Recent Comments

Prev  572  573  574  575  576  577  578  579  580  581  582  583  584  585  586  587  Next

Comments 28951 to 29000:

28951. KR at 01:54 AM on 18 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       topal - Yes, the data is real data, but it's so isolated and cherry-picked (small area SST, not global data or volume data) as to show nothing but noise, with deceptive and erroneous baselines, highlighting 'step changes' that he calls significant, but cover periods as short as 5-12 years (i.e., short term variations and not climate trends), etc. 

       The data is real. But Tisdale looks at leaves, and only those turned the way he likes, not the forest as a whole - making them useless for analyzing global changes. And worse yet he draws utterly unsupportable (and unphysical) conclusions from them. They are meaningless, and in fact deceptive, if your goal is discussing climate change. 

28952. Tom Dayton at 01:49 AM on 18 June 2015
       What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
       

       mwsmith12, temperatures are used for trend analysis by determining a temperature for each geographic grid square.  In a given square at a given time, sometimes the only temperature will be from a single buoy, sometimes from a single ship, sometimes from combinations of buoys and ships.  For that square, the temperature from one time to the next time would be biased if at time 1 the temperature was from a buoy and at time 2 from a ship, or vice versa, or any other different combinations of sources of the measurements varying across time.  Adjusting the buoy and ship measurements to remove their systematic difference, removes that bias.

28953. mwsmith12 at 01:31 AM on 18 June 2015
       What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
       

       Tom Dayton, I understand why trend and relative temperatures are what is important and that the effect on trend is te same regardless of which way the systematic difference is removed, but if they knew, hypothetically, that the buoy measurements are more accurate, would they still remove the systematic difference by adjusting the data that are more correct? Did they adjust the buoy data because they know it is wrong and, if so, how do they know it is wrong? But if they don't know it's wrong, and if they don't know which data are wrong, why remove the systematic difference at all?

28954. shoyemore at 01:18 AM on 18 June 2015
       Video: scientists simulate the climate of The Hobbit's Middle Earth
       

       When I was at University (Galway, West of Ireland) we used to get a kick out of finding Tolkien's names on old examination papers - apparently he often visited as an External Examiner in Old English during the 1940s and 1950s. That was when Lord of the Rings became a runaway success, late 1960s. I remember the Profesor of Geology had a theory that some of the topography of the edges Mordor was inspired by the barren Connemara mountains and bogs. I suppose the climate blows that one way, but at least visually ... ??

       

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Reduced image size.

28955. Yvan Dutil at 01:08 AM on 18 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       @Tristan Actually, the climatic system is chaotic. You do expect such jump from one attractor to another. However, this does not invalidate the law of thermodynamics.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Please take this to here. Read both tabs.

28956. Tom Dayton at 23:39 PM on 17 June 2015
       What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
       

       mwsmith12, the researchers' adjustments removed the systematic differences between ship-based measurements and buoy measurements.  The effect on the temperature trend over time is the same regardless of whether you change the buoy measurements to make them consistent with the ship measurements, or change the ship measurements to make them consistent with the buoy measurements.  That's because for the purpose of determining temperature trend, the absolute temperatures are irrelevant; only the relative temperatures matter.

28957. topal at 22:23 PM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       KR: "You know, it's really hard to tell exactly what Tisdale is arguing at any one time. He tends to write these spews of text and meaningless graphs going on and on for pages at a time..."

       Everybody can reproduce these graphs from readily avalable data series; the sources are clearly cited. Now tell us what's wrong with these graphs?

28958. CBDunkerson at 21:59 PM on 17 June 2015
       New research suggests global warming is accelerating
       

       bjchip: "Considering all the short-term factors identified by the scientific community that acted to slow the rate of global warming over the past two decades (volcanoes, ocean heat uptake, solar decreases, predominance of La Niñas, etc.) it is likely the temperature increase would have accelerated in comparison to the late 20th Century increases."

