Ozone pact helped cool the planet, study reports

Nov 10, 2013
Credit: NASA

A slowdown in global warming that climate sceptics cite in favour of their cause was partly induced by one of the world's most successful environment treaties, a study said on Sunday.

The UN's Montreal Protocol, designed to phase out industrial gases that destroy Earth's protective ozone layer, coincidentally applied a small brake to the planet's warming, it said.

Without this treaty, Earth's surface temperature would be roughly 0.1 degrees Celsius (0.2 degrees Fahrenheit) higher today, according to its authors.

"Paradoxically, the recent decrease in warming, presented by sceptics as proof that humankind cannot affect the climate system, is shown to have a direct human origin," according to the paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Signed in 1987 and implemented in 1989, the Montreal Protocol committed signatories to scrapping a group of chlorine- and bromine-containing chemicals.

Used in aerosol sprays, solvents and refrigerants, these substances destroy ozone molecules in the stratosphere that filter out cancer-causing ultraviolet light.

Some of the chemicals also happen to be hefty , with a powerful ability to trap the Sun's heat.

So their phaseout, which began to hit its stride in the 1990s, was also a small but perceptible gain in the fight against , the scientists said.

From 1998 to 2012, Earth's mean global temperature rose by an average of 0.05 C (0.09 F) per decade, a benchmark measure of warming.

This is far less than the average decadal increase over half a century of 0.12 C (0.2 F), and is out of sync with the ever-rising curve of greenhouse-gas emissions.

As a result, sceptics claim the 15-year "Pause" as proof that climate change has natural causes, showing that green calls to reduce fossil-fuel emissions are flawed or a scam.

The paper, led by Francisco Estrada, an atmospheric physicist at the Autonomous National University of Mexico, is a statistical comparison of carbon emissions and warming during the 20th century.

Overall, temperatures rose last century by 0.8 C (1.4 F).

Cooling and warming

Two World Wars contributed to cooling, as did the Great Depression—massively so. From 1929 to 1932, annual emissions of (CO2) fell by 26 percent.

It took until 1937 for CO2 emissions to return to their pre-1929 levels. The cooling effect took some time to kick in, but it lasted until the middle of the century.

The post-World War II boom led to a surge in emissions that, from 1960, began to be perceived in a clear signature of sustained warming, according to the investigation.

The paper said that the "Pause" may also be attributable, but in a far smaller way, to changes in rice farming in Asia, a generator of the methane.

In a comment on the study, Alex Sen Gupta, of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Australia, said the cooling benefits from the Montreal Protocol "are going to be short-lived."

"In the end, the continuing rise in other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, will keep temperatures marching upwards."

In September, the UN's paramount group of climate experts scoffed at the "Pause," essentially calling it a non-issue.

They said the period of 1998-2012 was far too short to give a long-term view of climate trends.

They also hinted at selective bias, noting that the period began with a strong El Nino, a heat-linked weather phenomenon, thus making following years seem cooler by comparison.

Explore further: UN: CO2 pollution levels at annual record high

More information: Paper: dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1999

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

May 19, 2013

A global warming "pause" over the past decade may invalidate the harshest climate change predictions for the next 50 to 100 years, a study said Sunday—though levels remain in the danger zone.

Recommended for you

Water police on patrol in drought-scarred Los Angeles

48 minutes ago

Los Angeles isn't the world's wettest city at the best of times. But a record drought has triggered extra measures—now including "water police" checking on over-zealous sprinkler users and the like.

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

Aug 29, 2014

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

Aug 29, 2014

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 98

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (37) Nov 10, 2013
Here we go again. More preposterous lies, from the AGW Cult, to keep propagating their biggest lie of all, CO2. Didn't their False 'Profit' Gore claim the "science" was settled
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (36) Nov 10, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning." - Al Gore, democrat; self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet, and, by his own words, the Inspiration for the novel Love Story.

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson. Smartest man never to win the Nobel.

Who are you going to believe?
runrig
3.8 / 5 (16) Nov 10, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning." - Al Gore, democrat; self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet, and, by his own words, the Inspiration for the novel Love Story.

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson. Smartest man never to win the Nobel.

Who are you going to believe?


The only thing that can come close to being "worthy of belief" is consensus science.

Yep - the bit that's left over when the good, bad and indifferent science is weeded apart.

Like Democracy- it's the worst method we have..... apart from all the others we've tried.

Ah ... but I forgot - It's all a conspiracy. Of course. Silly me.
Egleton
2.6 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2013
I believe climate scientist, not Big Coal mouthpieces.
la7dfa
3.9 / 5 (18) Nov 10, 2013
Everytime I see the same crazy gang of science deniers here I have to laugh... What are they doing on a science site? In the old days, I bet the same crazy gang denied smoking was harmful too. Tea Party and Right Wing Loonies worldwide should move to another planet. It would be benefitial to all of us here on Tellus.
Humpty
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 10, 2013
When Jesus leaves low earth orbit and comes back without his 12 boyfriends - he's going to be looking for your arse.
mxxc
4.5 / 5 (18) Nov 10, 2013
I will never understand how the environment became political. Just because one political candidate (of ONE country among hundreds) advocated environmental change doesn't mean it's a partisan issue. It's a GLOBAL issue. That has nothing to do with politics, because there's no global government. Not yet, anyway.

Please, tell me somebody: What is the drawback to caring about the environment, and not treating nature like our personal ashtray? What is negative about wanting clean air, water, and land for future generations? What, exactly, is "liberal" or "democrat" about being anti-pollution?

Look at the word that describes your political affiliation: "Conservative". The root word is "conserve". Maybe instead of arguing with people who actually do the research, you should live up to your names and conserve energy, fossil fuels, and resources so your grandkids don't have to die in wars over a source of drinking water that doesn't give them cancer.
Shakescene21
2.9 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2013
@mxxc -- Right on! I consider myself conservative yet I'm 90% certain about Global Warming. And the downside risks are so great that we need to act now, even in the unlikely case that global warming isn't happening.
orti
1.6 / 5 (34) Nov 10, 2013
It seems settled science is a little unsettled. I can't count how many scientific reasons I've read to explain away the pause. How about the obvious one – the alarmist's models aren't right.
verkle
1.4 / 5 (34) Nov 10, 2013
It seems settled science is a little unsettled. I can't count how many scientific reasons I've read to explain away the pause. How about the obvious one – the alarmist's models aren't right.


