Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Temperatures have been dropping since 2005, and are the coldest now in the last seventeen years. Game over for alarmists, based on their own rules.
11-11-03
LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.
To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.
Separating signal and noise in climate warming
h/t to Sundance
no warming 17 years, temperatures flat for 17 years, UAH climate scientist lucianne, no warming for 17 years graph, No global warming in 17 years, no global warming 17 years, puchari ipcc no warming for 17 years, real science on global climate change, real science shows no real global warming in 16 years, no warming over last 17 years
Ben Santer had a press release about the significance of a 17 year signal in the Troposphere. I think it’s time for Ben to punch a satellite.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
NOAA put forth a period of 15 years to determine the warming signal in 2008. Santer and company pushed it out to 17 years in 2011. Both failed to show statistically significant warming over the posited prediction periods. A real scientist would just say the hypothesis is falsified and start over again. A “climate scientist” merely moves the goal posts. Why not just make the period long enough so that you can be retired and gone by the time you are proved wrong?
But delaying the warming will only lead to super duper exponential warming in the future, when the missing heat rises from the ocean and we leave the solar min cycle.
By 2100, sea levels will rise 50 meters! We will all be suffocated by evil methane, with surface temps rising 100 C!! Super duper hurricanes, some even worse than Irene will ravage the US! We are all still doomed!!! Not confiscating all your money is not an option!
I’m 100% skeptical of AGW however if you add a trend line to that graph, the trend is upward.
Climate is of course linear rather than cyclical.
Not saying climate is linear, I’m saying your claim that the temperature hasn’t increased in 17 years is a weak one. You also picked RSS (for obvious reasons). If you pick any of the other temperature sets, there is a stronger upward trend in temps for all of them (from that date), including UAH. From 1995 UAH shows a particularly strong upward trend.
Like I said, I am not an AGW supporter at all and its clear that over the last 10-13 years the temperature has not increased (and may have declined slightly) but to make a claim it hasn’t increased in 17 years based on this is a very weak point to argue from.
What have you been smoking?
What have you been smoking? The data shows an UPWARD trend:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/trend
To claim that data shows no warming for 17 years is a total falsehood.
Oh, so you look at that graph and see “upward trend”? You must be like a world champion hair splitter.
Your “upward trend” is essentially 0.
There is supposed to be “dangerous warming” caused by CO2.
Your argument is essentially alarmist excuse making.
Eric, instead of looking at the graph you can do actual statistics; the 17-yr trend is 0.041 +/- 0.025 C/decade (1-sigma), which is positive at the 90% confidence level.
Yes David and Dave,
If you look at it in just the right way using a special statistic, it’s been warming.
What’s not been happing is dangerous warming.
Slap that graph against IPCC predictions and what it’s obvious that IPCC “Climate Scenarios” are wrong. You can’t seem to bring yourselves to admit that. Stop fooling yourselves, and especially stop trying to sell your bs to me and everyone else.
Linear regression isn’t a “special statistic.” It’s been around for about 200 years and is the standard method for calculating trends assumed to be linear.
Of course, the trend for the full dataset is more worrisome: UAH LT’s total trend is 0.14 +/- 0.02 C/decade. That’s a relatively high rate of warming no matter how you slice it.
If climate was linear, we would all be frozen or melted. Feel free to make whatever idiotic assumptions you want though.
Stop lying — I never said climate was linear. I said “for trends assumed to be linear.” Any quantity that changes can approximated by its linear trend over intervals that are short compared to its overall domain of change — it’s simply the first term in its Taylor series expansion. It’s a standard scientific technique, of course, and as usual you have to twist and intentionally misinterpret a statement in order to criticize it. Let’s call it the Goddard Way.
Your argument is idiotic. You claim 90% confidence, yet even the linear trend will be zero in a few months.
Your statistics are meaningless tripe. The planet hasn’t warmed over the last 17 years.
Appel, “Linear regression isn’t a “special statistic.” It’s been around for about 200 years and is the standard method for calculating trends assumed to be linear.”
Oh, so you’ve got plenty of precedent for being completely dishonest.
