Record Year-to-Date Temperatures in the US

[PhillipS]

I don't disgagree with the premise of the Foster graph...which is that when you try to remove all natural variation, you are left with an anthropogenic signal (I would certainly hope that is what you are left with)...however, in every single large uptick in the graph...there is a positive ENSO event. The only exception seems to be the 1980-1981 period where ENSO was neutral but there is still a large uptick...but all the other large upticks (1983, 1986-1988, 1991-1992, 1995, 1998, 2002-2003, 2005, 2009-2010) are associated with significant positive ENSO events. Many (but not all) of the subsequent downticks are associated with negative ENSO as well.

This illustates that the graph is still quite dependent on distribution of heat throughout the globe due to residual effects of ENSO. In short, either its a coincidence or ENSO really hasn't been filtered out.

Strawman argument - Foster & Rahmstorf never claim to remove ALL natural variation, they remove three sources of natural variation for which there are at least 30 years of data and for which climate scientists have a good (albeit imperfect) understanding of their effect on global temperatures. There are other sources of natural variability which is why the adjusted dataset is still noisy.

I fully expect that future research will improve and refine the Foster & Rahmstorf analysis - but iterative improvement is how the scientific method generally works, isn't it?

[ORH_wxman]

Strawman argument - Foster & Rahmstorf never claim to remove ALL natural variation, they remove three sources of natural variation for which there are at least 30 years of data and for which climate scientists have a good (albeit imperfect) understanding of their effect on global temperatures. There are other sources of natural variability which is why the adjusted dataset is still noisy.

I fully expect that future research will improve and refine the Foster & Rahmstorf analysis - but iterative improvement is how the scientific method generally works, isn't it?

What? Is this like the "go-to" line when someone makes a point others do not agree with?

They claimed to get rid of ENSO. I pointed out that there is clearly a residual ENSO signal in their temperature dataset still. I question why one of the varaibles they claimed to have filtered out is still detectable.

The premise of their paper is to remove the natural variation signal as to isolate that anthropogenic warming is still ongoing in the backround. They tried to filter out what they deemed the 3 most important factors.

[nflwxman]

Well, for example, you were under the false impression that climate scientists were not surprised by natural variation leading to the current stall/slowdown in temperature rise - that they expected such a thing was possible beforehand. When I pointed out to you that many scientists believed for a long time that volcanic eruptions were the only thing that could slow CO2-driven rise down (and gave James Hansen, the premier AGW scientists out there for many years as a prime example), you had no response.

Just the latest instance.

In 1981, James Hansen wrote that:

"variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century..."

He expounds more later...

"When should the CO2 warming rise out of the noise level of natural climate variability? An estimate can be obtained by comparing the predicted warming to the standard deviation, a, of the observed global temperature trend of the past century (50). The standard deviation, which increases from 0. 1°C for 10-year intervals to 0.20C for the full century, is the total variability of global temperature; it thus includes variations due to any known radiative forcing, other variations of the true global temperature due to unidentified causes, and noise due to imperfect measurement of the global temperature. Thus if To is the current 5-year smoothed global temperature, the 5-year smoothed global temperature in 10 years should be in the range To ± 0. 1°C with probability - 70 percent, judging only from variability in the past century. The predicted CO2 warming rises out of the la noise level in the 1980's and the 2a level in the 1990's (Fig. 7). This is independent of the climate model's equilibrium sensitivity for the range of likely values, 1.4° to 5.6°C. Furthermore, it does not depend on the scenario for atmospheric CO2 growth, because the amounts of CO2 do not differ substantially until after year 2000. Volcanic eruptions of the size of Krakatoa or Agung may slow the warming, but barring an unusual coincidence of eruptions, the delay will not exceed several years. Nominal confidence in the CO2 theory will reach - 85 percent when the temperature rises through the lr level and - 98 percent when it exceeds 2u. However, a portion of a may be accounted for in the future from accurate knowledge of some radiative forcings and more precise knowledge of global temperature. We conclude that CO2 warming should rise above the noise level of natural climate variability in this century."