Good thinking. An article like this is what climate "scientists" use as another reason to explain "the pause". They keep scraping for answers---somehow trying to get to their ultimate goal of "we men can control the world and our own destiny."

Too many in the past have thought exactly the same way. To their own destruction.
Shabs42
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2013
Haha, physorg is trolling deniers now. I like it.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (28) Nov 10, 2013
The hole in the Ozone is worst on cold years, so has virtually no correlation to global warming at all.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (31) Nov 10, 2013
The problem mxxc is that if you make spurious claims that are not supported by empirical evidence you run the environment movement off a cliff. Unfortunately the protection of the environment is way too important to risk doing that but somehow the green leadership have not heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. Crying wolf has proven to be way too lucrative.
Grallen
4.7 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2013
This made it far enough to be published in Nature, so I'm fairly certain it passed multiple peer reviews.

I have to admit that this is a little bit of a relief. I thought we were going to be seeing all the missing heat with interest in the next decade.

Although, I won't sit comfortable until the temp starts going back down, and stays moving in that direction, for more than just a few decades.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (10) Nov 10, 2013
"I bet the same crazy gang denied smoking was harmful too." - La7Dfa

They still do. Check out the Heritage Foundation's smoking site. They refer to smoking as a lifestyle choice that you should think about.

In any case the queen of the Loonies - Ayn Rand - who died of smoking induced lung cancer, while on welfare, argued through her entire life that the scientists claiming that smoking was dangerous were a conspiracy of communist liars out to enslave the American people and force the world into a one world socialist dictatorship.

Does her lunacy sound familiar?

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 10, 2013
"Please, tell me somebody: What is the drawback to caring about the environment" - mxxc

Well, you see, if you protect the environment then corporations won't be able to use it as an open sewer, and that will limit their profits by preventing them from externalizing the cost of waste disposal upon society.

It's all about money, and the useful idiots like RyggTard who are used by Corporations to increase their bottom line at the expense of society, and even the expense of RyggTard himself.

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 10, 2013
"It seems settled science is a little unsettled" - orti

Science is always a little unsettled. For example you won't be able to find a single scientist who can tell you exactly how a lever works. There are always nuances to the behavior that are not covered by the theory.

Climate science is like that. All first order effects are now known and quantified.

Second order effects are mostly known and quantified.

The discussion is now largely in the third order digit.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 10, 2013
"An article like this is what climate "scientists" use as another reason to explain "the pause"." - verkle

What pause?

http://www.woodfo...98/trend
MrKool
1.8 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2013
VendicarE

"What pause?"

There is no pause, or even a slow down, in fact, there is WARMING ACCELERATION.

You need 30 years of data to - as you have stated repeatedly - average out noise.

Compare the last 30 years with the previous 30 years.

http://www.woodfo...13/trend

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (31) Nov 11, 2013
Temperatures refuse to climb:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:

"2013 saw substantially more (Arctic) ice at summer's end ...in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record."

"This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than last summer."

"It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (31) Nov 11, 2013
"An article like this is what climate "scientists" use as another reason to explain "the pause"." - verkle

What pause?
Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century. And it's not as valued as HadCRUT3, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 (only) outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4).

Funny isn't it that HadCRUT4 also shows a pause? ...a pause lasting more than a dozen years:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

LOL. Even when they TRIED to eliminate the pause, they just couldn't!

Poor Vendi-chatterbot. It just can't stop lying.
Lying is its programming
Lying is what it does.
Lying is how it defines itself.
Lying is the chatterbot way.

la7dfa
3.9 / 5 (12) Nov 11, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning." - Al Gore, democrat; self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet, and, by his own words, the Inspiration for the novel Love Story.

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson. Smartest man never to win the Nobel.

Who are you going to believe?


Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[o]ne of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.

Polar Bears are in trouble many places already. They have moved with the ice naturally, but the ice will probably move too far north beyond any landmass in e.g. Europe. Without ice, no polarbears... And a long summer season with no ice, simply starves the bears to death.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2013
"Temperatures refuse to climb: " - UbVonTard

And yet again UbVonTard resorts to using HadCrut3 which he has been told dozens of times, omits most of the polar regions and hence underestimates the global temperature rise since most of the rise is occurring at the poles.

HadCrut4 is less biased in that regard. Shown Below.

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

GISTEMP does even a better job of including the poles.

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

UbVonTard has a long history of lying.
Lying is his life.
Lying is what he does.
Lying is all he knows.
Lying is what he lives for.

He is a congenital and perpetual liar.

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2013
"Funny isn't it that HadCRUT4 also shows a pause?" - UbVonTard

Funny how UbVonTard needs to select dates to the second decimal place in order to find convenient start and end points that produce an apparent cooling.

Here is his own reference taken from the start of the current century to the present.

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

Looks like warming to me.

And again, even Hadcrut4 excludes large areas of the polar regions.

GISSTEMP is better in this regard.

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

UbVonTard has a long history of lying.
Lying is his life.
Lying is what he does.
Lying is all he knows.
Lying is what he lives for.

He is a congenital and perpetual liar.

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2013
"And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:" - UbVonTard

Looks like a pretty spectacular increase in the ice cover anomaly to me, and is now effectively tied with the second lowest ice extent ever recorded for this time of year.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

Poor UbVonTard. He just can't stop lying.
NikFromNYC
1.1 / 5 (28) Nov 11, 2013
SPOT THE SMEAR...as the Gorebot smoke screen fills the thread here:

"Paradoxically, the recent decrease in warming, presented by global warming sceptics as proof that humankind cannot affect the climate system...."

It equates seasoned skepticism of highly speculative positive feedback supercomputer climate models that form the basis of alarm with maverick denial of the classic greenhouse effect! But a good 97% of skeptics themselves *accept* the unalarming greenhouse effect itself.

Does famous climate model skeptic Freeman Dyson deny the old school greenhouse effect?
Does XPRIZE winning rocket scientist skeptic Burt Rutan deny the old school greenhouse effect?
Does top skeptical blogger Tony Watts deny the old school greenhouse effect?
Does recent cooling cycle predictor Dr. Judith Curry deny the old school greenhouse effect?
Does Ivy League Ph.D. carbon chemist -=NikFromNYC=- deny the old school greenhouse effect?

All of these are of course rhetorical questions, negative ones.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (28) Nov 11, 2013
I'm fine with HADCRUT4 and how it shows that another (climate model busting) pause is happening right on time!

http://www.woodfo.../to:1950
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (29) Nov 11, 2013
"In September, the UN's paramount group of climate experts scoffed at the "Pause," essentially calling it a non-issue."

