NOAA says global temps same as 1995

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

>An Inconvenient Truth?

More like "The Day After Tomorrow."

Both poor movies and complete works of fiction.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

This is true, but for a couple of things:
(1) It's certainly unexpected and unpredicted given the present dogma of AGW theory and CO2 content increasing;
(2) Since 1950 there have been 6 cooling episodes. 3 are associated with tropical volcanic eruptions (Agung 1963; El Chichon 1982; Pinatubo 1991), while the 1955 and 1973 events(double dip La Ninas) coincide with large amplitude La Nina˜ events (deviation < -1.5 standard deviations of the multivariate ENSO index of Wolter and Timlin [1998]). the last strong La Nina was in 1988-89.

That's the problem. The state of science cannot explain why this pause is happening. I've been saying that for years now. They still can't explain it. But I guess we should accept the predictions as gospel.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

I am still waiting for Kallend to enlighten us as to how the failure of climate models to predict the current pause of warming is proof of their efficacy.

[brenthutch 444]

Oh never mind I understand now. I am in the process of refinancing one of my rental properties. The bank is asking me about my income and I am telling them that in the last 10 years my income has gone up by 10%. Those fools are trying to run the numbers based on my last two years of income, which has gone down by about 10%.

[brenthutch 444]

London, 22 February: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) welcomes that Dr Rajenda Pachauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the reality of the post-1997 standstill in global average temperatures.

The GWPF has been highlighting the global warming standstill for many years against fervent denial by climate activists. Recently, Nasa’s James Hansen also recognised that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.

“Even though the scientific case for the standstill is secure, and well represented in peer-reviewed scientific literature, it will surely help the climate debate now that the IPCC chairman has confirmed its existence,” said Dr David Whitehouse, the GWPF’s science editor.

The post-1997 global annual average temperature standstill is one of the most important aspects of current climate science. Its recognition by the chair of the IPCC means there is now growing pressure that this empirical fact will receive full analysis in the forthcoming AR5 report.

The GWPF points out that Dr Pachauri’s assertion that it will take a temperature standstill of “30-40 years at least” to affect theories of man-made global warming is without a scientific basis. “The 17-year standstill already strains climate models, and if it continues for much longer it will demonstrate that the climate models on which the IPCC has based its assumptions are inadequate,” Dr Whitehouse said.

[kallend 2,138]

Quote

London, 22 February: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.

Unbiased, eh?

The foundation itself has rejected FoI requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions
"These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by...the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves...The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders.

No problem there, eh?

When the GWPF's website was launched in November 2009, a graph used in the logo graphic on each page of the website of '21st Century global mean temperatures' showed a slow decline over the selected period from 2001–2008. Hannah Devlin of The Times found an error for 2003 and noted that if the period from 2000–2009 had been chosen, then a rise in temperature would have been shown rather than a fall. Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century. The GWPF blamed a "small error by our graphic designer" for the mistake

What a bunch of clueless morons.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

I will defer to your expertise with regard to "clueless morons" as it is apparent you are an expert in the field. That said I will remind you of what the "climate experts" were saying just a few short years ago.

Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare. He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”

[kallend 2,138]

Why don't you just stop quoting from obviously biased denier sites that cherry pick ( and falsify) data, and you would look less biased yourself, Mr. Shill. You just post the same drivel over and over again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

"The idea that we will get less snow any type of natural phenomenon including volcanoes and earthquakes, is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”

Is that better?

[skiskyrock 0]

If you are trying to use the January anomaly data to prove that warming stopped 13 years ago, you should probably look at the actual data for the January anomaly, which shows the highest anomaly in the land only instrumental record (NCDC) for January (by a long shot) was in 2007. The highest in the combined land ocean was 2010. The monthly data are inherently noisier so if you want to make a point about the absence of global warming you'll need a longer time or a largerchange in anomaly using monthly data.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

The fact that he acknowledges a 17 year pause in global temperature, invalidates ALL of the IPCC models. Or does it? Break it down for us Professor Big Brain. Tell me how the failure of IPCC climate models to anticipate the lack of warming, validates their efficacy.

Making popcorn, this should be good.

Mind if I reply? The IPCC doesn't have models. They summarize the models used by other research groups. But you don't need sophisticated climate models to reproduce an apparent pause in the the warming signal. A linear trend plus random noise will do nicely.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080418070607/tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

[brenthutch 444]

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/GL-Er-Jan-2013.png

You mean like this?

