Is the planet warming?- truly independent study a resounding YES

[gracetoyou]

The upward trend is not obvious. There was a peer reviewed paper in the last year by AGW scientists that addressed the "why" global temps have leveled off somewhat over from 1998-2008 & you say the upward trend is "obvious"??

http://wattsupwithth...s-201102467.pdf

I may not buy the reasoning behind their "why" but at least there is an admission from them that you deny.

Remember the paper is seeking to answer the cause of the "hiatus in warming" during the 1998-2008 period. A "hiatus (pause) in warming" is hardly an "obvious" continued warming over the last decade. The pause does not disprove AGW, but that's not my point. My point is the denial by some of you that there has even been a pause. Read the paper carefully & stop saying that the warming over the last decade is "obvious". That's just not accurate unless you use flawed data.

[skierinvermont]

Remember the paper is seeking to answer the cause of the "hiatus in warming" during the 1998-2008 period. A "hiatus (pause) in warming" is hardly an "obvious" continued warming over the last decade. The pause does not disprove AGW, but that's not my point. My point is the denial by some of you that there has even been a pause. Read the paper carefully & stop saying that the warming over the last decade is "obvious". That's just not accurate unless you use flawed data.

The only reason they find a hiatus is they start in the super Nino of 1998 and end in the super-Nina of 2008. It's selective start and end points. Which they explain in their paper.

Nobody except you here seems to have difficulty grasping this concept.

[tacoman25]

The only reason they find a hiatus is they start in the super Nino of 1998 and end in the super-Nina of 2008. It's selective start and end points. Which they explain in their paper.

Nobody except you here seems to have difficulty grasping this concept.

The warming has still undeniably slowed the past decade or so. You can point to solar or ENSO trends or whatever, but the warming HAS slowed more than any comparable/non-volcanic period since the 1970s.

[skierinvermont]

The warming has still undeniably slowed the past decade or so. You can point to solar or ENSO trends or whatever, but the warming HAS slowed more than any comparable/non-volcanic period since the 1970s.

First of all, as you well know, there is a big difference between a slight slowing and not warming at all or cooling which was the point at hand.

And second, you are wrong that there are not comparable periods. 1973-1986 was just as slow. And of course 1980-1993 but that was volcanic.

[gracetoyou]

The only reason they find a hiatus is they start in the super Nino of 1998 and end in the super-Nina of 2008. It's selective start and end points. Which they explain in their paper.

Nobody except you here seems to have difficulty grasping this concept.

How many times are you going to say that? I grasp exactly what you're saying but you seem to not understand what I'm saying. You keep saying that the warming over the last decade is "very obvious". That's not true! Can you not understand that? I know that the Super El Nino of 1998 caused a massive temporary spike in temps. Heck, start in 2001. Since 2001, apart from the El Nino of 2009 warming there has been no warming. That's clear from tempature data.

I don't really care what you believe or don't believe about AGW...that's not what I'm arguing about right now. I'm not trying to make a score for the cause against AGW. My point is you said that the warming over the last decade is "obvious" & that is not true.

Insult my intelligence all you want, but I'll argue against the whole board on that if I need to. Again, warming over the last decade is NOT "obviously noticeable". That is absolutely plain to see to anyone that objectively looks at the data.

Yes, it's still higher than the 70's or the 90's but that's not what I'm arguing with you about. I'm arguing with you about what you said:

Yes why don't you ask him what he means since you obviously misinterpreted him. He was saying it was cooling over the period of the graph he posted which is merely a few months. He knows as well as anybody else that the 10-12 year trends are very positive.

It's not VERY positive! It's not obvious. If anything is noticeable it's the leveling off of temps since 1998, since that's where "you" started. Take out the El Nino's & that is very clearly what happens. Remember your .12 figure is an average which includes those immediate temporary temp spikes from the nino's.

[gracetoyou]

IPCC Scientist Dr. Mojib Latif, who has had his statements very misused (just so you're aware that I know that), makes this assertion in an interview in Jan. 2010

The past record of globally averaged surface air temperature illustrates how gradual warming and short-term fluctuations can operate side by side. The temperature ups and downs superimposed on the 20th century warming trend reflect the natural variability. To some extent, we need to ignore these fluctuations, if we want to detect the human influence on climate.

