Added Arctic data shows global warming didn't pause

November 20, 2017, University of Alaska Fairbanks
These figures show the global warming rates with the incorporated Arctic data. Credit: Xiangdong Zhang.

Missing Arctic temperature data, not Mother Nature, created the seeming slowdown of global warming from 1998 to 2012, according to a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change.

A University of Alaska Fairbanks professor and his colleagues in China constructed the first data set of from across the world that significantly improves representation of the Arctic during the " hiatus."

Xiangdong Zhang, an atmospheric scientist with UAF's International Arctic Research Center, said he collaborated with colleagues at Tsinghua University in Beijing and Chinese agencies studying Arctic warming to analyze temperature data collected from buoys drifting in the Arctic Ocean.

"We recalculated the average global temperatures from 1998-2012 and found that the rate of global warming had continued to rise at 0.112C per decade instead of slowing down to 0.05C per decade as previously thought," said Zhang.

The new data also improved estimates of the global warming and the Arctic warming rate.

"We estimated a new rate of Arctic warming at 0.659 C per decade from 1998-2014. Compared with the newly estimated global warming rate of 0.130 C per decade, the Arctic has warmed more than five time the global average," said Zhang.

The team developed new methods of incorporating the Arctic temperature data into global temperature data so that they could better estimate the average temperatures. Most current estimates use global data that tend to represent a long time span and provide good coverage of a global geographic area. But the remote Arctic lacks a robust network of instruments to collect temperature data.

To improve the dataset in time and space, the team relied on data collected from the International Arctic Buoy Program at the University of Washington. For global data, the team used newly corrected from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Zhang said this study expands on NOAA research and other recent studies that have either supported or refuted the idea of a "" by reestimating the average global temperatures during that time period with more accurate and representative data.

The global warming hiatus is a much-debated topic among climate researchers. Some scientists theorized that an unusually warm El Niño in the years 1997-1998 and an extended period afterwards without occurrence of El Nino in the tropical Pacific Ocean may have disrupted the rate of global warming.

The Earth's average global temperatures have been rising over the past century and accelerating as more human produced carbon dioxide enters and lingers in the atmosphere, which is why the idea of "global warming hiatus" seemed baffling.

But the new data set and resulting estimates show conclusively that global did not take a break, said Zhang.

It also highlights the importance of considering the Arctic when thinking about climate change. Until recently, Zhang said, many scientists didn't consider the Arctic big enough to greatly influence the average global temperatures. "The Arctic is remote only in terms of physical distance," he said. "In terms of science, it's close to every one of us. It's a necessary part of the equation and the answer affects us all."

Explore further: New index shows human-induced global warming is happening faster than ever

More information: Jianbin Huang et al, Recently amplified arctic warming has contributed to a continual global warming trend, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-017-0009-5

Related Stories

Using new data, US finds no pause in global warming

June 4, 2015

Using updated data on the Earth's surface temperatures worldwide, US government scientists have found no evidence of a pause in global warming in recent years, according to research published on Thursday.

Recommended for you

110 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

snoosebaum
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2017
Aye ! we fixed the leak Cap'n

Good Work Scotty, welcome aboard !

there was a pause ? what pause ?
BackBurner
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 20, 2017
Translation: We had no real measurements so we made some up then Karlized them until we got the numbers we wanted.
benwelgoed
4.4 / 5 (19) Nov 20, 2017
B..r, They stated clearly what data they used that presumably wasn't taken into account before. If you have any hard info that contradicts such, then 'show us your cards'.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (19) Nov 20, 2017
Aye ! we fixed the leak Cap'n

Good Work Scotty, welcome aboard !

there was a pause ? what pause ?


Meanwhile, the world that isn't the Daily Mail and crappy bloggers were saying there was no pause all along. The "pause" is the worst example of populist science overwhelming reality I've seen since the naturalist fallacy. We know there was no pause.

This was merely a statistical artefact of the misuse of a specific dataset by deniers. Which we said right from the beginning.

