2010 Global Temps

[LakeEffectKing]

I think a good past to current point of reference for "long term" is 1750, the figure typically leveraged for net assessments of emissions and radiative forcing variables relevant to global energy balance and temps. Looking ahead, "end of this century" or 2100 and beyond is a good yardstick for long term impacts. Point is that a few years of cooling does not eliminate the long term trends. And unfortunately most of us can't think too much about 2100, given our personal time horizons are limited by human life span limitations. "Goalposts" are also relevant to either individual or societal frames of reference. Regarding "tipping points", those are likely irrelevant, given that it's a matter of when and not if relative to the impacts of climate change. The BAU emissions path will likely not change anytime soon, and this ensures that we will experience the consequences of climate change....not sure anyone can say with certainty whether that will be 5, 15, 50 or 100 years down the road.

Regarding Artic ice, I'm not familiar with the "experts" you reference regarding declaration of an ice free state within the next few years. The IPCC has a reasonable position on this topic, suggesting that "in some projections, Artic late-summer sea ice dissapears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century" (emphasis added). I would agree that anyone saying all the ice is gone, completely, in the next few years is off-base. But the long term trend is less Artic ice, and that's a fact.

Regarding Hansen, he has acknowledged that the current Nina oscillation will result in short-term cooling trends, but has also suggested that we will then return to annual record temperature levels. Otherwise the graph you posted runs through near the end of this decade, so good to allow the predictive time frame to run its course before passing full judgement. IDK, maybe a case of "delayed but not denied", like taco's struggles with current year temp predictions.

The cooling crowd has made many comments akin to "we'll know in 20-30 years as the PDO exerts its influence". The bulk of the data and observations suggests otherwise, and I cast my lot with the mainstream scientific opinions on this topic.

This is not only news to me, but MUST be to many "expert" climotologists, (ie Glaciers will melt by end of century, sea level increase of 6-20 feet by 2100, TEMPS will increase 3-6C by 2100, etc.....

So, per your vision of long term, we could remain fairly stable temperature wise (without really characterizing ANY temp trends) for the next 90 years AT LEAST before we can say for sure the climotoligists got it right............

.....not buying it.

AGW is a hypothesis that is fairly well tied to end of the century prognostications and impacts....and the scientists have sprinkled in a few "along the way" half-hearted, fear mongering predictions.....they would not make such claims if "long term" (wrt making assessments of temperature) could only be analyzed on century long timescales.

Oh, and do a Google search for "ice free by xxxx" and you'll find many references from supposed "experts" regarding ice loss....here's just ONE example:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/arctic-ocean-ice-free-summer-by-2015.php

[LakeEffectKing]

That map shows continued warming why does it matter what some guy named Hansen thinks....the facts on the map show warming...

Ummmmm.....Jim Hansen is essentially the grandfather of AGW...it does matter, because his A, B, C scenarios from back then were/are wrong, even when throwing in the error bars.

And yet, his doomsday rhetoric is EVEN MORE hysterical than in 1988, yet the predictions of then are solidly below his different scenario prognostications. He has yet to take the "hypothesis" he proposed back then and admit it's wrong. I have a problem with that, for (as I have learned it) when a hypothesis is falsified, OR IS FAILING MISERABLY during the testing phase) you tweak the hypothesis, or discard it and come up with an entirely new one and restart the test. He has not done that, and in fact just ignores it and makes up new extraordinary prognostications (along with some activism/arrests). He has demonstrated no objectiveness as a scientist regarding his pet peeve.....

[skierinvermont]

Ummmmm.....Jim Hansen is essentially the grandfather of AGW...it does matter, because his A, B, C scenarios from back then were/are wrong, even when throwing in the error bars.