Consider, for instance, the mid-century warming that was observed from 1930 to 1940. Had forecasters extrapolated into the future, they would have predicted far more warming than actually occurred. Likewise, a brief cooling trend, if used as the basis for a long-range forecast could erroneously support the idea of a rapidly approaching ice age.

Natural climate variations may be produced by the climate system itself. A well-known example is El Ni±o, a warming of the Equatorial Pacific occurring on average about every 4 years. The record El Ni±o 1997/1998 helped to make 1998 the warmest year to date. The last year happened to be a moderate El Ni±o year, one reason, for instance, for the weak hurricane season in 2009. Volcanic eruptions and fluctuations in solar output can also bring temporary climate change. The Philippine volcano Mt. Pinatubo caused a temperature drop in 1991. And an increase of the solar radiation reaching the earth contributed to the mid-century warming. We predict the coming years may see two natural oscillations, the Pacific Decadal and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, swinging into their negative phase, leading to a cooling of sea surface temperatures in large parts of both the Pacific and Atlantic. A temporary halt in the global warming trend may be the consequence — nothing surprising to a climate scientist.

It is also possible that the current El Ni±o, combined with the long-term warming trend, takes us to record temperatures this year — again, nothing surprising to a climate scientist.

Any cooling in temps does not mean AGW is not true. Also let add something that I know that you already know... AGW doesn't mean that we're never going to see a period of cooling maybe even over a 20yr period & then warming increasing again. Everyone on here seems to predict warming every single year. AGW does not mean that's what will happen.

Latif & most AGW scientists at least acknowledge the affects of natural climate variations in suppressing or accelerating global warmth.

[tacoman25]

First of all, as you well know, there is a big difference between a slight slowing and not warming at all or cooling which was the point at hand.

And second, you are wrong that there are not comparable periods. 1973-1986 was just as slow. And of course 1980-1993 but that was volcanic.

Well, first of all we don't have satellite temperatures until 1979. And the 1982-84 period was cooled by El Chicon, the other big eruption.

[TerryM]

I suppose what is obvious to some is oblivious to others. To my untrained eye the upswing appears obvious. Not too sure why a single decade should generate such rancor when the overall trend is so obviously toward higher temperatures.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't get the point

AMO was strong from 2000-05. Then weakened till now with 2010 as a high year in there.

the PDO has been negative almost all of the decade.

Solar max followed by solar grand min.

With also was followed with a La Nina.

Seems to me this would solidify a few things

Snow albedo feedback/Ice albedo feedback is causing the arctic to be above normal almost always now.

Background GHG forcing helps.

Based on all of the data..this just proves AGW even more. If it was a hoax why wouldn't the Earth have seen temps plummet and sea ice replenish much faster instead of continue to melt out at record paces while the arctic continues to warm.

I would be worried the cooling was non existent.

[The_Global_Warmer]

How many times are you going to say that? I grasp exactly what you're saying but you seem to not understand what I'm saying. You keep saying that the warming over the last decade is "very obvious". That's not true! Can you not understand that? I know that the Super El Nino of 1998 caused a massive temporary spike in temps. Heck, start in 2001. Since 2001, apart from the El Nino of 2009 warming there has been no warming. That's clear from tempature data.

I don't really care what you believe or don't believe about AGW...that's not what I'm arguing about right now. I'm not trying to make a score for the cause against AGW. My point is you said that the warming over the last decade is "obvious" & that is not true.

Insult my intelligence all you want, but I'll argue against the whole board on that if I need to. Again, warming over the last decade is NOT "obviously noticeable". That is absolutely plain to see to anyone that objectively looks at the data.

Yes, it's still higher than the 70's or the 90's but that's not what I'm arguing with you about. I'm arguing with you about what you said:

It's not VERY positive! It's not obvious. If anything is noticeable it's the leveling off of temps since 1998, since that's where "you" started. Take out the El Nino's & that is very clearly what happens. Remember your .12 figure is an average which includes those immediate temporary temp spikes from the nino's.

2000 the temps were slightly below normal went up for the most part from 2002-2007 then spiked down again from 2008-09 before spiking up again for 2010 to present.

how is that no warming?

most of the decade was warmer than normal?

That one El Nino year was the best thing ever to happen to skeptics.

[tacoman25]

2000 the temps were slightly below normal went up for the most part from 2002-2007 then spiked down again from 2008-09 before spiking up again for 2010 to present.

how is that no warming?

most of the decade was warmer than normal?

That one El Nino year was the best thing ever to happen to skeptics.