Any person who looks at that graph can see there’s been no “dangerous” warming for the time of the graph.
“Lies, damned lies and statistics”
Mark Twain
> Your argument is idiotic. You
> claim 90% confidence.
The 90% figure is a result of the calculation, and is the confidence level that the trend differs from zero.
> yet even the
> linear trend will be zero in a few months.
You’re assuming the answer. Let’s assume the monthly RSS LT anomaly stays at its February 2012 value of -0.121 C. Then the linear-trend-since-1995 would turn negative in Sept 2012.
> The planet hasn’t warmed over the
> last 17 years.
Clearly it has, since the ocean has warmed up strongly since then, sea ice overall has melted, glaciers overall have melted, and sea level has risen. Those things don’t happen without the planet warming. Clinging to the pause in surface temperatures is about all deniers have left.
By the way, the linear trend for UAH LT since 1995 is 0.12 +/- 0.05 C/decade (95% C.L.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/uah/from:1995/trend/plot/rss/from:1995/trend
For most of the last 8,000 temperatures have been falling, and sea level has been rising.
Are you suggesting that ice can only melt if the temperature is rising? You should try publishing that theory in an engineering journal.
> For most of the last 8,000 temperatures
> have been falling,
So you accept the proxy results?
> and sea level has been rising.
But at a far slower rate than today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
> Are you suggesting that ice can only melt
> if the temperature is rising?
I never said this — just another example of Goddard’s Way. Melting ice requires an net input of energy, such as a warming ocean.
That is nonsense. As long as the temperature is above freezing, ice melts. You can’t infer anything about warming or cooling based on the fact that “ice is melting”
> You can’t infer anything about
> warming or cooling based on the fact that
> “ice is melting”
You certainly can if the rate of melting is changing.
Define “dangerous.”
David Appell says:
March 11, 2012 at 2:51 am
Define “dangerous.”
A moron with a statistic.
The globe (which according to certain alarmists doesn’t include the NH or Europe) is colder now than it was on this date in 1995. It is, in fact, colder on average than any date in 1995. Does this mean that the globe (even though it doesn’t have a Northern Hemisphere or a Europe, obviously) has warmed because the (supposed) trend line is still up? Is a trend line a fact? Are measurements merely derived from trend lines?
To be clear – I am not a global warming advocate. Check my blog I am an outspoken critic.
I am simply pointing out that you cannot claim there has been no warming for 17 years. The fact is there was significant warming from the 1990s into the past decade.
Saying that global warming has stopped for 12-13 years is far more credible.
The fact that its cooler now than it was in 1995 (according to RSS- what about the other sets) is irrelevant. Look how much cooler it was in 2000 than 1998 yet the temperature went up and stayed up for several years after that. I tend to favor solar/cosmic ray arguments, so if I had to bet I’d say the next decade will show more cooling but we don’t know until the data comes in – and you can’t use a single months measurements to say global warming is over.
If people are going to give the skeptic community credibility – they better have solid arguments. Making fluffy statements makes people look like the “denier” characature promoted by Romm and Gore.
Is a trend line a fact?
If it’s colder at midnight tonight than it was at noon on January 1st, does that mean we will bypass summer?
The linear trend is down for six years, current temperatures are at the bottom, and the pattern is clearly cyclical.
You have been well trained by alarmists to play silly games.
Trained by alarmists? WTF man?
Dave, I think he means you are allowing the alarmists to frame the discussion for you. We all do to a degree ……
The positive trend you spoke of for the RSS…… slope = 0.00426825 per year.
I believe we can all agree that even though there is a positive trend, this equates to no warming in 17 years. ….. But, if the positive trend really bothers you, you can shorten it to 15 years and get a negative trend. You can then add, HadCrut3 to the databases which also shows no warming.
Dave’s website is skeptical about CAGW. He is just saying that the trend line for the last 17 years does not look negative. He is saying that you don’t want to go a bridge too far when making claims.
You are right on that climate is cyclic. Looks like the last warm cycle peaked in 1998.