       Basically, if the surface warming trend has continued to rise at the same rate for the past ~50 years, but the various 'internal variability' factors listed in the quotation above have all been 'applying downward pressure' on the trend for the past ~17 years, then global warming (i.e. the enhanced greenhouse effect due to human greenhouse gas emissions) must have accelerated over that time period to counteract those other factors and keep the trend steady.

28959. mwsmith12 at 21:45 PM on 17 June 2015
       What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper
       

       Why did they decide that ship-based measurements are more accurate than buoy measurements? I assume the buoy system was thoroughly tested, but when the measurements were .12C colder than ship-based measurements, they chose to correct the buoy measurements. How did they decide that the buoys are wrong?

28960. bjchip at 18:21 PM on 17 June 2015
       New research suggests global warming is accelerating
       

       OK... the title says there is a suggestion of acceleration.  I've read through here and the Guardian link, and all I see is 

       "The end result is that the temperature trends over the past 17 or so years has continued to increase with no halt. In fact, it has increased at approximately the same rate as it had for the prior five decades."  

       Is there somewhere else that it says accelerating?  

       I think it is/will be doing just that, but I don't think I see it here.   I reserve the right to be wrong, but...  ? 

28961. One Planet Only Forever at 14:56 PM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       mancan18,

       I agree that a 30 year period is a more valid way of monitoring climate change. However, it is not necessary to compare a 30 year period with the previous 30 year period. The contrarians would have a field day with that. They would say we should wait for another 30 years of data to be sure. And 30 years from now they would say they are starting to be convinced but want to see another 30 years of data just to be sure.

       A better application of the 30-year principle would be to report the trend of the 30-year average. A new 30-year average value can be calculated when every new month of data is available. And the 30 year average of global average surface temperature has not leveled off or shifted to a hiatus. And the 30 year average of arctic sea ice has not recently 'recovered' either.

       Using the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator with the Moving Average value at 360 months shows a nice continuing to rise line. And the 30-year average is currently rising at about 0.17 C per decade.

       Of course I anticipate there would be criticisms from the usual suspects that this is just a trick to try to hide the decline. But it may help others better understand what is going on.

       The Decadal comparison (1981-1990; 1991-2000; 2001-2010) has also helped show that warming has continued but it still leads to a claim that we need to wait until 2020 to know if the hiatus was just another of the many temporary leveling off steps on the stair/escalator, then 2030 just to be more certain, then 2040 to really be sure ...

28962. Daniel Bailey at 09:17 AM on 17 June 2015
       Mars is warming
       

       A good discussion of Venus' greenhouse effect is here, by Chris Colose.

28963. mancan18 at 08:18 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       The comments that accompany this article just demonstrate the frustration with the AGW CC debate of contrarians versus advocates. There has been an esoteric distracting discussion about, is warming an escalator or a staircase when it is the trend line that is important, as KR@32 highlights with the Arctic Ice record. It is the signal in the noise that is important. Also, it is the 30 years that WMO uses to define a climate period that is important. Not some year to year and decadal length analysis. Not has it slowed down because some peak year is compared against some trough year during the past decade. It is the regression analysis over the last 30 years compared to the previous 30 years, comared to the previous 30 years before that, and so on and so on that is important. This is after all a discussion about climate, not about extreme weather events. There has been nothing that a contarian has said that changes the basic fundamental scientific tenet that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that CO2 is increasing and because it is there will be warming. Also, there are many lines of evidence that indicate that this basic scientific fact is in fact is true and is actually happening. So where is the surprise in this article. There should be warming and there is. What would be a surprise is that there is no longer warming and it is reversing as the contrarians are trying to argue. To imply that the planet will somehow cool down while greenhouse gases are increasing at the rates they are, is a bit like saying that the Earth will magically reverse the direction of it's orbital motion or direction of rotation at the behest of the hand of God. The only argument relevant is about how much warming will occur due to this and the predicted rise in greenhouse gases, and on the evidence so far over the last century, it would seem that Tindale got it about right.

28964. scaddenp at 07:27 AM on 17 June 2015
       Mars is warming
       

       Well Venus is hardly an "analog". It is often used as an example of a "runaway greenhouse effect" - positive feedback boiling oceans and then remaining too hot for condensing of any GH gases. Note that scientific opinion so far is that there is no chance of this happening here due to anthropomorphic activities.

