UN: 2010 tied for warmest year on record

No comment from any skeptics?
Lets sort this out with some white paint in all roof tile production.

....and still there are those that continue to think the Earth is cooling and the ice caps increasing...
Last year was also the wettest recorded.

Where does 2010 rank in the past 1000-2000 years? This is a rating based on the 130 year instrument data record, I believe.

Well, from my point of view (western Lake Superior) the forecast for tonight is -24F. Snowfall this year is much greater than I have experienced in the last 15 years at least. Across the globe we hear that this winter has been much more severe than normal with England covered in snow. Last summer also seemed much milder than usual as well.

Of course, it is just weather, not climate, but it is hard to accept anything published by the U.N. about the weather since the climategate scandal hit the fan. Just my humble opinion, though.

Flooding in Sri Lanka? It has some of the heaviest rains in the world. This is from wiki: "up to 2,500 millimetres (98.4 in) of rain each month" in the monsooon season. They use elephants in stead of trucks because the roads are impassable.

The summer of 2010 was dominated by a strong el nino event. Despite those near record high 24 hour average temps, many regions saw contiditions like we had here in the southeast US. We had very average daytime highs and then, because of the humidity we had higher than average nighttime lows. In my area, we had exactly zero record high daytime highs in 2010.

Global rainfall was higher than average (as explains the high night time temps), but intense storms were way fewer than normal, reaching a 40 year record low for 2010 in both number and intensity of storms of tropical storm or higher strength. You can look up the ACE data at the NCDC if you don't believe me. This is the 4th year of declining ACE levels in a row.

GSwift7- When a country used to monsoons such as Sri Lanka finds 325,000 of its people displaced and 36,000 homeless then you know it was a major event.

From the story;

He added that the ten warmest years after records began in 1854 have all occurred since 1998.

. And we know that is tied with some of the hotter periods in earths history. Anyway within the 200+ year time frame the top 10 all happen within the last 14 years. It speaks volumes as to how serious global warming is.

When you know that the UN is cooking the books, it'd be ridiculous to take anything they say seriously.
Nothing to see here...

More NASA GISS CHIEF ALARMIST DATA FRAUD!
You may have seen stories about 2010 being the warmest year ever. And by ever the warmists don’t mean the history of the world, they mean about the last 180 years. The truth is too inconvenient:
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long- term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year (1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list

The anti-science crowd has really ruined this site.

Where does 2010 rank in the past 1000-2000 years? This is a rating based on the 130 year instrument data record, I believe.Where does 2010 rank in the past 1000-2000 years? This is a rating based on the 130 year instrument data record, I believe.

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10500 years 9100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year (1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list!

Hi Skeptic_Heretic,
You say: The anti-science crowd has really ruined this site.
My question to you is it the alarmist or the skeptics? I'm a little puzzled?

@ted208. I guess you are talking about me in regards to being an alarmist. I would rather be warning folks to lookup than to tell them to bury their heads in the sand. You and your kind are very much the ostrich. Worst, you encourage others to bury there heads too.

How has 2010 ranked up with other years. Hotter than anything ever seen in last 130 years, and it's attributable to man made global warming. What part don't you get?

And 130 years is for direct measurements made by drumb roll; scientists.

Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010

There you go again. Some how for the past 10500(?) years we have been baked except for 1934, 98, and 2010. Those years we had cooling. Please get the facts right.

One year is a little warmer than another! If I extrapolate this line the world will be over 2000 degrees celcius in little over 100 years!

WHY WONT PEOPLE BELIEVE THE EARTH IS TURNING INTO A NEW STAR!

"The summer of 2010 was dominated by a strong el nino event." - GSwift

Incorrect. 2010 summer had the Pacific Ocean in a La nina (cold) condition. And despite this, Global Temps were tied with the highest ever.

"Of the past 10500 years 9100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010." - TedTard

1934 was the warmest year on record only in the U.S. Which constitutes only 2% of the global surface area.

Portraying 1934 as a global record warm year is therefore dishonest in the extreme.

Why did you feel a need to tell a lie Ted?

"When you know that the UN is cooking the book" - ConservaTard

ConservaTard accusations of improper data manipulation were investigated by the scientific community and found to be FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

Yet you repeat those same FALSE ACCUSATIONS here.