> Looks like the last warm cycle peaked in 1998.
Measurements of ocean heat content clearly say otherwise:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
As does multivariate analysis that takes into account short-term factors:
“Global temperature evolution 1979–2010,”
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf 2011 Environ. Res. Lett. 6 044022
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/
and is the standard method for calculating trends assumed to be linear.”
Exactly Eric. Assumed to be linear. If this assumption is wrong, it rather negates the logic.
Dave, I totally understand what you are saying here and I also agree with you. Of course, I had a few statistics classes in my graduate career. The data says what it says. The problem comes from interpretation of said data and what policy implications result from the interpretation. Unfortunately, in the climate change debate, both sides suffer from pretty blatant theory-motivated reasoning and related bias.
1998 was an outlier year. The trend was not warming during the predicted time frame.
I have not checked the curve but I assume Dave has a point, but if this cooling continues if so just for a few month RSS will show a 17 year linear trend and so will UAH and so will HADCRUT3 , GISS will never do that, they will do magic to keep the upward curve.
Steven keep up the good work, you are a real pain for the alarmists!
Here is better question to ask. Is there a statistically significant warming trend for this period or not? Because if the trend line can flip warm/cool by just adding a small amount of extra data, that means you’re put a magnifying glass on noise and not a warm signal.
Precisely, Will.
I remember Phil Jones proudly declared a year ago that , with the addition of 2010 data, warming over the last decade had gone from “statistically insignificant” to “statistically significant”. (Or words to that effect).
He conveniently did not say that the only difference in 2010 was the El Nino.
And the torch was passed on to the Muppets Paster\Pastor!
And I suspect it’s probably flipped back to insignificant again. Has anyone checked? (Although I seem to recall at least one luke warmer who is a statistician has questioned how the reached that conclusion as Jones did not explain himself. Even the 2010 El Nino may not have made the trend significant, even for a short while.)
Phil Jones’ statement to the BBC was about warming since 1995. The current HadCRUT3 dataset has a linear trend, since (and including) January 1995, of 0.084 +/- 0.034 C/decade (95% C.L.). So that’s statistically significant warming. I’ve tried to recreate Jones’ conclusion about when it wasn’t statistically significant, but although I get nearly the same slope (0.11 C/decade vs his 0.12 C/decade), I find that it’s statistically significant when he said it wasn’t. But there may have been revisions in the data since then, or I’m not understanding what Jones meant.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html
These things really aren’t difficult to calculate for yourself if you know a little statistics.
It was a good try though Toshinmack, but everyone knows the dog ate it, or something.
David:
It does not raise about the errors inherent in the system used to acquire the data used to achieve the results.
In simple terms: It is all Bull Shit.
Climate follows a cyclical pattern and the “Long” term pattern is still cooling. In another 80K years we can expect some really nice warm climate. Just like that experienced during the HO.
> Climate follows a cyclical pattern and
> the “Long” term pattern is still cooling.
This is a completely unscientific statement. Climate only follows a cyclical pattern if there are cyclical factors forcing it. The anthropogenic GHG emissions aren’t cyclical, but, so far, approximately exponential, and they are strong enough (and expected to only get stronger) that they swamp any expected solar cycle or whatever imaginary cycle you seem to think is out there.
Meanwhile in the UK, the 2011/12 winter was nearly as warm as 1923, 1925, 1932 and 1935. Clearly this is not acceptable, so we are going to build more bird chompers and tax ourselves to oblivion.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/uk-weather-reportwinter-201112/#comment-616
I was going to put bird choppers up anyway! you know just in time for migratory season. I’m only trying to take them all out. stupid birds!! I hear I can make money out of it too??
Since the surface is 2-dimensional, it can’t hold any heat at all, and so it’s about the worst place to look for the signal of an energy imbalance — although naturally, that’s where people would start looking. A much, much better place to look is the oceans — which, of course, show strong warming.
