Why global temperatures held steady for 10 years

[skierinvermont]

That's a convenient cherry picked time span so you can start with the big run up in the 1990s. For someone who constantly on this forum accuses people of cherry picking data and spreading "blatant lies" (a term you love to use)....you do a nice job of constructing some good houses of cards yourself.

If you are going to accuse people of that, fine, but don't expect to get away with doing the same thing.

The sea level rise has decelerated in the most recent decade..esp starting with about 2004, which matches up well with the OHC/global temp "problem". We saw a rise of around 4mm/yr in the 1990s but we have slowed to under 2mm/yr in the past 7-8 years.

Also, where are you getting the data about the arctic being much higher than the 1940s? Using GISS 64-90N, you get a running mean of about half a degree warmer than the 1940s...using Hadcrut 60-90N you get pretty much identical temperatures, maybe just a smidge warmer today. Given the arctic has had fluctuations of over 2C in the past 100 years, saying "the 1940s had similar temperatures to today" is not a stretch at all. I didn't claim they were exactly the same, I said "similar".

lol.. I'm not cherry-picking anything.. I said quite clearly that there has been no acceleration before or after 1940, but that the rate recently has been faster. How is that cherry-picking? It is a more complete/detailed description than any description you gave. Not only does my post explain the fact that there has been no change before or after 1940, but it also describes the fact that the rate recently has been fast (which implies the rate prior to 1990 or 1980 was fairly slow).

I think that's pretty reckless and thoughtless to accuse me of cherry-picking when I gave a more complete description of what has occurred than you did, as I mentioned both the lack of long-term acceleration, but also the short-term recent acceleration. Perhaps it would be cherry-picking if I had simply pointed out the short-term acceleration. But I specifically noted the lack of long-term acceleration.

As for your claim of 4mm slowing to 2mm/yr in the last 7-8 years.. that is incorrect. From this graph of all available satellite data there has been 26mm of sea level rise (using the yearly mid-points) in the last 8 years (2002-2010). That comes out to 3.25mm/yr.

[tacoman25]

It's not about taking it "seriously", it's about taking it as what it is--an insult with no substance. A statement like "we could see warming again akin to the 70s-90s once we're out of this cool 'cycle', due to AGW+natural warming", which is basically the quote that Mike ridiculed reworded, is neither controversial nor "wacko". To mock it and those who believe it might be a little wacko, though.

I think he was more making fun of the "delayed but not denied" attitude, which we have all seen with weather forecasts many times.

In other words, the quote in that article can easily be taken as: "It may not have warmed like we thought it would yet, but just wait until it does!" Granted, the original poster went a bit overboard with the mothership comment, but I have certainly seen AGW alarmists who act like they are in a cult.

[tacoman25]

That's a convenient cherry picked time span so you can start with the big run up in the 1990s. For someone who constantly on this forum accuses people of cherry picking data and spreading "blatant lies" (a term you love to use)....you do a nice job of constructing some good houses of cards yourself.

If you are going to accuse people of that, fine, but don't expect to get away with doing the same thing.

Good to see I'm not the only that has noticed his double standards. Whether he meant to cherry-pick there or not, he accuses others of cherry-picking for doing the same sort of thing.

[skierinvermont]

Good to see I'm not the only that has noticed his double standards. Whether he meant to cherry-pick there or not, he accuses others of cherry-picking for doing the same sort of thing.

Except as usual, I wasn't cherry-picking. You've apparently conveniently decided to read only half my post. Just speaks to your typical bias and lame attempts at "gotcha."

Apparently there is an embargo on even mentioning the fact that the last 20 years have seen fairly rapid sea level rise, even when caveated with the fact that there is no long-term acceleration. It's fine to discuss the lack of a long-term acceleration, but if you so much as mention even in the context of no long-term decline that there has been a short-term acceleration, well watch out... the climate police will be all over you.

How could more information possibly be worse than less information? I guess I shouldn't be surprised though.

[skierinvermont]

It has been rising faster recently. The past 20 years have risen at 3.2mm/yr vs the 20th century mean of ~2.2mm/yr.