In 2000 we were near the tail end of a multi-year mod/strong Nina period. Let's see what the 13 month running mean looks like next summer. Though, of course, 2011 had a big ENSO spike that neither 1999 or 2000 saw.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am in total agreement.

I still believe we will see a .15C decade 2011-2020. Regardless of what natural occilatons do.

2008 was also during a solar grand min. As well as 2000. Hardly a full coincidence

Sea ice and snow albedo feedback have gotten more positive since 2008( a little) and much stronger than 2000.

Lets try it another way.

May and June had -4 to near -5 mil km2 of snow cover gone.

Whether it was on land or ice the snow was gone. Reflection goes from 60-80% down over an average of that much in 60 days. That will clearly have a positive affect in a small area.z. Could be .01 or .03 for the globe.

Let's add sea ice in as well which was in a departure by then.

Let's say all told this was .05 for those two months.

That might be tiny but then you add in GHG forcing which is max during May.

How much does that add to the equation.

Go to October now.

Sea ice for the month has been around 1.8 mil km2 area below normal. Sea ice extent has been closer to 2.5 mil km2 or more below normal.

This allows let's say 3-4 million km2 of wAter to emit extra heat from positive ice albedo feedback.

This 4 mil km2 of water is roughly 6-10C above normal forth month. Not only is they direct right above the water. There are down stream affects.

Much of the NH is way above normal. No doubt and ice free Kara, laptev, Beaufort, CA, a Hudson that is 2-12c above normal has huge affect on the region.

My point is...even with a Nina we are going into a solar max.

As skier pointed out many here were way to cold again and again and again.

Right now the arctic is the main culprit with GHG right by it.

What are your predictions for GISS for October?

I don't know enough about it. But land based I sm going with a .80 both: .51

We will see

[skierinvermont]

How many times are you going to say that? I grasp exactly what you're saying but you seem to not understand what I'm saying. You keep saying that the warming over the last decade is "very obvious". That's not true! Can you not understand that? I know that the Super El Nino of 1998 caused a massive temporary spike in temps. Heck, start in 2001. Since 2001, apart from the El Nino of 2009 warming there has been no warming. That's clear from tempature data.

I don't really care what you believe or don't believe about AGW...that's not what I'm arguing about right now. I'm not trying to make a score for the cause against AGW. My point is you said that the warming over the last decade is "obvious" & that is not true.

Insult my intelligence all you want, but I'll argue against the whole board on that if I need to. Again, warming over the last decade is NOT "obviously noticeable". That is absolutely plain to see to anyone that objectively looks at the data.

Yes, it's still higher than the 70's or the 90's but that's not what I'm arguing with you about. I'm arguing with you about what you said:

It's not VERY positive! It's not obvious. If anything is noticeable it's the leveling off of temps since 1998, since that's where "you" started. Take out the El Nino's & that is very clearly what happens. Remember your .12 figure is an average which includes those immediate temporary temp spikes from the nino's.

It doesn't matter what it looks like to you. The math says you are wrong. There is a clear calculated warming trend over the last 10-12 years as long as you don't cherry pick by starting in an El nino and ending in a La Nina.

[The_Global_Warmer]

When I say arctic and GHGs is main culprit I don't mean driving global temps I mean driving warmer amomies when it's supposed to be cooler

[Mencken_Fan]

The AGW folks are the holders of intelligence.....pity they failed to "learn" how to deal with the "dumb" folks....maybe the mirror can offer some clues as to your percieved flaws in humanity. However, one needs to look past the greatness of the image therein reflected.....

If the AGW folks are not the holders of intelligence, who is? The people who think our president was born in a foreign country? The people who think evolution is "just a theory"?

Generally, those who reject AGW are the same people who accept all sorts of irrational nonsense. The pattern is clear; and it applies not just to the U.S. but globally.

[skierinvermont]

If the AGW folks are not the holders of intelligence, who is? The people who think our president was born in a foreign country? The people who think evolution is "just a theory"?

Generally, those who reject AGW are the same people who accept all sorts of irrational nonsense. The pattern is clear; and it applies not just to the U.S. but globally.

I think the AGW denier disease is demographically much broader than much of the other ignorant nonsense. AGW-denial is appealing to many who want to appear intelligent and/or contrarian (to be honest that is probably why I used to be a denier) and because it is a threat to the status quo and potentially to business interests it is a political issue. Not all republicans are stupid but many of them deny AGW.