And yet, his doomsday rhetoric is EVEN MORE hysterical than in 1988, yet the predictions of then are solidly below his different scenario prognostications. He has yet to take the "hypothesis" he proposed back then and admit it's wrong. I have a problem with that, for (as I have learned it) when a hypothesis is falsified, OR IS FAILING MISERABLY during the testing phase) you tweak the hypothesis, or discard it and come up with an entirely new one and restart the test. He has not done that, and in fact just ignores it and makes up new extraordinary prognostications (along with some activism/arrests). He has demonstrated no objectiveness as a scientist regarding his pet peeve.....

Except of course when he has written and published papers saying that the climate sensitivity in his model is likely too high:

http://pubs.giss.nas...nsen_etal_1.pdf

"...the sensitivity for the model, 4.2C for doubled CO2, is larger than our current estimate for actual climate sensitivity which is 3C +/-1 for doubled CO2..."

[BethesdaWX]

Ummmmm.....Jim Hansen is essentially the grandfather of AGW...it does matter, because his A, B, C scenarios from back then were/are wrong, even when throwing in the error bars.

And yet, his doomsday rhetoric is EVEN MORE hysterical than in 1988, yet the predictions of then are solidly below his different scenario prognostications. He has yet to take the "hypothesis" he proposed back then and admit it's wrong. I have a problem with that, for (as I have learned it) when a hypothesis is falsified, OR IS FAILING MISERABLY during the testing phase) you tweak the hypothesis, or discard it and come up with an entirely new one and restart the test. He has not done that, and in fact just ignores it and makes up new extraordinary prognostications (along with some activism/arrests). He has demonstrated no objectiveness as a scientist regarding his pet peeve.....

Don't even bother with anyone posting Hansen Data...LOL who uses Hansen Data to Prove AGW? I've never heard of anything more Pathetic in Climate Science!

[iceicebyebye]

This is not only news to me, but MUST be to many "expert" climotologists, (ie Glaciers will melt by end of century, sea level increase of 6-20 feet by 2100, TEMPS will increase 3-6C by 2100, etc.....

So, per your vision of long term, we could remain fairly stable temperature wise (without really characterizing ANY temp trends) for the next 90 years AT LEAST before we can say for sure the climotoligists got it right............

.....not buying it.

AGW is a hypothesis that is fairly well tied to end of the century prognostications and impacts....and the scientists have sprinkled in a few "along the way" half-hearted, fear mongering predictions.....they would not make such claims if "long term" (wrt making assessments of temperature) could only be analyzed on century long timescales.

Oh, and do a Google search for "ice free by xxxx" and you'll find many references from supposed "experts" regarding ice loss....here's just ONE example:

http://www.treehugge...mer-by-2015.php

Nope, didn't offer any guesses or projections relative to temperature stability. Your question was in regards to the definition of long term....you made the presumptive jump. But since you are interested, global temps will likely continue the upward trend, over the long term, and that does not disallow the impact of short term oscillations or other natural forcings that may result in a few years of cooling. It's not outside the realm of possibility to continue down a decadal path of modest temp increases, and then have a sudden spike (or drop) due to extreme feedback mechanisms and/or geologic events. The path to 3-6C does not have to be a smooth stair step.

I'm not sure we disagree on the Artic ice topic....the relevant threat is in regards to summer ice-free conditions over the mid to long term, but as noted earlier I think anyone suggesting an ice free Arctic year-round within the next few years is not grounded in facts.

Cheers.

[BethesdaWX]

Nope, didn't offer any guesses or projections relative to temperature stability. Your question was in regards to the definition of long term....you made the presumptive jump. But since you are interested, global temps will likely continue the upward trend, over the long term, and that does not disallow the impact of short term oscillations or other natural forcings that may result in a few years of cooling. It's not outside the realm of possibility to continue down a decadal path of modest temp increases, and then have a sudden spike (or drop) due to extreme feedback mechanisms and/or geologic events. The path to 3-6C does not have to be a smooth stair step.