You clearly have a need to tell Lies.

"More NASA GISS CHIEF ALARMIST DATA FRAUD!" - TedTard

GISS isn't part of the WMO. Neither is it part of the MET.

Yet all three bodies have concluded that 2010 is tied wit the warmest years on record, using different methods and data sets.

Only a low grade moron, or a motivated liar would continue to make the Kook Tard claims that you and your fellow Conservative Denialists make.

"Well, from my point of view (western Lake Superior) the forecast for tonight is -24F." - Claudius

Tthe deck can't be stuffed with extra aces because when I randomly selected a card, I got a 7 of spades.

Yes, and they have these major events frequently there. As usual, the main problem is that they are not prepared because so many people are poor there, just like the earthquake in haiti. Sri Lanka actually had a bigger flood just 18 years ago and floods of this size are common there.

Hi Skeptic_Heretic,
You say: The anti-science crowd has really ruined this site.
My question to you is it the alarmist or the skeptics? I'm a little puzzled?

It's anyone from either party who isn't actually reading the research and instead goes on the headlines and political talking points.

Of the past 10500 years 9100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year (1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list!

You can include yourself in that list unless you have a reference for this statement.

Incorrect. 2010 summer had the Pacific Ocean in a La nina (cold) condition. And despite this, Global Temps were tied with the highest ever

No, 2010 ended with la nina, most of the year there was a strong el nino. It ended at the end of the summer and changed to a la nina right at the end of the year. Weather changes lag behind the nino nina cycle also.

Actually the switch over happened in the spring. Reported throughout Jun by many establishments.

THe switch back and forth is really only relevant in regards to whether it was hot or cold for the western US.

Gents, the effects of the ENSO cycle are different, depending on the region you're speaking of.

No, 2010 ended with la nina, most of the year there was a strong el nino. It ended at the end of the summer and changed to a la nina right at the end of the year. Weather changes lag behind the nino nina cycle also.

There is a lag, the rapid cooling was recorded by AMSU around mid November, a very sharp decrease caused by a particularly strong La Nina. Don't forget that the 2009 and 2010 El Nino was not particularly strong or long lived.
htp://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

I stand corrected. I confused confirmation with first observation.

Don't forget that as global temperatures rise; evaporation from the oceans should be commensurate with the rise of water vapor and should rise in the atmosphere. The more vapor, the more clouds over the Pacific. The more clouds over the Pacific, the more cooling of El Nino patch. Less clouds results in La-Nina.

Bottom line anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is effecting the pacific weather.

Well, let's see...1998, 2005, 2010 all tied. What does that state? Since 1998 there has been statistically insignificant warming.

So far it has not actually gotten hotter. Let's see what next decade brings before we start stressing over things, shall we? :)

Of course I forgot to mention that it is indeed a statistically significant warming since 1997, 1996, 1999, 2000 etc...but you don't want to think I'm cherry picking eh :)
Don't forget in my statistical analysis I love to tilt my graphs at an angle to get the cooling I so desperately seek...but can never find :(

MikeyK sockpuppeteering notwithstanding, consider the following:

"Thirty years isn't a long enough time period to attribute this entirely to 'forcing,' or anthropogenic influence."

htp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-loss-arctic-climate.html

While 1996-2000 was a little more significant than the period from 1998-2010 it still is within that 30-year period talked about.

Still, it changes nothing regarding the stated facts regarding the statistical insignificance of 1998-2010. Which brings us to the question of waiting to see what happens over the next decades.

I am not looking for cooling but the facts are the facts. When you have several ties it means that things have not yet gotten hotter. It looks more like a plateau with some rubble scattered around, with neither significant warming nor significant cooling overall.

No matter how one slices it, Phil Jones was right to the chagrin of his peers.

While 1996-2000 was a little more significant than the period from 1998-2010 it still is within that 30-year period talked about.

4 years is not more statistically significant than 12 years in terms of climate, ever.

No matter how one slices it, Phil Jones was right to the chagrin of his peers.

No, Phil Jones was right because that question was on whether it was significant, which at the time it wasn't. Apparently you never read the next line of his answer.

Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Now it is statistically significant as you've added two more years to the time period.

If you're going to talk about these things you may want to actually know what you're talking about so you don't accidentally lie to a large group of people. You woul;dn't want to do that on purpose now, would you?

It still isn't significant. Lack of clarity in a posting while in a hurry is not the same thing as intentional dishonesty. But, if you want to try that canard... :)

In either case, when you take the whole thing together, 1996-2010 is not overall significant, either, when we consider that thirty years of data is not enough. And, I agree with Jones' latter comment you cited above as well (don't assume I missed something because assumptions often lead to errors), which precisely and exactly is why I have repeatedly stated above and elsewhere that we need to see what the next decades bring.

As of now, it still is statistically insignificant. Let's see some actual tiebreakers over the next few decades before we overstep what is knowable.

I do admit that I should have phrased my comment better. It would have been better to have written "While 1996-2000 added a little more significance to the period of 1998-2010, it still is within that 30-year period talked about."

Any person that quotes Phil Jones cannot expect to be taken seriously, what a waste of space!

If what he said about the statistical insignificance of the data from 1998 to the time of his interview were inaccurate I would not have quoted him, either. But, he was accurate on that. He still is--so far.

....but surely there is significant warming from 1999, or 1997? Wasn't 1998 the year of the largest El Nino of the 20th century hence the spike in temperatures?

Nope, not really. Factor in the uncertainties and various other statistical data and you get statistically insignificant warming from 1998 to 2010. For a while there was also a statistically insignificant cooling, too.

That is why I keep insisting that we watch and see what we see over the next decades.

So far, what we have gotten is ties (three with one statistical methodology or two with another but still ties), which means more or less a plateau and no real warming--yet.

If 2010 had broken the record and exceeded all previous years, there may have been some degree of something. But, it didn't. It tied with previous years.

P.S.: Watch out folks...as seen above, several more of the MikeyK sockpuppets are emerging. Soon they will be talking to one another as is already the case in another article thread. Be on the lookout and more or less ignore accordingly. :)

....so you agree there is statistacally significant warming from 1999, 0r 1997, glad thats been settled then!

I wouldn't argue with this one Mary, he was the same last year when he was called dachpyarsewipe or something similar. He/she/it never managed to answer any questions fully or even provide links to his fanciful tales!

"No, 2010 ended with la nina, most of the year there was a strong el nino. It ended at the end of the summer and changed to a la nina right at the end of the year. Weather changes lag behind the nino nina cycle also." - NotSoSwift

The ENSO MEI index can be found here.

.htp://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html

Which shows that the ElNino had decreased in intensity and died out somewhere in May.

From that point on, it was LaNina.

So there was no strong ElNino in summer. In fact most of the year the planet has been in LaNina.

Vendicar- that is correct, conditions starting prevailing June/July and manifested themselves in the SST's; Satellite instruments started recording the rapid falls in temperature ifrom Mid November onwards, turning into a particularly strong La Nina episode. The intensity of this event was the important factor.

"1998, 2005, 2010 all tied. What does that state? Since 1998 there has been statistically insignificant warming." - MoHo

True. So you will agree then that the claims made by denialists that the earth was cooling, were nothing more than Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies.

What we do see over this period is warming that is right in line with the 3.5'C per century trend that extends back 2 more decades, and for which the climate models project

Poor Denialist. What happened to your 30 years of cooling, idiocy?

"Any person that quotes Phil Jones cannot expect to be taken seriously," - ConservoFlatch

The reputation of Phil Jones has stood the test of science, both in peer review, and in the investigation of his comments.

The slander of his good name by Warming Denialists, isn't in any way relevant outside of Planet Conservadopia.

True. So you will agree then that the claims made by denialists that the earth was cooling, were nothing more than Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies.

Ah, ah, ah... No, I agree with Phil Jones on this matter. Not only did he state that there was statistically insignificant warming, he ALSO stated that there was within that trend a statistically insignificant cooling.

Be sure to read the whole interview, thank you. But, a tie is a tie is a tie. In other words, since the beginning of this decade there has been no statistically significant warming. It may be the warmest decade in the record since the end of the Little Ice Age but the upward trend has been levelled out so far this decade with TIES.

