New NOAA Research Puts Global Warming 'Hiatus' in Doubt

[Ban my account ffs!]

Only the future is certain!  It's the past that's always changing.

They finally did it!  Years of torturing the temperature data, every time increasing the warming trend, bit by bit...culling stations that didn't conform...leaving a relative few mostly in urban areas.

The joke is that as the glaciers advance on us, the folks at NOAA will be standing at the last weather station on earth holding a lighter to the thermometer proclaiming "the MODELS were right all along and it's worse than we thought!"

But nobody would look into the smoke and mirrors and genius statistical manipulation involved here.  I'm the denier and they are the objective scientist.  Just remember.  They get paid for their work by the government who has a vested interest in keeping you scared of the weather and the future.  I dont.

They lowered the upward trend in sea surface temps during the 80s and 90s by adjusting temps upward through the 80s by 0.02°C.  Then the adjustments declne to -0.03°C in the 1997-2000 period...when the hiatus actually began.  Then the adjustment slope quickly climbs to 0.05°C by 2013/14.

So they added 0.08°C to the trend over 2000-2013 which was enough to say the hiatus technically didn't occur.

And yet other datasets disagree.  The Argo buoys deployed globally show no warming and the satellites show no warming.

Instead they relied on adjusting sst data collected from ships and figured those in extra heavy into their algorithms.

Again...I'm the science denier!

[Ban my account ffs!]

Only the future is certain!  It's the past that's always changing.

They finally did it!  Years of torturing the temperature data, every time increasing the warming trend, bit by bit...culling stations that didn't conform...leaving a relative few mostly in urban areas.

The joke is that as the glaciers advance on us, the folks at NOAA will be standing at the last weather station on earth holding a lighter to the thermometer proclaiming "the MODELS were right all along and it's worse than we thought!"

But nobody would look into the smoke and mirrors and genius statistical manipulation involved here.  I'm the denier and they are the objective scientist.  Just remember.  They get paid for their work by the government who has a vested interest in keeping you scared of the weather and the future.  I dont.

They lowered the upward trend in sea surface temps during the 80s and 90s by adjusting temps upward through the 80s by 0.02°C.  Then the adjustments declne to -0.03°C in the 1997-2000 period...when the hiatus actually began.  Then the adjustment slope quickly climbs to 0.05°C by 2013/14.

So they added 0.08°C to the trend over 2000-2013 which was enough to say the hiatus technically didn't occur.

And yet other datasets disagree.  The Argo buoys deployed globally show no warming and the satellites show no warming.

Instead they relied on adjusting sst data collected from ships and figured those in extra heavy into their algorithms.

Again...I'm the science denier!

Richard Muller says it's 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than 250 years ago. And this was because of work that was trying to prove the climate deniers right. Obviously he's not a denier any more.

What magic crystal ball did Richard Muller use to calculate the global temperature of 250 years ago?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

There seems to be a considerable lack of understanding about the collection, collation, analysis and presentation of stats.

This seems to be a nicely worded way of dismissing my post above.  But while I could link to the paper in question and the analysis of the stats and adjustments...I'll leave that to you as it might give you some understanding about the collection, collation, analysis, and presentation of stats.

Stop being obscurantist.  This is simple.  The scientists adjusted the trend upward by 0.08°C over 13 years and then obscurantized and jargonized the justification until you would just take them at their word.  Like a 3 cylinder full sized pick up truck...but with all kinds of bells and whistles!

Then they send the dogs out with the denier word to drown out any skepticism.

They say as much in the abstract.  They found a problem (the warming trend wasnt strong enough and a talk of hiatus or pause was taking over the debate)...so after some heavy duty analysis they found just enough hundredths of a degree over a 15 year period to technically say the pause never occurred.

Hey Polnut...have you disclaimed that you have a career related obligation not to be skeptical about global warming?  im afraid people might not know that and believe you're just being neutral on the subject.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

Really?  That's the best you can do?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/19-appeal-to-accomplishment

You have some awesome credentials yourself, being a lawyer and Member of the FBI.

Blatter will come out of this unscathed. He'll disassociate with everyone involved and pretend he barely knew them and it was his leadership really that was behind rooting out corruption.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not.

also, a psychic apparently!

[Ban my account ffs!]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

Really?  That's the best you can do?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/19-appeal-to-accomplishment

You have some awesome credentials yourself, being a lawyer and Member of the FBI.

Blatter will come out of this unscathed. He'll disassociate with everyone involved and pretend he barely knew them and it was his leadership really that was behind rooting out corruption.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not.

also, a psychic apparently!

the difference here is that you are claiming to know better than virtually every actual expert on the subject.

So the seven datasets that show a pause in global warming, compiled by the authorities you appeal to, don't matter?

I'd merely claim those seven datasets actually have more merit than the one provided in this paper And by simple number are more worthy of consideration.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

Really?  That's the best you can do?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/19-appeal-to-accomplishment

You have some awesome credentials yourself, being a lawyer and Member of the FBI.