I'm not sure we disagree on the Artic ice topic....the relevant threat is in regards to summer ice-free conditions over the mid to long term, but as noted earlier I think anyone suggesting an ice free Arctic year-round within the next few years is not grounded in facts.

Cheers.

What upward trend? We haven't warmed a bit since the late 90's. If you don't believe me, ask Phil Jones! The 1940's were just as warm as today globally, only warmer in the US in the 1930's. You don't mean to reference "adjusted" data, right?

So....how long will the cooling need to take place before you to change sides? We had the cooling from 2002-2008 with the interruption w/ this latest El Nino. We'll be back below normal probably by MAR. .

You can tell Hansen's data is flawed just by lookig at it.

[LakeEffectKing]

Except of course when he has written and published papers saying that the climate sensitivity in his model is likely too high:

http://pubs.giss.nas...nsen_etal_1.pdf

"...the sensitivity for the model, 4.2C for doubled CO2, is larger than our current estimate for actual climate sensitivity which is 3C +/-1 for doubled CO2..."

Skier,

In that same paper (in 2006) he esentially defended his graph and "let it ride"....He did not propose another hypothesis, and even made the statement:

Nevertheless, it is apparent that the first

transient climate simulations (12) proved to be quite accurate.....

(Might I add, that since the paper was written, his scenario A and B lines have diverged a great deal.)

So the original sensitivity was 1.2 degrees higher than what is the CURRENT estimate.....and that is supposed to be the final say??? Weren't they proclaiming "science as settled" when it was 4.2 degrees? What's ~30% error amongst friends.....right?? And NOW we are supposed to say, "oh, now they have it right"??? Excuse me, but I'll deferr to the complexity of climate and side with "they may still be missing something" in their "estimated forcing". From what I've read about how they have estimated it, the scientific method of proving such a figure WAS NOT USED...and that is evidenced also by the INITIAL ESTIMATION being so far off.

And that's not even mentioning the relatively large solar uncertainty, relatively large feedback uncertainty, and the absolute dead silence on any potential benefits of a modest warming.....it smells rotten Skier, at every turn.

[LakeEffectKing]

Nope, didn't offer any guesses or projections relative to temperature stability. Your question was in regards to the definition of long term....you made the presumptive jump. But since you are interested, global temps will likely continue the upward trend, over the long term, and that does not disallow the impact of short term oscillations or other natural forcings that may result in a few years of cooling. It's not outside the realm of possibility to continue down a decadal path of modest temp increases, and then have a sudden spike (or drop) due to extreme feedback mechanisms and/or geologic events. The path to 3-6C does not have to be a smooth stair step.

I'm not sure we disagree on the Artic ice topic....the relevant threat is in regards to summer ice-free conditions over the mid to long term, but as noted earlier I think anyone suggesting an ice free Arctic year-round within the next few years is not grounded in facts.

Cheers.

Ummmm....in the context of the discussion, we inherently are speaking of temperature...unless you were talking about relationships regarding assessment of tooth decay!

If you are going to explicitly define long term (wrt TEMPERATURE ASSESSMENTS) as being the end of the century, then by default, you can essentially explain away ANY decreases in temperature....even one's lasting 60...70 years....and still hold on to the hypothesis as stated....this is NOT how the Team has portrayed the scenario (s)....Maybe you, but not the AGW experts....

[BethesdaWX]

Ummmm....in the context of the discussion, we inherently are speaking of temperature...unless you were talking about relationships regarding assessment of tooth decay!

If you are going to explicitly define long term (wrt TEMPERATURE ASSESSMENTS) as being the end of the century, then by default, you can essentially explain away ANY decreases in temperature....even one's lasting 60...70 years....and still hold on to the hypothesis as stated....this is NOT how the Team has portrayed the scenario (s)....Maybe you, but not the AGW experts....

Bingo

[skierinvermont]

[/size]Skier,

In that same paper (in 2006) he esentially defended his graph and "let it ride"....He did not propose another hypothesis, and even made the statement:[/size]

Nevertheless, it is apparent that the first

transient climate simulations (12) proved to be quite accurate.....