The energy in the system has been increasing at a predictable rate. That doesn't change just because one dataset shows something that, on first glance, looks like it may be an anomaly.
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 20, 2017
If human-caused Global Warming Were a Science, It Wouldn't Need a PR Campaign
Chris_Reeve
Nov 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
benwelgoed
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2017
Whadayaknow, R..e got off his high horse.
snoosebaum
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2017
i thought the '' heat went in the ocean'' so said bill nye the science guy
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (17) Nov 20, 2017
snoose
i thought the '' heat went in the ocean'' so said bill nye the science guy
Well Bill Nye probably reads a fair number of science papers. The heat actually goes into the whole system - and moves around a lot.

it actually refers to an increase in the total amount of heat energy contained in the Earth's systems


Some reading if you are interested - http://grist.org/...rifying/ Notice the ocean temperature graph. Guess Bill was right - huh?
Mark Thomas
4.4 / 5 (19) Nov 20, 2017
"The activism of climate scientists runs so deep . . . (blah blah blah)"

It is the corruption of those thirsting for the tiniest slice of oil industry profits that runs so deep. If this is a politically charged topic, it is only because oil money, and the misguided who have no idea how science works, has made it so. How do you ignore the tens of billions of dollars of profit the oil companies earn? Is it such a shock the oil industry would do everything they can to try to protect their enormous profits and vast assets? They are using the same disinformation tactics with a few modern twists that the tobacco industry used for decades. They even bought themselves a political party, i.e., the Republican Party. How else can you explain the fact that Republican Party are the only ones certain global warming is not real when the it is obvious to everyone else they are wrong?

Repeat after me: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2017
Cook....Stir.....Cook....Stir....
Look everyone, we "finally" found the missing heat that we already presented over 60 pal-reviewed papers that contradicted and debunked each other.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Parsec
4.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2017
Cook....Stir.....Cook....Stir....
Look everyone, we "finally" found the missing heat that we already presented over 60 pal-reviewed papers that contradicted and debunked each other.


It is so odd that you throw up an example of science working the way it is supposed to to try and discredit the latest scientific results. Of course, you do not actually have any arguments that pertain to the article, or legitimate complaints about the data or reasoning, or you would express them.
Bart_A
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2017
He-said / She-said...We obviously don't have any consensus whatsoever on global warming. The lack of true science and the abundance of politics and marketing what this one of the wierdest topics of all times.
Ojorf
4.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2017
He-said / She-said...We obviously don't have any consensus whatsoever on global warming. The lack of true science and the abundance of politics and marketing what this one of the wierdest topics of all times


Not on here we don't, but actual scientists in this field do have a consensus.
Politics and marketing have been employed to try to obfuscate this consensus, but real, reliable data has caught up with theory and vindicated the science once again.
Only a few diehards still cling to "there is no consensus" BS.
sirdumpalot
5 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2017
He-said / She-said...We obviously don't have any consensus whatsoever on global warming. The lack of true science and the abundance of politics and marketing what this one of the wierdest topics of all times.


https://en.wikipe...rrhenius 1896 buddy, 121 years ago

"Arrhenius estimated based on the CO2 levels at his time, that reducing levels by 0.62 – 0.55 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and an increase of 2.5 to 3 times of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 8–9 °C in the Arctic. In his book Worlds in the Making he described the "hot-house" theory of the atmosphere."
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2017
Shooty shooting the potty miss as always:

If human-caused Global Warming Were a Science, It Wouldn't Need a PR Campaign


Lol probably the dumbest comment i've ever heard from this antigoracle sockpuppet, if denying scientific evidence like you do everyday was a science, you and your bureaucratic clowns would not need intentional actively working political campaigns spread throughout the world thumbsucking lies for the public to suck up.

HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2017
Cook....Stir.....Cook....Stir....
Look everyone, we "finally" found the missing heat that we already presented over 60 pal-reviewed papers that contradicted and debunked each other.


antigoracle clown puppet himself showing his monkey face.... blowing lots of smoke up your pupprts ar$$ses today aren't you :D keep swinging that trees it's what you're good at ;)
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2017
@greeny , so try warming a glass of cold water by putting a bit of warm air over it. Will it sit there not doing much then suddenly warm up ? Remember, warmer air even will not cause any convection. So the heat 'suddenly' went into the ocean .?
and go here ,see for yourself the crappy arctic buoy data from malfunctioning buoys
http://iabp.apl.w...ble.html
how can you correct data from faulty machine when u don't no what the fault is /
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2017
0.130 C per decade , what r the error bars on that ? i guess it was 0.128536832567 rounded up

lol
greenonions1
4.9 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2017
snoose
so try warming a glass of cold water by putting a bit of warm air over it. Will it sit there not doing much then suddenly warm up ?
Which I guess shows your understanding of the earth's climate system. It is like a glass of water - and the only heat source is the warm air above it!!! So the sun does not heat the water directly? Or the ice sheets absorb heat from the sun, and melt. And the water does not move around with ocean currents? And the oceans don't evaporate - forming clouds - that cool, and condense. And, and, and , and.....

I showed you data on the warming of the oceans. If you disagree - please provide your alternate data.
PTTG
5 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2017
You can lead a horse to pearls, but you can't make the swine drink, or something like that.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2017
Re: "Not on here we don't, but actual scientists in this field do have a consensus."

Actually, as we get more firsthand reports from insider whistleblowers who have had the courage to disagree on some aspect of the science, it appears that the "consensus" would be more truthfully called a defensive posture.


Give me one credible example of this. Just one. 99% of climate scientists accept AGW. The other 1% have had every study completely and thoroughly debunked. Who are these whistleblowers and what do they know about basic physics that the rest of the world doesn't?
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2017
@ onions , ah yes the warming oceans,,,'but stay on point , how did all that nye the science guy heat 'suddenly ' go in the oceans ? to cause the pause that never was . 97% of climate scientists make SO much sense .
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2017
snoose
yes the warming oceans,,,'but stay on point
I have stayed totally on point. I gave you data to show that the oceans have been warming. All you have is - well - nothing. Where is your data. You ask how the heat gets into the oceans. Well I already showed you that I at least understand that the climate is a highly complex system. You think it is like a glass of water. Heat is exchanged - between the atmosphere, the land, the ice sheets, the ocean etc.
Ocean temperatures have been rising about 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade on average over the past 50 years
So far you have produced no counter data to refute this fact. So what do you think is causing the oceans to warm? Here - a bit of science for you - it may be too complex for you - more than just a glass of water and warm air - you know - like a complex system - https://insidecli...-warming
leetennant
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2017
Chris-Reeve - that'll be a no, then?

Less glibly, this is basically a screed about the current nature of science publication generally. I know you'll be stunned, STUNNED, to know that climate scientists have the same issues with peer review as everybody else. Nobody ever argued the current system is perfect. But you're arguing against the fundamentals of the science here, not whether some new hypothesis is getting play in a particular journal today.

And, yeah, you got jack shit. Unless you want to use the bazillion words you just employed against climate science to argue for why we also can't accept the science of gravity or evolution.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2017
@ greeny is being evasive, won't answer question . key word; suddenly

its ok,, u believe the bs, now u r clueless
Chris_Reeve
Nov 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2017
snoose
greeny is being evasive, won't answer question . key word; suddenly
It's not a question of being evasive - I have shown you that the question you ask about a glass of water - is irrelevant. It does not represent the complex climate system. You are clearly the clueless one. You think that a glass of water can be used to make inferences about a system as dynamic and complex as the earth's climate. So - basic facts - the earth's system is warming. The data shows that the oceans, and the atmosphere are warming. Either provide evidence that this is not so - or give us an alternative explanation for why they are happening.
Data - http://www.climat...eratures

Come on snoose - instead of name calling - show us your data....
aksdad
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 22, 2017
Still trying to make the inconvenient pause go away. Here it is in all its glory between the big El Niño of 1998 and the big El Niño of 2016.

Satellite measurements:
https://www.nsstc...climate/
http://images.rem...ies.html

They only cover about 97% of the earth's surface, unlike the several thousand ground based measurements which cover a small fraction of the earth. The satellites don't reach the poles, above 85° north and south, where there are only a handful of terrestrial stations. So the terrestrial measurements are extrapolated to cover tens of thousands of square miles where there are no actual measurements, which is dubious at best. That's how these researchers did it. In fact they didn't use air temperatures, they used water temperatures and extrapolated.