Or course, they weren't really 'ties,' being tenths of a degree different between the years but I suppose they are all close enough for IPCC work.

Interestingly enough, the coming 30-years cooling claim actually was not started by a skeptic. It was an AGCC adherent who came up with it! :)

...but you have already admitted that there was significant warming from 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000 etc.....surely you're not going to cherrypick one year to try and prove a myth are you?

Phil Jones is as innocent as OJ.

How any sensible person can quote him and expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.

But then Hansen is correct in calling for the end of democracy, isn't he.

Fact: No change in global temperature 1998 to 2010 but, Carbon dioxide concentration up by 5%.

Fact: No link between global temperature and carbon dioxide.

Fact: Theory disproved

Fact: Go back to the drawing bord, dump the stupid computer, get some real data.

...and still the cherrypicking of 1998 to support the myth...as said above there is significant warming from 1996,1997, 1999, 2000 etc.....or do you want to deny that, even Skepticus reeks has admitted it!

...so Loodt, lost for words, you can only answer with a one star and no comment on something that blows your myth apart? Shame on you :)

Fact: No change in global temperature 1998 to 2010 but, Carbon dioxide concentration up by 5%.

During a solar minimum and cooling phase of the ENSO cycle

Fact: No link between global temperature and carbon dioxide.

Except for all the proved ones since oh, 1886, confirmed by instrumental measurement in the 50's during the nuclear studies.

Fact: Theory disproved

Congratulations, link your research paper that does so.

Fact: Go back to the drawing bord, dump the stupid computer, get some real data.

We have hundreds of years worth, why haven't you read any of it?

Hola Heuvon Septic,

Prefer Superman and Batman comics instead.

I'll leave saving the world to the loosers of the world that studied climate changes at red brick technicons and like to call themselves Scientities

If the climate never changed, we wouldn't be here.
Climate has been changing throughout the history of Earth.

Prefer Superman and Batman comics instead.

It shows.

Fact: Theory disproved
Congratulations, link your research paper that does so

It only takes one piece of contrary evidence to disprove a theory, while it takes many to prove one. There are many studies that bring doubt to the AGW theory (and I stress the A part). A-GW needs a LOT more evidence to support it before it is anywhere near proven. The challenge in science is to prove a theory if you want to put one forward as correct. You have to overcome EVERY bit of evidence contrary to your theory or it needs to either be discarded or changed. A-GW needs to be changed, at the very least.

It only takes one piece of contrary evidence to disprove a theory, while it takes many to prove one.

Theories are never proved. Theories are inclusive statements that accurate account for all observational evidence and known fact. CO2 absorbs IR would be a fact, while satellite measurements would be an observation. We have incorporated millions of facts and observations into the theory.

The challenge in science is to prove a theory if you want to put one forward as correct.

No, that's what evolution deniers and people generally ignorant of how science works say, and I know that you're neither of the former.

You have to overcome EVERY bit of evidence contrary to your theory or it needs to either be discarded or changed.

No, if there is evidence that is contrary to a theory, the theory is disproved and must be remediated or discarded. There's no objection to overcome. Contrary eviedence disproves all theories.

A-GW needs to be changed, at the very least.

How?

Septic,

An inconvenient truth: -
No change in global temperature 1998 to 2010 but, Carbon dioxide concentration up by 5%.

Why don't you give us the content of your vomit bucket, or any explanations in kind, to explain this one away!

Phil Jones is as innocent as OJ! Both were acquitted by impartial juries and judges!

No change in global temperature 1998 to 2010 but, Carbon dioxide concentration up by 5%.

Well first, you're wrong. You've made this assertion, show us your evidence for it.

Why don't you give us the content of your vomit bucket, or any explanations in kind, to explain this one away

I'm on youre side in principle, but I could give a possible explaination that involves the latent heat of freezing/melting and the deep oceans. That's really not a very good argument. There are plenty of good holes in AGW theory, that's just not a very good one. Not to mention the fact that there are several major decadal scale natural cycles that affect global temperature on the scale of centuries. Any change (or lack of change) on a scale of less than 100 years (and maybe even a 1000 years) is inconcenquential. The hockey stick's validity doesn't even enter into it. It's too short to be significant. It could be a commonly occurring fluke of nature. We just don't know.

