kevin C, thanks, but I wasn't entirely clear. I actually meant the solar, volcanic and ENSO forcings... I think I recognized the use of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) from NOAA (ESRL), but how about the others? -
shoyemore at 18:17 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby #33, How can global warming have stopped when well over half of the "Top 10" warmest ever years have occurred since 2000? 2010 was in the Top 2 warmest ever in all the records. It would be a big mistake to hang such sweeping conclusions on a weak statistical argument. And if "global warming has stopped", why are we wasting time before it inevitably starts again? -
Rob Honeycutt at 17:21 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Lilly... Your statements here are rather nonsensical. You're clearly confusing statistical confidence level (a measure of the reliability of the trend) with the reliability of surface station measurements. These are two completely different and unrelated issues. -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:20 PM on 11 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
louploup @ 21, as you point out, our biggest enemy is the size of our population. Unfortunately, I cannot think of an humane method of reducing our teeming numbers. A decent nuclear war would do it. So would a global pandemic that we had no defence against. Yellowstone exploding as a super volcano would winnow out the huddled masses. A well-aimed asteroid might do the trick. Trouble is, none of these fits my definition of 'humane'. If we don't wipe out a few billion of our fellow beings through civilised means (eg: war) , Nature will solve the problem in her own, remorseless way. I doubt either the losers, or the winners, will enjoy the process. -
Rob Honeycutt at 17:16 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Lilly... If you go back to 1993 you actually get a very strong confidence level. GISS Trend: 0.167 ±0.101 °C/decade (2σ) That's well past the 95% confidence level for the trend being 0.167C per decade. So, I have no idea what you're talking about. -
Rob Honeycutt at 17:13 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Lilly... That's not what I said. The implication of a low confidence interval is that the trend for only a 10 year period has a very low statistical chance of telling you what the underlying trend actually is. -
lillybutter84 at 17:12 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Correction, it's 1993 when all 4 dataset provider's lower error bars are above zero. 1995 is when 1 dataset provider's lower error bar is above zero. So it is possible that global warming ended 20 years ago, and the Met Office are predicting another 5 years of no warming, making 25 years of no warming at that point. At what point can we definitely say that anthropogenic global warming is disproven? 30, 50, 100 years? -
lillybutter84 at 17:08 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
@Rob Honeycutt. Oh the temperature records are unreliable? I didn't know that. Looking at the skepticalscience.com/trend.php calculator, it could be that the earth has been cooling since 1995, since that's the last time that the lower error bar on all temperature records is above freezing, even earlier for some. What are scientists doing to improve the reliability of temperature records? If they can't even measure surface temperatures correctly, how much reliance can we place on things which are way more complex to measure e.g. land ice volume? -
Philip Shehan at 17:06 PM on 11 January 2013The Y-Axis of Evil
Sorry about the sloppy typing and lack of proof reading before I hit the submit button. -
Philip Shehan at 17:04 PM on 11 January 2013The Y-Axis of Evil
Here is another payoff I managed to have an explanation with His Lordship. He appears to be a stickler for formality, but I have not informed him that the correct form of adress is Dr Shehan, or perhaps Shehan of Brunswick. Still waiting on a reply. Philip Shehan says: January 10, 2013 at 1:10 am Monckton of Brenchley says: January 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm Mr Shehan attributes to me a statement that I did not make. Some 40 per cent of the CO2 in the air is anthropogenic, not the 3 per cent that Mr Shehan attributes to me. Thank you for the reply. The only sense in which I attributed the 3% to you was in that I found that this sentence was confusing in that it seemed to suggest this and asked for a clarification: ‘Philip Shehan says: January 7, 2013 at 12:56 pm Monckton of Benchley says: “Today’s high CO2 levels – the 97% natural and the 3% human-released” This may lead people to conclude that human activities have added only 3% to atmospheric CO2. In the interests of clarity, Monckton should point out that the 97% natural contribution refers to CO2 being recycled through the biosphere, whereas the 3% is that added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels which has seen the CO2 concentration rise from 280 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution to 390 ppm today This is a rise of 39%.’ We are afte rall in agrement that the anthropogenic CO2 content is 40%. As the 97% vs 3% figure is frequently given, and I am sure many other than myself misinterpret this statement, can you explain to me what you understand is meant by it. Can you also suggest an expalnation the other difficulty I had with this: “I am also unclear about what time period the 3% covers. According to the following sources, the rise in atmospheric carbon was only 2.0 ppm in the decade 2000-2009, which is only a 0.52% rise over that period.” Thank you again and hoping you can help -
Philip Shehan at 16:42 PM on 11 January 2013The Y-Axis of Evil
Philippe Chantreau, Thank you for your advice. You are tright of course and I too recognised that WUWT is no place for reasoned debate, nor is the Andrew Bolt site (Australian reders will understand, but every now and then I can't resist the temptation to have a peek toand get sucked in. It can pay off in a way as shown by this post I have made there which refers to the comment by KR at 12:49 PM on 28 December, 2012 above. Of course I do not expect it to survive moderation: Philip Shehan says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. January 10, 2013 at 9:19 pm Fascinating. A poster is referring to a comment of mine which at the time of reading and typing this response has not appeared. I had read elsewhere that this person was in fact a moderator here who has posted under more than one name without disclosing their status. Quoting this source: “Now, I will note that I feel anonymity on the Web is a good thing. Sock-puppeting, however, is another story entirely – if a moderator on a site misrepresents himself/herself as a rather virulent poster or two (who seem oddly immune to moderation), that is not honest. I don’t care what a posters real name is, or where they work, their posts should make sense on their own. But if they are mixing roles as moderator of a site and an unrestrained sock-puppet poster of distorted information and insults, that’s just downright deceptive. And calls into question the site itself – if there’s deception in an aspect as important as moderation, what else is going on?” As no evidence was presented to support the assertion, I made no judgement. Now I have the evidence and I make the judgement. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:39 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby... There are some other facts that you should become familiar with. GISS Trend: -0.007 ±0.244 °C/decade (2σ) NOAA Trend: -0.044 ±0.223 °C/decade (2σ) HadCRU4 Trend: -0.048 ±0.219 °C/decade (2σ) If you look at each of these trends the confidence range (2σ) exceeds the trend by a very wide margin. What you're calling "no surface warming" is more likely to be noise in the data. -