​And in the same paper...

"The general agreement between modeled and observed temperature trends strongly suggests that CO2 and volcanic aerosols are responsible for much of the global temperature variation in the past century."

Sorry I didn't see your reply for this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hansen's quote from 1981 is taking about a stall in the 5 year average global temperature? Which, aside from the past few years, there really hasn't been much of a stall. I don't really see any hard and fast declarations in that quote that would make me believe Hanson could not fathom the last decade occuring (in which the TSI and ENSO trends pull down the global temperature trend to a flatline). Again, it could just be the way I'm reading it.

[tacoman25]

Sorry I didn't see your reply for this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hansen's quote from 1981 is taking about a stall in the 5 year average global temperature? Which, aside from the past few years, there really hasn't been much of a stall. I don't really see any hard and fast declarations in that quote that would make me believe Hanson could not fathom the last decade occuring (in which the TSI and ENSO trends pull down the global temperature trend to a flatline). Again, it could just be the way I'm reading it.

Yes, I believe he was talking about a slowdown in the 5 year running average. He believed the only thing that could cause that would be a very large volcanic eruption, and even then the pause would only be for few years. And if you look back at what most climate scientists said in the 1980s and 1990s and even early 2000s, this was a common belief. Solar was seen as a very minor factor, and all other natural variation besides volcanic eruptions was seen as only able to effect year to year temperature trends, but not cause a longer slowdown in warming.

Hansen has repeatedly shown a disregard or lack of understanding for natural oceanic/atmospheric cycles like ENSO, PDO, and AMO. He was among those who speculated +ENSO was becoming more common because of AGW (before we entered the -PDO/-ENSO phase we are in today), and he also repeatedly forecast that the next El Nino would deliver another record warm year after 1998, apparently not understanding that 1998 was such an anomalous Nino and not every Nino will produce a new record warm year.

We are still learning a lot about how the climate works.

[nflwxman]

Yes, I believe he was talking about a slowdown in the 5 year running average. He believed the only thing that could cause that would be a very large volcanic eruption, and even then the pause would only be for few years. And if you look back at what most climate scientists said in the 1980s and 1990s and even early 2000s, this was a common belief. Solar was seen as a very minor factor, and all other natural variation besides volcanic eruptions was seen as only able to effect year to year temperature trends, but not cause a longer slowdown in warming.

Hansen has repeatedly shown a disregard or lack of understanding for natural oceanic/atmospheric cycles like ENSO, PDO, and AMO. He was among those who speculated +ENSO was becoming more common because of AGW (before we entered the -PDO/-ENSO phase we are in today), and he also repeatedly forecast that the next El Nino would deliver another record warm year after 1998, apparently not understanding that 1998 was such an anomalous Nino and not every Nino will produce a new record warm year.

We are still learning a lot about how the climate works.

Solar IS a pretty minor factor in recent multi-decade temperature trends. Also, pretty sure both 2005 and 2010 were as warm if not warmer than 1998. And they were both El Nino years. Somehow I don't think Hanson is as ignorant to the variables in climate as you think he is. Regardless, he is one person and does represent the entire field of climate science that have published hundreds of papers on AGW in the last decade.

So do you believe future AGW will not cause a holistic problem? I'm not sure what you are getting at aside from highlighting the uncertainty that is inherent in ALL sciences.

[PhillipS]

What? Is this like the "go-to" line when someone makes a point others do not agree with?

They claimed to get rid of ENSO. I pointed out that there is clearly a residual ENSO signal in their temperature dataset still. I question why one of the varaibles they claimed to have filtered out is still detectable.

The premise of their paper is to remove the natural variation signal as to isolate that anthropogenic warming is still ongoing in the backround. They tried to filter out what they deemed the 3 most important factors.

I called you on your strawman argument because you mischaracterized the Forster and Rahmstorf paper in order to try to support your claim. Your post was a classic strawman argument.

