Claim: Temperatures are Increasing More than Expected over the Last Decade

[Snow_Miser]

Yesterday I was listening to the radio, so I can confirm that this is legitimate. Presdient Obama made a claim that temperature rises over the last decade have been faster than what was predicted 10 years ago.

This claim is wrong and needs to be corrected. There has been no net Global Warming over the last 10 years on any observational temeprature dataset.

Unless the president was refering to predictions of a sharp cooling over the last 10 years, we have not warmed much faster than predicted. Quite the opposite in fact.

Trends in temperatures over the last 12 years:

WTI: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

GISS: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadCruT3: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadCruT4: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

RSS: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

UAH: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadSST2: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

[nflwxman]

Yesterday I was listening to the radio, so I can confirm that this is legitimate. Presdient Obama made a claim that temperature rises over the last decade have been faster than what was predicted 10 years ago.

This claim is wrong and needs to be corrected. There has been no net Global Warming over the last 10 years on any observational temeprature dataset.

Unless the president was refering to predictions of a sharp cooling over the last 10 years, we have not warmed much faster than predicted. Quite the opposite in fact.

Trends in temperatures over the last 12 years:

WTI: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

GISS: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadCruT3: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadCruT4: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

RSS: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

UAH: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadSST2: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

That is a strange claim to make and almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. 10 years does not make a bonified climate trend as we have seen throughout surface temperature history. Solar and ENSO have too much of a dominating pull on a time series that small. Overall, yes Obama's claim was incorrect unless he was somehow refering to studies that have filtered out natural variability (which I doubt).

[Snow_Miser]

That is a strange claim to make and almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. 10 years does not make a bonified climate trend as we have seen throughout surface temperature history. Solar and ENSO have too much of a dominating pull on a time series that small. Overall, yes Obama's claim was incorrect unless he was somehow refering to studies that have filtered out natural variability (which I doubt).

Whether we are continuing to warm or whether we have gone into a period of multidecadal cooling is something that is very significant for climate prediction in the grand scheme of things.

The recent stagnation/slight cooling in temperatures over the last decade to decade and a half indicate that natural factors still play a significant role in the climate system.

[TerryM]

It sounds as though your President has found a way to get every right wing broadcaster onto the AGW topic - brilliant!

Terry

[tacoman25]

It sounds as though your President has found a way to get every right wing broadcaster onto the AGW topic - brilliant!

Terry

So the ends (talking about AGW) do justify the means (false statements)! Brilliant.

[TerryM]

So the ends (talking about AGW) do justify the means (false statements)! Brilliant.

If we're going to compare false statements made by one side or another, who do you think would come out on top?

Remember L Hamilton's study that found right wingers with a degree to be less well versed in the basics of global warming than Democrats who hadn't made it past high school? Where do you think they got all that erroneous information. Why would they think that volcano's spewed more CO2 than man's contribution unless someone fed it to them.

I haven't heard what your President said, nor am I sure of what scientists were predicting specifically in 2002. I do know that the following sentences attributed to him about Arctic ice are spot on. I also recognize that to call him out on it will require a person to admit that the scientific consensus as far back as 2002 was that AGW is real and that the warnings back then were very strong.

An interesting conundrum for the right. Are they willing admit that they lied when they said there was no consensus about Global Warming back as far as 2002, or will they give the President a pass on his possible misstatement?

2002 was a midterm election - I'm sure there are plenty of quotes from Republican candidates on the issue.

Terry

[Jonger]

Yesterday I was listening to the radio, so I can confirm that this is legitimate. Presdient Obama made a claim that temperature rises over the last decade have been faster than what was predicted 10 years ago.

This claim is wrong and needs to be corrected. There has been no net Global Warming over the last 10 years on any observational temeprature dataset.

Unless the president was refering to predictions of a sharp cooling over the last 10 years, we have not warmed much faster than predicted. Quite the opposite in fact.

Trends in temperatures over the last 12 years:

WTI: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

GISS: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadCruT3: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadCruT4: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

RSS: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

UAH: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

HadSST2: http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend

Carbon tax INCOMING.

[Snow_Miser]

If we're going to compare false statements made by one side or another, who do you think would come out on top?