You're getting stuck up on that paper that concluded no acceleration post1940 vs pre1940. But there are other ways of looking at it besides pre/post 1940.

Also, arctic temperatures today are significantly higher than they were in the 1940s.

I'm sorry but if anybody thinks this post is cherry-picking, I just have to laugh. Maybe if you read only the first line, but not if you read the second line or the post I was responding to.

I was simply giving a more complete description than only pre/post 1940. Simply comparing pre to post 1940 doesn't tell us anything about the temporal pattern or what has occurred recently. I was simply providing MORE information. Yes the average rate pre/post 1940 hasn't changed, indicating we have yet to see a long-term acceleration... but that is not a complete picture.

[ORH_wxman]

lol.. I'm not cherry-picking anything.. I said quite clearly that there has been no acceleration before or after 1940, but that the rate recently has been faster. How is that cherry-picking? It is a more complete/detailed description than any description you gave. Not only does my post explain the fact that there has been no change before or after 1940, but it also describes the fact that the rate recently has been fast (which implies the rate prior to 1990 or 1980 was fairly slow).

I think that's pretty reckless and thoughtless to accuse me of cherry-picking when I gave a more complete description of what has occurred than you did, as I mentioned both the lack of long-term acceleration, but also the short-term recent acceleration. Perhaps it would be cherry-picking if I had simply pointed out the short-term acceleration. But I specifically noted the lack of long-term acceleration.

As for your claim of 4mm slowing to 2mm/yr in the last 7-8 years.. that is incorrect. From this graph of all available satellite data there has been 26mm of sea level rise (using the yearly mid-points) in the last 8 years (2002-2010). That comes out to 3.25mm/yr.

Well I didn't realize the last 7-8 years was the 9 year period from 2002-2010. Starting with January 2004, we are currently 7.5 years (hence the 7-8 years) worth of data that show between 13-14mm of sea level rise. That equates to about 1.8mm per year. That is less than 2mm per year that I stated.

The context of the post to frivolous mentioned the OHC/global temp issue. Then I mentioned it to you in my initial response and how the deceleration in sea level rise recently has matched up with that time frame.

You pretty much took everything I said and put it in your own context and not mine.

[skierinvermont]

Well I didn't realize the last 7-8 years was the 9 year period from 2002-2010. Starting with January 2004, we are currently 7.5 years (hence the 7-8 years) worth of data that show between 13-14mm of sea level rise. That equates to about 1.8mm per year. That is less than 2mm per year that I stated.

The context of the post to frivolous mentioned the OHC/global temp issue. Then I mentioned it to you in my initial response and how the deceleration in sea level rise recently has matched up with that time frame.

You pretty much took everything I said and put it in your own context and not mine.

The data you posted runs through jan 2011 not through the present, which is 7 years not 7.5. And it shows 14.75mm not 13 or 14mm (based on the trendline, using the same data as you, in excel). So your ball parking is incorrect. It is also only one of the satellites and doesn't include several of the satellites my graph does.

The actual 7.5 year trend (mid-2003 to Jan 2011) using only the Jason data in excel with a calculated trendline (instead of ballparking incorrectly) is 2.3mm/yr ... clearly not "under 2mm/yr" as you put it.

And if you want to talk about cherrypicking... starting any trend in 2003/2004 is pretty misleading since there is clearly a hump around that time. Go back just a couple years and the short-term trend to present is much larger.

[ORH_wxman]

The data you posted runs through jan 2011 not through the present, which is 7 years not 7.5. And it shows 14.75mm not 13 or 14mm (based on the trendline, using the same data as you, in excel). So your ball parking is incorrect. It is also only one of the satellites and doesn't include several of the satellites my graph does.

Ok, so I made a semantical error due to carelessly eyeballing the graph quickly, but the point still stands about sea level rise deceleration in that time frame.

Recent trends are a big deceleration of OHC rise, flat lined global temps, and a deceleration of sea level rise. Those were my points to frivolous. That the longer it goes on, then there are very legit questions to be asked.

[skierinvermont]

Ok, so I made a semantical error due to carelessly eyeballing the graph quickly, but the point still stands about sea level rise deceleration in that time frame.