It should abundantly obvious from the data that El Niño and other natural climate phenomena have far greater influence on climate than CO2 emissions.

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2017
onoins must work in MSM , stick to the program no matter what . We weren't at this point talking about AGW , but stay on point , how did all that Nye the science guy heat 'suddenly ' go in the oceans ? Did the oceans suddenly cool all over an suck in the heat ? your posted data says not. Nye has been vocal and condeming of opponents but as ignorant as us all.
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 22, 2017
@ greeny is being evasive, won't answer question . key word; suddenly

its ok,, u believe the bs, now u r clueless

What a Maroon, numb nuts snoose lose (an antigoracle sock puppet) here have a Zero counter argument (as with every single post he made throughout the decades, firmly keeping him in the top position as an idiot stoker, (just because you think so doesn't make it so numbty, and actually tries to pin "evasive" on Greenoinins providing Evidence of how the earth heats up.

You see this is why big oil has the pathetic reputation that it has, because of goons like antigoracle being part of their circus.
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 22, 2017
onoins must work in MSM , stick to the program no matter what . We weren't at this point talking about AGW , but stay on point , how did all that Nye the science guy heat 'suddenly ' go in the oceans ? Did the oceans suddenly cool all over an suck in the heat ? your posted data says not. Nye has been vocal and condeming of opponents but as ignorant as us all.


No YOU stay on point, YOU are as dumb as a rock, as you don't understand science when we ask for YOU to provide us evidence of your 1000s of thumb sucked one liners then PUT it on the table, don's run away monkey, Bring your evidence ! We'll keep cracking the whip, and you'll keep jumping like a baboon ;)
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 22, 2017
Still trying to make the inconvenient pause go away. Here it is in all its glory between the big El Niño of 1998 and the big El Niño of 2016.

Satellite measurements:
https://www.nsstc...climate/

They only cover about 97% of the earth's surface, unlike the several thousand ground based measurements which cover a small fraction of the earth. The satellites don't reach the poles, above 85° north and south, where there are only a handful of terrestrial stations. So the terrestrial measurements are extrapolated to cover tens of thousands of square miles where there are no actual measurements, which is dubious at best. That's how these researchers did it. In fact they didn't use air temperatures, they used water temperatures and extrapolated.

.....


It is abundantly crystal clear that you don't have the faintest idea as to how science works let alone climate change, go ask your daddy, he might know more than you can ever imagine ;)
greenonions1
5 / 5 (13) Nov 22, 2017
snoose
We weren't at this point talking about AGW
Yes we were. Discussing the heat that went into the oceans (as well as all the other parts of the system) - is of course discussing AGW. The system is warming. The oceans are a part of that complex system. They warm in different ways. The sun directly heats the upper layers. The atmosphere and ocean surface exchange heat. The layers mix through currents. Ice sheets absorb heat and melt. In the winter - the sheets form again - but there is a clear trend of shrinking. It is a complex system - and it is warming. Your silly analogy with a glass of water - shows you to not understand. Where is your data to refute the facts I have presented? Not a childish analogy that is not relevant - or name calling.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2017
@ greeny , actually u guys are the ones with the glass of water. You ask impossible questions like 'what is the temperature of the earth? '' what is the temperature of the ocean ? '' as though it was a glass of water. '' It is a complex system '' yet its exactly .130 degrees !!!
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PTTG
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2017
Quick reminder: There's nothing to be gained with arguing with the insane.

Look at the number of cults that have predicted multiple apocalypses in a row and still have members.

The good news is that most human beings can ultimately be swayed by the facts of the matter instead of by what's convenient or comfortable to believe in. By all means provide your evidence, make your compelling arguments, but when they bounce off the thick hide of ignorance there's no shame in leaving denialists to their delusion.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PTTG
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2017
>Says not insane.
>Types out a six-post screed.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DirtySquirties
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2017
The empty can rattles the most.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2017
Chris, again, start a blog or something. This has NOTHING to do with this article. Nothing.

