Thunderstorms

[Old Rocks]

The scientists are presenting the evidence that they find. They do so through peer reviewed journals. Just publish something that can easily be proven false, and see how long you last academically.

Michael Mann still has a job, doesn't he? Phil Jones still has a job, doesn't he?

Case closed.

Why yes, they both still have jobs, as they are very capable scientists. Now, as for you?

 

[RollingThunder]

The models are very accurate, regardless of whether they simulate individual thunderstorms. Good is good, no matter how much handwaving and evading you do.

This is just a sad exercise in goalpost moving by the denialist cult. When the models do get more detailed to that point, the denialists will shift to "ah, but do the models track every cloud?", then to "ah, but do the the models track every wind gust?", then to "ah, but do the models track every raindrop?", and so on.

If they're so accurate why can't they predict the weather accurately three days ahead? They get a 80% success rate for 24 hours falling to less than 25% after 48 hours. You are so full of horse poo it's funny. Or perhaps you think a 20% hit rate is good?

Here's some news for you....the rest of the world doesn't.

LOLOLOLOL.....still playing the clueless retard, eh walleyed?

Climate models vs weather models
Dr. Andrew Dessler - Professor in the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University with research focusing on the physics of climate change.
October 12, 2006
(excerpts)
You can find a lot of discussion on the net with arguments like: "If we cannot predict the weather next week, how can we predict the climate over the next century?" While this sounds like a reasonable argument, there are in fact good reasons to accept 100-year climate forecasts even though we cannot predict the weather more than a few days out. Predicting the weather is hard because you have to get the exact details of a weather system right. If your prediction of a storm track is 100 km off, then a giant snowstorm predicted to bury a city might fall harmlessly offshore. If your temperature is 3 deg C off, then what you predicted as rain turns into snow. If your initial conditions are off, then precipitation predicted to fall during rush hour falls at midnight. All of these things mean that you've blown the forecast, and people will mumble about how weather forecasters don't know what they're doing. For the climate, these things generally don't matter. What matters is that, in the long run, one gets the statistics of the weather right. If one storm in a climate model is 100 km too far East, that won't matter if the long-term statistics of the storm track is right. This is quite a different problem than predicting the EXACT evolution of a single atmospheric disturbance.

One simple way to think about the difference in predicting weather and climate is to think about rolling a six-sided die. Predicting the weather is like predicting what the next roll will be. Predicting the cliamte is like predicting what the average and standard deviation of 1000 rolls will be. The ability to predict the statistics of the next 1000 rolls does not hinge on the ability to predict the next roll. Thus, one should not dismiss climate forecasts simply because weather forecasts are only good for a few days. Another statement you hear is that: "Because climate models do not predict next year's climate, why should you believe a prediction in 100 years?" Here's why: short-term forecasts (e.g., over the next few years) require accurate simulation of the magnitude and phase of short-term climate variability like El Nino. Over much longer time scales, however, one does not need to accurately simulate these short-term climate variability. I discussed that here. The upshot is again that one should not dismiss the long-term climate forecasts because short-term forecasts are problematic.

 

[Old Rocks]

.... The Earth is currently absorbing more energy than it is losing so the temperatures are rising,

Except the temperatures aren't rising and haven't for the past 17 years.. Observation is where it's at man...not model output.

Even the consensus now acknowledges that it has been a very long time since there has been any warming....unless you count hansen's temperature "adjustments" to the historical record in an attempt to make the present look warmer.

Really? Consensus? Care to link to a real scientific source on that? Not Limpbaugh or Wacky Watts.

Did global warming stop in <strike>1998</strike>, <strike>1995</strike>, <strike>2002</strike>, <strike>2007</strike>, 2010?

 

[SSDD]

Climate models vs weather models

Considering that climate models are batting a big zero, dresslers argument for them makes no sense at all.

 

[SSDD]

Did global warming stop in <strike>1998</strike>, <strike>1995</strike>, <strike>2002</strike>, <strike>2007</strike>, 2010?

Skeptical Science? You read that trash and actually believe it?

Enough said.

 

[RollingThunder]

.... The Earth is currently absorbing more energy than it is losing so the temperatures are rising,

Except the temperatures aren't rising and haven't for the past 17 years.. Observation is where it's at man...not model output.

