How has the IPCC done?

[BethesdaWX]

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

The latest global temperature measurements are available for both satellite data [3] and for the Hadley CRU temperature data [2], so I thought it would be interesting to compare these with the predictions made in 1990 by the first IPCC report. There is now sufficient data to test whether the GCM modeling of greenhouse gases used by the IPCC really matches up to reality. The result is shown below.

Figure 1: 1990 IPCC predictions compared to actual measurements 2011

<P class=p1>This comparison is based on the analysis described below.

Predictions from the IPCC Report 1990 [1]

“Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1.3°C and 2.8″C, with a best estimate of 2 0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise from 1990 of 0.7-1.5°C with a best estimate of 1.1C. “

<P class=p2><P class=p2>Prediction: 1990 to 2030 –> 0.7 - 1.5 degrees C

T = T(1990) + 0.0275*deltaY

Assuming a linear extrapolating to May 2011:

T(2011) = T(1990) + 0.58 (maximum of 0.79 and minimum of 0.37)

<P class=p1>DATA

The data I have used are both the Hadley/CRU data [2] which is an IPCC reference set based on global surface temperature measurements and UAH data [3] using a NOAA satellite-based microwave measurement of the lower atmosphere temperature. The data for both sets is available as global averages. For the UAH data I calculated yearly averages for each year to allow a direct comparison with HadCru. The 2011 values are the averages as of May 2011. Both datasets actually publish “Temperature Anomalies” rather than the absolute temperature. These are merely the offset from a long-term average temperature. They use different intervals for the anomaly so this causes an offset. The actual data compared to the IPCC predictions are shown below in Figure 2. The IPCC curves are based on a linear increase using the 1990 temperature value of HadCrut. The curves through both datasets are least square smoothing fits.

Figure2: Comparison of yearly HadCru & UAH data with IPCC 1990 predictions

Both datasets agree rather well in shape, ignoring the normalisation offset and the long term trends are remarkably similar. The two datasets are independent of each other; HadCrut is based on worldwide meteorological data, and the satellite IR data is calibrated without using any surface temperature data. This gives us confidence that they represent an accurate record of global temperatures over the last 21 years. The comparison with the IPCC predictions is made by normalising the UAH trend data to that of HadCru and then normalising the IPCC predictions to the 1990 HadCru trend value. The result is shown above in Figure 1.

<P class=p1>Conclusions

Following a gradual rise of about 0.2 degrees from 1990 to 2000, global temperatures have stopped increasing and have actually fallen slightly. The only IPCC prediction which remains consistent with the current data is the lower prediction of a 0.7 degree rise from 1990 to 2030. The “Best” IPCC estimate and the higher 1.5 degree rise are ruled out by the data.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise over the last 10 years (see overlay to temperature comparison below in Figure 3) but temperatures have not risen since 2000. This implies that CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures on these time periods and that other natural mechanisms are at least as important. No evidence of any positive temperature feedback with increasing CO2 levels is found.

Figure 3: Overlay of Mauna Loa CO2 data with temperature data.

References:

[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/p..._1990_wg1.shtml

[2] http://www.cru.uea.a...ta/temperature/

[3] http://vortex.nsstc....t2lt/uahncdc.lt

<P class=p1>

[skierinvermont]

This is the wrong way to go about doing the statistical tests. There are numerous mistakes and/or manipulations to make things appear worse than they really are.

1. Most of the graphs begin with a single starting point in 1990. If 1990 was a warm year (which it was) this is of course misleading, as temperatures then proceeded to drop the next few years. The multiple lines should be fit together over a 5-10 year period, such as 1985-1990.

2. Other graphs they seem to have just plopped multiple sources on with no clear starting points. For example, the UAH line on one or two graphs is just consistently below the other lines. There was obviously not attempt to put all the sources, or the IPCC prediction, on the same baseline. This of course gives the impression that UAH was "colder" when of course what really matters is the slope. And if we look at the slope, we see the slope was not that far off.

Lot's of actual scientific studies have done statistical verification and do a much better job of it than some blogger playing with graphs who obviously has no idea what he is doing.

[Jesse]

This is the wrong way to go about doing the statistical tests. There are numerous mistakes and/or manipulations to make things appear worse than they really are.

1. Most of the graphs begin with a single starting point in 1990. If 1990 was a warm year (which it was) this is of course misleading, as temperatures then proceeded to drop the next few years. The multiple lines should be fit together over a 5-10 year period, such as 1985-1990.