And, as I'm sure you realize, if you are correct in your claim that there is residual ENSO signal in the adjusted dataset, the fault lies with the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), not with Foster & Rahmstorf's analysis. GIGO, as they say in the IT community.

[tacoman25]

Solar IS a pretty minor factor in recent multi-decade temperature trends. Also, pretty sure both 2005 and 2010 were as warm if not warmer than 1998. And they were both El Nino years. Somehow I don't think Hanson is as ignorant to the variables in climate as you think he is. Regardless, he is one person and does represent the entire field of climate science that have published hundreds of papers on AGW in the last decade.

So do you believe future AGW will not cause a holistic problem? I'm not sure what you are getting at aside from highlighting the uncertainty that is inherent in ALL sciences.

Only GISS has them as warmer than 1998. HadCRU, RSS, and UAH all still have 1998 as the warmest year last I checked. 1998 was the last universally accepted record warm year.

I'm not sure what you mean by "holistic problem". Does AGW have the potential to cause some major problems? Yes. Do I think we will see rapidly accelerating (runaway) warming and global catastrophe? Unlikely. Some regions of the world will undoubtedly be affected more than others.

What am I getting at? Well, you remarked that you didn't think the recent slowdown was any surprise to climate scientists. I pointed out that until recently, it actually was not expected to occur without a large volcanic eruption. If you openly acknowledge the uncertainty that exists in climate science, I have to wonder why you just assumed that this recent slowdown in temperatures was not a surprise. It's pretty clear that the consensus used to be that the AGW signal was increasingly overwhelming natural factors, to the point that nothing could really slow it down.

[ORH_wxman]

I called you on your strawman argument because you mischaracterized the Forster and Rahmstorf paper in order to try to support your claim. Your post was a classic strawman argument.

And, as I'm sure you realize, if you are correct in your claim that there is residual ENSO signal in the adjusted dataset, the fault lies with the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), not with Foster & Rahmstorf's analysis. GIGO, as they say in the IT community.

Sounds like you just wanted a petty semantical argument...more gotcha games.

The point of the Foster/Rahstorf paper is to show that AGW hasn't slowed recently. In their conclusions they state:

The resultant adjusted data show clearly,

both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that

the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely

these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably

steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There

is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global

warming, beyond the variability induced by these known

natural factors. Because the effects of volcanic eruptions and

of ENSO are very short-term and that of solar variability very

small (figure 7), none of these factors can be expected to exert

a significant influence on the continuation of global warming

over the coming decades.

Sounds to me like they are isolating the anthropogenic signal...or that is their goal. Yet you want to say I made a strawman argument. Fine, knock yourslef out. As for the issue, we might blame the MEI. Definitely could be the problem. I didn't claim it was their "fault" that the isolation didn't work ideally, I just simply pointed out that you could still clearly see an ENSO signal when I was asked about the paper by another poster.

[CoastalWx]

I called you on your strawman argument because you mischaracterized the Forster and Rahmstorf paper in order to try to support your claim. Your post was a classic strawman argument.

And, as I'm sure you realize, if you are correct in your claim that there is residual ENSO signal in the adjusted dataset, the fault lies with the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), not with Foster & Rahmstorf's analysis. GIGO, as they say in the IT community.

How can it be a strawman argument if you just acknowledged ENSO as possible an issue?

[CoastalWx]

Will is correct. Look at that graph and tell me it does not trace a similar background ENSO.

[PhillipS]

How can it be a strawman argument if you just acknowledged ENSO as possible an issue?

ORH mischaracterized the Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 paper as saying they had removed ALL natural variation, and then claimed that their analysis was flawed because he feels that there is still a residual ENSO signal in their adjusted dataset.

In reality, F & R made it clear in their paper that they were removing three sources of natural variability from five global temperature records in order to make the anthropogenic component clearer. There is a wide gulf between their actually saying that they were removing three sources of natural variation, and ORH's claim that they said they were removing all sources of natural variation. OHR exaggerated what F & R were trying to show with their analysis in order to claim that their analysis was flawed.