“Using surface temperature as the best indicator of warming
has been questioned by Pielke [2,3], who says “Unlike temperature
at some specific depth in the ocean or height in the atmosphere,
where there is a time lag in its response to radiative forcing,
no time lags are associated with heat changes, since the actual
amount of heat present at any time is accounted for. Moreover,
because the surface temperature is a massless two-dimensional
global field while heat content involves mass, the use of surface
temperature as a monitor of climate change is not accurate for
evaluating heat storage changes”
– D.H. Douglass and R.S. Knox, Physics Letters A (2012)
The IPCC built it’s whole case on atmospheric temperature rise over 2 decades. Now that it has stopped, it’s apparently of no importance any more. And ocean warming has been nearly flat too since ARGO measurements began.
First, the IPCC doesn’t “build” any case — it simply tries to assess current climate and project future climate, and they say nothing about 2 C, though others in the climate community are using that as a goal to which to limit warming.
You (or someone) made the same comment about the Argo data a few days ago. It’s still wrong. Argo was complete as of year-end 2007, and from then until YE2011 the top 2000 m have warmed by about 2.5e22 J, or an average warming rate of 260 TW, or 0.73 W/m2.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
It’s easy to disprove a hypothesis if you make up your own data. But it’s not science.
First, the IPCC doesn’t “build” any case.
Yep you got that right, only morons would listen to them now!
David, it’s not a climate community, it’s a climate cabal.
Mr. Appell,
“The UNIPCC simply tries to assess current climate and project future climate” ……sigh……………..
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/12/closed-minds-at-the-ipcc/
And another Toshinmack falls from the tree.
Climate Science. A wonderful game of wheres waldo.
Mister, would you like to buy a pet rock?
Pielke is correct that OHC is the best indicator. Pielke has also said that the OHC estimates by the climate models waaaaay overestimated OHC growth (essentially flat over the past several years). Trenberth sent emails wailing about the missing OHC.
Here is a very recent link to Pielke about OHC that is quite interesting (and shows that your statement that OHC shows strong warming is quite wrong).
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/new-paper-ocean-heat-content-and-earths-radiation-imbalance-ii-relation-to-climate-shifts-by-douglass-and-knox-2012/
“Since 2002 the implied radiation imbalance is close to zero. The “pause” or “hiatus” in OHC on which this is based has been recognized numerous times in the recent literature, but its implications for the concept of “missing energy” and the theoretical predictions of radiation imbalance have almost never been brought out.”
Pielke Sr’s statement is based on the recent paper by Douglass and Knox in Phys Lett A, which only analyzes OHC for the top 700 m, not the top 2000 m. Data exists for both and they don’t justify in their paper why they pick one and not the other, and their result relies on this choice. Their analysis includes an upward geothermal flux of 87 mW/m2 but no possibility of a downward flux — but the NOAA data indicates strong warming in the top 2000 m, so to me that doesn’t seem to be a very good assumption. Does it to you? They discuss this a little in section 4.3, but seem (I can’t really tell) to not consider 0-2000 m OHC “because of the absence of data prior to 2005.” But absence of data does not mean an assumption of no downward flux is justified.
So from what I can tell there is a problem with this paper. (By all means, convince me otherwise.) Also, their claim of multiple climate shifts in recent decades has little support in the broader climate community, from what I can tell.
There is always a “problem with this paper” if it reaches the “wrong” conclusion. That’s how it works in the Alarmist mind.
But Toshinmack can’t really tell.
Maybe he should give up his day job of writing about things he doesn’t understand. But he’ll just flux it up, like he’s done before.
Do you have a criticism of the idea, or only irrelevant personal digs? Can you explain why they assumed no downward heat flux? Does that seem believable to you, especially when the data show that region to be warming strongly?
The linear trend of the last 17 yrs (204 months) of the RSS LT data is 0.041 +/- 0.050 C/decade, where the uncertainty is the 95% confidence level. So there has been no statistically significant warming or cooling over that time.
The warming is significant at the 90% C.L., though.
The last 10 yrs of the data, though, have been 0.14 C warmer than the previous 10 yrs. It’s absurd to talk about the end of warming in such a case.
For an encore, can you count for me the angels on the head of a pin?
Thermometers are a horrible way to determine the temperature. Only Hansen can determine the temperature.
