Get your imaginary 'pause' off me, you damn delusional deniers

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
Get your imaginary 'pause' off me, you damn delusional deniers
(Slight homage to 'The Planet of the Apes')

After further scientific study, it turns out that there has been no "pause" or "hiatus" or "flattening" in the rising temperature trend known as global warming. In fact, global warming is still accelerating in response to the rapidly rising CO2 levels. The apparent 'pause' in the rate of increase in (just) surface air temperatures, that the deniers and some of the media have tried to turn into a refutation of anthropogenic global warming, has been debunked before in several different ways, such as:
* pointing out the statistical deceit of cherry-picking the unusually hot, super-El Niño year of 1998 as a start point for a trend analysis.
* pointing out that satellite and ground based instrumentation show that the Earth is still receiving more energy from the sun than is being radiated away into space so that extra heat energy is warming something up somewhere on Earth.
* pointing out the fact that surface air temperatures only represent about 3% of the energy the Earth receives from the Sun and the oceans have always been absorbing at least 90% of the extra heat energy the Earth is retaining.
* citing research showing that the oceans have been warming faster and at greater depths in the last decade or two.
* showing that after the strongest El Niño on record in 1998, which pulled a lot of warmer water to the surface, the Pacific has been dominated by La Niña events that pull cooler water to the surface and transfer warmer water to the depths. There have been no really strong El Niño events since 1998.
* the warming trend was slightly offset by a prolonged solar minimum that reduced the amount of solar heating the Earth was receiving.
* warming was also slightly reduced by increased volcanic and industrial particulate emissions in the stratosphere that reflect incoming solar energy back into space and produce a cooling effect.

Now some new recently published research indicates that even the apparent slowdown in surface air temperatures, that was suggested by the existing surface air temperature records, is just a result of a lack of data about the sharp increase in temperatures in the Arctic where temperatures have been going up faster than anyplace else on Earth. New analysis of temperature increases in the Arctic and other places combined with existing satellite temperature records shows that the rate of even the surface air temperature part of the overall global warming has continued at about the same rate over the last 16 years as it had been in the previous two decades. At the same time, there has been an increase in the rate of warming of the oceans, which have always been absorbing about 90% of the extra heat energy that the Earth has been retaining due to the increased CO2 levels mankind has produced in the atmosphere. Now this extra heat has penetrated the deeper ocean waters. The oceans are warming, the land is warming, the air is warming, the polar ice and mountain glaciers are melting, the permafrost is melting, climate patterns are changing - global warming continues unabated, and will inevitably only get worse in the years (and decades and centuries) to come. There is, however, still a chance to mitigate the severity of some of the eventual negative effects of AGW/CC if the world quickly takes the necessary steps to restrict carbon emissions, and then works hard at figuring out cheap ways to draw down atmospheric CO2 levels to something livable.

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
A new study fills in the gaps missed by the Met Office, and finds the warming 'pause' is barely a speed bump

The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
13 November 2013
(excerpts)
A new paper published in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society fills in the gaps in the UK Met Office HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set, and finds that the global surface warming since 1997 has happened more than twice as fast as the HadCRUT4 estimate. The study, authored by Kevin Cowtan from the University of York and Robert Way from the University of Ottawa, notes that the Met Office data set only covers about 84 percent of the Earth's surface. There are large gaps in its coverage, mainly in the Arctic, Antarctica, and Africa, where temperature monitoring stations are relatively scarce. In their paper, Cowtan & Way apply a statistical method known as "kriging" to fill in the gaps between surface measurements, but they do so for both land and oceans. In a second approach, they also take advantage of the near-global coverage of satellite observations, combining the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) satellite temperature measurements with the available surface data to fill in the gaps with a 'hybrid' temperature data set. Both of their new surface temperature data sets show significantly more warming over the past 16 years than HadCRUT4. This is mainly due to HadCRUT4 missing accelerated Arctic warming, especially since 1997.

Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming 'pause' over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively. These results indicate that the slowed warming of average global surface temperature is not as significant as previously believed. Surface warming has slowed somewhat, in large part due to more overall global warming being transferred to the oceans over the past decade. However, these sorts of temporary surface warming slowdowns (and speed-ups) occur on a regular basis due to short-term natural influences. The results of this study also have bearing on some recent research. For example, correcting for the recent cool bias indicates that global surface temperatures are not as far from the average of climate model projections as we previously thought, and certainly fall within the range of individual climate model temperature simulations. The perceived recent slowdown of global surface temperatures remains an interesting scientific question. It appears to be due to some combination of internal factors (more global warming going into the oceans), external factors (relatively low solar activity and high volcanic activity), and an underestimate of the actual global surface warming. How much each factor is contributing is being investigated by extensive scientific research, but the Cowtan & Way paper suggests the latter explanation is a significant contributor.


© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,515
Reaction score
26,523
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component....

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just."

The Decline Hider speaks
 
OP
RollingThunder

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component....

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just."

The Decline Hider speaks
As usual, CrazyFruitcake, you're just too stupid and bewildered to be able to comprehend the meaning of the research results that you've just looked at. The rates of surface air temperature warming have been underestimated due to insufficient temperature monitoring stations in the Arctic. Figuring in the increased Arctic temperatures and the ocean warming, the rate of global warming is very statistically significant. Actually, over the longer time frames that are required to accurately determine statistical significance, the rate of warming has been statistically significant for almost four decades.

As far as your Phil Jones quote goes, besides being classic cherry-picking, it's not even true even using the incomplete data set they've been using that doesn't show the full extent and degree of the Arctic warming.

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent,
10 June 2011
(excerpts)
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,597
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
You say "Deniers" like it's a bad thing to deny something false.
 
OP
RollingThunder

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
You say "Deniers" like it's a bad thing to deny something false.
Unfortunately, bozo, you clowns are futilely trying to deny something quite real.

And yes, little retard, denying reality is a "bad thing", although you seem to be too stupid to understand just why.
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
I see the AGW scribes have come out with new scripture for their loyal believers to spread along with the other religious propaganda.
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,597
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
You say "Deniers" like it's a bad thing to deny something false.
Unfortunately, bozo, you clowns are futilely trying to deny something quite real.

And yes, little retard, denying reality is a "bad thing", although you seem to be too stupid to understand just why.
"Reality" to you is anything your limited little mind wants to believe. BTW, shouldn't you have posted this in the Flame Zone where it belongs, you disingenuous little prick?
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Even the thread title and the press release titles SCREAM DESPARATION.

Most all those claims are so dishonest middle school kids could find the lies....

Biggest problem is ---why use the satellite data JUST TO FILL THE GAPS in the thermometer coverage..
these jerks did a boring lemon squeeze math excersize and decided to juice it into a smoothy...
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,488
Reaction score
4,127
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
yuk......yuk........


Take a gander over to THE DRUDGE Report right now!!!

DRUDGE REPORT 2014®




Here's the top headline >>>>



HISTORIC FREEZE: WINDCHILLS 70 BELOW ZERO?





And accompanying the top stories on top left >>>



RECORD COLD CLOSES SCHOOLS IN MIDWEST...

MINNESOTA 'WORST' DEEP FREEZE IN 20 YEARS...

FROSTBITE IN MINUTES...
2010'S SET TO BECOME SNOWIEST DECADE ON RECORD FOR EAST COAST...
KILLER CHILLER MAP...

MAN BURNS DOWN HOUSE TRYING TO THAW PIPES WITH BLOW DRYER...
UPDATE: COAST GUARD TO ASSIST RESCUE SHIPS STUCK IN ANTARCTIC ICE...


SUNDAY COLDEST GAME IN HISTORY?

High-tech attention to combat Arctic conditions...









 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Really glad that TinkerBelle posted this for us..

Shows a lot about wordsmithing dishonest conclusions...ESPECIALLY when the "journalism is committed by the wizard of propaganda from skepticalscience.com --- Nutcielli...

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

A new study*fills in the gaps missed by the Met Office, and finds the warming 'pause' is barely a speed bump
The honest version should read..... Recent study finds that that warming rate since 1997 is 1/4 not 1/8 of
AGW predictions.. Scientists split hairs over the third digit EAST of the decimal point to make this claim.

()edit

Actually thats not even honest, because it only halves the projected error with respect to Hadley numbers.. Not to NAsa GISS.
The original claims and screaming headlines arent even CLOSE to the real story..

Only skepticalscience and Tinkerbelle could try to pull this off with a straight face.
 