28965. scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 17 June 2015
       Climate, Politics, and Religion
       

       If Christianity is just your tribe, the cross your totem, then you dont so much follow Jesus as just conform to the norms of your community. On the other hand, there are serious thinkers among evangelicals who place climate change within a wider context. eg Eugene Petersen, Peter Harris. For some of them, climate disasters are God's punishment for sin alright. But not sexual sin which seems to dominate conservative (as opposed to bibical) thinking; but the sin of greed and failing to care for the poor and vunerable - a very biblical theme.

28966. Tristan at 05:52 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       The 'mysterious step-change' is an idea JoNova has promoted before. The notion being that something strange happened in 1998. In her world, temperatures are slowly rising, but there was an inexplicable jump in temps at that point. And because 'we don't know what happened' then it means 'we need more research' and we shouldn't act until we know what caused this mysterious behaviour. In her mind, it's lucky for everyone that eminent scientists like Tisdale are on the case, trying to puzzle out this phenomenon.

28967. PhilippeChantreau at 05:40 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       KR, and team, talking about the Arctic sea ice excalator, has it been updated to 2012? As I recall, it was a record low, that went beyond the already exceptional 2007 but the sea ice graph shows 2007 as the lowest year.

28968. Xulonn at 04:55 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       As a former solar heating system designer and sales person, I am acutely aware of the difference between temperture and heat, heat transfer functions, and the relationship of "delta-t" (temperature differential) to the rate of heat transfer in liquid-based systems. So I understand oceanic heating pretty well for a non-scientist. 

       Because the oceans are so vast, and have such a high heat capacity, the slow increase in temperature is not easily seen as significant.  If you talk about zettajoules of heat added to the oceans every year, you will get a blank stare in response from most laypersons.  And the oceans are where most of the heat from AGW is going.  

       I believe that until climate and weather disruptions are so severe that no one can ignore them, we will still have many contrarians and deniers.  And then, it will likely be too late to prevent serious disruptions to human civilization. 

       The increasing impacts of the heat and temperature spike from each major El Niño event are likely to be obvious.  The currently developing - possibly very strong - El Niño, coupled with Pope Francis' soon to be released encyclical, will likely cause some very interesting reactions and flailings in the denialist community.  (This has already started.) 

       I am already getting angry and truly nasty replies to my e-mails from a couple of denialist friends here in my home in an expat comunity in the mountains of western Panama.  I have decided to no longer send them articles about current climate issues, because the conflicts are so contentions, that it would jeopardize the friendships. 

28969. gregcharles at 04:46 AM on 17 June 2015
       Climate, Politics, and Religion
       

       I'm blown away that the National Association of Evangelicals supports the basic science of climate change, and encourages action to counteract global warming. I would have thought evangelicals to be the most ideologically opposed to this. Well, good for them!

       The link in the references was broken when I tried it, but I found the PDF in various other places. For example: here

28970. dcpetterson at 04:23 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Wol, I think you're right, it's an argument that should be made. However, denialists are clever in their capacity to disunderstand fact.I've actually had this conversation with some deniers.

       Yes, water has a higher heat capacity than gas. That means it's a good heat sink, and can absorb all that nasty heat without causing problems. Heat is vanishing into the oceans, where it is hardly raising ocean temperatures at all. This is just more reason why we needn't do anything about global warming--all that heat is vanishing down the ocean hole.

       Believe it or not, that is the argument I've heard. Of course, you and I know that heating the oceans, even a little bit, is dangerous--it affects sea level, and chemical balance, and ocean currents, and changes zones where various ocean creatures can live, and changes precipitation, and on and on with dozens of dangerous consequences. The problem is that these are at least as hard to explain as the truth about (say) tropospheric temperatures, whereas it is very easy for deniers to just keep repeating how very little oceans have actually warmed up.

28971. dcpetterson at 03:53 AM on 17 June 2015
       Climate, Politics, and Religion
       

       I think an important element here is missing.

