New data suggests no warming in last 15years

MiNdGaM3

weisses wrote: »

also same study

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

Yeh, it balances out the lower altitude Asian loss. But globally the ice losses are still quite impressive.

Yahew wrote: »

Not a very good satire. It seems to pick arbitrary dates, and lengths to prove the straw man case it is making. The last trend graph shows warming over 35 years, which can hardly be denied. "Sceptics", ( or people like me with scientific questions on recent trends) are also free to wonder about the last 10 years, or the last 15. Which is clearly not trending higher. Nor is picking the last 15 years in any way a statistical fraud, it is the most relevant for us.

You can use large trend lines to hide recent drop offs in Irish personal income, gap per capita etc, if you like, by starting at 1973. The trend line will smooth over the bust from 2006, we are much richer than we were in 1973 so the trend is up.

But the economy also stopped growing in 2006.

The last ( red) trend line would indicate to the statistically naive both that we are continuing to get hotter, and thet there's been a rise in the last 10 years, just as a trend line for Irish income from 1973-2011 would show a rising trend; however this is false in both cases. Income, and the Earth's temperature are standing still.

On a climatological scale, we are still getting warmer, 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record globally.
We all know (at least I think we do) that 1998 had a big boost from the big El Nino that year and the year before, and it was coming towards the end of the +ve PDO phase. Since then the PDO has switched to its negative phase and La Ninas have been dominant, with El Nino events being short and week. Top that off with the fact that we've just passed through the longest solar minimum in nearly a century.
Yet we only manage to a slight levelling off in global temperatures if we compare to '98, and '98 alone...

Yahew

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Yeh, it balances out the lower altitude Asian loss. But globally the ice losses are still quite impressive.



On a climatological scale, we are still getting warmer, 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record globally.

Thats the exact use of statistics which makes me doubt the mathematical bone fides of some "warmists". I never said that the last decade was not the warmest just that it didn't continue to trend warmer. I bet the last decade was the best in terms of GDP per capita for Irish people too, 2001-2011 might well be the top 10 in terms of Irish GDP per capita - see what I did there?

We all know (at least I think we do) that 1998 had a big boost from the big El Nino that year and the year before, and it was coming towards the end of the +ve PDO phase. Since then the PDO has switched to its negative phase and La Ninas have been dominant, with El Nino events being short and week. Top that off with the fact that we've just passed through the longest solar minimum in nearly a century.
Yet we only manage to a slight levelling off in global temperatures if we compare to '98, and '98 alone...

Not quite just 1998. The trend line is down from 2001, and slightly up from 15 years ago. Anyway it could well be that the PDO being slighty -ve is an issue, but then the a vigourous PDO being +ve in the 80's to 90's was partly the cause of warming, and I never heard ( or hear) that mentioned. There are sceptics - like Bastardi - who thinks it is all a confluence of +PDO and the Atlantic decadal oscillation the name of which I forget.

I cant say. I can say there was warming, human input is likely, but now there is a stagnation. The important point is the models did not predict the reality, and it is best to ignore models and not reality, than the other way.

MiNdGaM3

Yahew wrote: »

Thats the exact use of statistics which makes me doubt the mathematical bone fides of some "warmists". I never said that the last decade was not the warmest just that it didn't continue to trend warmer. I bet the last decade was the best in terms of GDP per capita for Irish people too, 2001-2011 might well be the top 10 in terms of Irish GDP per capita - see what I did there?

But year on year is weather, long term is the trend. The fact that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record means the trend continues. If we begin to cool for the next decade, then the trend will certainly be put in question.
Same way the long term trend for Irish income is positive. The last few years is the equivalent of weather. Also, there's been an overwhelmingly clear drop in income recently, very much different to the climate debate where we may have levelled of depending on what data set you use. They're not really comparable IMO.

