1981 climate change predictions were eerily accurate

April 9, 2012 By Jason Major, Universe Today
The disintegrated Wilkins Ice Shelf in April 2009. Credit: Chelys/EOSnap

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’  projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present.

The paper, written by a team of atmospheric physicists led by the now-controversial James Hansen at NASA’s Institute for Space Studies at Goddard Space Flight Center, was recently rediscovered by researchers Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). Taking a break from research due to illness, the scientists got a chance to look back through some older, overlooked publications.

“It turns out to be a very interesting read,” they noted in their blog on RealClimate.org.

Even though the paper was given 10 pages in Science, it covers a lot of advanced topics related to climate — indicating the level of knowledge known about climate science even at that time.

“The concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much,” van Oldenborgh and Haarsma note. “Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.”

Within the paper, several graphs note the growth of atmospheric , both naturally occurring and manmade, and projected a future rise based on the continued use of fossil fuels by humans. Van Oldenborgh and Haarsma overlaid data gathered by NASA and KNMI in recent years and found that the projections made by Hansen et al. were pretty much spot-on.

Data from the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index fit rather closely with the 1981 projection. Credit: van Oldenborgh and Haarsma

If anything, the 1981 projections were “optimistic”.

Hansen wrote in the original paper:

“The global temperature rose by 0.2ºC between the middle 1960′s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4ºC in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean rend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980′s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climate zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”

Now here we are in 2012, looking down the barrel of the gun Hansen and team had reported was there 31 years earlier. In fact, we’ve already seen most of the predicted effects take place.

“Drought-prone regions” are receiving less rainfall, the Antarctic ice has begun to crack and crumble and bowhead whales are using the Northwest Passage as a polar short-cut

And that’s not the only prediction that seems to have uncannily come true.

“In light of historical evidence that it takes several decades to complete a major change in fuel use, this makes large almost inevitable,” Hansen et al wrote in anticipation of the difficulties of a global shift away from dependence on carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels.

“CO2 effects on climate may make full exploitation of coal resources undesirable,” the paper concludes. “An appropriate strategy may be to encourage energy conservation and develop alternative energy sources, while using fossil fuels as necessary during the next few decades.”

(Watch a TED talk by James Hansen on “Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change”)

As the “next few decades” are now, for us, coming to a close, where do we stand on the encouragement of energy conservation and development on alternative energy sources?  Sadly the outlook is not as promising as it should be, not given our level of abilities to monitor the intricate complexities of our planet’s climate and to develop new technologies. True advancement will rely on our acceptance that a change is in fact necessary… a hurdle that is proving to be the most difficult one to clear.

Read van Oldenborgh and Haarsma’s blog post here, and see the full 1981 paper “Climate Impact of Increasing Carbon Dioxide” here. And for more news on our changing , visit NASA’s Global Climate Change site.

Explore further: Ocean acidification turns climate change winners into losers: research

Related Stories

Combating climate change by helping poorer countries

November 12, 2010

The effects of global climate change could be minimised by transferring ‘best available’ low carbon technologies from the rich to the poor nations, say researchers at the University of Bath.

Chilling climate-change related news

February 17, 2012

A presentation at the world’s largest science fair by a Simon Fraser University earth sciences professor promises to make the skin crawl of even the most ardent disbelievers of the predicted impacts of climate change.

Today's severe drought, tomorrow's normal

December 6, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- While the worst drought since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s grips Oklahoma and Texas, scientists are warning that what we consider severe drought conditions in North America today may be normal for the continent ...

Greenhouse gases to overpower ozone hole

November 2, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- One set of human-created gases is starting to relinquish its hold on Antarctic climate as another group of emissions produced by human activity is starting to take hold, according to a paper in Nature Geoscience, ...

Recommended for you

Ocean acidification may reduce sea scallop fisheries

September 21, 2018

Each year, fishermen harvest more than $500 million worth of Atlantic sea scallops from the waters off the east coast of the United States. A new model created by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), ...

72 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
Apr 09, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SoylentGrin
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2012
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


There you have it. Deniers will claim that they're the ones unfettered by dogma, that no one else is actually following the science.
And yet when predictions come true, the ultimate yardstick for testing hypotheses, rather than say, "Hey, there might be something of interest here!", it is dismissed out of hand as a fluke.