The definition of a strawman argument from wikipedia:

A

straw man

, known in the UK as an

Aunt Sally

, is a type of

argument

and is an

informal fallacy

based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

^[1]

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

OHR's post fits this definition to a tee.

[ORH_wxman]

ORH mischaracterized the Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 paper as saying they had removed ALL natural variation, and then claimed that their analysis was flawed because he feels that there is still a residual ENSO signal in their adjusted dataset.

In reality, F & R made it clear in their paper that they were removing three sources of natural variability from five global temperature records in order to make the anthropogenic component clearer. There is a wide gulf between their actually saying that they were removing three sources of natural variation, and ORH's claim that they said they were removing all sources of natural variation. OHR exaggerated what F & R were trying to show with their analysis in order to claim that their analysis was flawed.

The definition of a strawman argument from wikipedia:

A

straw man

, known in the UK as an

Aunt Sally

, is a type of

argument

and is an

informal fallacy

based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

^[1]

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

OHR's post fits this definition to a tee.

You have completely derailed into the semantics train wreck. I showed you what their paper said in the conclusions and it is clear they were trying to isolate the anthropogenic factor. Ok, they didn't say they got rid of ALL natural variation, but they believed they got rid of enough of it to say their trend was "most likely exclusively anthropogenic" in their conclusions....if that isn't grounds for claiming that they have isolated the anthropogenic factor, I don't know what is. Someone asked me what I thought of that paper, and I pointed out one issue I had with it....then as usual, it turned into a "gotcha" argument. An argument (by you) that really had absolutely nothing to do with my original issue with the paper which was filtering an ENSO trend. A natural variation factor they claimed they were trying to filter out. So yes, if you want to focus on a possible 1% (or whatever miniscule number) of natural variation I didn't give them credit for, then fine...you win. They didn't seem to think it mattered in their conlcusions...but if you do, kudos. You can move along now that you have won and others can comment on the actual content that was being referred to in the paper.

[PhillipS]

You have completely derailed into the semantics train wreck. I showed you what their paper said in the conclusions and it is clear they were trying to isolate the anthropogenic factor. Ok, they didn't say they got rid of ALL natural variation, but they believed they got rid of enough of it to say their trend was "most likely exclusively anthropogenic" in their conclusions....if that isn't grounds for claiming that they have isolated the anthropogenic factor, I don't know what is. Someone asked me what I thought of that paper, and I pointed out one issue I had with it....then as usual, it turned into a "gotcha" argument. An argument (by you) that really had absolutely nothing to do with my original issue with the paper which was filtering an ENSO trend. A natural variation factor they claimed they were trying to filter out. So yes, if you want to focus on a possible 1% (or whatever miniscule number) of natural variation I didn't give them credit for, then fine...you win. They didn't seemed to think it mattered in their conlcusions...but if you do, kudos. You can move along now that you have won and others can comment on the actual content that was being referred to in the paper.

As the originator of this thread I feel I'm on safe ground in judging what is on-topic and what is off-topic. Your attempt to derail the thread with an OT strawman argument is not appreciated. If you can stick to the topic of the US having a record warm Jan - Sep this year, possible causes and possible consequences, then your input is welcome.

[ORH_wxman]

As the originator of this thread I feel I'm on safe ground in judging what is on-topic and what is off-topic. Your attempt to derail the thread with an OT strawman argument is not appreciated. If you can stick to the topic of the US having a record warm Jan - Sep this year, possible causes and possible consequences, then your input is welcome.

I didn't bring up the Foster paper....nflwxman did, so give your little reprimand to him, not me. You have actually been attacking me since very early in the thread when Coastalwx said the U.S. temperatures have flat lined since 2000, and then you said it was a bold faced lie and I produced a graph of U.S. temperatures since 2000 that indeed showed a flat line trend. (you can go back to the late 90s too which is what I originally posted, and then TerryM said I was cherry picking by using the 1990s and not 2000...then subsequently I produced the correct time frame)...and also I pointed out your ridiculous/erroneous claim that flat lining temperatures would mean we are going back to equal chances for warm records and cold records. I suppose flat lining in your dictionary means cooling back to roughly 1970s levels, but in the scientific community it does not.