Yahew wrote: »

Not quite just 1998. The trend line is down from 2001, and slightly up from 15 years ago. Anyway it could well be that the PDO being slighty -ve is an issue, but then the a vigourous PDO being +ve in the 80's to 90's was partly the cause of warming, and I never heard ( or hear) that mentioned. There are sceptics - like Bastardi - who thinks it is all a confluence of +PDO and the Atlantic decadal oscillation the name of which I forget.

The PDO exhibits a cycle like pattern switching between warm and cold. The effects it has are temporary. Seen as there is no warming trend in the PDO, if it did cause much of the warming up to now, then we should be cooling, but we're not.
If Joe B's Arctic sea ice rants, conspiracies and predictions are anything to go by, I'd use a better guide:pac: Say some climatology peer reviewed stuff, rather than a meteorologist.
I think you're referring to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), so you almost got it! I'll admit that it is quite a large unknown, with no real idea of when in may switch negative.

Yahew wrote: »

I cant say. I can say there was warming, human input is likely, but now there is a stagnation. The important point is the models did not predict the reality, and it is best to ignore models and not reality, than the other way.

Nobody has ever claimed (at least nobody worth listening to) that we would see a consistent year on year warming. Natural variability will play it's part and may even cause some cooling. Distinguishing the true extent of mankind's contribution to climate change is difficult, but I like to think we're getting closer all the time!

Su Campu

Let's not start into a debate on the poor state of the economy as well as the poor state of the weather!

Climate change is normal, natural and is happening - always has and always will. It includes some periods of warming, as well as some periods of cooling. In recent times (last 100 years) we had a period of warming in the first half of the 20th century which was a mirror image to that which has occured since the 70s. In between we had a few decades of cooling. People seem to lose sight of that. This first warming was put down to solar influence, whereas the second one is being blamed on us, and solar influences are allegedly not to blame. It's a big ask to expect people to just accept that argument, and I think people are coming around to this now.

For me, the main driver of the global temperature curve is the PDO, which is a roughly-thirty year cycle between warming and cooling of the northeastern Pacific. Coupled with this is a contributioin from the AMO, which is the PDO's Atlantic cousin. Both are out of sync with eachother, but there is a clear trend in that when both are positive, the earth is at its warmest, and likewise, when both are negative, the earth is at its coolest.

The oceans are the globe's heat sink, and the longterm changes in ocean heatflux affect the atmosphere, not the other way around. It's as simple as that, and there's really no need for all the rest of the guff that we're being fed.

MiNdGaM3

Su Campu wrote: »

Let's not start into a debate on the poor state of the economy as well as the poor state of the weather!

Climate change is normal, natural and is happening - always has and always will. It includes some periods of warming, as well as some periods of cooling. In recent times (last 100 years) we had a period of warming in the first half of the 20th century which was a mirror image to that which has occured since the 70s. In between we had a few decades of cooling. People seem to lose sight of that. This first warming was put down to solar influence, whereas the second one is being blamed on us, and solar influences are allegedly not to blame. It's a big ask to expect people to just accept that argument, and I think people are coming around to this now.

For me, the main driver of the global temperature curve is the PDO, which is a roughly-thirty year cycle between warming and cooling of the northeastern Pacific. Coupled with this is a contributioin from the AMO, which is the PDO's Atlantic cousin. Both are out of sync with eachother, but there is a clear trend in that when both are positive, the earth is at its warmest, and likewise, when both are negative, the earth is at its coolest.

The oceans are the globe's heat sink, and the longterm changes in ocean heatflux affect the atmosphere, not the other way around. It's as simple as that, and there's really no need for all the rest of the guff that we're being fed.

I agree with your economy comment, as for the rest.
Whilst it is known that the PDO/AMO/ENSO are the largest driver in internal climate variability, it seems to me as though there is something driving an overall trend in the background.
Rather than being a mirror image, I'd say the temperature increase since the 70s is quite a bit steeper than the 1900-1940s one.
If the PDO was the big driver in all of this, then we should have seen a clear temperature drop for the last decade but we have not.
Those graphs don't make a whole lot of sense, the bits where they're supposed to line up to show cooling, it's the beginning of a warming period? I'd say those graphs disprove the correlation more than prove it. I made a few adjustments to it for ya!