(Might I add, that since the paper was written, his scenario A and B lines have diverged a great deal.)

So the original sensitivity was 1.2 degrees higher than what is the CURRENT estimate.....and that is supposed to be the final say??? Weren't they proclaiming "science as settled" when it was 4.2 degrees? What's ~30% error amongst friends.....right?? And NOW we are supposed to say, "oh, now they have it right"??? Excuse me, but I'll deferr to the complexity of climate and side with "they may still be missing something" in their "estimated forcing". From what I've read about how they have estimated it, the scientific method of proving such a figure WAS NOT USED...and that is evidenced also by the INITIAL ESTIMATION being so far off.

And that's not even mentioning the relatively large solar uncertainty, relatively large feedback uncertainty, and the absolute dead silence on any potential benefits of a modest warming.....it smells rotten Skier, at every turn.

Show me where he said the science was settled in 1988, otherwise I call BS.

He says very plainly and in simple terms that the original climate sensitivity in his 1988 model was too high. What else do you want?

There have been HUGE amounts of research done, using the scientific method, to figure out the climate sensitivity.. they didn't just up and change it from 4.2 to 3 for ****s and giggles. The estimates of climate sensitivity were revised from 4.2 to 3C +/-1 long before Hansen's projections were failing.

[nzucker]

Show me where he said the science was settled in 1988, otherwise I call BS.

He says very plainly and in simple terms that the original climate sensitivity in his 1988 model was too high. What else do you want?

There have been HUGE amounts of research done, using the scientific method, to figure out the climate sensitivity.. they didn't just up and change it from 4.2 to 3 for ****s and giggles. The estimates of climate sensitivity were revised from 4.2 to 3C +/-1 long before Hansen's projections were failing.

Every forecast for global temperatures has been a failure. Hansen's 1988 and 1992 (?) forecasts were both too high.

The IPCC 2007 computer models are almost guaranteed to fall out of their confidence range in the next few years given the changes in the Pacific. Not looking good for that .2C/decade warming to verify at this point.

Given the history of failed predictions, maybe it's prudent to admit we just don't know enough to predict global temperatures accurately, despite sophisticated computer models.

Are you coming on Facebook? I want to talk to you.

[ORH_wxman]

Every forecast for global temperatures has been a failure. Hansen's 1988 and 1992 (?) forecasts were both too high.

The IPCC 2007 computer models are almost guaranteed to fall out of their confidence range in the next few years given the changes in the Pacific. Not looking good for that .2C/decade warming to verify at this point.

Given the history of failed predictions, maybe it's prudent to admit we just don't know enough to predict global temperatures accurately, despite sophisticated computer models.

Are you coming on Facebook? I want to talk to you.

I'm in this camp. Their insistence on being "certain" at every update seems to keep failing. I don't have a problem with their actual physics of GHGs or anything...but I have a problem with their continued penchant for completely dismissing natural cycles. I know Mallow (a AGW proponent...well certainly more than I at least) has agreed with me on this fact and that it will probably be their downfall.

I think we just need to recognize that maybe there are some factors at work that we just don't completely understand yet. This might go back to my natural skepticism that I posted in the SNE thread...the minute you think you have it figured out, you generally get dealt a hefty dose of humble pie.

I think IPCC is about to get that over this next decade...its already starting to show with the essential flat lining of this past 10-12 years...and I don't think its going to change much in the next 10 years. This won't prove the GHG theory either, as I think the physics are okay and make sense, but there is obviously a lack of understanding with some of the natural cycles IMHO. I guess we'll find out in the not too distant future.

[LakeEffectKing]

Show me where he said the science was settled in 1988, otherwise I call BS.

He says very plainly and in simple terms that the original climate sensitivity in his 1988 model was too high. What else do you want?