       Many of hte arguments presented here are just that--arguments. They are reasonable and rational and make a very good case. Yes, there is reason, but religious and conservative, to acknowledge and support both the science of climate change and what must be done to avoid catastrophe. Yes, anyone who thinks rationally about it must, of necessity, be convinced of the logic and reality we must deal with.

       However, opposition and climate denialism is not rational, or it would already have vanised long ago. It would, in fact, have never appeared. As has been pointed out many times, conservatives (and even religious people) were not so opposed to this even only a few years ago. MCCain, Reagan, Thatcher--nearly everyone, insisted we must act. We now have the Pope saying so, and I doubt he will change many many minds.

       The opposition to climate science is not rational, and it is not ideological, and it is not religious. It is partisan.

       Yes, as Yail Bloor III points out, it is led by powerful monied forces that support the status quo--ironically, those same forces stand to make fortunes by investing in new energy technologies. They only do not so invest, and the people they can con in to supporting them give their support, because of partisan power games. This has become a shibboleth of partisan purity, more than ideology or religion.

       No amount of reasoning or of pleas to moral imperatives will be persusasive. It will take a partisan icon to sudenly reverse course. It must be someone already in a position of power who has campaigned on a platform of science denialism, because anyone who claims to belong to the party that has embraced denialism but is not a denier will be drummed out. Political (as constrasted with ideological) conservatives have not had problems with sudden policy reversals in the last decade or so. It will take a political leader to simply start talking about how the job creators can made megabucks by making America (or whatever country) energy independent just to spite them durn foreigners--and a big corporation must lead the way so it isn't the gubbermint telling us what to do.

28972. Wol at 03:53 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Isn't it time to place ocean heat content at the forefront of public (as opposed to specialist) discussion?

       Most people are familiar with the fact that water has a much higher heat capacity than gases. Since the measurement and analysis of atmospheric temperature is so complex and in practice open to denialist arguments (false, but enabling doubt to be introduced), it seems to me that ocean temperatures would provide more "clout" in the media.

28973. WheelsOC at 03:39 AM on 17 June 2015
       Climate, Politics, and Religion
       

       I'm with Dr. Hayhoe regarding the religion angle to denialism here: it's being used as a convenient tissue to paper over the real objections which are entirely political in origin.

28974. dcpetterson at 02:22 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Yes, that one's excellent. And yes, denialists are now claiming there is yet another "recovery". They are claiming, in fact, that Arctic sea ice is back to where it was a decade ago, as if the last ten years didn't happen.

28975. KR at 02:18 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Nah, I think the Escalator graphic is clear enough - folks like Sean are just trying rhetorical nonsense in an attempt to discredit the graphics very clear communication. Because it is so very effective. 

       If you want an example with denial claims highlighed at each step, though, look at the Arctic Ice Escalator graphic:

       

28976. dcpetterson at 02:08 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Leto,

       I like your suggestion that the escalator gif can perhaps be improved by making each of the "skeptic" steps in turn cause the previous one(s) to vanish--perhaps accompanied by a tag at each new step that says, "See? No warming HERE!" while each recently-vanished one is labelled, "That earlier step wasn't lower!"

       
       The essence, of course, as this thread underlines, is that we're at record high temperatures, as part of a well-documented upward trend, despite denialist noise.

28977. KR at 01:55 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       dcpetterson - You know, it's really hard to tell exactly what Tisdale is arguing at any one time. He tends to write these spews of text and meaningless graphs going on and on for pages at a time...

       That said, he appears to feel that it is indeed warming (although I seem to recall him engaging in conspiracy theories about temperature adjustments and how much), but that it's entirely due to recent ENSO variations rather than any anthropogenic influences. Despite the fact that warming atmosphere and warming oceans make an ENSO-only cause thermodynamically impossible...

       You get similar arguments from the cycle enthusiasts (think astrology and cosmic influences, or just natural climate Mysterious Unknown Cycles/MUCs), all of whom acknowledge some degree of climate change but claim no human influence. Nicola Scafetta is a prime example of the former, Fred Singer among others has pushed the latter. All examples of the climate denial meme 'it's not us'. 