Septic Huevon, your mummy should have done the potty training, I am not here to wipe it for you.

If you can't use google, ask mummy or that nice lady at the reception desk...

Picon.

Boy Loodt, you don't give up. I've asked you before and I will ask again; do you agree that there is statistically significant warming from 1997, 1996,or 1999....or even 1999, 2000...you get the picture.

....oh Loodt..poor porr Loodt...once again you can't answer the question and one star my question. Is the question too hard for you? Can't you answer it? I'll give you a clue, the answer begins with 'Y' and ends with "es". Now I've made it easier do you want to try now, or will you carry on with your Batman comics before beddy time?

No warming from 1934 to 1998, or 2010 for that matter.

Picking trough to pick to establish a trend is cheating, but, that wouldn't bother you, would it?

MikeyK, I'm not sure that question can be answered. The temperature record prior to 30-40 years ago is horrible. How can anybody say if there's a trend? I'm sure that a mere 40 years doesn't indicate a trend. It takes more than a century to smooth out the noise from things like the ENSO cycle, NAO shifts, and imperfections in our understanding of the sun. It may even take a sample of several centuries to discerne the signal from the noise. The past decade is warm as far as we can tell, but that doesn't mean much. Since we don't know what it means, that is called insignificant. So, the answer to your question is no, but the key word is significant. I agree there's been warming in the past 10 years, but I will call foul if you claim that's a trend.

No warming from 1934 to 1998, or 2010 for that matter.

So instead you pick two outlier peaks on the data and draw a straight line between them while there's a giant trough in the data.

You're so laughably ridiculous. I hope whoever you're lobbying for isn't paying you much. Your services certainly aren't worth it.

Picking trough to pick to establish a trend is cheating, but, that wouldn't bother you, would it?

Doesn't seem to bother you, does it?

Bring on the 'global warming'!! If record breaking temps mean more snow during winters in the UK I'm more than happy to breath twice as hard, no matter the costs :-P Phuck your taxes and phuck your scaremongering bullsh1t!

Am I ignorant? Na, just brought up to question the mass media, especially when the news/science/religion (whatever you call it nowadays) is politically motivated.

Egnite- don't confuse 'mass media' with science, two entirely different disciplines.

Loodt...1934....wasn't that just the USA's record high temperature? Why are you switching from global to local? So you admit through your silence that there IS significant warming from 1996,1997,1999 etc...good!
By the way, I've given you lots of options, not just your cherry picked 1998 (2010 was last year!? 1934 was the US's record temperature). Your assertion that I somehow cheated by picking a trough figure is pretty lame.
You're not very bright are you?

Yeah, he's doing kinda the same thing that you are Mikey. You can show warming in the current decade, but that doesn't mean it's man made or that it is a long term trend. There isn't enough evidence to prove either of those claims, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I love how both sides of the climate debate take turns trying to focus the debate on the parts they think they can win, and ignore the parts that are hard to talk about. Why is it so hard for people to just admit that there are things they don't know? Everybody is an expert these days, and everybody (no matter how uninformed) has a STRONG opinion. Some people will even get violent about certain subjects, and when you start asking them questions, you find that they don't have a clue about it.

Here's some good news:

I just came accross a story on the web that said the US Congress is talking about defunding the IPCC. If they want to have an anti-American stance they should do it without American money. Let them redistribute their own money. lol

We can send our money to the scientists in stead, or build green infrastructure if you want. Building golf resorts in third world countries would be better than funding the UN. It's a total waste.

Here's some good news:

I just came accross a story on the web that said the US Congress is talking about defunding the IPCC. If they want to have an anti-American stance they should do it without American money. Let them redistribute their own money. lol

Agreed. Any group working on discovering or fixing a problem should not be critical of their biggest supporter and member most capable of addressing the situation.

I certainly hope the temperature data are correct and the Earth is really warming. Because the opposite scenario - global cooling - will destroy crops and likely cause a global famine.

Please go to intrade.com and note the betting on 2012 being warmer than 2011. People who put their money where their mouth is say colder.

Really it's just rhetoric though. I know there's really no way the Obama administration is going to let that go down.