Blatter will come out of this unscathed. He'll disassociate with everyone involved and pretend he barely knew them and it was his leadership really that was behind rooting out corruption.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not.

also, a psychic apparently!

So that's a no for you.

You don't have to believe in climate change, but please don't try to parse and criticise scientific research. It's just painful to read.

You're clearly very uneducated on the issue and have even less of a position to argue from.  I'd recommend using the ignore feature.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Clearly I am I climate skeptic for political and ideological purposes.  I must work for an oil company.  (Actually you'd find I would like to get off oil asap for environmental and geopolitical reasons).

I get riled up by the "well, you're not a scientist, so" because that's a desperate argument.  If you want to contest my points, please do.  If you just want to trash me and argue i have no right or place to discuss this...then we should report this thread as not being the place to post such information, since climate change (but not other fields like economics or social sciences or political science) is special and not subject to debate...but is instead to be accepted as canon or the skeptics slandered and group shamed.  To me that suggests the foundations of climate science aren't firm...and it's not because of deniers...but in spite of your efforts to shut up people who don't buy it outright.

I've made my views clear:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that, all other things equal, re-reflects infrared longwave radiation back to the surface of the earth or between themselves in the air.

Carbon dioxide has been reasonably proven to increase global air temperatures by n°C per doubling of co2 concentration in the atmosphere.  That number is still up to debate but is narrowing to a range of 0.7°-2.5°C, with a likely range of 1-2°C.

Beyond this things get enormously complex due to positive and negative feedbacks.  The IPCC still assumes climate sensitivity on the high end of the established science and uses dubious, now dated papers to claim a strong overall positive feedback that could lead to big, scary, runaway warming.

And yet even if you accept with this latest paper that 1998-2012 warmed at the same rate as 1950-2012 (itself a cherry picked time period since it includes a period of no global warming from 1950-1975), then you still are faced with the question...why hasnt warming accelerated dramatically since 2000 on account of vastly increased carbon dioxide emissions?

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Yes...thisprobably is painful to read.  Challenging dogma always is.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy in 1995:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That graph stops in like 2001 which makes it nearly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  But thanks for that entertaining bit of hyperbole and putting words in my mouth.

Notice the temperatures from 1950-1975 in that graph.  Then figure out why they compared 1998-2012 to 1950-2012 and not, say, the 30 years directly prior to 1998 (1968-1998 compared to 1998-2012) or, say, the 14 preceding years (so that the two time periods being compared were subsequent and of equal length) That relative slowdown (1984-1998 compared to 1998-2012) is quite large and would not fit their predetermined attempt to shut out the deniers, who apparently almost dont exist and whose arguments are so easily falsifiable that it's not even worth taking the time to do so!

[Ban my account ffs!]

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Are there some charts of the increase of CO2 emissions over say the last century or so?  What about atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If there is causality between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increases, shouldn't there be correlation.

There has been an absolutely enormous growth in carbon emissions globally from human activity since 2002.


This is the absolute rate of growth in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. 

While co2 emissions ballooned 2003-2012...the rate of change in atmospheric co2 concentrations did not increase.  The relationship has a disconnect.

This would argue increased uptake of co2 by the biosphere or by the oceans. 

In order for the oceans to do this, they would need to cool significantly...since cooler surface waters increase co2 uptake.

But the geniuses at NOAA are arguing that the ocean warming is what was under estimated in the past 15 years and where they adjusted so they could say the pause never happened.  They want their cake and they wanna eat it too.

I wouldn't expect a dogmatist like evergreen to figure this out.  Simple google searches and a working knowledge of climate just isn't feasible...so snarky post edits are all he/she has.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Are there some charts of the increase of CO2 emissions over say the last century or so?  What about atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If there is causality between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increases, shouldn't there be correlation.

Thank you for asking the right question.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You're right polnut, and i apologize. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Climate scientists, to a fault, know almost nothing of weather.  They scorn meteorologists who can tell you exactly how a hurricane hands off energy from ocean water to the poles where it can radiate into space.

Instead they rely on computer models that tell us we will burn...but cannot model the el niño/southern oscillation or clouds.  Both play an enormous role in both heat transfer but also incoming solar radiation and how much gets radiated into space before it can warm the surface.

Thousands of studies have found proof that global warming will lead to literally any outcome.  So they are ALWAYS right.  Global warming means more and less El Niño events, more and less La Niña events, and stronger and weaker ones at that!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

[Ban my account ffs!]

The correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase is not direct. The majority of warming that is predicted in the long run is through feedback cycles. The climate sensitivity to CO2 alone is about 1 degree Celsius for every doubling of CO2 concentration. That's well in line with the minute amount of warming observed so far, and the rate is small enough that decade long trends in ocean currents and solar output can halt or even reverse warming for moderate periods of time. What is unsettled is the climate sensitivity including the feedback factors I mentioned earlier. 3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 is the most commonly cited figure. These factors won't become significant until 1) the warming is significant enough (2 degrees is a commonly referenced tipping point for some) and 2) after enough time for the environment to reach a new equilibrium under the new temperatures.