[LakeEffectKing]

If the AGW folks are not the holders of intelligence, who is? The people who think our president was born in a foreign country? The people who think evolution is "just a theory"?

Generally, those who reject AGW are the same people who accept all sorts of irrational nonsense. The pattern is clear; and it applies not just to the U.S. but globally.

Generally, those who embrace a hypothesis as fact (without proper vetting of the Sci method) are of the same ilk as those who think 9/11 was an inside job, chemtrails, and want to redifine peer review....again.....check the mirror...

[Cory]

"...a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped."

"Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis."

...

"However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified."

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

http://www.dailymail...-colleague.html

[Hambone]

http://www.bizzyblog.com/

October 30, 2011

Climategate II? ‘Science-Settling’ Study ‘Proving’ Global Warming Allegedly Shows None

Filed under: Environment,MSM Biz/Other Bias,MSM Biz/Other Ignorance,Scams,Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 8:47 am A week ago (at BizzyBlog; at NewsBusters), I noted how Charleston Daily Mail blogger Don Surber quickly determined through all of a few minutes of Internet research that Berkeley professor Robert Muller, who convinced Washington Post Plumline blogger Brad Plumer that he was a “climate skeptic,” has been a believer in human-caused global warming since the early 1980s.

Muller’s pretense to have held beliefs differing from his true past may be the least of his problems. A story breaking in the UK contends that results obtained by the prof’s BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures) project team, instead of “settling the debate” in favor of warmists, showed that global warming “has stopped.” If so, this is potentially as explosive as the “hide the decline” conspiracy uncovered almost two years ago when the Climategate emails surfaced.

The bombshell arrives via David Rose at the UK Daily Mail (HT to Benny Peiser’s indispensable daily CCNet email from the Global Warming Policy Foundation [GWPF]; internal BBC link added by me; bolds are mine):

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators

from the BBC

, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.

The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row.

She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties

– a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

David Whitehouse at the GWPF (“BEST Confirms Global Temperature Standstill”) elaborates:

Professor Richard Muller, leader of the initiative, said (to the BBC) that the global temperature standstill of the past decade was not present in their data.

“In our data, which is only on the land we see no evidence of it having slowed down. Now the evidence which shows that it has been stopped is a combination of land and ocean data. The oceans do not heat as much as the land because it absorbs more of the heat and when the data are combined with the land data then the other groups have shown that when it does seem to be leveling off. We have not seen that in the land data.”

My first though would be that it would be remarkable if it was.

The global temperature standstill of the past decade is obvious in HadCrut3 data which is a combination of land and sea surface data. Best is only land data from nearly 40,000 weather stations.

Professor Muller says they “really get a good coverage of the globe.” The land is expected to have a fast response to the warming of the lower atmosphere caused by greenhouse gas forcing, unlike the oceans with their high thermal capacity and their decadal timescales for heating and cooling, though not forgetting the ENSO and la Nina.

Fig 1 shows the past ten years plotted from the monthly data from Best’s archives.

[skierinvermont]

if only people in this country knew what a trend line is and how to calculate one and what its significance is...

[The_Global_Warmer]

Why is that 2010 year have such a huge dip?

that didn't happen

[Matt Rogers]

because Hambone didn't bother to read anything beyond propaganda that he saw and couldn't wait to post.

here's a bunch of facts: http://tamino.wordpr...h-inserts-foot/

turns out the Daily Mail piece is full of crap and David Rose has no integrity as a journalist. and then, well, there are the facts from the science in the article itself, but generally that's not a hot issue for discussion in this forum on the part of knee jerk deniers.

That is funny how Tamino notes the uncertainty after removing the spurious Apr/May (not so "BEST" data) and how warm it could really be as if the error bands only work in one (up) direction!

The estimated slope is 0.14 deg.C/decade — more than four times as large, just from removing two errant data points. Its standard error is 0.11 degC/decade, so the real trend rate could be as high as 0.36 deg.C/decade

This makes everything more certain now!

[skierinvermont]

Judith Curry claims to have been misrepresented, although much of the blame lies with her because she clearly is not able to properly represent the statistical concepts at stake.

If you can understand this graph, you can understand what complete rubbish the Mail article is and how pointless it is generally to discuss whether global warming has slowed based on short term trends.

The graph presents trends to present with confidence intervals for the underlying trend. We do not have enough statistical confidence to say whether the underlying trend has been cooling since 2000 or rapidly warming at 6C/century.