Are those the words of a professional or of an activist?

The final draft of the latest IPCC report suddenly changed the much simpler plot of actual temperature trends versus climate models, but the leaked draft report showed a figure which is no scoffing matter as climate models are falsified:
http://wpmedia.op...phic.jpg

Dr. Roy Spenser who runs one of the actual space age satellite temperature series has a much simpler plot even that shows that the scoffing attitude is itself is pure bluster, complete with HADCRUT4 data:
http://www.drroys...ter-all/
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 11, 2013
Wow, ratings faker bot account Michael_Moore has joined account Al_Gore in downrating skeptical user account posts within mere minutes, all at once, as seen in the Activity tab of user profiles.

HEY GORE AND MOORE, ARE YOU READING THIS?
HEY GORE AND MOORE, ARE YOU READING THIS?
HEY GORE AND MOORE, ARE YOU READING THIS?
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2013
And yet again Uba resorts to using HadCrut3 which he has been told dozens of times, omits most of the polar regions and hence underestimates the global temperature rise since most of the rise is occurring at the poles.

HadCrut4 is less biased in that regard.
If this was true, shouldn't we have seen a sharp drop in global temperatures last summer as; "This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than last summer."

"It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Ergo, Vendichatterbot is lying again.
Poor Vendichatterbot. It just can't stop lying.
Lying is its programming
Lying is what it does.
Lying is how it defines itself.
Lying is the chatterbot way.

NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (28) Nov 11, 2013
My word, the standard HADCRUT4 global temperature average really did arrive just in time for the IPCC report in need of more heat through "warming by adjustments!" by Phil "Climategate" Jones, with the difference being quite real:
http://notalotofp...age8.png

Unlike NASA GISS, Jim Hansen's outlier temperature series, Phil Jones does publish peer reviewed papers about his updates. In the two papers about HADCRUT4, he is listed as being of
the Department of Meteorology, Center of Excellence for Climate Change Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

You want a Big (BIG BIG!) Oil money conspiracy? I just have gave you one!

Phil doesn't dress the part yet though, as he studies so hard in the world of harems:
http://mpc.kau.ed...nes.aspx
mxxc
5 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
The problem mxxc is that if you make spurious claims that are not supported by empirical evidence you run the environment movement off a cliff. Unfortunately the protection of the environment is way too important to risk doing that but somehow the green leadership have not heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. Crying wolf has proven to be way too lucrative.


OK, so, I ask again: Tell me what's "crying wolf" about conserving energy and resources and keeping the environment clean? That term means that someone made something up for an agenda or just for fun, and then people don't believe it when it happens for real. What's not real about landfills growing larger? What's not real about floating islands of trash in the Pacific? What do you lose by not contributing to the oil crisis by driving a fuel-efficient vehicle, carpooling, or taking public transit?
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (28) Nov 11, 2013
Most of the rise at the poles?

Indeed Jim Hansen agrees:
https://sites.goo...1980.gif

But that's by spreading land data out thousands of miles while sitting in a NASA office above Tom's Diner and IGNORING SATELLITE DATA!!!

Antarctica is steadily *cooling* in satellite data:
http://s12.postim...mage.jpg

A *cooling* continent provides the bulk of global average temperature warming claims?!

Yup! Just smear hotspot Peninsula data out over a thousand miles and call it macaroni.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (27) Nov 11, 2013
GISTEMP does even a better job of including the poles.
GISTEMP also shows the pause:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Funny how UbVonTard needs to select dates to the second decimal place in order to find convenient start and end points that produce an apparent cooling.
Funny how Vendichatterbot can't figure out that I'm simply counting backward from the latest available data, in full years (to eliminate seasonal bias).

Here is his own reference taken from the start of the current century to the present.

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

Looks like warming to me.
Funny how the chatterbot works so hard to hide the pause. If it really cared about global warming, shouldn't it ecstatically want to show the pause?

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Vendichatterbot doesn't care about the environment.

NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (28) Nov 11, 2013
Nuclear power, nxcc, nuclear power. France is 75% nuclear, electricity wise. Wise indeed! But Greenpeace led to our current nuclear and hydropower devoid high CO₂ era that caused a panic when a few scammers rewrote history to make warming outside into an emergency. Your tone is Astroturf boring, the parroted feigned naivety of an oh so concerned layperson citizen. Rationing energy is simply genocidal, something you sugar coat. You are an apologist for economic murder.

Patrick Moore, former president of Greepeace points out:

"I had to split with Greenpeace after 15 years in the leadership because I could no longer accept some of the positions of my fellow directors, none of whom had any formal science training. They are more aptly described as political or social activists, which is fine in its own right, but when you are starting to deal with complex issues of chemistry and biology, you do need a little grounding in science in order to make good decisions."
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (26) Nov 11, 2013
Looks like a pretty spectacular increase in the ice cover anomaly to me, and is now effectively tied with the second lowest ice extent ever recorded for this time of year.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html
Actually, this is an interesting anomally. The NSDIC shows it too, but not quite so severly:

http://nsidc.org/...e-graph/

And in their graph it is still above 2007 and 2009 - 2012 (it's currently the sixth lowest).

NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (28) Nov 11, 2013
Definition of Noble Cause Corruption - Noble cause corruption in policing is defined as "corruption committed in the name of good ends, corruption that happens when police officers care too much about their work. It is corruption committed in order to get the bad guys off the streets…the corruption of police power, when officers do bad things because they believe that the outcomes will be good." Examples of noble cause corruption are, planting or fabricating evidence, lying on reports or in court, and generally abusing police authority to make a charge stick.

LAWYER FOR CO₂: "If a CO₂ boom defying straight trendline fits, you must acquit!
http://s16.postim...mage.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 11, 2013
PROSECUTION: "Real thermometer records? What real thermometer records?!"
http://postimg.or...hh9ej6z/
sennekuyl
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2013
Ummm Ubavontuba & NicFromNYC I've been following your links and am confused how you come to the conclusion from your own data that warming is at best over-emphasised or at least massaged into existance. Has someone edited your links? The closest to demonstrating what you are saying was Uba's ice sheets.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2013
If this was true, shouldn't we have seen a sharp drop in global temperatures last summer as; "This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 C lower than last summer."