The point of reducing emissions now is to prevent significant warming to happen in the future, and by that I'm talking closer to the end of the century when these feedback cycles will increase the rate of warming significantly. Snowguy's representations of what climate scientists believe are not at all accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You imply as if the temperature immediately after is somehow evidence against climate models. But the majority of warming expected comes well after the release of emissions. So it doesn't mean anything.

You're using a denier's excuse to try and prove to me that the alarmists are correct.

Do you know how carbon dioxide traps heat?  It doesn't wait a while before it starts.  With climate scientists arguing that solar activity is nearly constant (thus why it is referred to as the solar constant), you don't have big, long delays in warming.

"Deniers" have pointed out for years that natural climate cycles are what caused cooling periods from 1880-1910, 1945-1975, and the pause after ~2000.  Prominent climate scientists like Michael Mann and James Hansen have dismissed this and instead argued aerosol emissions have masked the underlying warming and thus reductions in aerosol emissions will cause double time warming.

As for your 1°C vs 3°C argument...you're misunderstanding.

The IPCC said CO2 alone would cause 3°C compared to 1750 with a concentration of 560ppm (a doubling from the pre industrial 280ppm).  Then feedbacks are taken into account which had previously meant model estimates from 2°-6°C warming.

But no papers in recent years have argued for a possible 3°C sensitivity.  You are right when you say it is closer to 1°C...0.7°C-2.5°C being the accepted range now.

The models cant model feedbacks effectively.  They basically just have to plug them in based on their best estimates in a crude, forced fashion...hence forcing the models.

Empirical approaches where you best estimate actual measured global warming since WWII, when co2 emissions began to be significant show that feedbacks are neutral or even slightly negative.  But climate scientists much prefer their models where they can input whatever they want so they cam scare you.

All of your scary press releases about how global warming will turn your toe nails green tend to rely on the high end of projections.  Whoda thunk?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Interestingly...warming in California is positively correlated to county population size!

[Ban my account ffs!]

Co2 emissions have exploded since 2000.  Global warming, by 7 sets of data, stopped.  By one new set, has continued at the rate of 1950-2012...but still far slower than 1975-1998.

Are there some charts of the increase of CO2 emissions over say the last century or so?  What about atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If there is causality between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increases, shouldn't there be correlation.

Global temp from 1960-2009 (roughly equivalent to the x axis above)

[Ban my account ffs!]

Indeed.  The disagreement lies in the extent of the problem and the solutions needed.  Beyond that I see it politicized.

And dogmatized.

When people post a graphic of almost global temps in 2014 (there was lots of filling in and even then large portions of the globe are uncovered) to prove the urban heat island effect doesn't exist...you quickly realize this issue has nothing to do with science...but faith first...justification later.

Perhaps New Canadaland should know that the graphic he posted had a 1200km smoothing effect added to it to cover massive empty gaps where no data is collected...but that this also blends urban and rural stations together.

The great irony is that one urban station on land could be covering 1200km out into the Pacific...so literally there could be an urban heat island effect in the Pacific.

But shhhh...(whispers) im just a stupid denier!

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's the slope of the lines that matter, not the absolute temperature readings.

And that wouldn't be affected by the latitude, altitude, and various other factors beyond proximity to a heat island that also correlate with population size in California?

Co2 is nearly uniform over all California counties and the argument is that urban heat islands have such little impact that it doesn't matter if you adjust for them.  Instead, the "consensus" argument is that co2 and not uhi is the culprit.

This is why they can toss rural weather stations out of the matrix that comprises global temperatures and then fill in the rural areas with urban weather observations while not adjusting for urban heat islands.  It also explains why the surface observation datasets are diverging upwards away from satellite derived observations which cover the entire atmospheric column and the entire globe every day.

[Ban my account ffs!]

But more to the point, Torie is right. Only the slope matters.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Of course, Jfern.  I'm not trying to say global warming isn't a thing.  I'm saying the collective freakout is unneccesary and harmful.  Not only to the economy, but also to other, more imminent environmental concerns.

Reduce, reuse, recycle is infinitely better advice than "OMFG IF WE DONT CHAIN OURSELVES TO THE COAL PLANT FENCE THE OCEAN WILL RISE 2 feet in the NEXT 20 YEARS!  Sorry Doctor Hansen, it didn't happen...

I get my climate science info from climate scientists and their research...not some moonbat "journalist" on Salon.com who just cites Bill effing Nye to PROVE the Texas floods were caused by co2 warming cuz warmer atmosphere holds something something moisture.

Hint:  I understand the climate and meteorological underpinnings as well as the real human impact (land use much?) that played into those floods.  Co2, at most, had almost nothing to do with it.

But nobody would care to read that.  Cuz Bill Nye is the science guy and I'm the stupid denier!

[Ban my account ffs!]

I hope millions upon millions *are* displaced from their ramshackle tin boxes into quality housing through economic growth.  Then I hope India and Bangladesh can invest in their infrastructure to withstand the very extreme climate they inhabit.  Getting tropical levels of annual rainfall all in 3 months is not an easy environment to adapt to!