Su Campu

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

I agree with your economy comment, as for the rest.
Whilst it is known that the PDO/AMO/ENSO are the largest driver in internal climate variability, it seems to me as though there is something driving an overall trend in the background.
Rather than being a mirror image, I'd say the temperature increase since the 70s is quite a bit steeper than the 1900-1940s one.
If the PDO was the big driver in all of this, then we should have seen a clear temperature drop for the last decade but we have not.
Those graphs don't make a whole lot of sense, the bits where they're supposed to line up to show cooling, it's the beginning of a warming period? I'd say those graphs disprove the correlation more than prove it. I made a few adjustments to it for ya!

Eh, not really - the slope of the early and late 20th century warmings is pretty much the same. I've put in the slopes for the 30-year periods 1910-40 and 1975-2005. Very little in it!






Regarding the PDO and AMO, the effect is most notable when both are at a maximum. I didn't say warming or cooling was greatest at the max or mins, I said the temperatures were at (or near) their warmest or coldest (i.e. the peaks and troughs of the curve). The coldest phases do occur near where they are both minimum. The "Where's the cooling here?" is just after the coolest part, and is only on the start of a warming.

Hoggy501

I agree with Su Campu on the cycles that we go through. Our contribution to this will only have the effect of bring on the so called global warming that little bit quicker it will still come regardless of where we burn fossil fuels or not. We have no control over the earth and it's cooling and warming periods. There are so many other variable to think of that its a pity that human interference is the one that is in the lime light. A large volcanic eruption somewhere can change everything in a matter of weeks and then where would the trend results be.

Su Campu

As to what causes the PDO and AMO? Nobody really knows, but all we do know is that there is a lot about the oceans that we don't know!

Liquids have a certain propensity for storing dissolved gases. Warmer oceans can hold less gas than when they're cooler. Warmer oceans release more of their dissolved CO2, but more importantly, also release more of a greenhouse gas that is way stronger than CO2 - water. The contribution by water vapour many times outweighs the contribution of CO2, but again this is something that people don't hear. Rememer, 70% off our planet surface is water.

MiNdGaM3

Su Campu wrote: »

Eh, not really - the slope of the early and late 20th century warmings is pretty much the same. I've put in the slopes for the 30-year periods 1910-40 and 1975-2005. Very little in it!






Regarding the PDO and AMO, the effect is most notable when both are at a maximum. I didn't say warming or cooling was greatest at the max or mins, I said the temperatures were at (or near) their warmest or coldest (i.e. the peaks and troughs of the curve). The coldest phases do occur near where they are both minimum. The "Where's the cooling here?" is just after the coolest part, and is only on the start of a warming.

The only thing I can really say to that is that if the PDO was driving temperature change, the fact that it's cyclical and shows no overall trend means that global temperatures should also be cyclical and show no overall trend. The AMO is also cyclical and so cannot contribute to an overall global temperature increase.

As for the difference, I'd consider a 33% greater warming quite large.

Hoggy501 wrote: »

I agree with Su Campu on the cycles that we go through. Our contribution to this will only have the effect of bring on the so called global warming that little bit quicker it will still come regardless of where we burn fossil fuels or not. We have no control over the earth and it's cooling and warming periods. There are so many other variable to think of that its a pity that human interference is the one that is in the lime light. A large volcanic eruption somewhere can change everything in a matter of weeks and then where would the trend results be.

Large volcanic eruptions (apart from some supervolcanos) only have temporary effects with the ejection of aerosols, such as Pinatubo in 1991.
The idea that humanity is too insignificant to impact global temperatures with an increase in a relatively minor greenhouse gas is fairly widespread and something I don't agree with. Just take cfc's and the ozone holes as an example of the large effects we can have without even trying.

Su Campu

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

The only thing I can really say to that is that if the PDO was driving temperature change, the fact that it's cyclical and shows no overall trend means that global temperatures should also be cyclical and show no overall trend. The AMO is also cyclical and so cannot contribute to an overall global temperature increase.