2. Other graphs they seem to have just plopped multiple sources on with no clear starting points. For example, the UAH line on one or two graphs is just consistently below the other lines. There was obviously not attempt to put all the sources, or the IPCC prediction, on the same baseline. This of course gives the impression that UAH was "colder" when of course what really matters is the slope. And if we look at the slope, we see the slope was not that far off.

Lot's of actual scientific studies have done statistical verification and do a much better job of it than some blogger playing with graphs who obviously has no idea what he is doing.

Don't you mean better? I thought global warming was bad?

[tacoman25]

This is the wrong way to go about doing the statistical tests. There are numerous mistakes and/or manipulations to make things appear worse than they really are.

1. Most of the graphs begin with a single starting point in 1990. If 1990 was a warm year (which it was) this is of course misleading, as temperatures then proceeded to drop the next few years. The multiple lines should be fit together over a 5-10 year period, such as 1985-1990.

2. Other graphs they seem to have just plopped multiple sources on with no clear starting points. For example, the UAH line on one or two graphs is just consistently below the other lines. There was obviously not attempt to put all the sources, or the IPCC prediction, on the same baseline. This of course gives the impression that UAH was "colder" when of course what really matters is the slope. And if we look at the slope, we see the slope was not that far off.

Lot's of actual scientific studies have done statistical verification and do a much better job of it than some blogger playing with graphs who obviously has no idea what he is doing.

You haven't applied these same rules to some of the graphs you've posted....

[BethesdaWX]

This is the wrong way to go about doing the statistical tests. There are numerous mistakes and/or manipulations to make things appear worse than they really are.

1. Most of the graphs begin with a single starting point in 1990. If 1990 was a warm year (which it was) this is of course misleading, as temperatures then proceeded to drop the next few years. The multiple lines should be fit together over a 5-10 year period, such as 1985-1990.

2. Other graphs they seem to have just plopped multiple sources on with no clear starting points. For example, the UAH line on one or two graphs is just consistently below the other lines. There was obviously not attempt to put all the sources, or the IPCC prediction, on the same baseline. This of course gives the impression that UAH was "colder" when of course what really matters is the slope. And if we look at the slope, we see the slope was not that far off.

Lot's of actual scientific studies have done statistical verification and do a much better job of it than some blogger playing with graphs who obviously has no idea what he is doing.

Its not Manipulation, the IPCC prediction does not apply before 1990..... Look carefully at where the Lines intersect at 1990 and then change direction, this is a simple comparison to the IPCC prediction, not manipulation or conspiracy.

Temps are then put on the same Baseline, Comparing to the IPCC prediction

Temps were flatter Before 1990 than After it.....this is just helping you.

1) The Graphs for Temperature start at year 1980, not 1990. These are satellite era temps, with the varying mean used..... the varying mean is the best way to determine trends on a decadal timescale.

2) The Baseline doesn't matter, its the Trend that matters. We're going satellite era only here, since that is the best timeframe of thorough data we have.

3) If I'm going to compare the IPCC prediction with reality... I'm going to start where the prediction actually begins ....using a smoothed varying mean for accuracy to cancel out the effects of Any warm years

[Clifford]

1. Most of the graphs begin with a single starting point in 1990. If 1990 was a warm year (which it was) this is of course misleading, as temperatures then proceeded to drop the next few years. The multiple lines should be fit together over a 5-10 year period, such as 1985-1990.

You could have chosen 1985 or 1992 as starting points. Something that would be very arbitrary, picking out the minimums.

However, the conclusion would be the same.

A rapid increase from the mid 80's or early 90's to 2000, followed by a plateau from 2000 to present.

I'm not convinced of the accuracy of his trend line fits, especially with the UAH data. I don't seem to have the software to recreate the line, but say a 5 year running average doesn't have nearly as sharp of a plateau around 2000.

It almost appears as if he forced the data onto a sinusoidal which may or may not be appropriate, but would tend to force a plateau near the end.

[skierinvermont]

You haven't applied these same rules to some of the graphs you've posted....

Yes I have. The graphs I create for purposes similar to this have used 5-10 year baselines. For example, the comparison graphs between the different temperature sources I have used the 1990-1999 baseline. Using single year starting points in situations such as this is dumb and frequently manipulative.

[skierinvermont]

Here's a much better graph that doesn't manipulate the baselines, although it only runs through 2007. The graph comes from Roger Pielke who is a contrarian.

Ideally, it would show confidence intervals.

[LakeEffectKing]

Don't you mean better? I thought global warming was bad?