Who has an agenda, Shootist?
RazorsEdge
2.6 / 5 (16) Apr 09, 2012
The summary text relies on subjective data to call the predictions accurate, e.g. drought-prone regions receive less rainfall (OMG!), Antartica ice .., bowhead whales etc.
Where is the feedback mechanism that is critical to the alarmist story? Predictions of linear changes are trivial to model. Where is the feedback?
Lurker2358
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2012
The summary text relies on subjective data to call the predictions accurate, e.g. drought-prone regions receive less rainfall (OMG!), Antartica ice .., bowhead whales etc.
Where is the feedback mechanism that is critical to the alarmist story? Predictions of linear changes are trivial to model. Where is the feedback?


The real data is beating or at least tied with the exponential curve given in 1981.

That proves a positive, self-reinforcing feedback is occurring, at least on average.

Positive feedback is absolutely known to be true due to the 3 decades of average annual melting day anomaly trend observations for regions north of 60N, since this paper was written.

Also, we are not far along enough in the process to get a significant positive feedback from CO2 or methane bombs from permafrost. That's probably still 5 to 10 years away before it starts to become detectable substantially, and maybe decades before it becomes statistically significant.

GW is just starting now...
pauljpease
Apr 09, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jet
2 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2012
Predicted that the trend of getting warmer that started at end of LIA would continue. I salute him.
GSwift7
2.9 / 5 (16) Apr 09, 2012
Eh, Hansen is a bit of an easy target, and he likes it that way. He was arrested in D.C. a few months ago for protesting. Not exactly the most objective source of information.

Try to google "james hansen failed predictions" and see how much comes up.

By the way, take a look at the graph shown in the story above. Then figure out what the Y axis represents (Ta). Then look up what they overlayed in pink (GISS Land-Ocean Temperature INDEX). Then ask yourself if you have ever heard of a phrase which involves apples and oranges, or a phrase that involves picking cherries.

I am perfectly fine with giving Hansen credit for the good work he has done, but the above story is a publicity stunt designed for people who are too lazy to do a google search and/or follow links to sources.
jet
2 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2012
" LIA was largely regional in extent." aside that largely regionl is much like a little pregnant there is the ikaite record

"This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula."

Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Lu
SteveS
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2012
Zunli Lu:
It is unfortunate that my research, An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula, recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming, completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.
Mahal_Kita
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2012
Eh, Hansen is a bit of an easy target, and he likes it that way. He was arrested in D.C. a few months ago for protesting. Not exactly the most objective source of information.


And your comment doesn't strike you in the least as somewhat odd? I thought people had the right to protest in the country of free speech. Arrested for protesting and therefor not a objective source of information. Hm..
Sean_W
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2012
So Manhattan is now underwater is it?
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2012
Too many people are too easily manipulated by cleverly chosen graph scales...
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2012
I agree Vendi! Hansen deserves a Nobel Prize! A BIG FAT NOBEL that he can wave in the face of the environmental political morons and the minions of right wing bleeding hearts. Conservatism dug it's grave quickly with its broad anti-environment positions anti global warming. Facts are facts.

AWaB
3.7 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2012
...right wing bleeding hearts...

-Howhot


I think bashing either side of the political spectrum is very unproductive. However, if it's going to be done, please do it correctly. The left are the bleeding hearts, dear. It's the right that contains the warhawks, death penalty advocates, and no social safety net groups.
jet
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
Steve S - your quotation by Lu is his wish on how his data should be used the quotation I selected is from the abstract of the paper, that shows the LIA was not regional but was trans hemispheric (global). That Lu may after the fact wish to direct how is data is used is not relevant to the data presented in the paper.
SteveS
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2012
Steve S - your quotation by Lu is his wish on how his data should be used the quotation I selected is from the abstract of the paper, that shows the LIA was not regional but was trans hemispheric (global). That Lu may after the fact wish to direct how is data is used is not relevant to the data presented in the paper.


"We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe."
jet
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
The paper extract states LIA & MWP "extended" to the antarctic. That Lu may wish to instruct others oh how to use the data provided is again not relevant to the data provided.

jet
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
"our ikaite record builds hte case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in there extent and there impact reaches as far South as the Antarctic Peninsula"

Z Lu et al, / Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters 325-326 (2012) Pg 114
jet
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
accidental repost of above statement showing what the peer reviewed paper by Lu stated as opposed to his later non peer review requests on the use of the data.
SteveS
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
From the conclusion

"The late Holocene climate pattern inferred from 18Ohydra and 18OCaCO3 is comparable to other records from the region and our ikaite record provides new support that the MWP and LIA might have influenced the AP."