Either you don't read very well what is written (and which posters wrote them), or you type before you think. It seems to be a common theme though in this thread.

[Snow_Miser]

Well of course there are other natural factors, but that's not what I said. What I said was that the ENSO signal could not be fully removed unless every equivalent ONI reading had the exact same global temperature impact. Read the paper, it discusses the strength of correlation for TSI and ENSO, which are the two most prominent forces on global temperatures annually. What I believe you are doing is hanging your hat on a small uncertainty within the statistical methods to cast doubt (please be mindful, I don't mean anything personally by that)

What I am primarily arguing is that there are still natural forcings present within the chart showing temperatures going up, which they proclaim is the "anthropogenic forcing." I too do not disagree with the premise that if you remove all natural factors, you are left with the anthropogenic trend. However, I would argue that they have not removed all of the natural climatic parameters, and there are still other forcings in the temperature trend upward that they did not include, such as tropospheric ozone increases from lightning changes. This is natural, and is completely missing from their analysis.

http://www.agu.org/p...2JD017723.shtml

[Snow_Miser]

The global temperature record is a combination of natural and anthropogenic processes overlain on each other and to extract the anthropogenic component one needs to remove the effects of the natural processes. Ideally, scientists could remove all non-anthropogenic components and leave just the AGW effects - but we don't live in an ideal world and scientists have to work with the data they have. In the Foster and Rahmtorf 2011 paper, the authors remove the effect of three non-anthropogenic climate process (ENSO, TSI, and volcanic aerosols) that have been studied enough to understand their effect on global climate and which have at least 30 years of data available.

The resulting plot is still noisy because, as you pointed out, there are other natural processes still present in the data - but that in no way invalidates their analysis. As for attributing the preponderance of the remaining global temperature increase to AGW - well, something caused it and there are no other known climate processes that have that magnitude and trend. The GHE and other anthropogenic processes , such as land use changes, have a mountain of theory and data to support that attribution. Anyone wanting to attribute the increase to other processes would, at the very least, have to show what is blocking the GHE in order for their hypothetical processes to dominate.

As for your listing of hypothetical climate drivers - okay, produce peer-reviewed research quantifying the effect of each and a 30 year global dataset for each and the analysis can be run again to extract their siganls from the global climate record.

Just listing them, "It could be A, or it could be B, or it could be C!" without any supporting research and data is just rhetorical hand-waving, and as such is no more scientific than claiming "It could be Leprechauns, or it could be Unicorns!"

I have provided a peer reviewed paper for the tropospheric ozone mechanism which is very much natural. We'll go from there. But they are dramatically oversimplifying the climate system, and are leaving natural constituents in their "anthropogenic trend."

[PhillipS]

I didn't bring up the Foster paper....nflwxman did, so give your little reprimand to him, not me. You have actually been attacking me since very early in the thread when Coastalwx said the U.S. temperatures have flat lined since 2000, and then you said it was a bold faced lie and I produced a graph of U.S. temperatures since 2000 that indeed showed a flat line trend. (you can go back to the late 90s too which is what I originally posted, and then TerryM said I was cherry picking by using the 1990s and not 2000...then subsequently I produced the correct time frame)...and also I pointed out your ridiculous/erroneous claim that flat lining temperatures would mean we are going back to equal chances for warm records and cold records. I suppose flat lining in your dictionary means cooling back to roughly 1970s levels, but in the scientific community it does not.

Either you don't read very well what is written (and which posters wrote them), or you type before you think. It seems to be a common theme though in this thread.

Wow, so now you've added making up fictional quotes to your rhetorical repertoire. Please share with us any post on this thread (other than this one, of course) where I used the phrase "bold faced lie". Couldn't find one? No surprise since I never said that. So your assertion that I did say that wasn't the truth, was it - which makes it, what, a lie fib?