There have been HUGE amounts of research done, using the scientific method, to figure out the climate sensitivity.. they didn't just up and change it from 4.2 to 3 for ****s and giggles. The estimates of climate sensitivity were revised from 4.2 to 3C +/-1 long before Hansen's projections were failing.

And when might that be???? The first claims of settled science (Not sure of the exact date) where made a couple years or so, IIRC, after my graduation from Albany St. (1990), at the beginning of the Clinton/Gore Administration (when there was talk of artificially raising gas prices). And when that "revision" occurred you'd think there would be an adjustment of the original graph by Hansen....and as of yet, I can't find one. The only adjustments have been made to the data!

[iceicebyebye]

Ummmm....in the context of the discussion, we inherently are speaking of temperature...unless you were talking about relationships regarding assessment of tooth decay!

If you are going to explicitly define long term (wrt TEMPERATURE ASSESSMENTS) as being the end of the century, then by default, you can essentially explain away ANY decreases in temperature....even one's lasting 60...70 years....and still hold on to the hypothesis as stated....this is NOT how the Team has portrayed the scenario (s)....Maybe you, but not the AGW experts....

Not sure I catch your drift....The global temperature over the long term can increase 3-6C whilst experiencing short periods of falling temperatures. If you disagree, then it seems you do not believe in natural forcings and oscillations that create short term variability.

I would say there is good confidence that there will not be 60-70 year periods of decreasing temps this century, unless we have a massive impact from a geologic event or space object impact (which would lead to larger problems than globabl temp trends).

[skierinvermont]

And when might that be???? The first claims of settled science (Not sure of the exact date) where made a couple years or so, IIRC, after my graduation from Albany St. (1990), at the beginning of the Clinton/Gore Administration (when there was talk of artificially raising gas prices). And when that "revision" occurred you'd think there would be an adjustment of the original graph by Hansen....and as of yet, I can't find one. The only adjustments have been made to the data!

You can't retroactively revise a published journal article, so I don't really understand what it is you are expecting.

You can probably consider Hansen's 1988 predictions functionally revised whenever he participated in or published a report with a lower sensitivity. I'd have to check but this is probably sometime in the mid 90s or late 90s. He has always acknowledged that there is a lot of uncertainty what the exact sensitivity is.

From the original 1988 paper:

Principal uncertainties in the predictions involve the equilibrium sensitivity of the model to climate forcing, the assumptions regarding heat uptake and transport by the ocean, and the omission of other less-certain climate forcings.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So how are the global temps doing now and as far back as reliable data says?

I am sure you guys are smart enough to objectively view them.

last I heard it's getting cold fast.

[BethesdaWX]

Not sure I catch your drift....The global temperature over the long term can increase 3-6C whilst experiencing short periods of falling temperatures. If you disagree, then it seems you do not believe in natural forcings and oscillations that create short term variability.

I would say there is good confidence that there will not be 60-70 year periods of decreasing temps this century, unless we have a massive impact from a geologic event or space object impact (which would lead to larger problems than globabl temp trends).

You forget... According to Hansen's data.....global temps would be where they are now, if we stopped emissions completely over a decade ago! Otherwise, we should have been 1C+ above avg by now. And you even think to present his data to prove AGW?

[LakeEffectKing]

Not sure I catch your drift....The global temperature over the long term can increase 3-6C whilst experiencing short periods of falling temperatures. If you disagree, then it seems you do not believe in natural forcings and oscillations that create short term variability.

I would say there is good confidence that there will not be 60-70 year periods of decreasing temps this century, unless we have a massive impact from a geologic event or space object impact (which would lead to larger problems than globabl temp trends).

I hate it when the "drift" isn't caught early....

You stated that you think currently there may be some short term cooling:

"Agreed that the current oscillations are in favor of short term cooler temperatures/smaller positive anomalies....but this will not change the long term trends related to warming global temperatures."