smerby at 15:58 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
It would be nice to see a news source show a global temperature graph since the late 1800s and point out that although the overall trend is up, there have been 2 previous periods where surface global warming has stopped and we are now in a period where global surface temperatures have not warmed for the past 10 years. Thats all just the facts. -
DSL at 15:47 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby, how many people reading such a claim would assume that surface = system? Again, if you want to do something with your feet on solid ethical ground, make sure you think it through completely. I'll bet you a bottle of beer that such a claim would lead to the general public perception that global warming has stopped. And it would be flat dead wrong. See figure 3 in the article above. People would act on that belief, and the writer and publisher would share some of the responsibility. -
Clyde at 15:45 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Bob Loblaw - 9 As for figure 3's source - the caption says "From Nuccitelli et al (2012)". It looks exactly like figure 1 in my copy of that paper. Have you not read Nuccitelli et al (2012)? Perhaps you are commenting on something that you haven't actually read? I haven't read the paper. You have to pay to read it. I'm not into GW enough to pay to read something. Seeing it looks like your figure 1 perhaps you can tell me where you got your data? I'm wanting the source for for the ocean data. Is it from NASA, JPL, NOAA, etc ? Somebody used data from 1960 forward. I'm not saying it's wrong, just need to be able to say source "X" says Ocean Heat Content in 1960 was "Y" & has risen to "Z" in 2010. P.S. I forgot to ask how you are doing...How are you doing Bob? dana1981 - 12 As Bob @9 notes, Figure 3 in this post is Figure 1 in Nuccitelli et al., whose OHC data come from Levitus and land ocean atmosphere heating data come from Church (referenced in the paper, linked in the figure caption). Coincidentally, Levitus thought our paper was quite good (and Church was one of our co-authors). I'm wanting the source for for the ocean data. Is it from NASA, JPL, NOAA, etc? Somebody used data from 1960 forward. I'm not saying it's wrong, just need to be able to say source "X" says Ocean Heat Content in 1960 was "Y" & has risen to "Z" in 2010. Does Levitus or Church say where they got it from? -
smerby at 15:40 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Global surface temperature warming has stopped. The graphs show that. It would be nice to see that reported in the main stream media. -
DSL at 15:36 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
What does that graph tell you, smerby? Has global warming stopped? -
smerby at 15:35 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
I am looking at these multiple sources of global temperatures and they are not indicating warming. They are flat lining.
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width -
DSL at 15:28 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Of course, I'd be ok with it if I thought that opinion-makers like the Daily Mail would point out alongside that the other 95% of the thermal capacity of the Earth had not at all shown the same "hiatus" period, but what's the chance of that? Would they also point out that global ice mass loss had accelerated dduring the past ten years? If the fact has no meaning, and the overwhelming likelihood is that it will be misinterpreted, why make the choice to publish it? -
DSL at 15:24 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby, why would they do it? Again, what would be the point of saying that one surface temp analysis had flatlined over the past ten years? What would be the meaning? What does it mean to you? Do you find value in it in some way? Does it tell you something about climate? What do you think the mainstream public will think if they read such a headline? -
smerby at 15:21 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
Hello DSL I am talking about the trend for the past 10 years. It would be a breath of fresh air to see these true facts reported in the mainstream news. If a mainstream news agency came out and reported that global temperatures have flatlined over the past years, they would be telling the truth. There is nothing wrong with giving people indisputable facts. -
DSL at 15:01 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
smerby, it depends on the context in which you say it. If you are saying it publicly and in the context of trying to say that global warming has stopped, you're misrepresenting the science and misinforming the public on a serious issue. If you say it amongst a group of climate scientists, they'll say, "what's your point? Ten year trends are meaningless where climate is concerned." Note that the trend from 2000-2011 (Had4) is .102C per decade. That's hardly a flatline. It's about 24x the warming of the PETM event rate. The trend moved up just one year is slightly negative. What's the point? -
smerby at 14:51 PM on 11 January 2013Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming
The global surface temperature has flat lined over the past 10 years and if you don't believe me, look at the data for yourself. There is nothing wrong with reporting that the global surface temperature has flat lined for the past 10 years. -
louploup at 14:39 PM on 11 January 2013A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
Dunkerson--Unfortunately, I think Hutcheson is correct and your faith in technology is not well placed. Humans are likely in population overshoot for any reasonable lifestyle sustainable for more than another few decades. It's not just techno-baubles like the internet that rely on continued access to cheap fossil fuels (at least at the scale of billions of users), it's also essential for a significant portion of the global food supply. In addition to the links above, check out human appropriation of net primary productivity as well as energy return on investment (EROI) and peak phosphorus and see if you still think anything other than a major "power down" (see, e.g., Heinberg's book with that title) or collapse is anything short of "highly likely." IMO, the future in c. 2100 looks quite grim. I think the survivors will be better off the sooner the global economy collapses and we can start rebuilding from the local level up, which will be much more "eden-like" for those who make it through. I think abject terror of this likely future is what motivates the AGW deniers, even if they're not very conscious of it.
Prev 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 Next