I would expect the moderators of this or any forum to adhere to a high level of professionalism. To stay calm and objective when a discussion gets heated. To lead by example, so to speak. For you as a moderator to persist in a vendetta to the point of making up quotes is just amazing. If I thought it would make a difference I would report it - but you've amply demonstrated that moderators don't have to follow the same rules as we mere mortals.

So now I expect that you'll threaten me with banishment for my insolence. As you have done to others. I guess the old saying is true - power corrupts.

[ORH_wxman]

Wow, so now you've added making up fictional quotes to your rhetorical repertoire. Please share with us any post on this thread (other than this one, of course) where I used the phrase "bold faced lie". Couldn't find one? No surprise since I never said that. So your assertion that I did say that wasn't the truth, was it - which makes it, what, a lie fib?

I would expect the moderators of this or any forum to adhere to a high level of professionalism. To stay calm and objective when a discussion gets heated. To lead by example, so to speak. For you as a moderator to persist in a vendetta to the point of making up quotes is just amazing. If I thought it would make a difference I would report it - but you've amply demonstrated that moderators don't have to follow the same rules as we mere mortals.

So now I expect that you'll threaten me with banishment for my insolence. As you have done to others. I guess the old saying is true - power corrupts.

You actually said "the phrase I bolded is a error/lie/disinformation"...so you are correct, I misquoted you. I remember the terms bold and lie. I apologize.

The point still remins the same though. You said what he said was a lie. It wasn't.

[PhillipS]

I have provided a peer reviewed paper for the tropospheric ozone mechanism which is very much natural. We'll go from there. But they are dramatically oversimplifying the climate system, and are leaving natural constituents in their "anthropogenic trend."

I remember that paper and recall that it was very interesting. But the mechanism discussed is only theoretical at this point and has not been quantified by observations, IIRC. No scientist can point to the global temperature record and show where cooling or warming can be attributed to this mechanism - as, for example, can be done for major volcanic eruptions. Before this theoretical mechanism could be included in an analysis such as was done in the F & R paper a whole lot of research needs to be done. There needs to be a 30 year or longer record, for example.

And the F & R 2011 paper doesn't go into the climate system so I'm not sure why you say they are oversimplifying it. They took five long-term global temperature datasets (2 satellite and 3 land based) and removed the effects of three well-studied sources of natural variation to give a clearer view of the anthropogenic component. Despite what one poster keeps claiming, F & R never ruled out that the adjusted datasets from their analysis may include additional sources of natural variation.

As I said in an earlier post, I fully expect that the F & R results will be refined and improved over time as new data is gathered. But as a first attempt I feel that their paper is a good one.

[PhillipS]

You actually said "the phrase I bolded is a error/lie/disinformation"...so you are correct, I misquoted you. I remember the terms bold and lie. I apologize.

The point still remins the same though. You said what he said was a lie. It wasn't.

Apology accepted. And I apologize for any offense my rudeness may have caused. I will work at being more like Don - who is a good role model for us all..

And you are correct, Coastal's comment wasn't a lie. I interpreted his statement as meaning he was claiming that AGW has flat-lined since 2000 when, as he clarified in subsequent posts, he was referring to the global temperature record. I should have asked him to clarify his statement instead of posting what I did.

[Entropy]

Apology accepted. And I apologize for any offense my rudeness may have caused. I will work at being more like Don - who is a good role model for us all..

And you are correct, Coastal's comment wasn't a lie. I interpreted his statement as meaning he was claiming that AGW has flat-lined since 2000 when, as he clarified in subsequent posts, he was referring to the global temperature record. I should have asked him to clarify his statement instead of posting what I did.

One Don is enough. We need someone like Joe Biden to call out all the malarkey that gets posted here.

[CoastalWx]

Apology accepted. And I apologize for any offense my rudeness may have caused. I will work at being more like Don - who is a good role model for us all..

And you are correct, Coastal's comment wasn't a lie. I interpreted his statement as meaning he was claiming that AGW has flat-lined since 2000 when, as he clarified in subsequent posts, he was referring to the global temperature record. I should have asked him to clarify his statement instead of posting what I did.