No. If a region is warmer during one season, that is because air-mass wind-flow has been favourable for that temp regime. Since the wind-flow comes from or goes to an adjoining region then there will be an effect there, which in turn affects "global" temps in the opposite sense. If the Arctic (source of cold) had been warmer than usual that would have been because Arctic winds would have largely diverged away from the region (-AO). This summer there was a +AO in which a convergence there locked in the cold. Outlying regions did not receive exported cold and were warmer. Ergo global temps are NOT effected. Things evened out. In order for the system temp to change there has either to be heat revealed that was hidden (warm water upwelling) or a net differential of in/out energy from the Sun.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2013
Dr Spenser .. runs ...... temperature series has a much simpler plot even that shows that the scoffing attitude is.. pure bluster, complete with HADCRUT4 data:

Posted by KR on Spencer's site linked by Nik…

"As has been pointed out elsewhere, the five year baseline Dr. Spencer uses ('79-'83) represents the 3rd largest negative offset of the data in the entire satellite record, and the largest in the early part of the data. In other words, it shifts the temperature record down relative to the more usual 20 or 30 year baselines – and does so to the max possible in that starting interval. Also, the models do _not_ all start in unison in 1983 – they are initialized to varying starting conditions and run through observed and projected time frames, meaning that the starting point (and hence the envelope) for the models is far broader as shown here: http://www.realcl...parions/
I would consider this graph misleading
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2013
Ummm Ubavontuba & NicFromNYC I've been following your links and am confused how you come to the conclusion from your own data that warming is at best over-emphasised or at least massaged into existance. Has someone edited your links? The closest to demonstrating what you are saying was Uba's ice sheets.
Are you having trouble understanding the graphs? In this graph, the red line represents the HadCRUT3 global temperature, and the green line represents the over all trend for the period.

But I wouldn't claim warming was "massaged into existance." Warming has occured and it may (or may not) resume. But it doesn't appear the supposed one-to-one relationship with CO2 is as strong as claimed (if it even exists), and temperatures remain within the bounds of natural variation.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 11, 2013
No. If a region is warmer during one season, that is because air-mass wind-flow has been favourable for that temp regime. Since the wind-flow comes from or goes to an adjoining region then there will be an effect there, which in turn affects "global" temps in the opposite sense. If the Arctic (source of cold) had been warmer than usual that would have been because Arctic winds would have largely diverged away from the region (-AO). This summer there was a +AO in which a convergence there locked in the cold.
So now all of a sudden Arctic warming is not a result of CO2, but rather wind?

This summer there was a +AO in which a convergence there locked in the cold. Outlying regions did not receive exported cold and were warmer.
So where'd all the cold air in "central and eastern Russia, along with most of eastern Europe and western Greenland come from?"

source: http://www.ncdc.n...l/2013/9

cont...

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 11, 2013
Ergo global temps are NOT effected. Things evened out. In order for the system temp to change there has either to be heat revealed that was hidden (warm water upwelling) or a net differential of in/out energy from the Sun.
So since things have been "evening out" for more than a dozen years, you agree there's been no global warming during this period?

Also, the models do _not_ all start in unison in 1983 – they are initialized to varying starting conditions and run through observed and projected time frames, meaning that the starting point (and hence the envelope) for the models is far broader
So now you're claiming the models weren't tied to the actual temperatures to begin with? ...they're pure fantasy then?

NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2013
Ummm Ubavontuba & NicFromNYC I've been following your links and am confused how you come to the conclusion from your own data that warming is at best over-emphasised or at least massaged into existance. Has someone edited your links?


Dude, your cocky innuendo doesn't actually *say* anything about my "links" which are in fact mostly *plots* that for instance show that satellite data falsifies Hansen's massively warming Antarctic continent result that dominates his overall result. Here it is again, for you to deny or not again:

http://s12.postim...mage.jpg

The satellite has a blind spot in the very center of Antarctica, so this coverage is dominated by the coast which is exactly where Hansen places the hottest warming on the planet!

Textbook diagram of 60-85° S latitude: http://www.worlda...lobe.jpg

Hansen's trend map of his GISS global average result:
http://data.giss....nth_last
BobSage
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2013
Yet another in a long line of politically slanted reportage. Might not the takeaway here be that HCFCs caused the warming in the first place such that when they were removed by said treaty global warming disappeared?

No, the takeaway is supposed to be that global treaties are good and therefore we should have one for CO2 as well. Never mind that CO2 does not correllate to warming. It's a treaty! Yay!
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 11, 2013
...and ubavontuba's mere "link" shows the brazenness of this data smearing effect too, in the NCDC's own map of their Antarctic coverage in which a few included coastal sites are hot as hell evidently, but the interior thermometer stations are cherry picked away by deletion:
http://www.ncdc.n...1309.gif

(A) THEY ARE NOT EVEN USING THE VAGUELY COOLING INNER CONTINENT THERMOMETER STATIONS.

Where *are* they on their calculations?

(B) THEY ARE IGNORING SATELLITE DATA.

Why did we enter the Space Age so enthusiastically then?

Not even NASA uses actual satellites for their temperature product?!

NASA...no satellites?

"Coal Death Trains" Hansen of a scuttled Venus project can't find satellite data?

The fully coached PR firm tutored faux naivety of Gorebots invokes secret alien invasion movies or North Korean tour guides as they offer natural conversational chances for skeptics to post real plots instead of just link bomb indeed. Thanks, guys!
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (23) Nov 11, 2013
A more representative NASA GISS plot than the default September "Devil in Antarctica" one is the annual data:

http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2013
How deep does the rabbit hole go? MET Officer runrig posts to anti-vaccine campaign PR firm registered site RealClimate of the Hockey Stick Team, to a plot of climate models *perfectly* matching global average temperatures in North Korean exactitude:
http://www.realcl...l122.jpg

In it, Gavin's NASA GISS plot follows perfectly Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones' HADCRUT4 of the CRU unit in England. But if a skeptical mind takes a *look* at independent plots of NASA and CRU data, NASA's product is seriously diverging skyward:
http://www.woodfo.../mean:12

And as ubavonutuba points out above, the 2012 update by Phil Jones now of a Saudi Fucking Arabian university (!), Phil's own temperature product is suddenly jumping for joy too!
http://www.woodfo.../mean:12

But the end result of Mann Made Global Warming paints a *perfect* picture, all agree!
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2013
The late John Daly saved a simple text file of NASA GISS global average US temperature data from 2000. You can't *get* that data any more from NASA! How is that science?! And when you take a simple difference curve between data up to 2000 and current data, the biggest scientific scam in human history is revealed:
http://s15.postim...1_20.jpg

So when MET Officer runrig posts links of non-peer reviewed PR firm blog posts of data fitting climate models, well what *about* that data?