28978. Yail Bloor III at 01:48 AM on 17 June 2015
       Climate, Politics, and Religion
       

       It's fairly clear (to me) that much of the opposition to AGW stems from a toxic stew of financial self-interest, sociopathic political ideology, and a sectarian religious worldview. Many of the individuals that reject AGW without cause have been conditioned by a barrage of misinformation and outright propaganda emanating from shadowy ideological groups and certain nefarious individuals with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo. They are highly resistant to reason be caused they've been conned into thinking AGW is a money-racket, a spearhead for a leftist agenda or even a power grab from the UN. 25 years ago it was just science. Margaret Thatcher and George H.W. Bush were among those sounding the warning. No longer. I have to admit my skepticism...in human nature. The Heartland miasma hangs over our heads like the pall of smoke and methane smothering the Arctic. Will people wake up in time? I wonder.

       As far as using the Bible as a reason to reject AGW, they may need further study. (Whether you agree with my interpretation or not, it's thought provoking.) The "Great Tribulation" described in Revelation is a horrendous time where huge numbers of humans are dying of famine and concomitant pestilence and warfare. Food is scarce and too expensive for most to purchase. Since Jesus described the GT as a time that "unless it were cut short, no flesh would be saved," one could reasonably conjecture that it's the end result of the "clathrate gun" being fired. The promise that "those destroying the earth will be destroyed" in Rev. 11:18 lends weight to that thought. (The Greek word translated as "earth" in that verse is Gaia...aka Mother Earth.) When the destroyers of Gaia are destroyed, who are they turn out to be? The business class, the governments and false religion. The same ones doing the AGW denying? Didn't see that coming. (s)

28979. dcpetterson at 01:42 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       KR,

       Thanks for the correction and additional information. Was B. Tinsdale actually arguing that the Earth is warming (perhaps as an ENSO-caused natrual phenomenon unrelated to human activity), or that there are ENSO-caused sawtooth cycles that keep resetting the overall global temperature back to where it previously was?

28980. KR at 01:34 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       dcpetterson - "...no denialist has argued that the Earth is warming in steps..."

       Actually, that's not the case. B. Tisdale who frequently posts at WUWT often claims 'step changes' based upon ever-shrinking areas of Pacific sea surface temperatures. Neglecting ocean volume data and the rest of the sea surface, the effects of a warming atmosphere on ocean energy loss, and for that matter anything resembling statistical significance by claiming steps separated by as short as 5-10 years. 

       The trick there is he's claiming these steps are some kind acyclic variation of and by themselves, that ENSO is driving all of recent climate change (he participated for a while on SkS discussing this here, before leaving in a huff without answering any real questions), and that CO₂ changes have had no effect. In short, "it's not us".

       Sean, on the other hand, is just being disingenuous. 

28981. dcpetterson at 01:21 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Sean's rhetorical argument misuses three important details. I think these are important in a general sense for considering the techniques of denialism, even in the face of record-setting global temperatures (whcih is the toic of this thread).

       1) The difference between the denialist view and the staricase/escalator view is that denialists refuse to acknowledge one step is connected to the next. Each step is seen in isolation. Joe Romm et al would draw connecting lines from one step to the next. Denialists do not, and instead use each step as "proof" that nothing is happening (or even that the Earth is cooling). This matters in a general sense, as denialists argue in part by taking short-term data in isolation. 2) Sean is attempting to argue that denialists and Joe Romm actually agree on what's happening, i.e., that there are "steps". Yet, as has been pointed out, no denialist has argued that the Earth is warming in steps. This matters in a general sense as an example of dishonest argument; Sean is implying (though refsues to state, since it is so absurdly and obviously not true) that Joe Romm agrees with and supports the denialist argument.

       3) Sean is arguing about the analogy as a way to distract from the actuality. Analogies are a useful pedigogical tool in teaching complex concepts. Their danger is that all analogies have limits. Denialist can seize on the limits of any analogy, and use it to argue that the underlying concepts are themselves false. Ex: since the atmosphere isn't made of wool or any other woven fabric, carbon dioxide cannot really "act as a blanket". Same here; by engaging in argument about the escalator/staircase analogy, Sean is attempting to cast aspersions on the whole science of climatology.