The data shows that the pattern of warming and cooling is similar but the timing is different, and being a qualitative rather than
a quantitative climatic proxy it gives no indication of the magnitude of the temperature changes.

Figure 6 compares the eleven data points to other climate proxies from the area and clearly shows the warming and cooling occurring later than the North Atlantic.
jet
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
So, Lu does support LIA and MWP being not regional but global in scale.

"Ikaite record indicates that the influence of LIA and MWP reached the AP." Abstract Lu.

Unless one wishes to claim that Sweden and Antarctica are in the same region.
SteveS
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
In context

"The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere, but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as far South as the Antarctic Peninsula, while prior studies in the AP region have had mixed results."

Also from the section "4.4. Isotopic signatures of ikaite indicating climate changes?"

"There is a notable lag between the onset of MWP at the western AP and at the eastern AP according to this SST record and our ikaite record although this observation needs to be confirmed by additional records. On the eastern AP, no significant change in foraminifera assemblage at Firth of Tay was observed that could correspond with the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, or the warming over the last century (Majewski and Anderson, 2009)."
jet
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
Thank you for the context. The first paragraph you quote shows that the preponderance of evidence in the paper show the LIA AND MWP to be not regional, but global.

That the second paragraph states that evidence may be lacking from the firth of tay is interesting but not dis-positive

"We tentatively interpret
this shift in ikaite isotopic values as the result of meltwater invasion,
and warming in the Firth of Tay during the MWP"

pg 114 of paper lu et al.
SteveS
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
Thank you for the context. The first paragraph you quote shows that the preponderance of evidence in the paper show the LIA AND MWP to be not regional, but global.


I disagree, I think it shows that "The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere"

That the second paragraph states that evidence may be lacking from the firth of tay is interesting but not dis-positive


I see nothing to indicate a lack of evidence from the firth of tay in the second paragraph

"On the eastern AP, no significant change in foraminifera assemblage at Firth of Tay was observed that could correspond with the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, or the warming over the last century (Majewski and Anderson, 2009)."
jet
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
" no significant change in foraminifera assemblage at Firth of Tay was observed " is a statement that evidence (observed) was not present, the paper itself tries to explain as I quoted

"We tentatively interpret this shift in ikaite isotopic values as the result of meltwater invasion,and warming in the Firth of Tay during the MWP"

Thus the paper supports LIA and MWP even in the local of the Firth of Tay.
SteveS
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
" no significant change in foraminifera assemblage at Firth of Tay was observed " is a statement that evidence (observed) was not present


Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Thus the paper supports LIA and MWP even in the local of the Firth of Tay.


"The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere"

"At this stage, the geochemistry of ikaite serves as a qualitative, rather than a quantitative, climatic proxy, because it remains challenging to account for kinetic effects on uptake of 18O into the carbonate during crystallization and any post-crystallization exchange of 18Ohydra signal."

From the data it is not possible to say precisely when and to what degree the temperature changed.
jet
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
That the paper clearly and continuously states the existence of the LIA and MWP seems is with out doubt, that they state that the ikaite proxy is not perfect is of course a true statement which of
is true of all proxies to some extent.
jet
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
"our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in there extent and there impact reaches as far South as the Antarctic Peninsula"

Z Lu et al, / Earth and Planatary Sciences Letters 325-326 (2012) Pg 114

You may quote the press release I will stay with the actual paper.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2012
Vendicar:

Try to google "face on mars" and see how much junk comes up


Argument from absurdity? You still aren't a very good debater, even after all the times I have tried to give you pointers on how to be more effective at debating.

Mahal:

And your comment doesn't strike you in the least as somewhat odd? I thought people had the right to protest in the country of free speech. Arrested for protesting and therefor not a objective source of information. Hm..


Hansen has made frequent public statements that he is an environmental advocate. He is very open about the fact that he is biased in favor of environmental special interest groups. He is proud of it. A biased source is not "objective". That's his choice. BTW, he's an administrator, not a scientist. Gavin Schmidt is the one who runs the actual science at GISS these days, as far as I know. He's not very objective either though.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2012
rubberman:

Too many people are ignorant to the ____ involved with the _____ situation, and too many people choose to ignore the variables of said situation that they don't like


Your statement is true for any controversial subject, just insert abortion, religion, politics, school choice, unions, etc. into the blanks. I've said this before, but I'm sure you'll agree with me: MOST people feel that they MUST form an opinion on those types of things, whether they know anything about it or not. That usually divides right down the political affiliation lines, regardless of education, gender, race, etc.

