Man I've gone away and had a baby and this is still going...
Man I've gone away and had a baby and this is still going...
This cannot be ignored. Kirst's beloved escalator shows periods of less than 10 years of no warming in the last few decades. But none have been so long as the current pause.For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
I will remind you what the experts were saying just 5 years ago.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...008-lo-rez.pdfNear-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate
So, according to NOAA, there is a discrepancy with the expected warming rate. It just so happens, that the goalposts have now moved again and this previous statement is expected to be ignored. Who is the denier?
How long with no warming will it take for the 'consensus' to go back to the table for a vote?
Maybe Kirst can put a year (this thread may well still be going) so the goalposts don't shift any further.
I'll leave this for you guys (it actually has The Met's comments on the original Daily Mail article and how their data and answer to the author's questions were misrepresented):
Let me know if the link doesn't work as I had to change it from the mobile sight.
Here's the original Live Science link: http://www.livescience.com/24006-did...stop-1997.html
The Met Office: 'In the Met's response to the article, they state the answers they provided to Rose's questions before he wrote the article.In them, The Met states that the data show an increase in global temperatures of 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit (0.05 degrees Celsius) between August 1997 and August 2012, adding that calculating the trend beginning in 1999 would show a more substantial warming.
In other words, the trend you see will vary depending on the start and end dates chosen.'
"Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system," reads The Met's response.'
Congrats Clementine Grace.
Professor Judith Curry made a statement to the US House of Reps yesterday.
It is an interesting read. There are points in the statement that will please those from both sides of the fence.
I won't quote any paragraphs from the body as this may be regarded by some as 'cherry picking'.
I did, however, find this quote in the conclusion very relevant to where I stand, especially in regard to how the government reacts to the science.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2...ny-2013-il.pdfThe politicization of climate change presents daunting challenges to climate science and scientists. In my assessment, the single most important actions that are needed with regards to climate science – particularly in context of assessments for policymakers – is explicit reflection on uncertainties, ambiguities and areas of ignorance (both known and unknown unknowns) and more openness for dissent. Natural internal variability is a topic of particular importance over which there is considerable disagreement. Disagreement and debate is the soul of the scientific frontier, which is where much of climate science lies. Greater openness about scientific uncertainties and ignorance, and more transparency about dissent and disagreement, would provide policymakers with a more complete picture of climate science and its limitations.
From your link:
So they don't dispute Rose's trend.The Met Office has issued a response to the article. It does not dispute the trend Rose identifies, but says Rose's article contains "some misleading information."
I will list the errors again:
1. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming..."
The justification for this is using the "each decade has been warmer than the previous". This is misleading. An analogy = I got taller the first 2 decades of my life, but stopped growing in the third. I have been taller on average each decade when compared to the previous. But I have not grown for over 10 years. It is wrong to say that I am still growing.
2. "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 false. In August 1997, the temperatures were in transition - around half way between La Nina and El Nino. They were also in transition in August 2012.
3. "....such a period [15 years of no warming] is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely".
So they are admitting that we haven't warmed for 15 years.... in a round about way. It shows that their models are not very good. They did not 'expect' that there was going to be a pause for 15 years, yet they said that it was "not unexpected"???? NOAA's State of the Climate report in 2008 stated -
"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model's internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
Well, 15 years has been and gone. But yet, the goalposts shift.
Didn't you quote HadCrut earlier (the Met) but are now saying they're wrong? Are they wrong or right???
Here's NOAA's report from 2010:
“When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”
Do you not think the goal post shifts because they are constantly learning new things about our environment and the consequences of our lifestyles? Like I quoted a couple days ago, the Earth is not a test tube.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!