I'm not saying it's the one and only cause, there are others on longer timescales which affect the wider background curve. You can zoom out on the curve as far as you want and as you do you will stumble upon various strange warming and cooling phases throughout the centuries/millenia/eons, each caused by various factors, but all of them natural. I just believe that the contribution by anthropogenic sources in recent times is one of least significant.

Godge

Su Campu wrote: »

I'm not saying it's the one and only cause, there are others on longer timescales which affect the wider background curve. You can zoom out on the curve as far as you want and as you do you will stumble upon various strange warming and cooling phases throughout the centuries/millenia/eons, each caused by various factors, but all of them natural. I just believe that the contribution by anthropogenic sources in recent times is one of least significant.

You may be right but on the one hand it is hard to believe that humanity has had no effect given the changes we have wreaked on the planet.

However, on the other hand, as you point out there have been coolings and warmings before and until we can understand the mechanisms behind them, we have no chance of understanding what is going on now.

Su Campu

Godge wrote: »

You may be right but on the one hand it is hard to believe that humanity has had no effect given the changes we have wreaked on the planet.

We may have messed up the planet in other ways, such as mining, urbanisation, crime, poverty, war, etc. but please don't bring them into a discussion on climate, which is a different thing. People use this one-size-fits-all argument to suit the climate debate and is part of the reason why some have been swayed into submission.

Yahew

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

But year on year is weather, long term is the trend. The fact that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record means the trend continues. If we begin to cool for the next decade, then the trend will certainly be put in question.
Same way the long term trend for Irish income is positive. The last few years is the equivalent of weather. Also, there's been an overwhelmingly clear drop in income recently, very much different to the climate debate where we may have levelled of depending on what data set you use. They're not really comparable IMO.

The long term trend for Irish income is positive - because modern economies grow per-capita over time but it doesn't negate the fact that the economy is now not growing. Most importantly what we know now about Irish income, is that the income is stagnant or falling, but we long term trend lines show the previous growth. Thats misleading if you are talking about the recent past.

With global warming the models did not predict the slowdown, therefore - my main point, the models should be challenged.

The PDO exhibits a cycle like pattern switching between warm and cold. The effects it has are temporary. Seen as there is no warming trend in the PDO, if it did cause much of the warming up to now, then we should be cooling, but we're not.

There is a warming trend, and now a cooling trend. Thats what an oscillation means.

If Joe B's Arctic sea ice rants, conspiracies and predictions are anything to go by, I'd use a better guide:pac: Say some climatology peer reviewed stuff, rather than a meteorologist.

That form of "peer review" is an argument to authority. Leaving climatologists, and only climatologists, to review their mathematical literature - which is surely well within the mathematical capabilities of meteorologists - is like having Marxists only review Marxism, or Theologians only discourse on the existence of God. Narrowing down "peers" to a small group with skin in the game, particularly in these political debates ( so unlike most science debates) is not really science.

I think you're referring to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), so you almost got it! I'll admit that it is quite a large unknown, with no real idea of when in may switch negative.

And if it has to switch negative, then surely its decades long positive phase must have had some effect. Was it factored into the models?

Nobody has ever claimed (at least nobody worth listening to) that we would see a consistent year on year warming. Natural variability will play it's part and may even cause some cooling. Distinguishing the true extent of mankind's contribution to climate change is difficult, but I like to think we're getting closer all the time!

nobody here is claiming that either, so thats a straw man. My claim is simple and scientific - there has been no statistical warming for 15 years. Explanations are needed, not arguments to authority. Not recourse to yearly fluctuations. If the minimum increase in temperature by the end of the century is an increase of 2C then we should see temperatures trending higher at the end of 2 decades at an average of 0.4C. Trend should swamp fluctuations.

MiNdGaM3

Yahew wrote: »

The long term trend for Irish income is positive - because modern economies grow per-capita over time but it doesn't negate the fact that the economy is now not growing. Most importantly what we know now about Irish income, is that the income is stagnant or falling, but we long term trend lines show the previous growth. Thats misleading if you are talking about the recent past.