Recent trends are a big deceleration of OHC rise, flat lined global temps, and a deceleration of sea level rise. Those were my points to frivolous. That the longer it goes on, then there are very legit questions to be asked.

The general point of which I did not dispute. I have simply corrected fairly minor factual errors, provided more information (the 20-yr trend) and have strongly objected to your accusation of cherrypicking when all I was doing was providing more information.

[ORH_wxman]

The general point of which I did not dispute. I have simply corrected minor factual errors, and have strongly objected to your reckless accusation of cherrypicking.

You always accuse people of cherry picking and then you do it yourself. Back in the UAH/GISS/Hadcrut thread, we were all wondering about the differences since 2002 and looking at the temperatures since then....then you kept talking about the trend since 1995 in UAH arctic temps just to boost your point about GISS extrapolating well when most of the warming on UAH between 1995-present was from 1995-2002 in the arctic, so it was completely irrelevant to the point. That was just one example I remember.

You can claim "since 2002" or whatever is a cherry picked point...that is fine, but just expect to see the same stuff said when you do examples like the above. I think we are all aware that since 2002 is a pretty small sample but it grows by the year and with the other factors like OHC not explaining the flattening of global temps, its certainly fair game to wonder. This thread is kind of geared toward that given that its talking about a lack of warming recently.

[tacoman25]

Except as usual, I wasn't cherry-picking. You've apparently conveniently decided to read only half my post. Just speaks to your typical bias and lame attempts at "gotcha."

Apparently there is an embargo on even mentioning the fact that the last 20 years have seen fairly rapid sea level rise, even when caveated with the fact that there is no long-term acceleration. It's fine to discuss the lack of a long-term acceleration, but if you so much as mention even in the context of no long-term decline that there has been a short-term acceleration, well watch out... the climate police will be all over you.

How could more information possibly be worse than less information? I guess I shouldn't be surprised though.

Flail away and try to defend yourself as much as you want, you still didn't get the point of my post. Whether you meant to cherry-pick this time or not, you still have assumed others were cherry-picking when the roles were reversed.

I'm not the only one who has noticed...I guess everyone is biased against you?

[skierinvermont]

You always accuse people of cherry picking and then you do it yourself. Back in the UAH/GISS/Hadcrut thread, we were all wondering about the differences since 2002 and looking at the temperatures since then....then you kept talking about the trend since 1995 in UAH arctic temps just to boost your point about GISS extrapolating well when most of the warming on UAH between 1995-present was from 1995-2002 in the arctic, so it was completely irrelevant to the point. That was just one example I remember.

You can claim "since 2002" or whatever is a cherry picked point...that is fine, but just expect to see the same stuff said when you do examples like the above. I think we are all aware that since 2002 is a pretty small sample but it grows by the year and with the other factors like OHC not explaining the flattening of global temps, its certainly fair game to wonder. This thread is kind of geared toward that given that its talking about a lack of warming recently.

No I don't do it myself. I added more information to an already stated fact (no long-term acceleration). Saying that there is no long term acceleration but simultaneously pointing out that the last 20 years have risen fast isn't cherry-picking... it's just providing more information. Information which you apparently didn't like, hence the arbitrary accusations of cherry-picking.

As for the UAH/GISS/Had discussion you are referring to... I started in 1995 because that is when the divergence really begins, and half the divergence occurs prior to 2002. When people requested to see the trends since 2002 I happily created the graph. Yes there is a divergence since 2002, but if we look at just a slightly longer time period the lack of polar data on HadCRUT explains over half the divergence since 1997 and 100% of the divergence since 1990.

[skierinvermont]

Flail away and try to defend yourself as much as you want, you still didn't get the point of my post. Whether you meant to cherry-pick this time or not, you still have assumed others were cherry-picking when the roles were reversed.

I'm not the only one who has noticed...I guess everyone is biased against you?

If you think that stating the past 20 years have had fast sea level rise, while ALSO satating that there has been no long term acceleration pre or post 1940 is cherry-picking then I am simply at a loss for words. I was simply adding more information. There was absolutely no attempt to pretend as if there was a long-term acceleration.. instead I specifically stated THERE ISN"T.