It’s only at 100,000 feet where temperature matters, not where people live or even birds fly.
Thermometers are how you measure temperature; but trying to measure it on a 2-dimensional surface is a very limited view of an energy imbalance, which is what AGW really is. And, as Douglass and Pielke Sr write, it can’t hold any real heat anyway. (And they’re prominent contrarians.)
If you want to know if the air just above a pot of water on the stove is warming up, you’d stick a thermometer in the water and reason that, if the water is steadily warming, the air just above it is going to be warming too. Same principle.
Yep, I agree with you again Toshinmack, imbalance, which is what AGW really is.
Silly propagandist. Calculating a 10 year trend based on unreliable date to 1/25 of a degree is absurd. What is wrong with you? Have you no shame? As lefty coach Saul Alinsky said: “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying”.
“The last 10 yrs of the data, though, have been 0.14 C warmer than the previous 10 yrs. It’s absurd to talk about the end of warming in such a case.”
Really? What if the previous decade showed steep temp growth and the current decade was essentially flat or mildly down? The current decade would be warmer than the previous decade but the warming would have stopped. Climate is cyclic and this happens every time you get to the top of the cycle.
Seriously, when you relentlessly spout obvious propaganda it just demonstrates that you are a propagandist. Rather than read what you have to say, we will just mock you. Surprise us, show us that you are capable of diverging from the CAGW party line in some way.
Yeah, & at the 89.43% C.L. it’s . . . wait, what?
David,
Your analysis is idiotic. We are at the bottom of a dip now, and within a few months even your meaningless, minuscule linear trend will be zero.
You know what I see in that data? (And I can ‘do’ statistics) – Not much that is significant – mostly some noise – noise that is much higher than any trend. You could pick selected start and end points to show either cooling or warming.
To claim as a “fact” something from a trend who’s amplitude (and direction) can be varied by changing end points due to the noise involved is not science; it is politics. Politics to a spurious degree of precision.
The biggest problem and the smoking gun is the complete lack, and in fact the opposite, of trapping hot spots as the IPCC says. You can quibble all you want about the 2 meter temp, that will respond last to the PDO flip anyway, since the first thing that cools is the air above the boundary layer, and that is precisely what is going on. When you turn a thermostat down in your house, the air cools before the surfaces do. The crash of the mid trop temperatures is indicative that the cold pdo is taking over. Though I expect a 9-12 month el nino and a spike in global temps this winter relative to the last 2 the continued jagged downward trend and reversal in low level temps is here to stay until such time as the pdo reverses. Coming years will bring the return of the cold amo, and I have full confidence that the forecasted ideas that by 2030 we are back where we were via objective sat temps in 1978 will occur ( if not more , given the wild card of the sun)
However ignoring the major cooling in the mid trop is missing the 2 major points. 1 we broke 10 year amsu satellite records and 2) we broke them precisely where the IPCC said that the trapping warming will occur.
Again for the warmingistas, if you cant deal with the data, deal with this, a nice tidy piece showing why CO2 CAN NOT cause the warming you cherish so much
http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-‘-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Game set match
Very interesting link.
Except actual atmospheric measurements show that CO2 is, in fact, well-mixed:
http://is.gd/Sv86jh
The map at the co2 insanity link is rather enlightening.
On the other hand, that one 1995 paper is not a slam dunk, to put it mildly. Surely there must be a mountain of evidence confirming this key point by now…
Who says there isn’t a mountain of evidence? This is just the one paper I know about. And it references other papers that have also addressed the question. And there are measurements made every day on mountaintops (Mauna Loa is 3.4 km above sea level) and at sea level that show that CO2 is well-mixed. If there was a difference there it would be obvious.
David:
If the atmospheric CO2 was well mixed as you believe it would not vary as much each year. It would also not be necessary to take measurements on top of a mountain in the middle of the ocean or at high latitudes.
Your claim is a fantasy promoted by incompetent wannabe researchers.