With global warming the models did not predict the slowdown, therefore - my main point, the models should be challenged.

I'm not claiming the models are perfect (straw man...), they should be questioned and challenged. And so they are and they're being continually improved because of it.

Yahew wrote: »

There is a warming trend, and now a cooling trend. Thats what an oscillation means.

Yes but the last +ve peak was way ahead of the previous +ve peak, and the one before that and the other +ve PDO and AMO peaks, so there must be other things going on.

Yahew wrote: »

That form of "peer review" is an argument to authority. Leaving climatologists, and only climatologists, to review their mathematical literature - which is surely well within the mathematical capabilities of meteorologists - is like having Marxists only review Marxism, or Theologians only discourse on the existence of God. Narrowing down "peers" to a small group with skin in the game, particularly in these political debates ( so unlike most science debates) is not really science.

No, anybody should be able to challenge the literature, and once again they do. Things often get corrected and changed. Papers are challenged with other papers etc. All it is is a standard scientific work has to pass, not an system designed to halt progress and quash questioning, whatever people may think.

What I was saying was to do with Joe B anyway. I wouldn't go to a vet for my medical issues...

Yahew wrote: »

And if it has to switch negative, then surely its decades long positive phase must have had some effect. Was it factored into the models?

Models use a process called "Hindcasting". They have to be able to replicate the climate from a particular point in the past such as 1900. So I'd say they do include ocean SST oscillations.

Yahew wrote: »

nobody here is claiming that either, so thats a straw man. My claim is simple and scientific - there has been no statistical warming for 15 years. Explanations are needed, not arguments to authority. Not recourse to yearly fluctuations. If the minimum increase in temperature by the end of the century is an increase of 2C then we should see temperatures trending higher at the end of 2 decades at an average of 0.4C. Trend should swamp fluctuations.

I've already given a possible explanation, you'll just have to read back through.

Godge

Su Campu wrote: »

We may have messed up the planet in other ways, such as mining, urbanisation, crime, poverty, war, etc. but please don't bring them into a discussion on climate, which is a different thing. People use this one-size-fits-all argument to suit the climate debate and is part of the reason why some have been swayed into submission.

Even if the effect is only the urban heat effect on weather stations that were previously rural in nature, it is still an effect. I do not disagree with you that the effect of humanity may be miniscule but I do not rule out that it may be many times more than that either.

FWIW, my opinion is that the effect of humanity on the climate is somewhere between 0.01% and 25% which means we may only be undetectable background noise at one extreme or we may be one of a number of factors at the other extreme.

I don't think anyone has the evidence to be more specific than that.

Godge

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Models use a process called "Hindcasting". They have to be able to replicate the climate from a particular point in the past such as 1900. So I'd say they do include ocean SST oscillations.

But the world was once a lot warmer than it is now, how do the models explain that with their "hindcasting"?

MiNdGaM3

Godge wrote: »

But the world was once a lot warmer than it is now, how do the models explain that with their "hindcasting"?

Many of the things that made the world warmer in many in the geological past don't apply now, such as different positions of the continents, different ocean currents, ice cover, snow cover, atmospheric constituents and so on. Much of the long term fluctuations can be explained, but it's incredibly difficult to get temps from millions of years ago down to a resolution of even thousands of years.

Deep Easterly

Not sure if this article has already been posted or referred to it but gives an interesting explanation as why the rise in global temperature has slowed over the last 10 years or so:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

Abstract:

"Thus, although the current global warming graphs are suggestive of a slowdown in global warming, this apparent slowdown may largely disappear as a few more years of data are added. In particular we need to see how high global temperature rises in response to the next El Niño, and we also need to consider the effect of the 10-12 year cycle of solar irradiance. This raises the question of when the next El Niño will occur and the status of the solar cycle".

Hoggy501

Godge wrote: »

But the world was once a lot warmer than it is now, how do the models explain that with their "hindcasting"?