I stated that if indeed we DO have some short term cooling (I assumed around 3-5 years, since you didn't define precisely) we would effectively go nearly 20 years without any warming (assuming if we did cool, it'd take another couple years to compensate for that cooling) and pointed out that as far as the "experts" were telling us...long term can be quantified on a decadal scale (20 years = 2 decades). So if we are essentially flat for 2 decades, you are trying to tell me that we should STILL not be able to claim a flaw with the AGW hypothesis??? It's supposed to "overwhelm" all the natural forcings...

So you decided to claim that "long term" was from 1750 to 2100!!!!!!! So if 2010 comes in as one of the warmest years....it's evidence of global warming....but if we have a slight cooling over nearly a 2 decade period, you are arguing that NO EVIDENCE OF A FLAWED HYPOTHESIS EXISTS??? Sorry......that's not science, that's kool-aid drinking, as well as goal post moving. Because if we stay essetially flat from 1997-2017, EVERY GCM would be WRONG, and every warmists prediction up to the point of 2020 would be blown out of the water!

Catch my drift?

[Cheeznado]

Except we are not cooling, or even steady:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/so-how-did-that-global-cooling-bet-work-out/

[ORH_wxman]

[tacoman25]

You can't retroactively revise a published journal article, so I don't really understand what it is you are expecting.

You can probably consider Hansen's 1988 predictions functionally revised whenever he participated in or published a report with a lower sensitivity. I'd have to check but this is probably sometime in the mid 90s or late 90s. He has always acknowledged that there is a lot of uncertainty what the exact sensitivity is.

From the original 1988 paper:

Principal uncertainties in the predictions involve the equilibrium sensitivity of the model to climate forcing, the assumptions regarding heat uptake and transport by the ocean, and the omission of other less-certain climate forcings.

The bottom line point being made remains the same: sensitivity revisions have consistently been downward since 1988. Therefore, AGW was originally introduced as a larger and more imminent threat than it now appears to be. Not that this means it is not a threat at all.

[ORH_wxman]

AMSU channel 5 temps are now below 2007 levels....Dec and Jan could come in quite cold. Should be interesting to see if it keeps falling further below 2007 or if it stays close to it or rises back above it next month.

[LakeEffectKing]

Except we are not cooling, or even steady:

http://www.realclima...g-bet-work-out/

Up to the point of the recent El Nino driven spike....we were very near flat (or slightly cooling or VERY slightly warming), depending on one's choice in dataset collection methods. Why would the "emails" be worried about the "non-warming" then....you know the "travesty" comment??

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". -Trenberth '09

Doesn't really affect my point....if we are flat from here until 2017...or cool....the "long term" (1997-2017 period) will be essentially flat....and nowhere near the +.4 or +.6 or whatever "fearful" number has been predicted.

[LakeEffectKing]

The bottom line point being made remains the same: sensitivity revisions have consistently been downward since 1988. Therefore, AGW was originally introduced as a larger and more imminent threat than it now appears to be. Not that this means it is not a threat at all.

And yet the "fear mongering" is seemingly indirectly proportional to the downward sensitivity.....smells rotten....kind of like agenda driven "doom"

[iceicebyebye]

I hate it when the "drift" isn't caught early....

You stated that you think currently there may be some short term cooling:

"Agreed that the current oscillations are in favor of short term cooler temperatures/smaller positive anomalies....but this will not change the long term trends related to warming global temperatures."

I stated that if indeed we DO have some short term cooling (I assumed around 3-5 years, since you didn't define precisely) we would effectively go nearly 20 years without any warming (assuming if we did cool, it'd take another couple years to compensate for that cooling) and pointed out that as far as the "experts" were telling us...long term can be quantified on a decadal scale (20 years = 2 decades). So if we are essentially flat for 2 decades, you are trying to tell me that we should STILL not be able to claim a flaw with the AGW hypothesis??? It's supposed to "overwhelm" all the natural forcings...