Even the consensus now acknowledges that it has been a very long time since there has been any warming....unless you count hansen's temperature "adjustments" to the historical record in an attempt to make the present look warmer.

You're just full of those idiotic denier cult myths, aren't you, SSoooooDDumb? This particular myth has been recently fueled by a fallacious article by denier cult douche-bag David Rose which claimed that data from the British Met Office showed no warming for the last 16 years. Totally bogus, of course, but fuel for your denier cult fantasies.

In response to the factual errors in Rose's propaganda piece/newspaper article, the Met Office posted an official response. Here is the official Met Office press release - which, BTW, is a government press release, is not copyrighted, and is free to reproduce in full.

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

Met Office News Blog - the official blog of the Met Office news team
10/14/2012

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,​

Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?”

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.


​

———–
The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.

 

[westwall]

The scientists are presenting the evidence that they find. They do so through peer reviewed journals. Just publish something that can easily be proven false, and see how long you last academically.

Michael Mann still has a job, doesn't he? Phil Jones still has a job, doesn't he?

Case closed.

Why yes, they both still have jobs, as they are very capable scientists. Now, as for you?

Capable at what?

 

[westwall]

So Westwall doesn't even understand the difference between "climate" and "weather".

'Nuff said.

If you can't re-create the weather we had two days ago (that's called "hindcasting" and is a very effective method of testing computer models) with your vaunted CM's with perfect knowledge of all variables what makes you think they can predict anything at all?

And for the record no computer model produced by teh revisionists has ever been accurate. Ever. No matter what drivel you blast out. You are simply either wrong or prevaricating.

 

[SSDD]

Here is what an actual climate scientist had to say on the issue. Seems that Jones and Curry both agree that it hasn't warmed for 15 years. Observation is where it's at...reality...as oppsed to models.

&#8216;Pause&#8217; discussion thread | Climate Etc.
&#8216;Pause&#8217; discussion thread: Part II | Climate Etc.

 

[Old Rocks]

.... The Earth is currently absorbing more energy than it is losing so the temperatures are rising,

Except the temperatures aren't rising and haven't for the past 17 years.. Observation is where it's at man...not model output.

Even the consensus now acknowledges that it has been a very long time since there has been any warming....unless you count hansen's temperature "adjustments" to the historical record in an attempt to make the present look warmer.

You're just full of those idiotic denier cult myths, aren't you, SSoooooDDumb? This particular myth has been recently fueled by a fallacious article by denier cult douche-bag David Rose which claimed that data from the British Met Office showed no warming for the last 16 years. Totally bogus, of course, but fuel for your denier cult fantasies.

In response to the factual errors in Rose's propaganda piece/newspaper article, the Met Office posted an official response. Here is the official Met Office press release - which, BTW, is a government press release, is not copyrighted, and is free to reproduce in full.

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

Met Office News Blog - the official blog of the Met Office news team
10/14/2012

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,​

Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?”

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.


​

———–
The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.

LOL. Year after year we see new records set, we see more extreme weather, and we see the fruitcakes continually deny obvious facts.

Untill 2000, they absolutely insisted that global warming did not exist. Now, since anyone with eyes can see it in most parts of the world, they say that it is natural trends. But cannot give a single reason for those trends.

In fact, the natural trends should be cooling us, but they are not. Nine of the hottest ten years have occurred since 2001. And the single exception, 1998, ranked third, has a super El Nino. But the fruitloops insist that it has been cooling for the last 17 years. Yet, in the last 17 years, the only year not in the hottest 17, is 1990. Rightwing nuts cannot read graphs or face reality.

 

[westwall]

Except the temperatures aren't rising and haven't for the past 17 years.. Observation is where it's at man...not model output.

Even the consensus now acknowledges that it has been a very long time since there has been any warming....unless you count hansen's temperature "adjustments" to the historical record in an attempt to make the present look warmer.

You're just full of those idiotic denier cult myths, aren't you, SSoooooDDumb? This particular myth has been recently fueled by a fallacious article by denier cult douche-bag David Rose which claimed that data from the British Met Office showed no warming for the last 16 years. Totally bogus, of course, but fuel for your denier cult fantasies.