The re-adjustments to the US temperature span a half degree as claims are made about a near degree warming.

Clear evidence of data corruption fuels skepticism, not Glenn Beck's show or two on our whistle blowing!

NASA's updates too appear merely on the web and blogs. They even had a type of Y2K bug. They don't just add new data but they re-adjust the past data, on the fly, outside of regular scientific channels. The studies that then use their result are also suspect.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2013
How deep does the rabbit hole go? MET Officer runrig posts to anti-vaccine campaign PR firm registered site RealClimate


No - it was incorporated in the post that was put on Spencer's site by KR, which criticised his dishonest portrayal of Model runs.

You could go to the original paper from there but I'll link it here...
http://iopscience.../article
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2013
I shall proceed to put the goal-post back where it belongs for Mr Uba and then, as is my current modus operandi, leave alone.
So now all of a sudden Arctic warming is not a result of CO2, but rather wind?

Err … no, your point was regarding "this summer" and my reply pertained to this summer. A regional temp is indeed controlled by prevailing winds and I gave you the meteorological reason why the Arctic Summer (THIS summer) was cold. CO2 controls global temps on a climatic long-term scale - it does not show it's hand in regional/short-term scales.
So where'd all the cold air in "central and eastern Russia, along with most of eastern Europe and western Greenland come from?


It didn't. It was a warmer than average summer there….
http://data.giss....;pol=reg
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2013
cont

So since things have been "evening out" for more than a dozen years, you agree there's been no global warming during this period?

No, as restated above. I replied as per your post – namely that for "this summer". And not for "more than a dozen years". I talk of weather and you insist on making it climate.
So now you're claiming the models weren't tied to the actual temperatures to begin with? ...they're pure fantasy then?

I posted a critique (from his website) with a link to how Spencer should have done it - simples. I didn't expect you to read it.
I'll now get up out of the hole.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 11, 2013
Tony (runrig), you're doing fine, helping to restore the Industrial Age energy policy debate back from mere propaganda soundbites into data distinctions.

Yes, Roy somewhat jests, granted.

He, unlike your heroes, is in no sense calling for a radical revision of *established* consensus science.

In the last year that we have been semi-respectfully chatting here on Phys.org, a massive and abrupt exodus has occurred from HERE to THERE.

HERE = suddenly shitty ranked Phys.org, mother fucking green energy company, DROPPED OFF A CLIFF:
http://www.alexa....sorg.com

THERE = suddenly perfumed WattsUpWithThat.com, flying around on rocket power now that I popularized Burt Rutan:
http://www.google...54,d.cWc

Double hockey sticks!
sennekuyl
4 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2013
Are you having trouble understanding the graphs?
It maybe my inability to read graphs, as I don't even hold a certificate in humanities let alone a degree of any relevance.

It does appear to me however that your link http://nsidc.org/...-graph/, if you 'show all' and then deselect years from top to bottom, there is a clear trend towards the lowest of the bounds of natural variation. Why are the averages fixed to those decades? The datasets used covers those respective years?

Didn't realise there was supposed to be one to one relationship, just thought AGW was a reasonably strong trend such that working against the probable cause made a lot of sense.

I for one have been glad that there has been a pause, I just don't understand the mechanism by which the trend would reverse. But I'll gladly wear 'egg on my face' for joining attempts to prevent a perceived issue given the evidence tells me it could get rather bad if the trend is correct.
sennekuyl
5 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2013
In this http://www.woodfo....7/trend global temperature, and the green line represents the over all trend for the period.

But I wouldn't claim warming was "massaged into existence." Warming has occured and it may (or may not) resume. But it doesn't appear the supposed one-to-one relationship with CO2 is as strong as claimed (if it even exists), and temperatures remain within the bounds of natural variation.


Is there a reason you chose 1997? Going back just 2 years http://www.woodfo....7/trend has a significant change to the graph.
Going from 1983 to present is even more significant.
http://www.woodfo....7/trend
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 11, 2013
Blah blah blah, sweet dreams.
sennekuyl
4.8 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2013
Ummm Ubavontuba & NicFromNYC I've been following your links and am confused how you come to the conclusion from your own data that warming is at best over-emphasised or at least massaged into existance. Has someone edited your links?


Dude, your cocky innuendo doesn't actually *say* anything about my "links" which are in fact mostly *plots* that for instance show that satellite data falsifies Hansen's massively warming Antarctic continent result that dominates his overall result. Here it is again, for you to deny or not again:

http://s12.postim...mage.jpg

Actually, I was being nice. I know that isn't cool any more, but having been on forums that do change things in posts silently a reasonable out was offered. Though phys.org doing it would be rather unexpected. Sorry for using a colloquial for *plots* at the other end of the "links".

Same question as above: is there a reason the range starts at 1997?
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 11, 2013
Err … no, your point was regarding "this summer" and my reply pertained to this summer. A regional temp is indeed controlled by prevailing winds and I gave you the meteorological reason why the Arctic Summer (THIS summer) was cold.
Sorry, no. All you did was make baseless and unsupported assertions (as usual).

CO2 controls global temps on a climatic long-term scale - it does not show it's hand in regional/short-term scales.
But as you said this is the "source of cold." How could it be cool anywhere else if it's all "locked in?"

It didn't. It was a warmer than average summer there….
First, so now you're claiming the NOAA are liars? Maybe it's that you use biased maps? Here's another look at the GISS data:

http://data.giss....;pol=reg

Looky there. Cool weather right where the NOAA said it was.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 11, 2013
No, as restated above. I replied as per your post – namely that for "this summer". And not for "more than a dozen years". I talk of weather and you insist on making it climate.
So, that it hasn't warmed this year makes perfect sense to you, but that it hasn't warmed in more than dozen years doesn't? Why not? Can you not understand the larger data set?

I posted a critique (from his website) with a link to how Spencer should have done it - simples. I didn't expect you to read it.
I read it. It shamelessly fudges and rationalizes the data, rather than simply reporting the data.

I'll now get up out of the hole.
So you'll come to your senses then and admit there's been no warming in at least a dozen years?

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2013
"It equates seasoned skepticism of highly speculative positive feedback supercomputer climate models that form the basis of alarm with maverick denial of the classic greenhouse effect!" - NikkieTard

Tardieboy is frothing incoherently again.