So you decided to claim that "long term" was from 1750 to 2100!!!!!!! So if 2010 comes in as one of the warmest years....it's evidence of global warming....but if we have a slight cooling over nearly a 2 decade period, you are arguing that NO EVIDENCE OF A FLAWED HYPOTHESIS EXISTS??? Sorry......that's not science, that's kool-aid drinking, as well as goal post moving. Because if we stay essetially flat from 1997-2017, EVERY GCM would be WRONG, and every warmists prediction up to the point of 2020 would be blown out of the water!

Catch my drift?

lol, caps lock alert! And thanks for clarifying your drift.

IMO, "short term cooling" can be a single month to a few years. I would strongly doubt that we go 20 years with flat or no warming. Of course the choice of starting point can have significant influence on that positioning. So at this point I'd say your are simply presenting an unproven straw man, since the longer term trend has been warming. You are essentially casting about in regards to points in time that have not been reached....

[BethesdaWX]

lol, caps lock alert! And thanks for clarifying your drift.

IMO, "short term cooling" can be a single month to a few years. I would strongly doubt that we go 20 years with flat or no warming. Of course the choice of starting point can have significant influence on that positioning. So at this point I'd say your are simply presenting an unproven straw man, since the longer term trend has been warming. You are essentially casting about in regards to points in time that have not been reached....

What timescale do you speak of? Milleniums? Centuries? Please be more specific.

What Data we have before 1979 is lower quality, and has gone through "convenient" adjustements. In Reality, its very likely that the 1940's were nearly as warm as where we are now. Its also very likely that the warming we're seeing is predominately natural/solar, rather than GHG Caused.

[tacoman25]

lol, caps lock alert! And thanks for clarifying your drift.

IMO, "short term cooling" can be a single month to a few years. I would strongly doubt that we go 20 years with flat or no warming. Of course the choice of starting point can have significant influence on that positioning. So at this point I'd say your are simply presenting an unproven straw man, since the longer term trend has been warming. You are essentially casting about in regards to points in time that have not been reached....

If it's 20 years, would starting point really matter that much? Based on IPCC-approved climate sensitivity, it would be pretty much impossible to have a flat 20 year trend at any point.

[LakeEffectKing]

lol, caps lock alert! And thanks for clarifying your drift.

IMO, "short term cooling" can be a single month to a few years. I would strongly doubt that we go 20 years with flat or no warming. Of course the choice of starting point can have significant influence on that positioning. So at this point I'd say your are simply presenting an unproven straw man, since the longer term trend has been warming. You are essentially casting about in regards to points in time that have not been reached....

You supplied the straw!!!! But whatever, it's hypothetical anyway. When a hypothesis is unfalsifiable (which is how it was intentionally or inadvertantly intended) it resemble belief. Tell me of a test that could falsify the AGW hypothesis????

[BethesdaWX]

You supplied the straw!!!! But whatever, it's hypothetical anyway. When a hypothesis is unfalsifiable (which is how it was intentionally or inadvertantly intended) it resemble belief. Tell me of a test that could falsify the AGW hypothesis????

Which is why this AGW thing is so damn irritating. Heavy snows, Heatwaves, any extreme event is blamed on AGW.....Everything is evidence of it! Meh, one day global cooling will be a result of AGW. BS to the limit.

Hansen Has Basically Falsified His Own Hypothesis! If anything, the only falsification going in is From the Man Behid it all...

LOLZ

[nzucker]

AMSU channel 5 temps are now below 2007 levels....Dec and Jan could come in quite cold. Should be interesting to see if it keeps falling further below 2007 or if it stays close to it or rises back above it next month.

I think it'll continue to fall, albeit at a more gradual rate, in the next few months. The satellites' lag mean that what Channel 5 is showing now is where global temperatures were 4-5 months ago. The La Niña has also begun another spell of intense cooling lately, so that should be reflected by April/May.