I think this applies to the discussion of the Lu paper to some extent also. Lu seems to be taking the rational stance that one sample isn't enough to say what some people are saying. I see lots of instances these days where people try to make grand claims based on evidence which doesn't really support such grand claims. Extremeists on both sides do it regularly.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2012
continued:

For example, luke-warmers will point out that warming has paused for something like 15 years now. Then they will try to say that means something is wrong with global warming theory. Obviously, 15 years isn't a long enough time span to have any meaning, but most people don't know that. 15 years seems like a long time to people. lol.

Or, you have people on the opposite side bringing up every unusual weather event, as if unusual weather events are something new, or as if they have increased. Again, most people have too little knowledge of the facts to realize the folly of that claim, since the satellite record of weather only goes back to 1979. In this case, 30 years seems like a long time for most people. lol.

That stuff is only loosely associated with the original post here though, so it's kinda getting off on a tangent like the Lu discussion.

Anybody want to talk about Hansen's prediction track record? What else did he predict beside the stuff in this article?
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2012
Overall though, I don't think it is fair to judge either way yet, in regard to successful or failed predictions.

Some predictions are silly, like the IPCC prediction of massive climate refugees which was supposed to have begun already.

Serious predictions for global warming climate change, on the other hand, aren't really supposed to be statistically detectable for another few decades. Hansen has a habit of predicting noticeable change on shorter time scales than most other researchers. Even Michael Mann has made statements contrary to Hansen's short time scale predictions.

The question of time scales is an interesting one, and is often discussed in a friendly tone amongst serious people on both sides. How long of a time period do you need before you can rule out natural variability in a given climate situation, such as temperature, or rainfall? Do you need 10 years? 20? 50? 1000?
GSwift7
3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2012
"Hansen has made frequent public statements that he is an environmental advocate." - GSwift

Are you saying that you only trust immoral, unthinking scientists??


Wow, you're on a roll. Now it's a straw man argument. I know I've told you before how poor a straw man is as a debate tactic. You are really a slow learner.

I'll answer your question though. I trust scientists who make efforts to keep thier personal views out of their research. That isn't an easy thing to do, but most scientists try. Hansen is very open about the fact that he does exactly the opposite, as much as he can. He's been asked by his boss to make it clear when he is expressing his personal views in public speaking events, and Hansen sometimes does, but not usually. His most recent talk in Edinburgh is a good example of that.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2012
Liar. The IPCC never predicted climate refugees in 2012.


Oh, sorry, it was the President of the UN General Assembly. He said:

SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.


Link to the source:

http://www.un.org....doc.htm

There's a difference between a lie and getting one part of the UN confused with another. Still the UN though. And it was 2010, not 2012. Funny, I don't see the refugees. It's claims like that which make average people ignore it.
jet
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2012
Careful there Gswift you man have spoken too soon..

1989, Mustafa Tolba, Executive Director of UNEP, was claiming that 'as many as 50 million people could become environmental refugees' if the world did not act to support sustainable development (Tolba 1989: 25).

Note UNEP and IPCC are joined at the hip - read MOU linked below UNEP is the support for IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.c...1989.pdf
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2012
Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.

That seems to be a big disclaimer toward what some of the "denier" class would like lay people to believe. Regardless, Anthropogenic Global Warming is pretty much FACT anyway so who cares what G7 says.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2012
Has anyone else noticed how they cut off the last few years of the trend line? Is this to avoid showing that global warming has stalled?

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2012
What stall?
This stall:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

or using your overly (grossly) adjusted data, this stall:

http://www.woodfo...set:-269

XQZME
2 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2012
In the early 70s Hansen created code predicting global cooling due to manmade GHG. In the Mid 70's the insurance industry and Margaret Mead warned that manmade GHG would lead to global warming causing a greater need for climate disaster insurance and population control respectively. Considering that in the prior 180 years there were three 60 year cycles of global warming and cooling it wasn't difficult to predict a global warming from the end of the cooling phase in the mid70s

Victory! All five official global climate monitoring bodies agree Global Warming stopped in 2002 and sea level has been dropping since 2007. The IPCC said the effect of man-made green gasses is insignificant compared to the effects of solar intensity, oceanic oscillations, solar proximity and other natural variations. And the effect of man-made GHG on climate in four decades may be negative. In the last 10,500 years global climate was warmer than it is now. It was colder than now only 13% of those years.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2012
What stall?