It is self evident now that NikkieTard is suffering from Schizophrenia.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2013
"I'm fine with HADCRUT4 and how it shows that another (climate model busting) pause is happening right on time!" - NikkieTard

http://www.woodfo.../to:1950

And what "time" would that be, TardieBoy?

You do realize don't you that the average temperature of the green section of your plot is minus 0.2"C while the second section (red) it is +0.2'C

That is a change in temp of 0.4'C over 60 years, which is right on line with what the models predict.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2013
It does appear to me however that your link ...if you 'show all' and then deselect years from top to bottom, there is a clear trend towards the lowest of the bounds of natural variation.
Indeed, as shown here:

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Why are the averages fixed to those decades?
They're 30 year base periods covering a full three decades. Some like to use the older one to emphasize the the long term trend.

The datasets used covers those respective years?
Mostly

Didn't realise there was supposed to be one to one relationship, just thought AGW was a reasonably strong trend such that working against the probable cause made a lot of sense.
No, it was claimed to be a one to one relationship. Year over year was generally expected to be increasingly warmer ...at least until the current pause. Now there's all sorts of rationalizing the pause (ironically weakening the claims CO2 is the primary culprit).

cont...

VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2013
"In September, the UN's paramount group of climate experts scoffed at the "Pause," - NikkieTard

What pause?

http://www.woodfo...to/trend
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2013
Near fifty skeptical voices cry out for reason already near midnight:

"From the make up your freaking minds department comes this oopsy juxtaposition of alarmist messaging. / In an attempt to explain "the pause", researchers are now grasping for explanations...."
http://wattsupwit...cooling/

The Gore Ball Warmistas lost a whole continent called Australia in 2013, mostly because the public woke up to a now sacked greenie prime minister "No Carbon Tax" carbon taxer, but also since her now sacked carbon advisor was a fucking space case fruit loop acid house casualty:
http://youtu.be/SeNDSeknn_c

JIMBO says: "It's a bit of a mess really. A few years back they blamed ozone for the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. Then they blamed melting ice. Then wind and currents. Pot Puri science."

Pat Frank: "So, let's see: Estrada & co., are using statistical methods to find associations and then concluding physical causality. Right."
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2013
Oh wow, the ratings auto bots hit my last comment in a cool three minutes, not just Al_Gore and Michael_Moore, but two ultra-fresh accounts, seen in the Activity tab of commenters by those who are logged in.

It's a scam. Everything about weather history re-writing is. A. Scam.

They even lied about a typhoon in Asia, like good loyal ambulance chasers, converting metric to English but leaving the number the *same* just like the IPCC converted 2350 into 2035 for their glacier loss deadline. Oops! Sorry. Oops! Sorry.

Didn't they think anybody would *notice* and use their handy dandy iPhones to call them out?!

Not too bright, this lot.

They even appointed a slanderous death threat flinging lunatic to rant on about skeptics being bent! Gore formally *trains* these dopey dupes! For a season they become world saviors, then degenerate into Vendicar(E).
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (22) Nov 12, 2013
Uh oh...from Nature journal in 2007:

http://www.nature...82a.html

"The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago. If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. "Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart."
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (22) Nov 12, 2013
I for one have been glad that there has been a pause, I just don't understand the mechanism by which the trend would reverse. But I'll gladly wear 'egg on my face' for joining attempts to prevent a perceived issue given the evidence tells me it could get rather bad if the trend is correct.
To which trend do you refer? Currently the trend is relatively steady.

Is there a reason you chose 1997?
Yes, that's when the current pause began.

Going back just 2 years has a significant change to the graph. Going from 1983 to present is even more significant.
This is a form of statistical bias. Your bias only serves to support my statement that warming has occured. But it doesn't answer the question, "Is it still warming?"

MrKool
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 12, 2013
George Clooney Slams 'Ridiculous' Climate Change Deniers

http://www.huffin...tainment

"If you have 99 percent of doctors who tell you 'you are sick' and 1 percent that says 'you're fine,' you probably want to hang out with, check it up with the 99. You know what I mean? The idea that we ignore that we are in some way involved in climate change is ridiculous. What's the worst thing that happens? We clean up the earth a little bit?"
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2013
Same question as above: is there a reason the range starts at 1997?
Actually, this trend is identified by going backward in time from the latest available data. So technically 1997 is an end, not a start.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 12, 2013
WUWT Tidbits:

Craig: "Francisco Estrada, an ecological economist at the Free University… / You get what you pay for."

ChristopherPL: "What pause? / I thought they didn't believe there was a pause at all. The pause was just more skeptic mumbo jumbo. / Now not only do they accept the pause, but they have already have a reason for it."

Mats: "Both world wars and the 1930 depression". I thought it was some kind of concensus among the warmists that the CO2 did not reach levels high enough to be affecting climate until the 50:s. It is strange if the lower production or whatever before then affects downwards, if it at the same time did not affect upwards."
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2013
MrKool, if one doctor had a bunch of healthy patients and 99 has fatigued, impotent, diabetic, stroke victims, might George Clooney take notice?

Kim Kardashian is on the Atkins diet, now known as heart and diabetes protective unlike what 99% of doctors in recent decades claimed:
http://www.belfas...964.html

The Food Pyramid, based on consensus science instead of real data driven science tells Kim to eat mainy processed carbs:
http://orchardadv...6539.jpg

Look at all those doctor approved obesity epidemic producing bread/pasta items at the "healthy" base of the official government sponsored, heart association celebrated, Food Pyramid!

Kim is a perfect cave woman now, as all can attest.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2013
JIMBO says: "It's a bit of a mess really. A few years back they blamed ozone for the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. Then they blamed melting ice. Then wind and currents. Pot Puri science."


You see, the problem with that statement is there is no warming in the waters around Antarctica. And yes there is increasing ice. Counterintuitive consequences occur in a complex system – It cannot be all lumped into warmer/colder. There are other things that increase sea-ice in an area unbounded by land (as is the Arctic). Do I have to state them? Think about it.
"Pot Puri" brains I'd call it.
Here's one reason. Another is divergent winds.
http://journals.a...LI3284.1
"We then discuss potential local and external atmospheric, sea ice, and ice sheet influences,
concluding that most of the salinity change results from freshwater imported to the Ross Sea and noting several related implications."
MrKool
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 12, 2013
MrKool, if one doctor had a bunch of healthy patients and 99 has fatigued, impotent, diabetic, stroke victims, might George Clooney take notice?