In response to the factual errors in Rose's propaganda piece/newspaper article, the Met Office posted an official response. Here is the official Met Office press release - which, BTW, is a government press release, is not copyrighted, and is free to reproduce in full.

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

Met Office News Blog - the official blog of the Met Office news team
10/14/2012

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,​

Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?”

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.


​

———–
The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.

LOL. Year after year we see new records set, we see more extreme weather, and we see the fruitcakes continually deny obvious facts.

Untill 2000, they absolutely insisted that global warming did not exist. Now, since anyone with eyes can see it in most parts of the world, they say that it is natural trends. But cannot give a single reason for those trends.

In fact, the natural trends should be cooling us, but they are not. Nine of the hottest ten years have occurred since 2001. And the single exception, 1998, ranked third, has a super El Nino. But the fruitloops insist that it has been cooling for the last 17 years. Yet, in the last 17 years, the only year not in the hottest 17, is 1990. Rightwing nuts cannot read graphs or face reality.

You see "new" records set thanks to data manipulation and the wondrous effect of the Urban Heat Island effect. Do try and be scientific in your approach.

 

[Old Rocks]

As for the accuracy of weather models, they are definately getting better. Much better than wingnuts predictions concerning elections.

Weather Models Get Sandy Right | The New Republic

Despite the odds, it was as early as last Tuesday when the European model showed Sandy transforming into an extraordinarily intense hybrid storm and making landfall in the mid-Atlantic. Back then, Sandy was a small and utterly conventional tropical cyclone off the northern coast of Venezuela. Yet the European model peered 144 hours into the future and offered this prediction:

 

[RollingThunder]

Climate models vs weather models

Considering that climate models are batting a big zero, dresslers argument for them makes no sense at all.

Considering that pretty much everything you say is wrong, listening to you makes no sense at all.

In this case, you are once again very wrong and totally confused. Too bad you're such a brainwashed retard.

According to the IPCC (2007): "Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability observed across a range of time scales. Examples include the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures (the Northern and Southern ‘annular modes’). Some climate models, or closely related variants, have also been tested by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they can represent important features of the general circulation across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and other important climate features increases our confidence that they represent the essential physical processes important for the simulation of future climate change."

The climate scientists have tested their models by imputing climate conditions at the beginning of the last century and then running the model forward and seeing how well it was able to "predict" what actually happened over the last century. Climate models are able to simulate past climate quite accurately. According to the IPCC (2007): "Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago. They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 6.2) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period."

 

[Old Rocks]

You're just full of those idiotic denier cult myths, aren't you, SSoooooDDumb? This particular myth has been recently fueled by a fallacious article by denier cult douche-bag David Rose which claimed that data from the British Met Office showed no warming for the last 16 years. Totally bogus, of course, but fuel for your denier cult fantasies.

In response to the factual errors in Rose's propaganda piece/newspaper article, the Met Office posted an official response. Here is the official Met Office press release - which, BTW, is a government press release, is not copyrighted, and is free to reproduce in full.

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

Met Office News Blog - the official blog of the Met Office news team
10/14/2012

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,​

Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?”

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.


​

———–
The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.

LOL. Year after year we see new records set, we see more extreme weather, and we see the fruitcakes continually deny obvious facts.

Untill 2000, they absolutely insisted that global warming did not exist. Now, since anyone with eyes can see it in most parts of the world, they say that it is natural trends. But cannot give a single reason for those trends.

In fact, the natural trends should be cooling us, but they are not. Nine of the hottest ten years have occurred since 2001. And the single exception, 1998, ranked third, has a super El Nino. But the fruitloops insist that it has been cooling for the last 17 years. Yet, in the last 17 years, the only year not in the hottest 17, is 1990. Rightwing nuts cannot read graphs or face reality.

You see "new" records set thanks to data manipulation and the wondrous effect of the Urban Heat Island effect. Do try and be scientific in your approach.

You see Wallyeyes lying through his teeth one more time.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're just full of those idiotic denier cult myths, aren't you, SSoooooDDumb? This particular myth has been recently fueled by a fallacious article by denier cult douche-bag David Rose which claimed that data from the British Met Office showed no warming for the last 16 years. Totally bogus, of course, but fuel for your denier cult fantasies.