The only possible conclusions is that you are incredibly biased.. you've pretty much lost any credibility you had in my opinion at this point.

[Tropopause_Fold]

yikes. skier losing his cool.

[LakeEffectKing]

I've read through the latests posts, and honestly, didn't get the impression that Skier was going out of his way to embellish, or cherry pick (we can all do that). His subtle disclaimer along with his choosing of the endpoints, for me, took the edge off any subtle bias, even though he was debating from the "other" side of the argument.

However, the general point Will made certainly is reflected in the current data....We have indeed had a slowdown in the pace of sea level rise, under most any interpretation of the data. A continuation of such a trend, along with a prolonged stall in global temps wil continue to put the AGW hypothesis to the test.

[skierinvermont]

I've read through the latests posts, and honestly, didn't get the impression that Skier was going out of his way to embellish, or cherry pick (we can all do that). His subtle disclaimer along with his choosing of the endpoints, for me, took the edge off any subtle bias, even though he was debating from the "other" side of the argument.

Thank you.. I was just about to decide to stop posting here... it's one thing when people disagree over complicated issues... it's another thing when you get accused of cherry-picking for simply pointing out a short-term acceleration despite the *noted* lack of long-term acceleration.

[BethesdaWX]

yikes. skier losing his cool.

He seems fine to me... is that necessary bro?

However, the general point Will made certainly is reflected in the current data....We have indeed had a slowdown in the pace of sea level rise, under most any interpretation of the data. A continuation of such a trend, along with a prolonged stall in global temps wil continue to put the AGW hypothesis to the test.

What gets me...the OHC leveling off..fine, not unexpected, but for temperature to level off while OHC is leveling off...not expected in AGW theory unless the heat is either deep in the oceans or non-existant.

And of course this does not account for the numerous natural factors that potentially caused most of the OHC rise, although I don't want to take up 5 pages explaining that right now.

When we are all debating, we need to keep in mind that emotions can get involved, and then everything seems to devolve into a pissing match, where either side can go find/pick evidence to counter the other's view, but it is skewed because of the inherent bias associated with elevated emotions.....ie we tend to shut off objectivity and seek validating data to support our beliefs/conclusions, instead of remaining skeptical/objective....even of our own unperceived biases.

Couldn't have said it any better. I try to be objective, but that "skeptical" bias(mostly in Paleoclimatology) is obvious...I'm working on it. I don't think anyone here is nieve enough to be unaware of personal biases, but ripping people over it is useless.

[LakeEffectKing]

Thank you.. I was just about to decide to stop posting here... it's one thing when people disagree over complicated issues... it's another thing when you get accused of cherry-picking for simply pointing out a short-term acceleration despite the *noted* lack of long-term acceleration.

Don't get me wrong.....you still are wrong.. ..but it's fun to pick someone up and then kick them again and knock them back down.......

When we are all debating, we need to keep in mind that emotions can get involved, and then everything seems to devolve into a pissing match, where either side can go find/pick evidence to counter the other's view, but it is skewed because of the inherent bias associated with elevated emotions.....ie we tend to shut off objectivity and seek validating data to support our beliefs/conclusions, instead of remaining skeptical/objective....even of our own unperceived biases.

[tacoman25]

If you think that stating the past 20 years have had fast sea level rise, while ALSO satating that there has been no long term acceleration pre or post 1940 is cherry-picking then I am simply at a loss for words. I was simply adding more information. There was absolutely no attempt to pretend as if there was a long-term acceleration.. instead I specifically stated THERE ISN"T.

The only possible conclusions is that you are incredibly biased.. you've pretty much lost any credibility you had in my opinion at this point.

You are being incredibly defensive.

And you STILL don't get it. It doesn't matter whether you were actually cherry-picking or not - you have made that same accusation towards others before who may or may not have been, just because you didn't like the period they chose. And yet when someone accuses you of that, you go bonkers.

Read more carefully. I never said you were necessarily cherry-picking. I just said you consistently hold others to a different standard.