Mauna Loa was chosen because of its isolation and because it’s above inversion layers, so that eliminates local effects. But it’s hardly the only place where CO2 is recorded — there are measuring stations all around the planet at various altitudes:
http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/catalogue.cgi
Joe Bastardi has a poor track record with such predictions:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-bastardi-failed-prediction.html
Look for yourself, arctic ice *is* making a comeback. The PDO is stlll negative and the AMO just turned negative. Looks like we will see a mild El Nino this summer. Joe B. knows what he’s talking about. There are uncertainties in his predictions as with any predictions but his overall analysis is spot-on.
-Frank
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/atm/pdo.php
Whatever happened to that Murray Salby paper on CO2? The podcast in August caused such a stir but I haven’t heard anything about an actual paper coming out.
Here’s the Meteorologist in me looking at the data in the link, Joe: Notice the season – Summer – July – exactly time for the Azores High Pressure System to blow across and down from England to blow the CO2 off the European continent from NW to SE. Similarly, a summer cold front just pushed the CO2 off the US East Coast, and also inland off the West Coast. A less intense, but similar situation occurs off Buenos Aires.
CO2 is heavier than Nitrogen and Oxygen, so when warmed, it captures more energy and mixes well with the atmosphere to rise to the 8KM level. The second half of the statement below the diagram (after “…but also…”), is just flat out wrong:
“NASA’s diagram thus not only proves CO2 isn’t a well mixed gas but also demonstrates that there is no link between regions of highest CO2 concentration and areas of highest human industrial emissions.”
and the first half misses some of the mark too, in that LOCALLY, CO2 is well mixed (otherwise it could not rise 5 miles into the atmosphere), but GLOBALLY it isn’t, as the article correctly says.
Use the information well, but as I pointed out here, a careful read is needed!
Tom
Just change the headline
“No Warming For 17 Years”
to
“No Warming* For 17 Years”
with the explanation: * significant at the 95% level
and add:
“February 2012 coldest month since 1995″
Actually UAH has the LT as the coldest globally only since May 2008:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
So does RSS:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
David Appell commented, “Eric, instead of looking at the graph you can do actual statistics; the 17-yr trend is 0.041 +/- 0.025 C/decade (1-sigma), which is positive at the 90% confidence level.”
.041 degC/decade translates to roughly .07 degC of warming for the 17 year period in question. If you do a back of the napkin calculation for the logarithimic increase in CO2 it is roughly a 13% towards a doubling of CO2 during the last 17 years which translate to about 0.416 degC of warming based on IPCC sensitivity assumptions. The IPCC models ensemble mean estimates warming for a CO2 increase from 360ppm to 393ppm (increase for the last 17 year) to be .4122 degC.
So where did the other .34 degC of warming go during the last 17 years? It should have been measured in the Troposphere by satellites.
It is a Travesty. The globe has conspired against reputable researchers to discredit them in their chosen field. Now all that is left is for them to slide back under the rock from which they appeared to promote the fairy tale of CAGW!
CO2 isn’t the only factor influencing climate — why are you acting like it is?
There are aerosols that cool, natural oceanic cycles that move heat around the system, a slightly weaker Sun, a decrease in water vapor….
For example:
“The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change,” S. Solomon, et al., Science 7/21/11
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/07/20/science.1206027.abstract
Also, the IPCC models don’t assume a climate sensitivity (S), they try to calculate it. And they get a range (of about 2 to 4.5 C). I agree with you that the CO2 change alone would imply a 1995-present temperature change of about 0.13*S for surface warming, but again, there are other factors at play, and in any case the result for S is only in the long-term.
@ David
as·sump·tion/əˈsəm(p)SHən/Noun:
1. A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: “they made certain assumptions about the market”.
S has already been historically adjusted downward on two occasions that I am aware of, meaning that the calculations were in error at least twice in the past. Until S is proven with support from several measurement sources, I consider it to be an assumption. There is no proof at the moment that the current S is correct (Stratospheric WV was incorrectly modeled for example) and therefore by the above definition S is an assumption until proven accurate.
My use of the word assumption may not be the best in your mind, but it is good enough to make my point in this forum. So what’s next, a critique on my punctuation choices?