For a start, we have three parts of a science like this. First we have the mechanism. Then we have the modelling. Then we have the observations. So why on Earth are you ranting about the process of science publication on articles about the third part of this equation? None of these issues impact climate system measurement.

Meanwhile, ironically, your rant about how social knowledge is often wrong and frequently inconsistent with scientific knowledge is EXACTLY WHAT DENIALISM IS. The fact that people believed there was "a pause" when there wasn't is exactly the kind of social-construction-of-knowledge-that-contradicts-reality that you are railing against.

So why on Earth are you using this argument against science instead of against the fossil-fuel backed campaign of disinformation that caused people to believe there was a pause in the first place?
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
leetennant
5 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2017
Re: "Chris, again, start a blog or something. This has NOTHING to do with this article. Nothing."

It's called the context for the debate.


So do you hang around every single science article making the same arguments. This "context" applies to everything. So I assume you're providing readers of every single article on every single science with this "context" since it's so important. By your argument, there's no consensus on anything and we should be rejecting every bit of scientific knowledge we have.

Oh, and voting Republican because of it. For some reason, that last point causes me to question your motives somewhat, Chris. But I can't wait for you to be seen questioning every other article on phys.org about every field of science. They all need "context" too, right?
Chris_Reeve
Nov 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2017
You can always tell when Chris_Spam gets pwnt. It starts spamming again. In poker they call that a "tell."

And on the article, well, it's good we got more data but we knew that a decade ago. This is just the cherry on top, it's not even the whipped cream.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2017
snoose
actually u guys are the ones with the glass of water
Actually - look back up the thread - and you will see that you are the one who started, and continued to push the simplistic notion that a glass of water could be used to make assertions about a staggeringly complex system such as the climate.
Regarding how scientists are able to arrive at a singular number to use as a reference for global average temp. - here is a pretty good primer - https://www.carbo...perature We are of course free to accept or reject what ever we want. Notice that no matter how many times one asks for your data - crickets chirping. If you ask a geologist how old the earth is - he/she will probably tell you about 4.54 billion years. One is of course free to accept or reject that #. Point is - it is what scientists do - and deniers say "that can't be right - I read it on the back of a corn flake packet"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2017
@chris/hannes the pedo pseudoscience eu cult member
I've been studying scientific controversies and systematically collecting critique of modern science for a full decade now
and in all that time you apparently never noticed that:

1- you can always find someone who has a complaint about certain aspects of any method

2- the overall statistics show that peer review is amazingly effective (especially on any topic that is not medical or soft science)

3- the scientific method is the most effective means to disprove a belief, like the debunking of the eu

you don't like peer review because it won't allow you to publish your blatant pseudoscience

you don't like the scientific method because it provides evidence that your pseudoscience is wrong

attacking it with random opinions is going to be as effective as bringing a pillow to a sword duel and hoping you can smother your victim from 30 paces

using gish-gallop to support your argument is no different
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2017
@chris/hannes the pedo pseudoscience eu cult member cont'd
You seem completely unaware of critiques of modern science
and you are wrong
every actual scientist that I've ever known is very aware of the critiques of modern science as it is on this foundation that modern science is built

it is the reason that modern science requires evidence, falsifiability, testing and validation rather than just accepting comments on faith, like your eu cult dogma

.

the one thing that you have yet to produce is any viable alternative

and to piggy-back on that: you also have produced absolutely no quantifiable or scientific examinations

this is the biggie!
you give plenty of opinion and belief, yet you have absolutely no quantifiable methodical assessment of science

if you want to change how science is done, you must first examine the system without bias while producing a means to predict and test

IOW - ya got nothing
epic gish-gallop fail
SamB
1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2017
The empty can rattles the most.


Contempt is the weapon of the weak and a defense against one's own despised and unwanted feelings.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2017
@onions , yes what i found @ https://www.carbo...ature,,,

''To get a complete picture of Earth's temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.

The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is 'normal' for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an 'anomalies' and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.

A 'positive' anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a 'negative' anomaly means it's cooler.

Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.''

lol ! sounds like instructins on how to get any result u want
greenonions1
5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2017
lol ! sounds like instructins on how to get any result u want
Nothing you quoted indicates a process to 'get any result u want.' But of course - if you feel the process is flawed - write your paper - and submit it. We keep asking the denier community for their alternate data - and crickets chirping. The system is staggeringly complex - and coming to one number that represents that system - is obviously equally complex. The raw data the scientists work with is always available - and if you don't trust the data - go get your own. We await your paper with anticipation...Until you submit your paper - this is the science we work with - and the trends are very clear. Just compare record high temps - to record lows - http://www.climat...ord-lows
Of course - every meteorological association in the world may be in on the grand conspiracy - and falsifying all of their records too. Tin foil hats anyone?
leetennant
5 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2017
" scientists combine measurements from the air above land and ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites.

Sounds reasonable

The temp at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is 'normal' for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period.

30yrs is the time period needed to determine climate so this makes sense too

The differences are called 'anomalies' and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.

You're trying to assess how current conditions compare to the climatic average for a region. This is the way you'd do it.

Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.''

This is called 'statistics'. You want to see how one mean compares to another mean.

Sounds like instructins on how to get any result u want

In what way?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2017
@onions, back to my point , scientists treating the planet as a glass of water , ie ''coming to one number that represents that system - is obviously equally complex '' yes 'complex' -meanigless/impossible

On a separate tact ,i would prefer to see the raw data plotted for each location then count the number that are rising . Wattsup'' has a them for US locations and they are flat

And ,i guess you get to choose your ' normal '
sirdumpalot
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2017
(btw, to all involved, I love that this gets more controversy/discussion than the articles on QM experiments/interpretations on this site! .. As if figuring out actuality-as-it-is is less fraught with error/misunderstanding than putting some CO2 in a glass house, and comparing how it heats up relative to a glass house with less CO2).. AI overlords, you literally can't get here fast enough! :D
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2017
we don't get taxed due to QM , nor is QM a subject of propaganda in MSM
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2017
I stopped paying any attention to @snoose when it started arguing against itself after it got pwnt and denied it. This is pretty obvious stuff. I think it's Russian. YMMV.

#climatetroll identified and ignored. DNFTT.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2017
scientists treating the planet as a glass of water
No Snoose - you were the one with the child like glass of water analogy - showing you do not understand the complexity of the system. The link I gave you gives you a very quick overview of the process of processing millions and millions of data points - and then mathematically establishing a reference point. The data is available to you if you want to disagree. Where is that paper you are going to write about how the whole science community is wrong - and you have better science. Child like science - that thinks a glass of water can offer us any insight into an open - complex system such as the earth's climate. If your default source is WhatsUp - you are clearly looking for an answer that aligns with your political view - rather than really wanting to understand what the science says.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2017
shall we go on and on ?

''The link I gave you gives you a very quick overview of the process of processing millions and millions of data points - and then mathematically establishing a reference point.''

thus arriving at a single number , like a glass of water

yes, i used it as an analogy [ glad u got that ] but then i saw it was how science treats the problem
leetennant
5 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2017
shall we go on and on ?


It's more like round in circles as far as I can tell. You claim scientists are treating climate like a simple closed system. Then you use the simple closed system to show they're "wrong" on account of the attributes of the simple closed system you say they shouldn't be using in the first place.

But since nobody but you ever brought up the "glass of water" then this is not an analogy that works - either for the science or for your critique. So let's put it to bed ok?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2017
@snoose, meanwhile,

On Earth,

Real science doesn't count on one number. That's the way they have to explain it to stupids like you.

Because #climatecrankscantcount.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2017
'''global warming had continued to rise at 0.112C per decade instead of slowing down to 0.05C per decade as previously'''