LOL, that was the first thing that jumped out at me too. It's the old Freudian slip....window into agenda/bias and subjectivity. Demonstrates an attitude of one who would rather be right than having the world "better off" without the proclaimed disasters embellished upon by the AGW ilk.....

[BethesdaWX]

Andrew, Your Graph is Crazy Manipulated, You Have to Be Joking, Right?

1) Your Graph ends in 2006/07, We have cooled overall since then (we have), and fallen out of the Cone Further. So post something that goes to 2011 after the Nino spike.

2) Your Graph doesn't take the Varying mean, but instead uses all of the ups and downs to compare to an IPCC mean "Line". The IPCC forecast is a Mean, not a varying avg.... so it doesn't match up. You Need to take the Varying Mean of the Graph

My Graph is Much Better because

1) Both Graphs are means

2) They are both on the Same Baseline

[LakeEffectKing]

Andrew, Your Graph is Crazy Manipulated, You Have to Be Joking, Right?

1) Your Graph ends in 2006/07, We have cooled overall since then (we have), and fallen out of the Cone Further. So post something that goes to 2011 after the Nino spike.

2) Your Graph doesn't take the Varying mean, but instead uses all of the ups and downs to compare to an IPCC mean "Line". The IPCC forecast is a Mean, not a varying avg.... so it doesn't match up. You Need to take the Varying Mean of the Graph

My Graph is Much Better because

1) Both Graphs are means

2) They are both on the Same Baseline

I'm not sure what issue Skier has with the graph.....it fits well with the fact that 'we can't acount for the lack of warming' ....you know....the travesty?

[PottercountyWXobserver]

I'm not sure what issue Skier has with the graph.....it fits well with the fact that 'we can't acount for the lack of warming' ....you know....the travesty?

Either way you look at it, levels are still higher than 1990, let alone any other point in recent history. Hopefully the steady to cooling trend can continue. My fear is we continue to remain steady but when the PDO switches positive we begin the climb upwards again. I'm not really sold towards either side of the debate yet, I think if we don't cool over the next 20 years the world will finally know its verdict.

[ORH_wxman]

I had an IPCC 2001 mean of "most likely scenario" graph back on eastern that showed it was almost certainly going to fall out of its 95% confidence interval this year, but I don't have it anymore unfortunately. Or maybe I do and cannot find it. But most remember when I posted it. They've obviously ignored natural factors or more accurately, downplayed them while briefly mentioning them in passing.

IPCC does a piss poor job at presenting natural variability to the average non-scientist or non-educated non-pseudo scientist. Whether you want to protect their peer reviewed evidence or not (and they've already gotten in trouble for putting non-peer reviewed stuff in their recent reports), their job is not solely to present peer reviewed literature that only supports their obvious message about AGW, its to educate the ignorant (on climate change) decision makers of policy on how the climate works. When they give these graphs with continuously rising temperatures and downplay any natural forcing, even on the decadal scale....its a terrible job by them of educating the public on how global temperature change works.

They are certainly guilty of opening themselves up to criticism when temperatures flat line for 10 years because they didn't educate the ignorant people about how that was easily possible. They strive to push the doom and gloom agenda. This isn't always about peer review literature, its about educating the public and policy makers which affect our lives on the dangers of climate change and the way it works.

We actually do not know how it works 100% of course which is problem #1, and problem #2 is their obsessive lack of accounting for natural variability in their message to the public regardless of if they have a citation in their work that mentions a larger error bar. They do not present themselves like that.

[nzucker]

They are certainly guilty of opening themselves up to criticism when temperatures flat line for 10 years because they didn't educate the ignorant people about how that was easily possible. They strive to push the doom and gloom agenda. This isn't always about peer review literature, its about educating the public and policy makers which affect our lives on the dangers of climate change and the way it works.

Although the warming has slowed significantly, temperatures aren't in a complete flatline. In the last 10 years, GISS has shown a warming trend of about .12C/decade, Hadley about .10C/decade, UAH about .08C/decade, and RSS about .06C/decade. This is well below estimates of warming which are in the .2C-.3C/decade range, but the Earth has overall continued to get hotter. Just wanted to point this out...it's a plateau relative to expectations, not an absolute one.

[ORH_wxman]

Although the warming has slowed significantly, temperatures aren't in a complete flatline. In the last 10 years, GISS has shown a warming trend of about .12C/decade, Hadley about .10C/decade, RSS about .08C/decade, and UAH about .06C/decade. This is well below estimates of warming which are in the .2C-.3C/decade range, but the Earth has overall continued to get hotter. Just wanted to point this out...it's a plateau relative to expectations, not an absolute one.