[skierinvermont]

You are being incredibly defensive.

And you STILL don't get it. It doesn't matter whether you were actually cherry-picking or not - you have made that same accusation towards others before who may or may not have been, just because you didn't like the period they chose. And yet when someone accuses you of that, you go bonkers.

I would have accused myself of cherry-picking if all I had said was "SLR has accelerated... the past 20 years are 50% faster than the 20th century." Instead what I said was "there is no long-term acceleration, but there has been a short-term acceleration."

I accuse people of cherry-picking when they use periods like 1998-2008 to claim global cooling by starting in a strong Nino and ending in a Nina without giving any sort of caveat.

So it does matter. I clearly wasn't cherry-picking and had a very clearly stated caveat. This forum is full of people picking manipulative start and end dates without any sort of caveats. They just pick whatever data or periods they want without giving any credit to the context or the bigger picture.

So let's get this straight.. now you're saying I actually wasn't cherry-picking (after you accused me of cherry-picking). But your issue is just that I accuse other people of cherry-picking. First of all, what does that have to do with anything in this thread, given I nor anybody else was cherrypicking? Second of all, can you give me a single example where I accused someone of cherry picking and they were not?

[tacoman25]

I would have accused myself of cherry-picking if all I had said was "SLR has accelerated... the past 20 years are 50% faster than the 20th century." Instead what I said was "there is no long-term acceleration, but there has been a short-term acceleration."

I accuse people of cherry-picking when they use periods like 1998-2008 to claim global cooling by starting in a strong Nino and ending in a Nina without giving any sort of caveat.

So it does matter. I clearly wasn't cherry-picking and had a very clearly stated caveat. This forum is full of people picking manipulative start and end dates without any sort of caveats.

Which is very interesting, because when it suits you, you disregard short term trends in favor of longer term records.

Consistently inconsistent.

[skierinvermont]

Which is very interesting, because when it suits you, you disregard short term trends in favor of longer term records.

Consistently inconsistent.

No I don't disregard short-term trends. I have consistently stated that the short-term slowing of OHC and surface temperature is of significant interest. In fact, I stated that not even just 10 posts earlier in this very thread. How quickly we forget...

More lies and gotcha games... don't you have anything legitimate to offer here?

[Isotherm]

Here's what gets me. Fact of the matter is, everyone has a personal bias, and will generally engage in debates trying to support the conclusion they've arrived at, based upon their objective or subjective review of information. Thus the term "bias" should not necessarily have a negative connotation attached to it. What I don't like is when folks try to pretend that they're completely stone cold, computing, objective, with no lean one way or another. Our nature as humans is to take sides on issues and sometimes become emotionally involved in those beliefs. I'd be willing to bet all the posters that participate in this climate forum have a bias, but that's because we've all looked at the information/facts and have decided for ourselves what to believe. We then argue to try to defend those positions and often that involves voluntarily or involuntarily picking time frames that are more likely to put our opinions/stances in a favorable light. IMO it's impossible for us to be completely and utterly neutral with no lean whatsoever. This post isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general statement that "bias" should be regarded as something natural.

[LakeEffectKing]

Here's what gets me. Fact of the matter is, everyone has a personal bias, and will generally engage in debates trying to support the conclusion they've arrived at, based upon their objective or subjective review of information. Thus the term "bias" should not necessarily have a negative connotation attached to it. What I don't like is when folks try to pretend that they're completely stone cold, computing, objective, with no lean one way or another. Our nature as humans is to take sides on issues and sometimes become emotionally involved in those beliefs. I'd be willing to bet all the posters that participate in this climate forum have a bias, but that's because we've all looked at the information/facts and have decided for ourselves what to believe. We then argue to try to defend those positions and often that involves voluntarily or involuntarily picking time frames that are more likely to put our opinions/stances in a favorable light. IMO it's impossible for us to be completely and utterly neutral with no lean whatsoever. This post isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general statement that "bias" should be regarded as something natural.

+ 1.