Last edited:

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,488
Reaction score
4,127
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
And Mr.skooksisbil that's why our emissions our successfully going down.

Who's the goddamn winner?

Actually.......that'd be the Domination Matrix. Check out the epic thread PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING. If you don't get a chance tonight, no worries......the thread is always at the top of the page of the ENVIRONMENT forum. By a factor of 10, it produces the most "views" and "posts". The links to display how the "consensus" science isn't mattering are plentiful.......there are dozens of graphs and even more links.


Sometimes I feel bad......these AGW people fall all over themselves every day to make their point, but nobody is listening. But then I think about how arrogant and silly they are to while believing such fraudulent shit that I end up laughing my balls off making fun of them.:lol:
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Then you don't seem to have noted that the CONTENTS of that thread indicate quite clearly that AGW is extremely likely to be valid, that it is supported by the vast majority of climate scientists and that every single argument the deniers have brought out in this likely endless debate have utterly crashed and burned before being benevolently stomped to death by people with sufficient understanding to differentiate objective science from polemicist, blogosphere rants.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,515
Reaction score
26,523
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
yuk......yuk........


Take a gander over to THE DRUDGE Report right now!!!

DRUDGE REPORT 2014®




Here's the top headline >>>>



HISTORIC FREEZE: WINDCHILLS 70 BELOW ZERO?





And accompanying the top stories on top left >>>



RECORD COLD CLOSES SCHOOLS IN MIDWEST...

MINNESOTA 'WORST' DEEP FREEZE IN 20 YEARS...

FROSTBITE IN MINUTES...
2010'S SET TO BECOME SNOWIEST DECADE ON RECORD FOR EAST COAST...
KILLER CHILLER MAP...

MAN BURNS DOWN HOUSE TRYING TO THAW PIPES WITH BLOW DRYER...
UPDATE: COAST GUARD TO ASSIST RESCUE SHIPS STUCK IN ANTARCTIC ICE...


SUNDAY COLDEST GAME IN HISTORY?

High-tech attention to combat Arctic conditions...









^ Denier!!
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,515
Reaction score
26,523
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Odd that the Sun magnetic just flipped too, you'd suspect some link between that and our recent weather. But, according to the AGWCult, they're ruled out that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky as having any meaningful contribution to "Global Climate Warming Change"
 

Redfish

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
42,517
Reaction score
6,206
Points
1,870
Location
The Big Easy
Odd that the Sun magnetic just flipped too, you'd suspect some link between that and our recent weather. But, according to the AGWCult, they're ruled out that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky as having any meaningful contribution to "Global Climate Warming Change"
Bush did it :lol::lol::lol:
 
OP
RollingThunder

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
One of the major propaganda memes being used by the fossil fuel industry and their dupes and stooges to try to fool the public about both the reality and the still accelerating pace of anthropogenic global warming and the associated climate changes is this denier cult myth, about "no warming in 16 years". As I pointed out in the OP, this myth has been debunked repeatedly from many angles, one of which is the statistical deception involved in picking 1997/1998 as the arbitrary start point for the denier cult temperatures graphs. Because 1998 was an unusually hot year due to the confluence of a number of factors, it rose far above the ongoing warming trend in global average temperatures so following years that are still on the trend line seem to be cooler if your start point is 1998.

Here is a good, clear explanation of just why that is deliberately deceptive cherry-picking from a well known national meteorologist and founder of an internet weather service, Dr. Jeff Masters, who also studies and writes about climate science.

Global warming continues with no slow down
By: Dr. Jeff Masters
WunderGround.com
March 27, 2013
(excerpts)
One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer? Temperatures at Earth's surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year. An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 - 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth's surface relatively cool. Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends. One of my favorite examples of this manipulation of statistics is shown an animated graph called "The Escalator", created by skepticalscience.com (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Average of NASA's GISS, NOAA"s NCDC, and the UK Met Office's HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature departures from average, from January 1970 through November 2012 (blue), with linear trends applied to the time frames Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12. Climate change skeptics like to emphasize the shorter term fluctuations in global temperatures (blue lines) and ignore the long-term climate trend (red line.) The global surface temperature trend from January 1970 through November 2012 (red line) is +0.16°C (+0.29°F) per decade. Image credit: skepticalscience.com.


Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top