       It's useful to be aware of the techniques being used, so as to not get caught in the content-free traps being set by denialists. Sean should simply be asked if he prefers to say the Earth's temperatures are rising in the form of a staircase or an escalator, or if he prefers to conentrate on the even longer-term trendlines that smooth the shrot noise into insignificance. In all cases, the overall trend is upward. Right, Sean?

28982. Leto at 00:57 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Like Tom, I don't for a moment think Sean is stupid enough to believe he has a substantive point... But there is a subtle issue with the combination of the graph and the wording. 'Skeptics' do not see the temperature trend as a series of similar steps. They see (or claim to see) all previous steps as unimportant noise on a ramp and the last step as the one true step that indicates waming has stopped.

       The graphic might be better to replace all previous steps with a ramp, and highlight the one true step (which is always the last step) as being somehow magically different to the previous ones. Or the previous steps could be labelled false steps with the final step being highlighted as the true step. The animation imples that 'skeptics' are willing to see a series of similar steps, when in fact they only want to talk about the last step.

28983. Stephen Baines at 00:01 AM on 17 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Tom,

       I agree, one should be able to understand the point without too much effort, especially if you actually read the associated text. And Sean should be able to make the point as a suggestion for improvement rather than as a point of confrontation.

       But, I'm not so sure that there isn't some original confusion that ended up with some doubling down when pride got in the way. I'm also not sure no one is that stupid...pride can make people pretty dumb.

       If we take the initial confusion at face value, I think there could be a subtle problem with the header to the animation, which states "How "skeptics" view global warming". That's confusing because a skeptic would not characterize the record up to each step in temperature as indicating global warming. It might be less confusing to say "How "skeptics" view the temperature record."

       It's a small thing, but being in the classroom all the time, I get to see first hand how subtle things like that can send people completely off into the blue. And once there, they don't want to fall to earth in a heap.

28984. One Planet Only Forever at 23:45 PM on 16 June 2015
       The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker
       

       KR, the back-and-forth between me and SkepticalinCanada is related to two of the 4 IPCC Reports, the Report on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabilities as well as the IPCC Report on Mitigation.

       However, the discussion has gone as far as I am taking it. This is my last attempt to convey the point that how humans fit into the robust diversity of life and how they treat each other is the key consideration, not a population number.
       - The more that humans live collectively in ways that can be a lasting part of the robust diversity of life the larger the number of humans who can live decently on this planet can be virtually forever.
       - The more that humans compete to be the ones who are able to live in ways that are not a lasting part of the robust diversity of life, the fewer humans can be living decently. There may be short bursts of perceptions of increased prosperity, but ultimately there would be a constantly reducing number and ultimately no future until there is a shift to living in ways that can be a lasting part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet.

28985. Tom Curtis at 23:41 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Stephen, the mistake is assuming Sean does not know that already.  He is clearly being disengenuous in order to make a vacuous rhetorical point.  Anybody who doubts that need only follow "The Escalator" link on the right sidebar, and from their to the first article, "Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1", posted 5th Nov, 2011 where they will read:

       "As Figure 1 shows, over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate "skeptics" could have argued (and often did, i.e. here and here and here) 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 (0.27°C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). And while the global warming trend spans many decades, the longest cooling trend over this period is 10 years, which proves that each was caused by short-term noise dampening the long-term trend.

       In short, those arguing that global warming has stopped are missing the forest for the trees, focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term global warming signal. Since the release of the BEST data which confirmed the global warming observed by all other global temperature measurements, climate "skeptics" have been scrambling for a way to continue denying that global warming is a problem, and focusing on the short-term noise has become their preferred go-to excuse."

        In other words, from the first introduction of the escalator, the point very clearly being made was that pseudo -skeptics focus on short term trends to argue that AGW has stopped (and ergo that the next "tread" of the global temperature series will be no higher than the one from which they draw their inference); whereas history shows that there are many such treads, each of which has been successively higher generationg a long term rising trend in temperature; and that ergo it is foolish to argue from the existence of the latest tread that AGW has stopped.