This is funny though. Here's a quote from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the proposal points to a disturbing level of climate denial in Congress and

I could say SO much about that, but I won't.

I certainly hope the temperature data are correct and the Earth is really warming. Because the opposite scenario - global cooling - will destroy crops and likely cause a global famine.

Please go to intrade.com and note the betting on 2012 being warmer than 2011. People who put their money where their mouth is say colder.

Those people are going to lose some cash unless you get a good volcanic eruption.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the proposal points to a disturbing level of climate denial in Congress and

I could say SO much about that, but I won't.

Well it is true.

GSwift7- I never actually said anything about AGW (shows you have a habit of not reading), I was just trying to snap Loodts out of his denial mindset and actually admit there has been significant warming, however caused, on any year apart from his cherrypicked 1998.
You agree there is warming, virtually everyone else apart from die hard denialists and Daily mail readers also agree.
Now to the AGW part. If the scientific consesus says it is responsible; and journalists, political hacks and TV weathermen say it isn't; then I think I would agree with the people that study this and overwhelmingly agree that AGW is the only credible cause.

GSwift7- I never actually said anything about AGW (shows you have a habit of not reading),

The original article is about global warming. I try to keep my comments centered on the original article. Yes, I read them, as well as your comments. Well, when you jump to deciding whether people are responsible, you are automatically accepting that it's been prooven that there's a warming trend that will continue.

Anyway, here's another strange story that just popped up on other sites: Apparently Jim Hansen wrote a not-so-nice letter to Obama, didn't get a response, and then went public with it. OUCH. Has the world started to come to end finally? Add that to Ms Browner leaving the Whitehouse and I'm starting to get the feeling that Big Oil may have gotten to the President.

And in a further twist of reality, showing that "the End of Days is upon us":

I agree with Hansen.

OMG

The New York Times has the full text of the letter. Google the following if you want to read it:

NASAs Hansen Presses Obama for a Carbon Cost and Nuclear Push

Physorg needs to run this story so that we can all weigh in on this here. I think it would lead to some very interesting commentary. Please?

Another typical trick of the denialist's, sceptics whatever you want to call them, is to focus on the individual, or one part of data or a story without giving due consideration to the larger picture. The consensus has been reached that increased CO2 results in an increase in temperatures when removed from the 'noise' of cycles such as PDO, ENSO etc. That is the big picture.
As an example of consensus over the individual say you had a particular form of cancer, the scientific concensus is that, say, Vincomycin is the treatment of choice and should be administered immediately. However a TV weatherman in the next room disagrees with this, tells you that the science is flawed, cigarettes are good for you and perhaps a good treatment would be a DDT inhalation t.d.s. Which medical advise would you follow?

The consensus has been reached that increased CO2 results in an increase in temperatures when removed from the 'noise' of cycles such as PDO, ENSO etc. That is the big picture

The consensus is that co2 must have some effect, but the amount of that effect differs even among various climate modeling groups. You can look up lists of things they are uncertain about on any of the major official sites, like NASA, NOAA, NCDC, CRU, IPCC, etc. There are many forcings and feedbacks involved, and changing some of them by even a tiny amount can yield great changes in long term predictions. Right now there are large parts like cloud feedback that aren't even close to being understood. They aren't even sure whether cloud feedback is positive or negative. That's a big difference. There are others. Look them up at any of the sites I just named. Those are not cherry-picked sources, are they?

GSwift7- I never actually said anything about AGW (shows you have a habit of not reading),

The original article is about global warming.

....errhh, yeah global warming....not AGW. I never said anything about AGW, the article doesn't say anything about AGW...Hmmm more proof you don't read before shooting off perhaps...

The consensus is that co2 must have some effect, but the amount of that effect differs even among various climate modeling groups.

I agree with you on this. Unfortunately a lot of deniers do not and persist in their claims that there is no AGW.
Climate models will always differ...just as in real life...due to the chaotic nature of the climate. Thats why each model is run hundreds, if not thousands of times to get the best probability.
One particular model will have a slightly different outcome (sometimes very different!) when run. Different models will have other differences thats why it is important to look at the big picture to work out probabilities. It is futile to cherrypick individual model runs, articles, statements etc to try and justify a point of view. You have to view the bigger picture.