And that's part of the problem. A statement like that gets turned around to mean some sort of fictitious statement about AGW....like we are somehow denialists. That needs to stop because it totally derails the thread into a train wreck, instead of a nice scientific discussion. The snide and condescending remarks following a statement that does not fit into the alarmists point of views, need to stop. I certainly do not see Will, who is one of the best posters on this forum...and board for that matter, act the same way. That should be a manner to follow.

[Midlo Snow Maker]

And that's part of the problem. A statement like that gets turned around to mean some sort of fictitious statement about AGW....like we are somehow denialists. That needs to stop because it totally derails the thread into a train wreck, instead of a nice scientific discussion. The snide and condescending remarks following a statement that does not fit into the alarmists point of views, need to stop. I certainly do not see Will, who is one of the best posters on this forum...and board for that matter, act the same way. That should be a manner to follow.

Bingo will is one the most respected weather posters here. watching will getting attacked for providing info tells you a lot about the posters doing it.

[forkyfork]

One Don is enough. We need someone like Joe Biden to call out all the malarkey that gets posted here.

agreed

[tacoman25]

One Don is enough. We need someone like Joe Biden to call out all the malarkey that gets posted here.

Will and myself are more than happy to call you out.

[PhillipS]

And that's part of the problem. A statement like that gets turned around to mean some sort of fictitious statement about AGW....like we are somehow denialists. That needs to stop because it totally derails the thread into a train wreck, instead of a nice scientific discussion. The snide and condescending remarks following a statement that does not fit into the alarmists point of views, need to stop. I certainly do not see Will, who is one of the best posters on this forum...and board for that matter, act the same way. That should be a manner to follow.

I agree to some extent - but I feel that the best approach to avoiding being misunderstood, or having your comments misinterpreted, is to write clearly and concisely. Let's look at your comment earlier on this thread that caused so much concern:

"Well the 80s and 90s rapidly warmed, but basically flat lined in the 00s."

You know exactly what you meant to say, but readers are left trying to interpret your comment. What were you referring to as having warmed rapidly in the 80s and 90s, but which had little or no warming in the 00s? There are several possible interpretations:

1. The AGW component of the long-term global temperature record. This, together with the unprecedented year to date (YTD) high temperatures in the US, is the topic of this thread. This is how I erroneously interpreted your comment. The Foster and Rahmstorf paper showing that the AGW warming has continued without flatlining has been extensively discussed already so I won't rehash that.

2. The US temperature record. This would also have been relevant to the topic of this thread.

3. The global temperature temperature record. As you clarified in your subsequent comments this is what you meant. Right?

As I mentioned to ORH, I should of asked for clarification as to what you meant instead of responding as I did.

But even when focusing just on the global temperature record, your phrase "basically flat lined" can be interpreted in several ways. Did you mean no global warming? Limited global warming? Short term or long term? As we all know, it is possible to cherrypick a limited period and show any trend desired - warming, cooling, or no change at all. Which is why cherrypicking is considered disingenuous unless done for specific reasons, and is why climate science typically uses trend and baseline periods of 30 years or longer.

So let's examine your comment in light of the full global temperature record. Here is the current GISS global temperature plot:

Lots of annual variability, so I'll use the 5-year mean for this discussion. 80s - generally warming but with a bit of cooling mid decade. 90s - first part of the decade was cooling, followed by waming (driven in part by the outlier year 1998. 00s - the mean is higher than at any point in the 80s or 90s and indeed, the two all-time record years are both after 2000. How could that happen if the global temperature trend had "basically flat lined"? Okay, 2010 is technically in the 10s - so we won't count that one.

The 00s is the warmest decade on record and I (and others) feel that it is as incorrect to say that temperatures have "basically flat lined" as it would be to describe the 80s and 90s as 'cooling' because global temps took dips during those decades. The long-term record is much more relevant for climate discussions.

[FPizz]

It was easy to understand, and posted a clear graph of it. What was so confusing?