       This point has been explained very clearly to Sean, several times.  If he was at all honest in his rhetoric, his response to jgnfld @7 would have been to acknowledge his misunderstanding of the escalotor rhetoric, and to acknowledge further that properly understood he had no point.

       Instead he doubles down.

       Nobody is that stupid.  He is deliberately indulging in dishonest rhetoric.  Possibly he is doing that just to generate noise in the discussion, or because he gets a kick out of generating responses to ridiculous claims (ie, he is trolling), or maybe he just wants to get a rise.  Whatever his motivation, treating his comments as serious is a mistake.  He is making an absurd, empty point and the only thing he proves thereby is his dishonesty or his atonishing stupidity.  End of story.

       That has been duly noted and the only response he should now recieve is to be ignored until the moderators undertake the tedious task of cleaning up yet another denier vomitus utterings.

28986. Nick Palmer at 23:29 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Sean wrote 'Part of the time it is labelled "How Contrarians View Global Warming"'
       
       I find it hard to see why you don't understand that the phrase means that 'contrarians' see only the short term trends (blue lines) and not the long term trend (red line). By looking at short term trends which are influenced by things other than greenhouse gas forcing, 'contrarians' see one cooling/pause phase after another and proclaim these to the world as some sort of evidence of the invalidity of cliamte science. They do this by turning a blind eye to a long term trend, which is what the global warming signal shows up as.

28987. Sean OConnor at 23:27 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       No, the title of the graph is "The Escalator". Escalators don't just have 'flat periods'.

       It's clear from that title that the point of the graph is to deride contrarians for thinking that the temperature has gone up like an escalator. 
       
       If not, then I'd advise updating the animated gif so when it shows how realists view global warming it shows the flat periods and the steps up. In other words exactly how Joe Romm has described it: as a "staircase".

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] As has been pointed out to you by more than one commenter, you are completely missing,  or stubbornly refusing to acknowledge, what the Escalator graphic was desgined to illustrate. In any event this conversation has run its course. You have violated the SkS Comments Policy's prohibition of escessive repetition and your future posts on this topic will be summarily deleted. 

28988. Stephen Baines at 23:26 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Sean,

       You are misinterpreting the figure Sean and that is why you are talking past people.  This figure is not deriding contrarians for saying that temperatures have risen like an escalator.  We wish that climate contrarians would see the temperature graph as an esacalator.  That would be a step forward...or upward! Instead, we get repeated claims that climate has stopped warming in recent years, that climate is a flat runway, or a cycle that will return to some long term mean.  

       Th animation points out that these claims of stasis in global temps are just a form of cherry picking...if you pick a short enough interval, you can depict virtually the entire tempreature record as a series of pauses in warming.  Adopting this approach since the 70s would have lead you to the conclusion that the climate had "stopped warming" for 40 years!

       But of course that isn't the case, because each of these supposed flat periods are each higher than the next, forming an escalator or staircase. The repeated periods of stasis are a statistical artifact, a result of short-term natural variability in the climate system superimposed on the longer-term upward trend. 

       After this El Nino they will probably start doing it again, using 2015-2016 as a starting point for their trends showing no warming. 

28989. CBDunkerson at 23:12 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Sean, where you are going wrong is in the belief that, "Skeptical Science [is] deriding contrarians for saying the warming is an escalator".

       The 'escalator' terminology for that graph was created by SkS... not 'contrarians'. The derision comes in reference to their insistence on looking only at the 'flat' periods and not the overall trend.

28990. Sean OConnor at 22:48 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       > Who has derided anyone for saying warming is an escalator?

       Just go scroll up on this very page until you see the animated gif called "The Escalator"

       Part of the time it is labelled "How Contrarians View Global Warming".

       It could equally well be labelled "How Joe Romm Views Global Warming".