Once you remove your cherry picked starting date your claimed stall vanishes.
Do you have trouble telling time? The stall started when it started. Trying to prove it didn't start at another time is meaningless drivel.

That would make you a liar wouldn't it?
The liar would be the one trying to obfuscate the truth (you).
gregor1
1 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2012
What we see in this piece is a classic fortune-tellers trick and is a version of the post hoc fallacy and I don't think you get Nobel prizes for this. What you do is make large numbers of predictions and when you get one right people naturally think other things you say have merit. The statement, which is hidden among generalized rubbish about droughts etc and is central to the entire issue,
"It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century,"
Is definitely false. Correlation says nothing about cause.
Anyone familiar with the climategate emails will be aware that realclimate was set up quite brazenly as a propaganda site to further "The cause". Moreover, Hansen was the main collaborator on the blatant propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth" (A film which the insurance industry made a cool $70 billion on with increased premiums) and earns over $1,000,000 per year on the speakers circuit
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2012
My, my... How absolutely unscientific of you.

Certainly you must know when your claimed stall started. Did it start yesterday? Last week? Last month?
Having trouble following content?

A claimed stall over such a short period would of course have no statistical significance would it?
That depends on your purpose.

So your credibility in your claim that there has been a "stall" lives and dies on the statistical significance of the data over the period in question. A period that you now refuse to specify.
Seriously? If you don't know this, or can't figure it out from my posts, you are definitely very stupid, or a "climate 'bot."

Now if we take the starting period to be 1997 or earlier we find that the trend is upward.
The stall didn't start in 1997.

If we take the data to be 1999 then the trend is also upward.
It didn't start in 1999 either.

cont...
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2012
You have fixated on the year 1998 as your starting point because 1998 is an anomalously warm year due to anomalously high El-Nino ocean temperatures.
Whatever. It started then because that's how far back I could go showing no net global warming.

If we include up to date data, I can go all the way back to 1997 (includes all of the 1997/1998 temperature spike):

http://woodfortre...97/trend

...but the data set for 2012 is incomplete.

So I'll stick to my claim of 1998 to 2012 (but 2012 is looking cool, so far):
http://woodfortre...12/trend

So by selecting that date you have shown that your claim has no statistical significance.
It's highly significant.

More recently you have selected the last 10 years of data in your claim that there has been a stall.
Only as it's relevant to certain physorg articles and/or official data sets.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
But global climate records over periods as short as 10 years or less have no statistical significance
Says who?

...as the normal temperature fluctuations over that period are vastly larger than the temperature trend that you are claiming.
Obviously then, you still don't know what a trend is.

Over such periods an observed trend of 0'C has no more statistical significance than a trend of .25'C or -.25'C.
Sure it does. 0'C is 0 and the others deviate by .25'C.

One can easily cancel or even magnify the other. The anticipated .1'C per decade rise would be masked by natural fluctuations that could put the observed trend as high as .35'C or as low as -.15'C.
What are you talking about? The trend is what it is.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
This is why...

An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.
This claim is more than three years old. Things have changed.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
How sad for you that your source of data excludes large regions around the poles.

Now why would you choose to omit the regions of the earth that are warming the fastest?
Oh yeah? Why don't you please explain how the greenhouse effect is "heating the poles the fastest," when they get the least sunlight! Is it magic?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2012
"But global climate records over periods as short as 10 years or less have no statistical significance." - VDtard


"Says who?" - Uba


Mathematicians who are experts in statistics.
Which mathematicians? Provide references.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2012
"It started then because that's how far back I could go showing no net global warming." - Uba
Yes. You selected the starting date based on the false perception you wish to portray.

In other words you are trying to lie with statistics. And in this case, meaningless statistics.
How is examining the "warming" data and finding no net global warming for 14 years lying? I didn't create the data. Are you calling all those climate scientists who provided the data liars, now?

Here's the graph:

http://woodfortre...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
"Why don't you please explain how the greenhouse effect is "heating the poles the fastest," - Uba
The poles - particularly the North pole changes from white snow to dark ocean/land as the ice melts. Prompting more ice melt.
Which matters how, when there is almost no sunlight much of the year?