Remember L Hamilton's study that found right wingers with a degree to be less well versed in the basics of global warming than Democrats who hadn't made it past high school? Where do you think they got all that erroneous information. Why would they think that volcano's spewed more CO2 than man's contribution unless someone fed it to them.

I haven't heard what your President said, nor am I sure of what scientists were predicting specifically in 2002. I do know that the following sentences attributed to him about Arctic ice are spot on. I also recognize that to call him out on it will require a person to admit that the scientific consensus as far back as 2002 was that AGW is real and that the warnings back then were very strong.

An interesting conundrum for the right. Are they willing admit that they lied when they said there was no consensus about Global Warming back as far as 2002, or will they give the President a pass on his possible misstatement?

2002 was a midterm election - I'm sure there are plenty of quotes from Republican candidates on the issue.

Terry

Let's not bring politics into this thread.

Thanks.

[tacoman25]

If we're going to compare false statements made by one side or another, who do you think would come out on top?

Remember L Hamilton's study that found right wingers with a degree to be less well versed in the basics of global warming than Democrats who hadn't made it past high school? Where do you think they got all that erroneous information. Why would they think that volcano's spewed more CO2 than man's contribution unless someone fed it to them.

I haven't heard what your President said, nor am I sure of what scientists were predicting specifically in 2002. I do know that the following sentences attributed to him about Arctic ice are spot on. I also recognize that to call him out on it will require a person to admit that the scientific consensus as far back as 2002 was that AGW is real and that the warnings back then were very strong.

An interesting conundrum for the right. Are they willing admit that they lied when they said there was no consensus about Global Warming back as far as 2002, or will they give the President a pass on his possible misstatement?

2002 was a midterm election - I'm sure there are plenty of quotes from Republican candidates on the issue.

Terry

This thread is about the comment just made by Obama, which was incorrect. There is no way around it - global temperatures have NOT increased faster than expected since 10 years ago. Doesn't matter what was said in 2002 by other politicians, those are the facts as they stand today.

Your comment seemed to say: "Who cares if his comment wasn't factual - at least it gets people talking about AGW." And so my comment about ends justifying means.

[TerryM]

Let's not bring politics into this thread.

Thanks.

For once we agree

Pull the thread it's predicated on nothing but politics.

Terry

[tacoman25]

For once we agree

Pull the thread it's predicated on nothing but politics.

Terry

Something tells me if it was a Republican who said something incorrect about climate change, you would not be making such demands...

And of course there's nothing political in your "now we know who pays our trolls" thread.

[TerryM]

Something tells me if it was a Republican who said something incorrect about climate change, you would not be making such demands...

And of course there's nothing political in your "now we know who pays our trolls" thread.

I don't try to hide my politics. I'm far to the left of most Democrats that I've met & to the left of the NDP Socialist party here in Canada. I participate on the political side of the board from time to time & do feel this thread should be moved there, not because I think it's an embarrassment for Obama - in fact as I've posted above I think it may have the effect of getting people to think about global warming who otherwise wouldn't have given it a thought.

Another finding that Larry made was that ones stance on global warming is a better indicator of political persuasion than any other metric - a rather amazing demonstration of the effectiveness of the propaganda machine at work - and a very good indicator of the politics of everyone who posts here.

The trolls thread is going to be political simply because the energy companies felt they could get further by utilizing the right wing politicians they had bought as opposed to the left wing politicians on their payroll. They're as apolitical as they are amoral - it was simply a matter of expediency.

Terry

[Snow_Miser]

The trolls thread is going to be political simply because the energy companies felt they could get further by utilizing the right wing politicians they had bought as opposed to the left wing politicians on their payroll. They're as apolitical as they are amoral - it was simply a matter of expediency.

Donna Laframboise has been doing an excellent job exposing the political bias within the IPCC. While some skeptics are likely funded by energy companies, there are a substantial portion of the skeptics, namely scientists whom are legitimately skeptical and are not paid by the energy companies.

Donna Laframboise has found that many scientists in the IPCC are affiliated with the WWF and are paid for by Green Energy Companies.

So your side is not any better with the funding bias than the skeptical side.