28991. Yail Bloor III at 22:42 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Sean, think of it this way: stairs consist of a rise and a run. Contrarians stubbornly focus on the "run" while ignoring the "rise." On a real set of stairs, a head injury is usually in the offing. Whether you use a "stairs" or "escalator" analogy is unimportant. Both inevitably step up and not down. In order to reduce the size of the rise on those steps, we need to reduce the amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere. There's no other way...as yet.

28992. jgnfld at 22:41 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Who has derided anyone for saying warming is an escalator?

       Q: How is warming like an escalator?

       A:  a. No matter what you do scampering around like a child, you generally get carried upwards.

            b. If you track the line of the stairs as they go by through a slit on the side they wiggle in a saw tooth way.

            c.  So long as the power stays on, you will continue to climb.

       Methinks you are strugging mightily to no particular purpose.

28993. Sean OConnor at 22:23 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       > either staircase or escalator is a reasonable analogy.
       
       OK, then why have an animated gif on the front page of Skeptical Science deriding contrarians for saying the warming is an escalator?
       
       Is it? Or isn't it?

28994. Yail Bloor III at 22:18 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Sean O'Connor, either staircase or escalator is a reasonable analogy. The reason "escalator" fits slightly better is that it illustrates very nicely that "Time's Arrow" is pushing us up those steps whether we like it or not. It's been 17 years since we've had a really powerful El Nino and this year looks like it's building to a record-breaking size. This year's "step up" may be twice (or more) the size of 1998. Time will tell. The hideous stripe of red stretching across the the Pacific to the Indian Ocean may signs that a fair amount of that so-called "hiatus" heat is being kicked out into our faces. IMHO, this year will convince a lot of genuinely skeptical folks that AGW is very real. The ideologues...probably not.

28995. bozzza at 21:46 PM on 16 June 2015
       Mars is warming
       

       @43,

        I would request a link to where Venus is used as an example of the greenhouse effect, thanx !!

28996. bozzza at 21:40 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       @6, consensus starts with nomenclature: you can't deal with logic like that!

28997. bozzza at 21:37 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       'I'll take,"What is statistical significance?", for $500, thanx mom'! (Who happens to be a maths teacher btw lol!!)

28998. Sean OConnor at 21:18 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       > where I a moderator I would delete your posts as off topic sloganeering
       
       That's a strange thing to say as I'm only pointing out that the final piece of text in the actual article itself seems to contradict how Skeptical Science has been telling us *NOT* to view rising temperatures as.

       Either you should view the rising temperature as a staircase/escalator or you shouldn't. I can't see how you can be of the point of view that climate scientsist can say it's a staircase but then berate contrarians for saying it's an escalator.

28999. Tom Curtis at 20:59 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Sean, where I a moderator I would delete your posts as off topic sloganeering, ie, for deliberate violation of two requirements of the comments policy.  As you well know, the pseudo-skeptics repeatedly argue during any interval of flat or negative short term trends that those flat or negative short term trends "show global warming has stopped" or "falsify the models".  They do not project continuing long term warming at the long term trend.  Rather they project it at the short term trend, or less.  The escalator comes about solely because every few years the lumpy progress results in a new record high temperature, and a new "pause" that "shows global warming has stopped" or "falsifies the models", at least according to those pseudo-skeptics.

       That contrasts sharply with Joe Romm who projects long term trends at or above the current levels but merely points out that the long term temperature evolution, while consistent with the long term trend, will show a series of flatter short term trends, each followed by a short term rapid rise in temperature.

       But, of course, as jgnfld has noted, you already know this.  You are in fact deliberately ignoring that which you know in order to make an empty rhetorical point (hence off topic and sloganeering).  That you resort to such underhanded tactics shows the bankruptcy of your intellectual position.

29000. michael sweet at 20:46 PM on 16 June 2015
       The latest global temperature data are breaking records
       

       Sean,

       The contrarians are not calling the increase a staircase.  They are claiming the temperature is going down by selecting short periods.  Either a staircase or an escalator is fine, as long as you acknowledge that you are always going up.

Prev  572  573  574  575  576  577  578  579  580  581  582  583  584  585  586  587  Next