[billvon 3,098]

>You mean like this?

Most excellent cherrypicking! Make sure you don't look at too much data, though; it ruins that nice straight line.

[kallend 2,138]

Why don't you just stop quoting from obviously biased denier sites that cherry pick ( and falsify) data, and you would look less biased yourself, Mr. Shill. You just post the same drivel over and over again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Just looking at the most recent and thus most germane data, with a nice round number like 2000, much better than say, 1986.

[billvon 3,098]

Now take a look at the data from 1940 to 1960. What would you conclude looking at just those years? Would it be an accurate measure of either the 1850-2013 trend or even the trend of the last 10 years?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Mind if I reply? The IPCC doesn't have models. They summarize the models used by other research groups.

Right. The IPCC is tasked with compiling the science and making policy recommendations. This puts legitimate question to where the science ends and politics begin. My personal opinion is that they have become adjuncts for each other in climate science.

Quote

But you don't need sophisticated climate models to reproduce an apparent pause in the the warming signal. A linear trend plus random noise will do nicely.

So in other words, the generally accepted scientific principle of, “We can’t see it, can’t find it, can’t detect and can’t quantify it but we predicted it and therefore we conclude that it’s a linear trend that is hidden by noise. Trust us – we’re the experts” is at play.

Seriously – explaining that something is there but we just can’t see it sounds like something James Randi would have a field day with. I understand that this is the case with just about every breakthrough in science. But with those things comes a plan – “Here’s how we plan on detecting the signal through the noise.” It’s how Higgs boson was discovered.

I think Apollo 16 was one of the greatest manned space missions ever for the advancement of science. It’s great success was due to what was, at the time, perceived as its great failure: it pretty much destroyed the existing theories about the volcanic origin of the Cayley Plains – bringing back large amounts of breccias. Science advances when predictions are proven wrong.

The predictions haven’t been proven wrong. But – they sure as hell haven’t been proven right. Nobody predicted this pause and even at realclimate it’s been a source of discussion and some consternation.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,098]

> “We can’t see it, can’t find it, can’t detect and can’t quantify it but we predicted it and
> therefore we conclude that it’s a linear trend that is hidden by noise. Trust us – we’re
> the experts” is at play.

I take it you do not "believe" in quantum mechanics, then?

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Now take a look at the data from 1940 to 1960. What would you conclude looking at just those years? Would it be an accurate measure of either the 1850-2013 trend or even the trend of the last 10 years?

The truth of the matter is that the climate has been warming since the end of the last ice age, with peaks and valley along the way. As skiskyrock points out any influence humans may or may not have is lost in background noise.

[billvon 3,098]

>The truth of the matter is that the climate has been warming since the end of the last
>ice age

And much faster since 1850 due to our emissions of CO2.

However I do think it's cool that you now think that you can have an overall increase with peaks and valleys along the way. Does this mean you'll abandon your cherrypicking of data to get the trend you want?

[brenthutch 444]

And much faster since 1850 due to our emissions of CO2.



----------------------------------

This is where you jump the shark.

[rushmc 23]

And much faster since 1850 due to our emissions of CO2.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

> “We can’t see it, can’t find it, can’t detect and can’t quantify it but we predicted it and
> therefore we conclude that it’s a linear trend that is hidden by noise. Trust us – we’re
> the experts” is at play.

I take it you do not "believe" in quantum mechanics, then?

Of course not. When I'm discussing things that we can't see, can't detect and can't quantify, it always makes sense to point to the most precisely measured phenomena in the universe. When there are trillions of measurements taken of something, that certainly is right along the lines of something that cannot be detected or measured or seen but rather "must be there."

If you'll excuse me, I've got to go measure the mass of the multiverses.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,098]

> When there are trillions of measurements taken of something, that certainly is right
> along the lines of something that cannot be detected or measured or seen but rather
>"must be there."

Agreed. I don't know about trillions, but the instrumental temperature record would certainly qualify in the billions at least.

Imagine how skeptical you'd be of climate change if there were theorem that said not only was it hard to measure temperature, it was impossible to record temperature and time simultaneously. "See? It is IMPOSSIBLE to get accurate measurements! Anyone who thinks that particle physics can return consistent results is crazy."

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

And much faster since 1850 due to our emissions of CO2.

Much faster than what?