[skierinvermont]

He is pointing out the upper error bars because he is refuting the claim that it's not warming. If the upper error bar is .36C/decade, then that not only refutes the claim but shows it's not even remotely close to being true.

[tacoman25]

Judith Curry claims to have been misrepresented, although much of the blame lies with her because she clearly is not able to properly represent the statistical concepts at stake.

If you can understand this graph, you can understand what complete rubbish the Mail article is and how pointless it is generally to discuss whether global warming has slowed based on short term trends.

The graph presents trends to present with confidence intervals for the underlying trend. We do not have enough statistical confidence to say whether the underlying trend has been cooling since 2000 or rapidly warming at 6C/century.

This post is not consistent with many others ones you have made regarding the amount of warming seen over the past decade or so. Especially the ones where you have confidentally and absolutely asserted that the same basic underlying warming trend has continued over this short term period.

[skierinvermont]

This post is not consistent with many others ones you have made regarding the amount of warming seen over the past decade or so. Especially the ones where you have confidentally and absolutely asserted that the same basic underlying warming trend has continued over this short term period.

It is entirely consistent. If there is something you do not understand I would be happy to explain it to you.

[tacoman25]

It is entirely consistent. If there is something you do not understand I would be happy to explain it to you.

Please explain to me how it is consistent to say: "it is pointless to discuss short term global warming trend due to the error bars", and yet you also have claimed exact underlying warming trends over the same period. And claimed with certainty that the same general underlying warming trend has continued since 1998, 2001, etc.

[skierinvermont]

Please explain to me how it is consistent to say: "it is pointless to discuss short term global warming trend due to the error bars", and yet you also have claimed exact underlying warming trends over the same period. And claimed with certainty that the same general underlying warming trend has continued since 1998, 2001, etc.

Sure.

One statement is made from a purely statistical standpoint regarding the lack of statistical significance of short term trends to indicate an altered underlying trend due to the high amount of noise introduced by measurement error and other climate factors. From a statistical standpoint, there if far too much noise to use 10 or 14 year trends to prove a change in the underlying trend unless the 10 or 14 year trend were very different from the underlying trend. In the case of the 10 year, the trend would have to be quite negative.

The other statement, instead of chalking up all this measurement uncertainty and short-term variability as 'noise', attempts to actually causally filter out this noise and derive the underlying trend. There is still measurement error and uncertainty introduced in by the causal relationships used to derive the underlying trend, and thus one could attach error bars to these estimates but the central estimate shows an unchanged underlying trend over the last decade.

[gracetoyou]

This post is not consistent with many others ones you have made regarding the amount of warming seen over the past decade or so. Especially the ones where you have confidentally and absolutely asserted that the same basic underlying warming trend has continued over this short term period.

Ding, ding, ding!!! This was my exact point a couple of days ago & no one would call him out but me. Thank you!!

[gracetoyou]

Sure.

One statement is made from a purely statistical standpoint regarding the lack of statistical significance of short term trends to indicate an altered underlying trend due to the high amount of noise introduced by measurement error and other climate factors. From a statistical standpoint, there if far too much noise to use 10 or 14 year trends to prove a change in the underlying trend unless the 10 or 14 year trend were very different from the underlying trend. In the case of the 10 year, the trend would have to be quite negative.

The other statement, instead of chalking up all this measurement uncertainty and short-term variability as 'noise', attempts to actually causally filter out this noise and derive the underlying trend. There is still measurement error and uncertainty introduced in by the causal relationships used to derive the underlying trend, and thus one could attach error bars to these estimates but the central estimate shows an unchanged underlying trend over the last decade.

You've been "had" my friend. And this post is the poorest attempt of trying to wiggle your way out of this one. You can argue all you want to (and you will) but you were completely in the wrong the other day when I questioned your position that the warming has been "obvious" since 1998 & temps haven't leveled off. I even posted a peer reviewed paper that admitted halt in warming that you intelligently blew away with fictional language...even saying the paper wasn't saying what it was really saying. Now the halt was just the acknowledgment that the rapid warming had stopped. +side still over the last 10 years but no by much.

No one, or at least I wasn't trying to argue with you about AGW but about the past decade but for whatever reason you misrepresented the facts. Whether the temps arose, declined, or leveled off the past decade has no real bearing on the AGW debate but at least you can give an honest admission that warming noticeably slowed.