He might notice there were 99 frauds. Like a weather presenter claiming to be a climatologist.

Kim Kardashian is on the Atkins diet, now known as heart and diabetes protective unlike what 99% of doctors in recent decades claimed:
http://www.belfas...964.html


Interesting that you cite an "entertainment" news section to make a point about Science.

Look at all those doctor approved obesity epidemic producing bread/pasta items at the "healthy" base of the official government sponsored, heart association celebrated, Food Pyramid!


No Doctor has ever recommended I eat bread and Pasta. Ever.
MrKool
1.9 / 5 (19) Nov 12, 2013
Going back just 2 years has a significant change to the graph. Going from 1983 to present is even more significant. This is a form of statistical bias. Your bias only serves to support my statement that warming has occured. But it doesn't answer the question, "Is it still warming?"


Yes, it is still warming. Even if all anthropogenic CO2 emissions ceased tonight, the globe will continue to warm until the lag between energy in/out resolves. Since the already emitted anthropogenic CO2 has caused energy out to be a little less than energy coming in, the globe must warm in order to resolve that imbalance.

Of course, that baseline temperature increase is superimposed over natural temperature fluctuation so each year is not necessarily warmer than the previous. But over the course of a few decades you will see the warming signal appear.
MrKool
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 12, 2013
The late John Daly saved a simple text file of NASA GISS global average US temperature data from 2000. You can't *get* that data any more from NASA! How is that science?! And when you take a simple difference curve between data up to 2000 and current data, the biggest scientific scam in human history is revealed:
http://s15.postim...1_20.jpg


Dr John Christy has also tampered with historic temperature data. In fact he turned a distinct cooling trend into a distinct warming trend pretending that data on occasion has error which should thus be adjusted.

Only a fool would believe this.

Clearly Dr Christy is an evil, foul, malignant, conspiratorial, conniving villain.
sennekuyl
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2013
To which trend do you refer? Currently the trend is relatively steady.
past 100 year trend
Yes, that's when the current pause began.
So what is your explanation for http://www.woodfo...0/trend? Why did that happen and why did it keep going up after?
This is a form of statistical bias. Your bias only serves to support my statement that warming has occurred. But it doesn't answer the question, "Is it still warming?"

http://www.woodfo...80/trend How did many scientists come to the conclusion in the '60s & '70s that there was warming occurring?* It is like they knew there was a mechanism which would retain the energy from the sun, even if they couldn't predict the actual temperature.
http://www.skepti....htm#385
* I know, HADCRUT wasn't available till the 90s
sennekuyl
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2013
[expanding previous comment]
http://www.woodfo...80/trend
That is a 30 year period that climatologists keep yapping on about which is cooling. (It's more apparent if you go from 49-79.)
Yet the majority of science studies were predicting warming.
"The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."
http://www.skepti...iate.htm

Nik et al rabbit on about the predictions not matching reality; how many broken "pauses"* does it take to make one think just maybe the science is a bit better than it has been given credit for. By climate skeptics own standards they have less credibility than the warmists they are decrying.

* This latest "pause" at the very least isn't even a pause but a rate slow-down. Haven't checked the other "pauses"
sennekuyl
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2013
I forgot to correct myself regarding the 'past 100 year trend'. It should have been the past 30, 60, 90 etc, year trend.

If I do a trend over 5 years and then the following five years are completely different I'd certainly be asking myself what biases I have, about statistical noise etc. If I do it over 3 or more periods and they have at least a similar trend, despite my predictions not matching a particular period fluctuations within the selected periods I'd certainly be asking myself if there was a particular trend.

Given climate predictions are generally over a 30 year period, I'd say seeing a trend occur over 150 odd years is reasonable expectation to keep an eye on a trend.

That said, if you can predict when the temperatures will start to drop & the mechanism by which earth releases the current pent up heat, I'm sure there would be significant rewards for climate skeptics.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2013
"Dr John Christy has also tampered with historic temperature data." - MrTard

If true then why don't you or some other denialist write a paper exposing Christy and submit it to a scientific journal for publicaItion.

It wouldn't be because you are a liar would it?

And how do you explain how BEST which uses independent methods produces results that are equivalent?

And the UHA results, and the Hadley Centre, etc...etc.. Etc...

sennekuyl
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2013
Umm... VendicarE? This is why your style of posting is unproductive. MrKool doesn't appear to be a denialist. & Dr Christy does.

http://www.skepti...ism.html
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 13, 2013
past 100 year trend
So what evidence do you refer to when you state, "the evidence tells me it could get rather bad if the trend is correct."

So what is your explanation for http://www.woodfo.../trend??
I would suggest it's an artifact of a highly manipulated data set, as other major datasets do not exhibit this trend: http://www.woodfo...80/trend

Why did that happen and why did it keep going up after?
I would suggest it's within the bounds of natural variation, and ask: Why would you think global temperatures should be static?

cont...

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (22) Nov 13, 2013
http://www.woodfo...80/trend How did many scientists come to the conclusion in the '60s & '70s that there was warming occurring?*
Isn't it interesting your link opens at a comment which debunks the data of the very article you're citing? Even so, it would be foolhardy of me to pretend to interpret every paper from that time and explain it all to you. Do your own research.

It is like they knew there was a mechanism which would retain the energy from the sun, even if they couldn't predict the actual temperature. http://www.skepti....htm#385
Or, perhaps they just got lucky?

* I know, HADCRUT wasn't available till the 90s
Which makes your use of the dataset here rather specious. But data was available.

cont...

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (22) Nov 13, 2013
[expanding previous comment] http://www.woodfo...80/trend
That is a 30 year period that climatologists keep yapping on about which is cooling. (It's more apparent if you go from 49-79.) Yet the majority of science studies were predicting warming.
Again, other datasets do not exhibit this trend during this period: http://www.woodfo...80/trend

"The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case." http://www.skepti...iate.htm
So? Is this supposed to prove the majority of scientists tend to be right?

No one predicted the current pause, so think about this: What's that prove?

cont...

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 13, 2013
Nik et al rabbit on about the predictions not matching reality; how many broken "pauses"* does it take to make one think just maybe the science is a bit better than it has been given credit for.
So where and when did the science predict these pauses?

By climate skeptics own standards they have less credibility than the warmists they are decrying.
That depends on the particular arguments from the particular participants. Mostly, here, I see complete denial of the current pause, even though the IPCC itself has begun to admit there is a pause. What's that say of the warmists here?