In response to the factual errors in Rose's propaganda piece/newspaper article, the Met Office posted an official response. Here is the official Met Office press release - which, BTW, is a government press release, is not copyrighted, and is free to reproduce in full.

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

Met Office News Blog - the official blog of the Met Office news team
10/14/2012

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,​

Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?”

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.


​

———–
The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.

LOL. Year after year we see new records set, we see more extreme weather, and we see the fruitcakes continually deny obvious facts.

Untill 2000, they absolutely insisted that global warming did not exist. Now, since anyone with eyes can see it in most parts of the world, they say that it is natural trends. But cannot give a single reason for those trends.

In fact, the natural trends should be cooling us, but they are not. Nine of the hottest ten years have occurred since 2001. And the single exception, 1998, ranked third, has a super El Nino. But the fruitloops insist that it has been cooling for the last 17 years. Yet, in the last 17 years, the only year not in the hottest 17, is 1990. Rightwing nuts cannot read graphs or face reality.

You see "new" records set thanks to data manipulation and the wondrous effect of the Urban Heat Island effect. Do try and be scientific in your approach.

Muller gave lie to your statement. And here is a scientific approach;

AGW Observer

The global energy balance from a surface perspective

The global energy balance from a surface perspective – Wild et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: “In the framework of the global energy balance, the radiative energy exchanges between Sun, Earth and space are now accurately quantified from new satellite missions. Much less is known about the magnitude of the energy flows within the climate system and at the Earth surface, which cannot be directly measured by satellites. In addition to satellite observations, here we make extensive use of the growing number of surface observations to constrain the global energy balance not only from space, but also from the surface. We combine these observations with the latest modeling efforts performed for the 5th IPCC assessment report to infer best estimates for the global mean surface radiative components. Our analyses favor global mean downward surface solar and thermal radiation values near 185 and 342 Wm&#8722;2, respectively, which are most compatible with surface observations. Combined with an estimated surface absorbed solar radiation and thermal emission of 161 and 397 Wm&#8722;2, respectively, this leaves 106 Wm&#8722;2 of surface net radiation available globally for distribution amongst the non-radiative surface energy balance components. The climate models overestimate the downward solar and underestimate the downward thermal radiation, thereby simulating nevertheless an adequate global mean surface net radiation by error compensation. This also suggests that, globally, the simulated surface sensible and latent heat fluxes, around 20 and 85 Wm&#8722;2 on average, state realistic values. The findings of this study are compiled into a new global energy balance diagram, which may be able to reconcile currently disputed inconsistencies between energy and water cycle estimates.”

Citation: Martin Wild, Doris Folini, Christoph Schär, Norman Loeb, Ellsworth G. Dutton, Gert König-Langlo, Climate Dynamics, November 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1569-8.

 

[westwall]

LOL. Year after year we see new records set, we see more extreme weather, and we see the fruitcakes continually deny obvious facts.

Untill 2000, they absolutely insisted that global warming did not exist. Now, since anyone with eyes can see it in most parts of the world, they say that it is natural trends. But cannot give a single reason for those trends.

In fact, the natural trends should be cooling us, but they are not. Nine of the hottest ten years have occurred since 2001. And the single exception, 1998, ranked third, has a super El Nino. But the fruitloops insist that it has been cooling for the last 17 years. Yet, in the last 17 years, the only year not in the hottest 17, is 1990. Rightwing nuts cannot read graphs or face reality.

You see "new" records set thanks to data manipulation and the wondrous effect of the Urban Heat Island effect. Do try and be scientific in your approach.

Muller gave lie to your statement. And here is a scientific approach;