As an example of consensus over the individual say

you have 10 car salesmen, two sales managers and a finance manager telling you that you're getting a good deal, but your neighbor is saying you're an idiot if you take the deal. Who do you listen to, the experts or the neighbor?

I think my comparison is more applicable than yours.

@ Loodt, why did you 1/5 my comment about Hansen's letter? I really don't understand what motivates you to rate comments sometimes.

....errhh, yeah global warming....not AGW. I never said anything about AGW, the article doesn't say anything about AGW...Hmmm more proof you don't read before shooting off perhaps...

Do I need to go to the WMO web site and grab a quote of their stance about the cause of global warming? In respect to the comments above, from the UN WMO, when they talk about global warming, the anthropogenic part may be taken for granted. Please give up this pointless effort to attack my intelligence or my character. It doesn't help you make any of your points when you attack me. That's just an example of exactly the thing you are complaining that deniers do, when attacking a person rather than making points.

Thats why each model is run hundreds, if not thousands of times to get the best probability

I think you need to check your sources. There aren't that many model runs for the good ones. They just don't have the time to do that. It takes a long time to set up and analyze those runs. That's a common misconception, that they run them so many times. For example, the NASA GEOS-5 and the NASA GISS ModelE models both share time on the Discover supercomputer. They are currently working on a run that simulates 1979 to present at high resolution (called the MERRA project) on that supercomputer. There's also times when those computers aren't available at all, like when they are being upgraded.

The only ones they run on a more frequent basis are the smaller regional models mainly used for weather. That's not the same as a climate model really though.

The 1996 IPCC SAR was based on 23 runs of 16 GCM's according to sources I can find (of course that's just talking about the huge general circulation models. Other models are used for things like sea level rise and regional prediction. I assume it's the GCM's you are talking about.)

I'm not attacking you, just correcting you. Science is one of those disciplines where you don't take anything for granted, politics and journalism yes....or journalistic and political interpretations of science....but not science.
I would also say that my analogy might be a little more relevant than yours having a rather more scientific link than the car salesman!

It's hard to find exact info about how long it takes to do the CGCM runs, but I did find a reference that said a single run of the big ones like HadCrut can take as long as two years to complete. I think they were talking about an ensemble run though, so that actually is comprised of multiple partial runs of some of the components. Anyway, I hope I helped clear up your confusion about the 1000's of runs thing.

I found a reference to work done for the fourth assessment report that said they selected 24 runs from 12 models out of a total of 60 runs of 24 models for the chapter on sea level rise. I'm not sure if that was a statement about the total number of models/runs though. They weren't specific in the paper I was reading.

Many different models...many different runs....but all telling us the same thing

but all telling us the same thing

I've been trying to decide how I want to respond to that one.

I could agree and say yes, the models all seem to point in generally the same direction. I would also note that there's plenty of observations of real the real world that match those predictions.

or

I could disagree and say that no two models say exactly the same thing, especially when you run them a large number of steps forward. I would point out many observations that don't match the model predictions in this case.

or

I could say that I expect them to be similar because they are all based on the same theories and some of them even have common components. There's quite a bit of collaboration between different teams.

or

or I could simply remind you that your claim was that they ran them 1000's of times. That's what I was talking about. Then you tried to change the subject to whether the models agree or not. What was our original point anyway? I forget.

Oh dear...how to respond...
Glad you agree that the models point in generally the same direction.
I thought it was very obvious that models wouldn't produce EXACTLY the same results due to the chaotic nature of climatic systems (I did mention this earlier). They results are, generally, similar. Sorry I didn't make the distinction crystal clear..thought it was too obvious to do so.
Of course there is a lot of collaboration between the teams...this is what we in the real world call science. ..you know colleagues discussing and working together....using previous experience to improve and refine. Unless of course you think there is a conspiracy of evil scientists working together to bring down the evil capitalist society....
to be continued...

continued...
Many models have/are being run thousands of times,the more complex models obviously less. The obvious constraints apply. Where dormant home computers were used by the BBC for their climate change experiment over 250,000 people took part.
Seing as you have forgotten the original point let me remind you. It was about looking at the big picture, avoiding the denialists/creationist usual cherry picking of the one point that 'proves' their myth, and also getting rid of the ridiculous conspiracy theories portrayed by so many anti-scientists.