* This latest "pause" at the very least isn't even a pause but a rate slow-down. Haven't checked the other "pauses"
What's this supposed to mean? Even after my explanation of the graphs above, are you still having trouble understanding the trend line?

cont...

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 13, 2013
I forgot to correct myself regarding the 'past 100 year trend'. It should have been the past 30, 60, 90 etc, year trend.
My earlier response is unchanged.

If I do a trend over 5 years and then the following five years are completely different I'd certainly be asking myself what biases I have, about statistical noise etc. If I do it over 3 or more periods and they have at least a similar trend, despite my predictions not matching a particular period fluctuations within the selected periods I'd certainly be asking myself if there was a particular trend.
Why would you deliberately ignore any potentially highly pertinent data? This is especially important in this case, as the CO2 theory demands a greater forcing response with increasing CO2. Therefore, as originally predicted, shouldn't the accumulating energy in the system have a negative entropy effect, thereby diminishing random noise in the system?

http://www.ipcc.c...m-5.html

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (21) Nov 13, 2013
Given climate predictions are generally over a 30 year period, I'd say seeing a trend occur over 150 odd years is reasonable expectation to keep an eye on a trend.
Did you not know the IPCC acredits AGW only back to 1950? So what caused the earlier warming?

That said, if you can predict when the temperatures will start to drop & the mechanism by which earth releases the current pent up heat, I'm sure there would be significant rewards for climate skeptics.
The temperatures are already dropping (slightly).

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2013
So where and when did the science predict these pauses?

Individual model runs predict them. What is published is NOT an individual model run – it's a merging of numerous ones in order to unscramble the (internal) chaos that is inherent in each run. In other words natural climate cycles have to be averaged because cycle lengths ( PDO/ENSO eg) cannot be known with accuracy. If this is not done then phases (reality vs obs) could be 180 deg apart. ONLY the long-term TREND can be uncovered.

You need to view each individual model to see any "pause" whereas all that can be meaningfully done is a MEAN trend. Hence error bars.

"Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase."

http://www.nature...534.html
triplehelix
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning." - Al Gore, democrat; self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet, and, by his own words, the Inspiration for the novel Love Story.

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson. Smartest man never to win the Nobel.

Who are you going to believe?


The only thing that can come close to being "worthy of belief" is consensus science.

Yep - the bit that's left over when the good, bad and indifferent science is weeded apart.

Like Democracy- it's the worst method we have..... apart from all the others we've tried.

Ah ... but I forgot - It's all a conspiracy. Of course. Silly me.


There's no conspiracy. It's just a giant money making machine with bad science. It has been done with many other subjects. Skeptics don't think you have secret underground lair meetings. We just think you like the pumped up wages for predicting more disastrous hollywood movie results (which never come) and will self propagate your jobs-worth.
MrKool
1.5 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2013
"Dr John Christy has also tampered with historic temperature data." - MrTard

If true then why don't you or some other denialist write a paper exposing Christy and submit it to a scientific journal for publicaItion.

It wouldn't be because you are a liar would it?

And how do you explain how BEST which uses independent methods produces results that are equivalent?

And the UHA results, and the Hadley Centre, etc...etc.. Etc...



I'm not a fricken denialst. It was a pisstake.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2013
"The temperatures are already dropping (slightly)." - UbVonTard

You have been told on multiple occasions that your claims have no statistical basis in fact, and that you expose yourself as a fraud for making such claims.

Making them repeatedly after correction, downgrades you from a simple faud to a simple Liar.

VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2013
"So where and when did the science predict these pauses?" - UbVonTard

They arise naturally in the modeling process.

As we have repeatedly told you, each model run contains random pauses of different lengths occurring at different times and constitute the statistical fluctuations that are called weather.

They are removed from the model results by running the models many times and taking the average of the results.

This is at least the tenth time that I have told you this.

You appear to be incapable of learning.

VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2013
"My earlier response is unchanged." - UbVonTard

Yup. Your willful ignorance makes you incapable of learning.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2013
"Again, other datasets do not exhibit this trend during this period:" - UbVonTard

The blue and purple lines call you a liar.

http://www.woodfo...77/trend

So do I.

http://cdn.arstec...x480.png
sennekuyl
3 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2013
Isn't it interesting your link opens at a comment which debunks the data of the very article you're citing? Even so, it would be foolhardy of me to pretend to interpret every paper from that time and explain it all to you. Do your own research.

No, there is nothing interesting about a 'debunking' comment that is itself debunked quite rapidly.

What I do find interesting is that when others misuse data you can see it,...

Which makes your use of the dataset here rather specious. But data was available.


But you can't or won't see that same trait when it suits your purposes.
Is there a reason you chose 1997?

Yes, that's when the current pause began


Given that was the reason of my original interjection, your posturing about my inability to read 'the trend line' is ..., in the best case, projection.

[cont]
sennekuyl
4 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2013
http://www.woodfo....8/trend

There's a cooling trend over 19 years. I'm sure I can find others. Yet scientists 'got lucky' and were right that temperatures would rise. The dataset doesn't matter in this case, given what you are doing with the data.

Do you have reason to think the earth is radiating more energy than it is receiving? Or even that input and output are at an equilibrium?

You asked for evidence; that the earth has warmed in the twentieth century you have acknowledged, and I've no reason to think you disagree with the physics of GHGs... is that correct?

To my knowledge that leaves two possible contentions: that the amount of CO2 from human activity is not sufficient to affect the climate and/or there is another cooling (or heating for that matter) mechanism unaccounted for? Am I on the right track with your contention with AGW? Is there a nuance unaccounted for?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2013
@Ubavontuba
How could the thermometer change? The blessed avatar of Water, ice, cools the oceans, and thus the world, keeping life, which it loves and succors, neither too warm nor cold.
Blessed is Water!
Should man stop releasing the accursed elements of Fire, or Air from its automobiles and smokestacks, the beneficent Element will slow our damage to ourselves by releasing that heat which it has mercifully stored in itself.

If water removed its blessing, its holy vapor's greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would drop nearly 40 degrees.

Blessed is Water, its GH effect, its heat of formation and heat of fusion. Let its most dense point never veer from 4C, and let its blessing of cold always float above the cold polar brine!
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2013
Ah, if only its Holiness were a computer programmer, then I would just press a button and would no longer have to read posts from tard-slingers and rants from the NewCity.
What a blessed and enlightened blog this would be!