AGW Observer

The global energy balance from a surface perspective

The global energy balance from a surface perspective – Wild et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: “In the framework of the global energy balance, the radiative energy exchanges between Sun, Earth and space are now accurately quantified from new satellite missions. Much less is known about the magnitude of the energy flows within the climate system and at the Earth surface, which cannot be directly measured by satellites. In addition to satellite observations, here we make extensive use of the growing number of surface observations to constrain the global energy balance not only from space, but also from the surface. We combine these observations with the latest modeling efforts performed for the 5th IPCC assessment report to infer best estimates for the global mean surface radiative components. Our analyses favor global mean downward surface solar and thermal radiation values near 185 and 342 Wm&#8722;2, respectively, which are most compatible with surface observations. Combined with an estimated surface absorbed solar radiation and thermal emission of 161 and 397 Wm&#8722;2, respectively, this leaves 106 Wm&#8722;2 of surface net radiation available globally for distribution amongst the non-radiative surface energy balance components. The climate models overestimate the downward solar and underestimate the downward thermal radiation, thereby simulating nevertheless an adequate global mean surface net radiation by error compensation. This also suggests that, globally, the simulated surface sensible and latent heat fluxes, around 20 and 85 Wm&#8722;2 on average, state realistic values. The findings of this study are compiled into a new global energy balance diagram, which may be able to reconcile currently disputed inconsistencies between energy and water cycle estimates.”

Citation: Martin Wild, Doris Folini, Christoph Schär, Norman Loeb, Ellsworth G. Dutton, Gert König-Langlo, Climate Dynamics, November 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1569-8.

No he didn't. He used the exact same data sets. he didn't do anything but run the numbers through his own algorithims. And I have yet to see the papers published.

I think that unlike Greig et al he doesn't want to see his papers ripped to shreds in under a day. What do you think?

 

[RollingThunder]

Here is what an actual climate scientist had to say on the issue. Seems that Jones and Curry both agree that it hasn't warmed for 15 years. Observation is where it's at...reality...as oppsed to models.

‘Pause’ discussion thread | Climate Etc.
‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II | Climate Etc.

Your denier cult myths are as crackpot as you are, SSooooDDumb.

Professor Phil Jones does not agree that the Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years. Nor, BTW, does the Arctic ice cap.

No one cares what that discredited dingbat Curry has to say. She's one of the maybe dozen or so actual scientists who dispute AGW (vs. the tens of thousands who agree with conclusions of the climate scientists) and her criticisms have been repeatedly debunked as nonsense by the real scientists.

Not surprising that a denier cult retard like you would think that she is hot stuff.

 

[SSDD]

No he didn't. He used the exact same data sets. he didn't do anything but run the numbers through his own algorithims. And I have yet to see the papers published.

I think that unlike Greig et al he doesn't want to see his papers ripped to shreds in under a day. What do you think?

Isn't it interesting that these guys don't seem to know that muller couldn't even pass pal review, much less the tossing he would get on the open web.

 

[westwall]

No he didn't. He used the exact same data sets. he didn't do anything but run the numbers through his own algorithims. And I have yet to see the papers published.

I think that unlike Greig et al he doesn't want to see his papers ripped to shreds in under a day. What do you think?

Isn't it interesting that these guys don't seem to know that muller couldn't even pass pal review, much less the tossing he would get on the open web.

pal review seems to be breaking apart as evidenced by the latest assault on Mannian scientific methods. Of course they could just be throwing him under the bus because he's a blowhard and an easy target now that his lawsuits are blowing up in his face. That's got to hurt a egomaniac like that twerp.

 

[flacaltenn]

[Considering that pretty much everything you say is wrong, listening to you makes no sense at all.

In this case, you are once again very wrong and totally confused. Too bad you're such a brainwashed retard.

Love the way you just toss stuff up and don't realize what it means.

""... represents an average of 58 simulations run on 14 different models..... "

You do realize that if the models were RIGHT in the first place -- you'd only have to run 14 simulations on 14 models to get the answers. Don't you?

When you look closely at the "results" the disagreement between model runs approaches the magnitude of the anomaly. Which means that SOME of these models are not all that good. That's why you need 14 models running MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS to produce anything approaching laudable.

Without knowing HOW the input feature vectors were mangled and tweaked -- you've got chaos. A LINE regression is pretty easy to generate. I could do the same thing with a 4th order polynomial fit and tweaking a few parameters. Changing the slopes and tossing in some perturbations from a volcano or two COULD REALLY impress the natives..

Thing about simulation is --- you don't just look at the output. Especially when you're backcasting for only one history trend. That would be like simulating the response of a complex electronic gadget (like a radio) to noise by using just one signal stream and just one noise source.

Next time you see a paper based on a model, you MIGHT want to pay more attention to the tuning assumptions and less time gasping in awe about the graph.