And, that's not a greenhouse effect. How do greenhouse gases affect the North Pole the fastest? You do know greenhouses need sunlight to work, right?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
Your lie is in selecting a time series that excludes vast areas or the polar regions,
They use polar temperature information. They're quite satisfied with their procedure. So, aren't you essentially saying the climate scientists who gathered this data are lying?

selecting a start date that is an exception rather than the norm, and then presenting this as a representative sample of the real world when in fact it is nothing but the maximum amount of bias you could find.
What are you talking about? There's no bias. The period goes back as far as it goes back. It's just an analysis of the data.

There's been no net global warming since 1997.

http://woodfortre...12/trend

Even your precious GISTEMP shows no global warming since 2001:

http://woodfortre...12/trend

So no matter how you slice it, global warming has stalled out.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
"But global climate records over periods as short as 10 years or less have no statistical significance." - VDtard
"Says who?" - Uba
Mathematicians who are experts in statistics.
"Which mathematicians? Provide references." - Uba
Statisticians Comment on Status of Climate Change Science

http://magazine.a...temar10/
This first reference says nothing invalidating 10 year trends.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-global-cooling/
This one actually supports 10 year trends and even supports my contention that global warming has stalled. From the article:
over the last dozen years, the earths average temperature has remained relatively steady during a time period when the globe should be warming rapidly as a result of human greenhouse gas emissionsor at least that is what all of the climate models are projecting should be happening.
And that's from October 2009!

cont..
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2012
http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/statistician-contests-george-wills-misguided-climate-op-ed/
This one says nothing about 10 year trends.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/t/statisticians-reject-global-cooling/#.T46CTLPY_nE
And this one again supports 10 year analyses.

From the article:

Moving averages over 10 years important
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years.
So, it looks like you've saved me the bother of proving you're wrong (again!). Thanks!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
Every place on earth has equal amounts of daylight over the course of the year.
Maybe so, but not equal amounts of solar radiation.

Type your question regarding greenhouse effect heating the poles faster, into google, you'll get a decades worth of reading
I did. There's surprisingly very little on it.

....clearly too much to explain in a 1000 words to someone who thinks any place on earth gets less sunlight than any other place.
Clearly too much for someone who would confuse sunlight (as in daylight) with sunlight (as in solar radiation and the greenhouse effect).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
I love how Uba admits (below) to cherry picking but has steadfastly denied doing just that.

"You have fixated on the year 1998 as your starting point because 1998 is an anomalously warm year due to anomalously high El-Nino ocean temperatures." - VDtard

"It started then because that's how far back I could go showing no net global warming." - Uba
All you're doing is proving you don't understand statistical analysis.

If there was no stall, I couldn't show such a statistically significant trend (thanks,again, for proving it really is statistically significant).

There's been no net global warming since 1997:

http://woodfortre...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
"How do greenhouse gases affect the North Pole the fastest? You do know greenhouses need sunlight to work, right?" - Uba
It has been explained to you twice. Are you incapable of understanding the simple answer? Or are you so corrupt that you will continue to ask the same long questions over and over again just to instill doubt in the minds of others?
Giving a non-answer and claiming it's an answer, is not an answer.

Answer the question properly and provide references.

Good luck with that.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
If they were satisfied Tard Boy, then why have they made an effort to include more of the polar region in their latest data set?

And now that they have stopped excluding the polar regions we find that your claim of no warming for the last 14 years is even more of a lie than ever.
Wrong again, chowderhead. They've held off on reporting 2011. HADcrut3 and HADcrut4 match almost perfectly otherwise:

http://woodfortre.../to:2012

...so the trend would likely be the same if they hadn't withheld data.

Last 14 years, Most Modern HadCrut data set.
How can it be the "most modern" if it doesn't include the latest available data?

Even so, it shows a significant stall:

http://woodfortre...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
The shorter the period you select, the more irrelevant the computed trend becomes. 10 years is pretty much meaningless as I have repeatedly told you and shown you before.
Sorry, you can't go there anymore. You proved with your own cherry picked references that I was right all along. 10 years is statistically significant.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2012
I'm sorry you couldn't understand the answer. There is a limit to how primitive my explanations can be in 1000 characters.

Try this link.
This link has nothing to do with greenhouse effects at the poles.

Then change your diaper.

"Giving a non-answer and claiming it's an answer, is not an answer." - Uba
All you gave was another non-answer.

Aside: Why are climate 'bots so dumb? When are they going to develop a climate 'bot that can retain content and understand references?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2012
You have never shown the statistical significance of your claim.
I don't need to. You already proved it with your own references.