If we were in a mini ice age at the moment then would we be having this conversation or would the experts be telling us to burn more fossil fuels to heat the planet. we are just in this situation now and how we deal with it is based on the accuracy of the data we have to hand. This will give us an idea of how things will develop over the next few decades. we do not know for certain. Remember all this is based on computer models that have humans inputting the data.

Hooter23

Hoggy501 wrote: »

If we were in a mini ice age at the moment then would we be having this conversation or would the experts be telling us to burn more fossil fuels to heat the planet. we are just in this situation now and how we deal with it is based on the accuracy of the data we have to hand. This will give us an idea of how things will develop over the next few decades. we do not know for certain. Remember all this is based on computer models that have humans inputting the data.

Yes your right we dont know for certain manmade gobal warming is happening they dont have nearly enough data yet even in 50 years time we still wont know even 50-100 years of temperature data is not still not enough to be certain whats happening.
Anyway if burning fossil fuels is causing warming or not we should still be cutting or carbon emissions who wants to live in smog filled towns/cites.

MiNdGaM3

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr-1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Ni˜no/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Ni˜no/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The
adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

Yahew

Thats very interesting - it does show a consistent trend. What volcano are they talking about?

MiNdGaM3

Yahew wrote: »

Thats very interesting - it does show a consistent trend. What volcano are they talking about?

I think they just average out the volcanic aerosol content from whatever eruptions manage to get their ejecta circulating using satellite remote sensing.
It says it used the method described in the paper

octo

Another take on the data.

Deep Easterly

Can't post a reply to Ken Ring in other thread as it is locked but just to give him some links to data he asked for re global temps

Ken Ring wrote:

So please supply the data you say is available. I have found none, and I have been searching for 16 years. That is the length of time I have had my website going. It was the first in the country to deny the claims of the global warmers.

NOAA monthly global temperature anomaly maps Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present (Text data)
UK Met Office Land Surface Climate Records
Roy Spencer Latest Global temps
NCDC National Climate Data Centre

Ken Ring wrote:

On the other hand there is plenty of data about the funding, and the way Maggie Thatcher made it available so that her "science" servants could come up with spurious figures about atmospheric warming/pollution to justify her smashing of the coal industry, so she could (1) deal a blow to unions and (2) bring nuclear power to Britain to pay off Dupont and Shell for their campaign donations in helping her to win the election.

Her intentions were purely economic and had nothing to do with her concerns for the environment. It was cheaper to import coal from Europe than to keep the coal mines open in the UK. Also, Nuclear powers stations were well established in the UK before she became Taoiseach. Can't remember exactly but I think there was more of them closed down than opened during her tyranny.

nilhg

Deep Easterly wrote: »

snip


Her intentions were purely economic and had nothing to do with her concerns for the environment. It was cheaper to import coal from Europe than to keep the coal mines open in the UK. Also, Nuclear powers stations were well established in the UK before she became Taoiseach. Can't remember exactly but I think there was more of them closed down than opened during her tyranny.

I know she thought she ran us but that's the first time I've seen it confirmed.....

Wild Bill

pegasus1 wrote: »

Oh gosh a 20th of a degree mean warming in 15 years...that's too much!:rolleyes:

Well, it's certainly a lot less than what "all the models predicted" 15 years ago!

- at a minimum it should be 0.3c (to get the minimum predicted warming of 2C by 2100; an estimate we are told is hopelessly conservative).

btw; I must hastily add I think warming is real, and "climate change" is a constant through history so why would it stop now?); but I also think some folk who have anti-development agendas to promote hype it too much with a resulting credibility loss.

planetX

Wild Bill wrote: »

Well, it's certainly a lot less than what "all the models predicted" 15 years ago!

- at a minimum it should be 0.3c (to get the minimum predicted warming of 2C by 2100; an estimate we are told is hopelessly conservative).

btw; I must hastily add I think warming is real, and "climate change" is a constant through history so why would it stop now?); but I also think some folk who have anti-development agendas to promote hype it too much with a resulting credibility loss.

also research scientists who have funding agendas:)