I'm talking about by the time we get to December 2011...it will be flat line. Jan 2002 to present is actually negative or flat line on most except GISS which is slightly positive.

[ORH_wxman]

Regardless of semantics of whether we are +0.05 or -0.02 or +0.07 in the last ten years when Dec 2011 comes around, it does not change a thing from the original post. I'm hoping not to turn this thread into a semantic argument. Because those types of numbers are totally insignificant to a minimum of +0.2C per decade (and its beyond obscene for their high of the +0.5C per decade we keep hearing about). So we'll see how this plays out the next 5-8 years, but its looking bleak for IPCC and they look to lack credibility when that type of stuff happens despite it being very realistic within the realms of their low end sensitivity scenarios...but their low end stuff didn't show that, even though it should...and they do not portray that at all in their reports.

[skierinvermont]

Although the warming has slowed significantly, temperatures aren't in a complete flatline. In the last 10 years, GISS has shown a warming trend of about .12C/decade, Hadley about .10C/decade, UAH about .08C/decade, and RSS about .06C/decade. This is well below estimates of warming which are in the .2C-.3C/decade range, but the Earth has overall continued to get hotter. Just wanted to point this out...it's a plateau relative to expectations, not an absolute one.

The estimates of predicted warming over the last 10 years is not .2-.3C.. more accurately would be described as .1-.2C/decade, or more precisely, a mean of around .18C/decade.

[skierinvermont]

Don't you mean better? I thought global warming was bad?

The term 'worse' was in reference to the topic header.

How has the IPCC done? Answer according to BethesdaBoy: badly.

My response: his graph makes the IPCC appear 'worse' than it is.

You almost had me there! Play again next week!

[skierinvermont]

I'm not sure what issue Skier has with the graph.....it fits well with the fact that 'we can't acount for the lack of warming' ....you know....the travesty?

I've explained quite clearly the problem with using single year starting points. You need to use at least 5-10 years as a baseline. BB's graphs use a single warm year as a starting point so naturally the observed temperature immediately drops off following that year and even though the slope of observed vs predicted is only somewhat different, the observed falls way below predicted the whole graph because they use a single hot year as the starting point instead of a 5-10 year baseline as they should be.

The graphs he posted are bogus.

The actual graphs, which compare the actual predictions using correct baselines to actual observations, were in my post and show that through 2007 at least the IPCC had done quite well.

[WeatherRusty]

How has the IPCC done?

As to my personal understanding of the science, I don't really care. Whether the projections given in the IPCC reports are on track or not does not alter the physical basis supporting the science. The physical basis says nothing more than at thermal equilibrium a doubling of CO2 will create a forcing equal to 3.7W/m^2 and that in isolation that will equate to a bit less than 1.2C of warming influence. The best estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity due to feedback processes raise the potential temperature increase to somewhere between 2C and 4.5C as the total climate response the initial forcing. As it stands today, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased not to a doubling but rather about 40% since pre-industrial times.

These numbers reflect a hypothetical climate which has settled down to equilibrium with all forcing, which is not currently the case. How long and at what rate this occurs is only an estimate. On time scales of approximately a decade, solar variability, aerosol loading and other factors can equal the forcing given by CO2 alone either amplifying or dampening the temperature response..Ocean oscillations such as the AMO, PDO and ENSO influence SSTs masking the overall accumulation of thermal energy accumulating within the oceans.

The general public perception of the IPCC my be entirely different, and there remains a large disconnect between what the science says and what the public understands. In this regard the IPCC has not been a success.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

The estimates of predicted warming over the last 10 years is not .2-.3C.. more accurately would be described as .1-.2C/decade, or more precisely, a mean of around .18C/decade.

I'm not supporting IPCC scare tactics of screamig louder than necessary. But eventhough temperatures haven't increased to their predictions, temperatures have still warmed even if it is miniscule. I'm giving AGW benefit of the doubt until we have seen a steady decrease in global temperatures. Even if we are only warming by .1-.2C a decade or even only .05-.1C it still adds up over time.

[BethesdaWX]

The term 'worse' was in reference to the topic header.

How has the IPCC done? Answer according to BethesdaBoy: badly.

My response: his graph makes the IPCC appear 'worse' than it is.

You almost had me there! Play again next week!

Andrew .P.