LOL, I see Loodt is still responding in the only way he knows how....come on Loodt, lets see some of that sparkling wit and intelligence....what........Ohhh.....sorry I didn't realise...poor, poor, poor Loodt......

As usual, I point out facts that are totally seperate from feelings or opinions, and the response is: change the subject, marginalize by mischaracterization, and name-calling (which I detest).

I'm not a denier/creationist, or a conspiracy nut, but thanks for that. Looking at the big picture, it doesn't make sense not to be skeptical of alarmism. The history of alarmism on other topics isn't very good. You and some others here think I'm crazy because I don't fear the chance that we are doomed. I think it's crazy to feel doomed when so much is unknown, but then again, some people fear the unknown. I guess that's natural.

Herd mentality and fight or flee instincts I guess. It doesn't take much to scare a herd, but it takes a lot to calm one down when it's in a stampede. A herd can run itself off a cliff before it will change direction. Many places are trying wild cap and trade schemes right now. Running off the cliff. I hope they escaped the lion they were running from. doom indeed.

Sorry GSwift7 but you're not fooling anyone with poor poor me sympathy. You say you point out facts and the response is to change the subject, yes? So why do you, in the next paragraph, say "The history of alarmism on other topics isn't very good"?
I don't think you are crazy but I wonder about this antiscience stance of yours. If global warming carries on accelerating climate change are we doomed...well, small changes in climate will have huge impacts on local populations, probably regional and in some cases could have global consequences for food production. AGW isn't going to cause the end of the world nonsense a lot of your ilk pretend climate scientists are saying...they are not. The probable effects on on food product production, both marine and terrestrial, are unfortunately very real.
We may alos think you less crazy if you drop the rather juvenile metaphors, smacks too much of WUWT.

I don't think you are crazy but I wonder about this antiscience stance of yours

That's a lie. I am not anti-science. There you go, doing the usual attack tactic of calling the intelligence of someone who doesn't agree with you into question.

If global warming carries on

That's a big if. I don't think we have enough evidence to support that assumption... yet.

Mr Watt can be very persuasive, but I just recently discovered his site, so it's not my primary influence. I prefer to reference the official sites like NOAA/NCDC and IPCC rather than blogs. I usually spend more time fact-checking Mr Watts than I do reading his articles. I've seen a few cases where things aren't as clear as he makes them sound. Extemists are the same on both sides. Can't trust them.

....errr, I actually said "I don't think you are crazy"...;

That's a big if. I don't think we have enough evidence to support that assumption... yet.

We have plenty of evidence to support global warming, very little to support other causes;

I've seen a few cases where things aren't as clear as he [Anthony Watts] makes them sound.

One of the greatest cases of understatement I have seen here!

So why do you, in the next paragraph, say "The history of alarmism on other topics isn't very good"?

Because this discussion thread is supposed to be about the article at the top of the page. This article is about alarmism. I am pointing out that the extreme views on both sides are very hard to trust. I can show numerous examples of how both sides try to mislead the public. I think the overall strategy is to throw a whole bunch of 'stuff' (insert a four letter word there if you want) at the wall and some of it is bound to stick. Glenn Beck does this trick very well. Have you ever seen the shows where he starts puting pictures of people up on a board together, and then rattles off factoids about them? The assumption is that they are linked or that they are 'working together', but the few shows I've seen didn't actually give much evidence of the connections he was implying. I haven't watched Fox in months though, so maybe he doesn't do that very often. I don't know.

We have plenty of evidence to support global warming, very little to support other causes

It was the 'carries on' part that I was saying we don't yet know about. We could find out that the trend is a coincidence. It's not a very long trend, and it could be followed by an opposite trend.

If it looked like we are headed for a 15-20 degree drop in temp in 50 years, I'd be moving back to Colombia with my GF right now. Warming doesn't scare me. Warm isn't as bad as cold would be, so I'm thinking we can afford to wait and see and learn. Then maybe we'll be ready WHEN the planet eventually goes into the next ice age. If we live that long. :)