Meanwhile here is what the statisticians say...
That was one guy, and he's not even a scientist (much less a statistician). He fancies himself to be a journalist and politician. He's on record as stating:

"there is a startling absence of correlation between the CO2-concentration trend and the temperature trend, necessarily implying thatat least in the short termthere is little or no causative link between the two"

Furthermore:

Today and the Newspaper Revolution describes him as "a fervent, forthright and opinionated Roman Catholic Tory" who has been closely associated with the "New Right" faction of the Conservative Party.

Is he your hero now?

http://en.wikiped...e_change

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2012
Re: Google search on global warming in the polar regions.

"I did. There's surprisingly very little on it." - Uba

My search (Global warming poles)

About 22,500,000 results (0.25 seconds)

Very little? 22.5 million results is very little?

And you still couldn't provide even one relevant reference?

But we already know you can't understand content. So go ahead and provide one of these "22,500,000" references. I'm up for a laugh.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2012
Outright lying is all you have left.

"You proved with your own cherry picked references that I was right all along. 10 years is statistically significant." - Uba
Sorry, I forget that climate 'bots ignore quotes in subtext. Here it is again:

From your reference:

"Moving averages over 10 years important
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years."
jet
2 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
Key word PROJECTION. and yes that is a double entendre
jet
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2012
No Sir.

science
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Science may allow for a better understanding of future events and may not depending on the data and skills available but science is not "all about predicting the future."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
They start very closely matched, yes, and then become increasingly divergent as the northern polar regions have continued to warm.


HADcrut4 is DESIGNED to show global warming, even if there isn't any. If this wasn't their intent, why then have they failed to include the data from last year?

Even without 2011 data, HADcrut4 shows global warming ended more than 10 years ago:

http://woodfortre...12/trend

So fine. Let's just agree (for now) that global warming ended 10 years ago.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012
And when your cherry picked year 1998 is removed we obtain the following.
You're an idiot 'bot. You've just "cherry picked" excessive data to overwhelm the current signal.

Global warming stalled out 14 years ago:

http://woodfortre...12/trend

...or maybe 15:

http://woodfortre...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012
Here is the trend over the last 30 years and over the last 13 years...
So? All you're doing is adding old data to skew the signal.

There's been no global warming since 1997.

1998 - 2012:

http://woodfortre...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012
Your claim was that there wasn't much written about warming in northern regions.
Right. And your Google search turned up no relevant results. Just because you had a lot of hits on a three-word Google search, doesn't mean you had any relevant results.

Provide some links you think are relevant (again, I'm up for a good laugh).

You have lost badly. And will always lose when you deal with me.
Says the loser climate 'bot who's own references falsified its claims.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012
UbVonTard focuses on the messenger, not the message.
You're the one spouting off against conservatives all the time. Now, all of a sudden, you're a conservative supporter?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
Arctic sea ice extent...

Ice volume way below normal. North pole projected to be ice free in summer sometime around 2030.

Arctic ice volume.
Idiot.

"Ice extent this March ranked ninth lowest out of the 34 years of satellite data for the month, but it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade."

"Ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia."

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


ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
Really? Then why did you spend several days claiming that there was essentially no difference between Hadcrut 4 and Hadcrut 3?
I was showing, by extrapolation, that 2011 should show a steep decline in global temperatures.

Just like it "stalled out" between the years 1987 - 1997.
Actually, your graph shows a slight rise.

But I never suggested there was no warming before the stall, or that warming would not continue. All I'm saying is it stalled out at least a decade ago, inspite of steadily rising CO2. Therefore, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is doubtful.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
Meanwhile ice extent continues to be over 100,000 square kilometers less than normal, and the deficit is growing larger with each passing day.
Idiot. Your own chart shows it to be quite close to "normal," relative to the 1979 to 2008 trend.

And the Southern Hemisphere ice is above normal:

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

As is global sea ice:

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

As someone who is trained to be a scientist
Liar. You don't know anything about being a scientist.

Conservative group caught lying
As a moderate Democrat and Obama supporter I don't agree with the Conservative point of view, myself.

But being liberal, conservative, or inbetween is irrelevant to the discussion. That is, a good scientist seeks the truth, while putting ideological influences aside.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
How would you know? You haven't had time to review all 22 million of them yet.
All you're doing is falsifying your own claim. Provide proper references, or admit you were lying.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.