My Graph revieals the IPCC's failing predictions because 1)...its actually up to date, and 2)...Is a Match Mean-to Mean Graph, not Year to Year variations compared to a forecasted Mean. It is Visual Manipulation to compare a forecast mean to yr to yr variations, when instead you should use a varying mean on Temps.

As to my personal understanding of the science, I don't really care. Whether the projections given in the IPCC reports are on track or not does not alter the physical basis supporting the science. The physical basis says nothing more than at thermal equilibrium a doubling of CO2 will create a forcing equal to 3.7W/m^2 and that in isolation that will equate to a bit less than 1.2C of warming influence. The best estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity due to feedback processes raise the potential temperature increase to somewhere between 2C and 4.5C as the total climate response the initial forcing. As it stands today, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased not to a doubling but rather about 40% since pre-industrial times.

Rusty's post describes accurately the problem with AGW predictions, and why they are failing, and will only fall further in the future. TOA has never been in Balance, there has always been an Imbalance, a large one at that. All AGW predictions rely on the notion that the Imbalance of Incoming and Outgoing Energy must immediately warm the Planet in Sync... even though it has always been present in all aspects........this is because the IPCC ignores/falsly assumes feeback mechanisms and many timables, and assumes that natural warming cannot occur. Part 2 really gives it all away unfortnuately. Denying significant natural influence in the climate really is unacceptable.

Feedback is what matters as far as actual warming, not forcings directly. And when we look at feedback mechanisms, the likely millions of them in the climate system, seeing the IPCC's Assumtions on most of the feedbacks we know of (such as clouds, energy cycling, Water Vapor, etc) Are forecasting to revolve around a supposed imbalance enhanced by CO2 and nothing else.... simply is a recipe for failure......when rather you perhaps cannot view a Chaotic system in any other way is absolutely ridiculous to reality in any basis of fact!

As in, they assume that Warming Will lower Clouds... and that Clouds cannot Change In Amount over time.... a 2% chance equates to 1.2W/m^2 of increased energy into the atmosphere, (in other words, equating to almost as much huypothesized energy gain into the Climate System since 1790) (1.6W/m^2) and it is already obvious this has happened in the Past in looking at BE^10 Concentration Isotopes.

Also ignore the effect of the PDO, AMO, IOD, IPO, and all these different oceanic oscillations' effect on the climate system. That also is a recipe for failure.

And the Most Laughable Aspect... is looking at TSI (energy changes from the sun), and not investigating the potential response from the Climate System (feedback).

The Milancovitch Cycles would NOT create Ice Ages unless there was a Positive feedback aspect to Solar Incoming Radiation... Temps in these Ice Ages drop by over 6C...baded on tiny changes in Incoming Solar Radiation due to the Earth's orbital Changes......... So in looking at Solar Variations in Solar cycles, which are much shorter in timespan, but LARGER than those differentials in the Orbital cycles....are expected to have no Impact/Feedback?

It is so fooking obvious that the Feedback to incoming Solar Energy (Both Direct and Indirect) is POSITIVE. In this case, looking at simple energy changes just doesn't work... the climate system doesn't work like that. It never has, and it possibly never will.

Thats really the end of it, unfortunately.

[Hambone]

LOL, that was the first thing that jumped out at me too. It's the old Freudian slip....window into agenda/bias and subjectivity. Demonstrates an attitude of one who would rather be right than having the world "better off" without the proclaimed disasters embellished upon by the AGW ilk.....

Damn, that's funny. It was the first thing I thought as well! Of course I keep asking him who signs his paycheck and is it by chance a pro AGW institution... he hasn't answered.

[Hambone]

I'm not supporting IPCC scare tactics of screamig louder than necessary. But eventhough temperatures haven't increased to their predictions, temperatures have still warmed even if it is miniscule. I'm giving AGW benefit of the doubt until we have seen a steady decrease in global temperatures. Even if we are only warming by .1-.2C a decade or even only .05-.1C it still adds up over time.

If temps were dropping by .5C/decade would you feel better? I wouldn't.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

If temps were dropping by .5C/decade would you feel better? I wouldn't.

Lol to a certain point, but then everyone would be concerned with ice age. So to a point its a lose lose situation, nobody is going to win. I would just like things to stabilize more is all.

[LakeEffectKing]

Lol to a certain point, but then everyone would be concerned with ice age. So to a point its a lose lose situation, nobody is going to win. I would just like things to stabilize more is all.

Just look at the last decade or so.....pretty stable temperaturewise.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Just look at the last decade or so.....pretty stable temperaturewise.

sorry I should have been more specific. I would like the temperatures to come down some more say .5-1C more degrees then stabilize. I realize the temperatures the past decade have remained some what neutral, but I want to be totally convinced by a least a noticable downward trend soon, when it's not coming off a La Nina is all.