sure thats not .11798 ?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2017
thus arriving at a single number , like a glass of water
Nope - that number is a mathematical calculation - that is understood as exactly that - a mathematical calculation - that is transparent - and used as a reference point. The high temperature in Oklahoma city today will be 76 F. That is an average right? It may not be 76 in my back yard. It will be more than 76 on my roof top. See how that works? Constructing a mathematical formula for a reference point - is nothing akin to thinking you can make assertions about a system as complex as the climate - with a glass of water analogy. Did you collect millions of data points? Did you compare different systems (satellites with ground gauges etc?) Did you enlist thousands of scientists - to develop, check, cross check you system?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2017
i'm questioning the assertion that you can measure the 'temperature of the earth' or the ocean [in particular ] . where are the error bars ? ,112 eh ? thousands of a degree ,,, well well ,,remarkable for a mind numbingly complex system.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2017
@snooseTROLL
i'm questioning the assertion that you can measure the 'temperature of the earth' or the ocean [in particular ]
no, you're not
your making an ASSumption that you can't take a statistical average from a series of precision measurements and get a global average, which is idiotic

you do realise that is how your local average temp is taken, right? it's a statistical average of a series or measurements in the whole area averaged over time
. where are the error bars ?
try reading the study
it is usually listed under methods etc

crying foul when you refuse to actually get the information is like saying the football players don't exist because you've never seen their contracts to play for a team

IOW - you're making an argument from ignorance because you refuse to accept, or even access, the data
epic stupidity on your part, eh?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
@ stumpers ,i'm sure u can ,but how much faith should we have in it given the small increments involved ? Sea level is another one , alarming headlines but no one has seen the rise

and this article is paywalled
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
@snooseTROLLING
but how much faith should we have in it given the small increments involved
it ain't about faith: it's about the measurements
measurements are never about belief or faith
Sea level is another one , alarming headlines but no one has seen the rise
except you're wrong: we have "seen" the rise because it's been measured
https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

this is like measurement of CO2 levels: you, personally, can't "see" it but it's been repeatedly measured for decades, regardless of your argument against or about it
and this article is paywalled
and your point is?

that actually makes your comments about it all the worse because you're refusing to actually read the contents while making comments about the contents!

that is often called stupidity - just sayin'
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
'''try reading the study'' and your own comments
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2017
@idiot trolling Snoose
'''try reading the study'' and your own comments
1- I don't have a need to read the whole study as of yet

2- the study has not actually refuted any modern data that has been published in science journals, so I don't have a need to purchase the study

3- there are other ways to invalidate your claims as you have repeatedly refused to actually read the science, preferring instead to get your opinion handed to you from some political rhetoric site

4- there is nothing I've stated above that is proven to be false

IOW - until you actually pull your head out you've no leg to stand on for an argument

PS - you can see "sea level rise" listed in various studies, just like you can see the global temperatures as well
they're freely available in various places

choosing to ignore the data becuase you've a politlcal opinion is like chooseing to play russian roulette with a 1911 automatic becuase your senator says it's safe
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2017
Snoose
Sea level is another one , alarming headlines but no one has seen the rise
Well - yes and no. I have very little understanding of the complexities of measuring the sea level. I know the moon pulls on the earth - causing the bodies of water to deflect. Given the size of the earth, and the irregularity of the sea floor, and shore lines - must be a an incredible task. Science tells us that the oceans have risen approx 8 cm in the past 20 years or so. So because it is such a dynamic, large, and complex system - in a sense no one has seen the sea rise. We have proof that it is rising - and that is pretty irrefutable. Example - http://ocean.nati...x450.jpg So no one has seen that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. If you want to challenge the science - you surely have to have a better argument than "I did not see it - so it could not be happening"...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2017
Actually the claim that sea level hasn't already risen turns out not to be correct: https://oceanserv...vel.html

#climatecranks lie whenever they think they won't get caught.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2017
@pseudoscience zeph
This is likely messing up their efforts to classify climate skepticism as not being part of mainstream science
1- scepticism is the foundation of science
it is pseudoscience like yours that makes definitive comments without validation

2- just because a study is published doesn't mean it's validated. there is a difference
this is hard for you to understand being acclimated to pseudoscience over science

of course, this is also why idiots claiming that science doesn't allow controversy or some such stupidity are so wrong in their assessment

3- there are different levels of evidence

most important: #2
just because it's a published study doesn't mean it's debunking anything - lots of science is skeptical against the mainstream (see any published study of MOND)

it ain't debunking climate science unless it's validated
there is plenty of validated science in climate science you're ignoring

IOW - epic red-herring & opinion fail
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2017
@pseudoscience zeph
The really big evil in the world is most often done by people who believe they are doing good
this is your tactic and belief!