[iceicebyebye]

Here's what gets me. Fact of the matter is, everyone has a personal bias, and will generally engage in debates trying to support the conclusion they've arrived at, based upon their objective or subjective review of information. Thus the term "bias" should not necessarily have a negative connotation attached to it. What I don't like is when folks try to pretend that they're completely stone cold, computing, objective, with no lean one way or another. Our nature as humans is to take sides on issues and sometimes become emotionally involved in those beliefs. I'd be willing to bet all the posters that participate in this climate forum have a bias, but that's because we've all looked at the information/facts and have decided for ourselves what to believe. We then argue to try to defend those positions and often that involves voluntarily or involuntarily picking time frames that are more likely to put our opinions/stances in a favorable light. IMO it's impossible for us to be completely and utterly neutral with no lean whatsoever. This post isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a general statement that "bias" should be regarded as something natural.

Some reasonable points, but I respectfully disagree with the bolded item.

Not all "bias" should be viewed or categorized as equally valid or equivalent. In regards to climate change and AGW, those who have a bias that sits in the extreme minority of the scientific community (that AGW is a "hoax", that human driven carbon transfer is not driving GW and climate change, etc) should rightfully be classified as having an unreasonable or negative bias.

[LakeEffectKing]

Some reasonable points, but I respectfully disagree with the bolded item.

Not all "bias" should be viewed or categorized as equally valid or equivalent. In regards to climate change and AGW, those who have a bias that sits in the extreme minority of the scientific community (that AGW is a "hoax", that human driven carbon transfer is not driving GW and climate change, etc) should rightfully be classified as having an unreasonable or negative bias.

The 2 bolded viewpoints (1. AGW=hoax ......2. Humans don't drive climate change) you ascribe a negative bias to, are so far apart, that you have nicely demonstrated to us your own bias!! BRAVO!!

[tacoman25]

No I don't disregard short-term trends. I have consistently stated that the short-term slowing of OHC and surface temperature is of significant interest. In fact, I stated that not even just 10 posts earlier in this very thread. How quickly we forget...

More lies and gotcha games... don't you have anything legitimate to offer here?

Lies? You have downplayed and sometimes even dismissed short term trends in favor of longer term ones on many occasions. Usually when it fits your viewpoint/bias. Call it "games" all you want...I'm just calling you out.

I'm sorry you can't handle criticism. If you don't like myself and others pointing out your inconsistencies, maybe you should consider that when you are criticizing others. You use standards with others that you simply do not apply to yourself. You expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt when you fail to do that for others.

And no, you have not consistently stated that the short-term slowing of OHC/temperature is of signficant interest. Most of the time you have repeatedly referenced longer term trends in obvious attempts to downplay recent slowing.

[iceicebyebye]

The 2 bolded viewpoints (1. AGW=hoax ......2. Humans don't drive climate change) you ascribe a negative bias to, are so far apart, that you have nicely demonstrated to us your own bias!! BRAVO!!

Perhaps all that protein is going to your head? Carbs actually help balance out cognitive and physical functions....

Anyway, can you elaborate a bit....I don't understand your code.

Do tell: what is my bias?

cheers

[tamarack]

Perhaps all that protein is going to your head? Carbs actually help balance out cognitive and physical functions....

Anyway, can you elaborate a bit....I don't understand your code.

Do tell: what is my bias?

cheers

LEK can adequately speak for himself, so he can explain if there's any code.

Going back to the comment in question...

that AGW is a "hoax", that human driven carbon transfer is not driving GW and climate change, etc

To me, the first phrase is a denial that humans have anything to do with climate change, and "hoax" implies that AGW is some sinister conspiracy. The second phrase is more the skeptic position, as "driving GW..." strongly implies that "human driven carbon transfer" is the major factor. Most of the skeptics posting in this forum agree that the climate has warmed/is warming and that human activities are likely a factor; but most aren't convinced the science is strong enough to demonstrate that it's the major factor. Conflating "denier" with "skeptic" is a classic illustration of moving the middle in the attempt to portray your opponents as the extreme.

[Msalgado]

The OPs study raises something I hadn't seen discussed much even though the middle of the 20th century is thought have experienced the same type of situation. Pretty interesting situation.