At what rate of increase is the global temperature increasing per decade?

[ScienceRocks]

At what rate of increase is the global temperature increasing per decade? Uah and RSS support .12 to .14c/per decade.

Why has global warming stalled?

BBC News - Why has global warming stalled?

With Britain's heatwave reaching a peak, there could be no better moment to talk about why global warming has slowed to a standstill.

It reminds me of reporting on a drought a few years ago: while filming interviews with people about the impact, the heavens opened and rainwater was soon flowing down my neck.

So as journalists were invited to the Science Media Centre in London to hear how the worldwide rise in temperatures has stalled, the mercury shot up as if on cue to record the hottest day of the year so far.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Keep pretending it is happening while the evidence says no and your faithful fakers are forced to admit it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Discuss...

 

[IanC]

Matt- a few years ago you made a list of predictions for the upcoming yearly temps. How are they holding up?

AMO PDO and solar activity have thrown a monkey wrench into the works. ENSO has also been so disappointing that the definitions have been tweeked to help the warmer's side. Sea surface temps weren't holding up so deep water heat content had to be brought in because the numbers were easier to push around. My prediction is that ocean currents will be the next savior of the 'missing heat' once HC is shown to be exaggerated or physically improbable.

Do you ever get concerned that climate science seems to shoehorn evidence into the theory rather than build s theory around the evidence?

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't know what you're looking for here Matthew.. You answered the question in the OP..

It's about 0.13degC/decade and going DOWN.. (as far as the worthless "global averaging" has any particular significance)

This is about the "CO2 only" scenario using the estimates for JUST warming due to CO2 WITHOUT the feedbacks, exaggerated "climate sensitivities" and hysteria..

At THAT RATE --- this is ALWAYS gonna be subject to the UNDERESTIMATED NATURAL cycles and effects.. What is it that you think is significant here??

 

[Abraham3]

Keep pretending it is happening while the evidence says no and your faithful fakers are forced to admit it.

Excuse me, but what Matthew just showed you was evidence. You would seem to be pretending that IT doesn't exist.

 

[Abraham3]

ENSO has also been so disappointing that the definitions have been tweeked to help the warmer's side. Sea surface temps weren't holding up so deep water heat content had to be brought in because the numbers were easier to push around.

Deep ocean heating was not brought up to make ENSO less disappointing (whatever that might actually mean). It was brought up because it's taking place. There really was - and to some extent remains - missing heat. The TOA balance wasn't. B, T and K found most of it in the deep ocean, an apparent result of changes in the tropical wind patterns that appears to be connected to the PDO and to changes in the ENSO pseudo-cycle

In the text above, what position are you actually pushing? Do you believe there has been no increase in the deep ocean heat content? Just what are you trying to say?

 

[mamooth]

Do you ever get concerned that climate science seems to shoehorn evidence into the theory rather than build s theory around the evidence?

No one in the field is concerned about such strange conspiracy theories. Not in the least. Seriously, no one pays the least bit of attention to nonsense on the scale of "There's no warming!". They're too busy working to care about such kookery.

Now, do you all ever get concerned that your conspiracy will get shattered with the next big El Nino? The clock is ticking on denialism as a viable conspiracy theory. It's got a couple years left, max. I suggest planning ahead and having some good excuses ready.

 

[Abraham3]

Don't know what you're looking for here Matthew.. You answered the question in the OP..

It's about 0.13degC/decade and going DOWN.. (as far as the worthless "global averaging" has any particular significance)

Not over the time span Matthew brought up. If you're going to give us a rate, you need to give us a time span or your values are worthless and you know it.

This is about the "CO2 only" scenario using the estimates for JUST warming due to CO2 WITHOUT the feedbacks, exaggerated "climate sensitivities" and hysteria..
At THAT RATE --- this is ALWAYS gonna be subject to the UNDERESTIMATED NATURAL cycles and effects.. What is it that you think is significant here??

This is Matthew's thread. It is ABOUT whatever he says it's about and I don't recall him defining the topic as you seem to think. If you want to discuss CO2 only, why don't you start your own thread?

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't know what you're looking for here Matthew.. You answered the question in the OP..

It's about 0.13degC/decade and going DOWN.. (as far as the worthless "global averaging" has any particular significance)

Not over the time span Matthew brought up. If you're going to give us a rate, you need to give us a time span or your values are worthless and you know it.

This is about the "CO2 only" scenario using the estimates for JUST warming due to CO2 WITHOUT the feedbacks, exaggerated "climate sensitivities" and hysteria..
At THAT RATE --- this is ALWAYS gonna be subject to the UNDERESTIMATED NATURAL cycles and effects.. What is it that you think is significant here??

This is Matthew's thread. It is ABOUT whatever he says it's about and I don't recall him defining the topic as you seem to think. If you want to discuss CO2 only, why don't you start your own thread?

You're wrong on the 1st count.. It was Matthew that quoted UAH and posted the modern satellite record. He was CLEARLY using figures from the same time period.. All I did was PARROT them.. Apparently -- you have no critical reading skills.

Your're wrong on the 2nd count.. Apparently Matthew wants to discuss the OBSERVED rate over the period he indicated.. What I did wasn't to take unwarranted potshots at other posters -- but to include a VERY cogent observation about what scenario FITS that observed rate..

Cork it junior...

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you ever get concerned that climate science seems to shoehorn evidence into the theory rather than build s theory around the evidence?

No one in the field is concerned about such strange conspiracy theories. Not in the least. Seriously, no one pays the least bit of attention to nonsense on the scale of "There's no warming!". They're too busy working to care about such kookery.

Now, do you all ever get concerned that your conspiracy will get shattered with the next big El Nino? The clock is ticking on denialism as a viable conspiracy theory. It's got a couple years left, max. I suggest planning ahead and having some good excuses ready.

We certainly won't be able to recycle any of your poor ass excuses...

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. Rock solid prediction. Next moderate El Nino, records will be shattered. The only caveat would be a simultaneous Pinatubo type volcanic eruption. Strong El Nino? Katy, bar the door.

 

[Abraham3]

The thumbnail Matthew attached to the lead post shows a positive temperature trend.

If Matthew wants to discuss "observed" temperatures, then he is looking at the situation AFTER feedbacks have acted. He has made no attempt that I can see of isolating CO2-only effects.

 

[flacaltenn]

The thumbnail Matthew attached to the lead post shows a positive temperature trend.

If Matthew wants to discuss "observed" temperatures, then he is looking at the situation AFTER feedbacks have acted. He has made no attempt that I can see of isolating CO2-only effects.

Did you take a slow pill today?? The observed trends show NO EVIDENCE of "climate accelerators or massive positive feedbacks.. That's why my comment is so keenly observant...

Without accelerations or feedbacks --- what do we have?

Why that would the "CO2 only" scenario.. Wouldn't it?
NOT AGW theory..