but this ain't about your religious beliefs, it's about what is proven to be false

spreading misinformation and blatantly false information is dangerous as it promotes stupidity as a goal rather than critical thinking skills: there is a good reason to debunk people like you posting pseudoscience
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

if you were capable of presenting a scientifically valid argument debunking climate change or AGW you would be collecting a nobel and your excessive funding from the koch bro's and their idiot political supporters

to date the best argument you have is to distract from reality or attempt to cast suspicion on validated science using misinformation and your lack of literacy skills

neither are a match for science
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2017
@ stumpers,, pfft ,,

onions , thanks for the considered response ,

interesting here , https://wattsupwi...a-level/ , shows rise starting in 1850 's consistant with a report about our local glaciers starting to melt about that time .

google censored some photos i saw showing no rise effects , , left wing extremism in the universites is not helping the discussion ,nor is the long history of govenrment deception and crime , this is WAY ! off topic i know but it was just revealed @ Bill Still that re jfk murder Jack ruby knew Oswald prior and also pror knowledge of the event. This does not foster my trust in authority , everyday i see the reach of Bilderberg gangsters. Yes, this has nothing to do perhaps with well meaning scientists but its the context in which we live.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2017
And just for the record, #climatecranks are arguing against data again, just like all #sciencecranks do. They always claim to be arguing against "theories," whatever they mean by that. But always in the end, they wind up arguing against data they can't refute.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2017
The really big evil in the world is most often done by people who believe they are doing good. Hitler also wanted to save his country from "Jewish parasites" and he believed firmly in his messianic mission... He definitely had no moral issues with it.


Excellent example of Godwin's Law, reductio ad Hitlerum.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2017
@Maggnus, #dataequalshitler.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2017
or with data they can't find , toronto u'd think it would be easy data stops in 2003 , would love to see all the yearly charts by location

http://climate.we...ar=2004#
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2017
Not the single number your stupidity insists on, @snoose, which you then whine about.

The real multivalued multidimensional data you don't have the math or intelligence to understand because you're a stupid and a #climatecrank.

One really does have to wonder if you can actually be that stupid or if you're another #russianprovocateur.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2017
lol , russians ! .Я говор�Ž по-русски ?#* !! .. Who needs math, just plot the bloody raw data and let us have a look

https://www.faceb...atherRu/
greenonions1
5 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2017
snoose
just plot the bloody raw data and let us have a look
The raw data is available - you can look all you want. What are you looking for, and why? Science is a collaborative process. Millions of hours of research - all grist for the mill. In our research classes (psychology unfortunately) - it was drummed into our heads - that we had to document our experiments with relentless detail - so others could verify/duplicate/develop our research. Pons Fleishman (sp) got into their trouble cuz no one could duplicate their findings. Science is not done from the comments section of an internet site - that is where those that don't know science come to criticize research - despite not having the requisite training and knowledge. Then the absurdity comes out - like trying to make assertions about the climate system - based on a glass of water...
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2017
i can look all i want ? i'm trying, no luck . its frustrating cause i can see the raw data at various weather sites but its not in graphical form. If i poke about at random its hard to see any trend Can't find the stuff tony Heller had either. Anyway its a big subject , i'm just teasing u guys around the edge .
howhot3
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2017
Well, the science says;
Added Arctic data shows global warming didn't pause
which for most of us is just saying the obvious; *DUUHHHH*. But still we have climate deniers, basically very irreputable people. A climate denier is basically the equivalent of a flat earth believer. That's someone that is so stupid as to require a manual on how to MOUTH BREATH! We are talking belly of an earth worm dumb.

Lets not forget that climate change deniers CHOOSE to be that way. Enjoy you unhappy unscience life denier goonies and you know who you are.

TrollBane
not rated yet Dec 10, 2017
Wherever Chris Reeve, Snoozebum and the like go into their Gish Gallop spamming frenzies, post a reminder that members have an option to ignore.

For those new here, if you are signed in, hover over a quote from one of the denialists to show links that allow you to Ignore, Quote or Report. You can ignore all posts from the commenter.

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.