[skierinvermont]

There haven't been stable temperatures the last decade.. they've been increasing about .1C/decade.

[BethesdaWX]

There haven't been stable temperatures the last decade.. they've been increasing about .1C/decade.

Sorry Andrew, But you Are Incorrect.

Global Temperatures have not been increasing. ENSO is one of many aspects that needs to be removed, so you cannot say "Removing ENSO results in".... because there are other factors to be considered, Cloud Cover being the Most Prolific, since short ups and downs in the Chaotic System that is the Climate will have a variable effect given the exact orientation & Phase of Several Global Drivers, Including the AMO, IOD, PDO, IPO (coean drivers), and the increase in Visible light from 04-07 measured by satellite data.

Surface Temperatures are a Small portion of the Tropospheric Temperature Profile, so Using LT is the only way to measure AGW in its entirety.

RSS:

UAH:

NCDC

Everything

Satellite Vs Land

Overall......we've been Flat... thats the end of it. Picking single years, peaks, troughs, etc, are a dipsh*t method to just confuse people.

Based on The Chaotic Nature of the Climate system, the only think we can say now is we've been flat-lining, thats the end of it.

Now, here is the CPC OLR anomaly vs Temperature (This ORL data is "official" and used by All Centres). The Short term Variation in Outgoing Longwave Radiation are clearly variations in the climate system, (ENSO, Short term changes in Global Cloud Cover, Etc).

So Multi Century Changes in Global Cloud Cover would have a large impact on the trend at hand.

And yes, Short term, OLR varies wildly, due to reasons stated above. There are Long term aspects here too, not even to mention the Imbalance has always existed!

Increasing OLR overall by 304 W/m^2 over 30yrs is what we'd expect from GCC changes.

As you can see, overall, OLR had been INCREASING, by several W/m^2 over the past 30yrs...this is a a result of NON-ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING. The drivers that would cause this increase would be changes in Global Cloud Cover..in other words, Warming from increased Incoming SW radiation into the Lower Atmosphere.

A 2% Change in GCC equates to 1.2W/m^2 of increasd energy to the Earths Surface... a 5% change equates to 3W/m^2 of increased energy to the Earths Surface. This is where we need to fund our data research, but for whatever reason, it has been ignored.

And its changes in several aspects....heat buildup in the Oceans, alerations in global ocean currents, loss of Ice Albedo, Supposed Methane Release that Should have happened when the Arctic was 3C warmer than it is today many thousands fo yrs ago....etc.

It needs to be looked at... blatant statements made will lead to failure and humiliation in the end... I can only wait at this point.

EDIT: Andrew's Post Below:

1) Please do not Call me "BethesdaBoy" out of the demeanor you show, anymore...Call me Mitch, (the nickname), ok? I know a few things about you that I'm sure you probably wouldn't want me to say, so I hope you can put an end to that sort of talk. Otherwise I am going to start back at you, next time you do it, and am I sure you wouldn't want to start that kind of flame-war.

Read what I Wrote before you post, you missed the obvious.

ENSO is one of many aspects that needs to be removed, so you cannot say "Removing ENSO results in".... because there are other factors to be considered, Cloud Cover being the Most Prolific, since short ups and downs in the Chaotic System that is the Climate will have a variable effect given the exact orientation & Phase of Several Global Drivers, Including the AMO, IOD, PDO, IPO (coean drivers), and the increase in Visible light from 04-07 measured by satellite data.

2) We're not starting from a specific point, year, area, etc, that is a perfect recipe for Bias. ENSO Spike 1998 to ENSO spike 2010 is a Positive ENSO trend, and is a trend of +0.06C/decade on UAH... aka, Flat and affected by Noise. The Climate System is Chaotic, so the responses won't equate equally. There are No repeats in the Climate system.

3) We are using a Varying Mean, not a Linear trend, otherwise we get significant Bias.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not removing ENSO BethesdaBoy. (Although one should since this is the primary source of short term variation and can drastically alter trends depending on the start and end points one cherry picks).

10 years ago is 2001.

The linear trend 2001-present is .1C/decade using UAH. You are just making things up as normal. Even zucker acknowledges warming on the order of ~.1C/decade over the last 8-12 years.

If you refuse to remove ENSO then I'm just going to go around claiming we are warming catastrophically rapidly because the 12 year trend is +.27C/decade.