According to global warming, what is the temp supposed to do after this lag/cooling?
Is it supposed to jump back up to where the trend was before?
…or just start fresh with a new trend?
….either way, invalidates global warming theory
Do you mean the average global surface temperature?
It will increase over time. It has to, as long as there is an energy imbalance. But no one really knows what its exact trend will be. There are a lot of factors besides the increasing greenhouse effect to consider, especially air pollution. In the long-term (several decades) it is expected to average about 2 -4 C (above pre-industrial levels) by the time CO2 levels double from pre-industrial levels.
“It {average global surface tempaerature} will increase over time. It has to, as long as there is an energy imbalance. But no one really knows what its exact trend will be.”
If no one knows, then why the multitude of catastrophic trend scenarios put forth from the ‘team’ over the last 20 years? Your above assertion is false.
Why not give up on chasing massaged climate data David? Focus on the real data here….always follow the money. Gleik’s big adventure into unethical sleuthdom inadvertenly demonstrated a very telling moment in the climate debate — Almost all of the money originates from the alarmist camp and returns a hundred-fold back to the same. Follow the money David. It doesn’t lie….
As a layman with a never used undergrad in math I have to say I am sympathetic to grumpy with good reason Dave’s view of the graph. I understand the analysis. But whenever I look at these high noise/signal ratio type climate graphs where a linear trend line can just be dropped anywhere, and it will claim squatters rights, I can never escape the deep, deep fear that I am really looking at a random walk. It is just my stubborn pattern seeking human brain lying to me, the idiot.
“Michael… it’s me. Have you heard the latest… no warming for 17 years?”
“Hi buddy… yeah well it would have been worse if I didn’t hide the decline.”
“So Michael, do you have any regrets for hiding the decline?”
“Buddy… I had to hide the decline otherwise today it would be even colder?”
“Come again, Michael?”
“Look, I’m not talking about this any more. Go ask Phil at the CRU. He’ll tell you about it.”
“Hello… Michael? Michael… are you there? Are you there?” (Damn… he hung up on me!)
90% is NOT significant for ANY valid statistical test for climate data where you should have thousands if not millions of data points. I think the man is an AGW troll sent to molest, because these postings are total killers for the warmistas, but let him be…
Bingo.
Also, there’s this:
http://www.xkcd.com/882/
I would have liked to have seen a trend line.
It would have made things easier on the readers.
Granted CO2 levels are going up and for the AGW hypothesis to hold water, there MUST be a temp trend upward. As other commentators have posted, the 17-year window will be expanded to insure professors cashing in on the govt bounty of AGW “research” will reach retirement first before they admit they have been riding the tax payer gravy train on a Lysenko group think consensus scam…
Seems like we need to define what the word “warming” means.
Is it warmer this year than last year? Warmer last year than the year before? Was last year the warmest year “on record” (meaning since 1979)? When was the warmest year on record?
Seems like we have to re-define the word “warming” if we want to say the earth is warming.
Furthermore to smarty pants. The ICSS data anlysis and graph you are discussing is many steps removed from linear analysis or regression analysis, which as you say has been around for a long time. The graphs were made by applying logarithmic equations to the raw (and contaminated) data. You can log any data set to compress or stretch out a graph to make your findings look more impressive on yer power point presentations. Gimme a break, you guys think you are the only ones who can read statistics and evaluate empirical research. Game over. Go back to sleep.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/plot/uah/from:1995/trend
w.
Don’t get me started.
I understand Roy Spencer and John Christie have detected what appears to be a warming drift in the satellite sensors, and are currently working on an adjustment to correct for it.
Will be interesting to see what that 17-year trend looks like after they release the updated version….
Expect howls of hypocritical outrage if it falls more in line with the RSS trend (:-
UAH and HadCRUT data show the same thing (although not quite 17 yrs). Time to use the AGW rules against them.
http://cosmoscon.com/2012/02/28/global-temperature-and-co2-update-march-2012/
Paraphrasing Dickens, its time to boil them in their own pudding!
!!!