[The_Global_Warmer]

I agree to some extent - but I feel that the best approach to avoiding being misunderstood, or having your comments misinterpreted, is to write clearly and concisely. Let's look at your comment earlier on this thread that caused so much concern:

"Well the 80s and 90s rapidly warmed, but basically flat lined in the 00s."

You know exactly what you meant to say, but readers are left trying to interpret your comment. What were you referring to as having warmed rapidly in the 80s and 90s, but which had little or no warming in the 00s? There are several possible interpretations:

1. The AGW component of the long-term global temperature record. This, together with the unprecedented year to date (YTD) high temperatures in the US, is the topic of this thread. This is how I erroneously interpreted your comment. The Foster and Rahmstorf paper showing that the AGW warming has continued without flatlining has been extensively discussed already so I won't rehash that.

2. The US temperature record. This would also have been relevant to the topic of this thread.

3. The global temperature temperature record. As you clarified in your subsequent comments this is what you meant. Right?

As I mentioned to ORH, I should of asked for clarification as to what you meant instead of responding as I did.

But even when focusing just on the global temperature record, your phrase "basically flat lined" can be interpreted in several ways. Did you mean no global warming? Limited global warming? Short term or long term? As we all know, it is possible to cherrypick a limited period and show any trend desired - warming, cooling, or no change at all. Which is why cherrypicking is considered disingenuous unless done for specific reasons, and is why climate science typically uses trend and baseline periods of 30 years or longer.

So let's examine your comment in light of the full global temperature record. Here is the current GISS global temperature plot:

Lots of annual variability, so I'll use the 5-year mean for this discussion. 80s - generally warming but with a bit of cooling mid decade. 90s - first part of the decade was cooling, followed by waming (driven in part by the outlier year 1998. 00s - the mean is higher than at any point in the 80s or 90s and indeed, the two all-time record years are both after 2000. How could that happen if the global temperature trend had "basically flat lined"? Okay, 2010 is technically in the 10s - so we won't count that one.

The 00s is the warmest decade on record and I (and others) feel that it is as incorrect to say that temperatures have "basically flat lined" as it would be to describe the 80s and 90s as 'cooling' because global temps took dips during those decades. The long-term record is much more relevant for climate discussions.

Great points. I think past predicitons from the 1980s or even 2007 are irrelevent now. If the energy imbalance growth is lower than previously thought that doesn't mean it's not happening. We just change predictions. But if we are argueing about the warming/energy imbalance then it's still there. In the face of the strongest solar min and weakest solar max in a century. Plus appaerent added aeresols.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

[tacoman25]

Great points. I think past predicitons from the 1980s or even 2007 are irrelevent now. If the energy imbalance growth is lower than previously thought that doesn't mean it's not happening. We just change predictions. But if we are argueing about the warming/energy imbalance then it's still there. In the face of the strongest solar min and weakest solar max in a century. Plus appaerent added aeresols.

http://www.skeptical...et-al-2012.html

The real question is how will that added heat content to the oceans affect the atmosphere. Will we begin to see a larger transfer to the air at some point? What is the total capacity for the ocean to absorb energy?

[Snow_Miser]

I remember that paper and recall that it was very interesting. But the mechanism discussed is only theoretical at this point and has not been quantified by observations, IIRC. No scientist can point to the global temperature record and show where cooling or warming can be attributed to this mechanism - as, for example, can be done for major volcanic eruptions. Before this theoretical mechanism could be included in an analysis such as was done in the F & R paper a whole lot of research needs to be done. There needs to be a 30 year or longer record, for example.

The abstract said that such a natural mechanism would raise tropospheric ozone 4-8% higher than what it was during the pre-industrial times. They also note that the radiative forcing for such a mechanism is VERY uncertain. Uncertainty has been grossly underestimated in the field of climate science, with one side claiming that only small brightness fluctuations in the sun, volcanic aerosols and El Nino Southern Oscillation are the only natural constituents impacting the climate.

That assertion is simply ridiculous.