Only in Greenspeak.

The deniers are trying to sew uncertainty in the non-scientific community. Uncertainty that leads to inaction. Because they are being paid.

What I don't understand is why they are swarming all over this site. Do they really think they are fooling anyone? Seems, well, stupid. But then this is a group that is trying to refute reality smacking them in the face.

a) it is somewhat effective strategy to have shills post pro-pollution propaganda on green sites

b) and the folks "just trying to make next quarters numbers" (regardless of how many bodies they have to climb over in the process ;-) don't even have to pay them (directly)

Jabby above is a fine example of the breed. You can get that sort of crank for free by simply spending money on targeted advertising. All you have to do is create an identity for them to assume (I haven't looked too closely, but I think our little friend here has embraced "rugged individualist standing against the elitist environmentalists", though there are always new counterfactual ID's being rolled out, so it's hard to tell. He, of course, has no idea. If he had the gift of introspection he wouldn't be wasting his time here... :-)

I'm not sure what the best strategy for dealing with these sort of social idiot savants is, though. Jabby, for instance, isn't actively abusive, and I'd guess that for regulars like me he's actually kind of comforting (you figure if your opponents are that clueless you have a good chance of winning - in much the same way lots of liberals secretly like having Mallard Filmore around as long as we don't have to actually read it ).

I suppose there is a possibility that he's passing disinformation to newbies, though. Perhaps some sort of tag could be attached to posters that lie all the time? Probably more trouble than it's worth, really.

I guess I vote that we keep him as a sort of mascot... :-)

Actually, I agree with you Viridian. He is kind of fun to have around, and I'm fairly sure he's the longest lasting troll we've ever had on here. The day I don't see his comments all over Gristmill, I will feel a twinge of regret at the loss of such a brilliant source of humour. He could even believe in AGW, and merely be a brilliant satirist of the denier viewpoint.

Apropos La Niña: is it just me, or are these events becoming more and more frequent? I remember reading once you expect them a couple of times a decade, but we just had an El Niño the year before last.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

A seasonal variation in the onset of postoperative adhesive small bowel obstruction is related to changes in the climate

Conclusion. The typical winter weather in Tokyo is characterised by low temperatures, low humidity and moderate air pressure. These winter climate conditions could be correlated with an increased incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction in Tokyo during our observation period.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'Oceania'...

http://www.gerenser.com/1984/quote.html

"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated." --pg 60

Increased "noise" or fluctuations is also a sign of climate imbalance.  

If this is noise, then most should be deaf by now.

Temperatures have been static since 1998.  Now they are declining.   Yet CO2 continued to increase to record levels during the 00s.

How could there be any correlation?

In the "at rest" state, the coils were all in contact with their neighbors, so that the entire spring was only about four inches long.  The coils were soft enough and numerous enough that you could easily pull the two ends more than five feet apart without causing permanent deformation of the coils.

One method of playing with the toy was to hold the two ends of the spring in your hands, with your hands "palms up" a few inches apart, such that the Slinky formed a rainbow-like arch between your palms.  By alternately raising one hand and lowering the other, it was possible to make the central mass of coils smoothly move from the higher hand to the lower hand, almost as if you were "pouring" the coils like water.

If you got creative with your hand movements, either by moving them faster or slower than the natural frequency of the coil flow, or by moving one hand more than the other, it was possible to make the central mass of coils move in opposition to the motion of your hands.

While we were playing like this, we enjoyed the idea that it was possible to synchronize the movement of the coils with the movement of our hands, or to produce a wide variety of motions where the coils were "out of phase" with our hands.

But regardless of the phase relationship between the coil flow and our hand motions, we always knew that our hands were driving the system.

The idea that a driving function and a driven function must always be in phase is wrong.  The phase relationship depends on the responsiveness of the functions.

It is thus also wrong to think that there can be no cause-and-effect relationship between functions which are sometimes (or even always) out-of-phase.


Hoping to be nice.

But regardless of the phase relationship between the coil flow and our hand motions, we always knew that our hands were driving the system.

The idea that a driving function and a driven function must always be in phase is wrong.  The phase relationship depends on the responsiveness of the functions.

Yes, and obviously this is the 'forcing' argument...that the CO2 is not directly driving the the heating, but acting as an input to a system that keeps that system (Global Warming) going.

Another analogy is a swing.   I do not make the person in the swing go higher and higher by constant pushing, but by pushing at just the right time.

If you got creative with your hand movements, either by moving them faster or slower than the natural frequency of the coil flow, or by moving one hand more than the other, it was possible to make the central mass of coils move in opposition to the motion of your hands.

However, with both this arguments, Gore's presentation falls apart (as does the IPCCs) because here the "System" (earth) is a contained system that has its own frequency and standard maxima/minimum.   So, to a point, a person can push and push and the swing will go up higher and higher and then that's it.    The swing has its own balance.   In the same way that your Slinky didn't go into a state of super large oscillations and explode in your hands.

Thus one of the key questions we might ask is whether we really want to risk accelerating any changes to the climate we, and all the other species, are currently adapted to, even if our accelerations will not significantly affect the achievable maximum (or subsequent minimum).


Hoping to be nice.

There appears to be some evidence that as the climate moves outside the range of its typical thermal median, considerable loss of life occurs.

In 1820 there were 1 billion humans.

In 2008 there are 6 billion.

You and I have a 5 out 6 chance of not being here right now if it weren't for Global Warming and all the benefits that accrued to human life from warmer temperatures.

But if one does not exist, I think the non-existent-one probably is not able to regret it.  And if one exists and injures the world, I'm not sure one's existence is still a good thing.

If the climate has warmed by X degrees since 1820 and our population has exploded, endangering not just the other species but our own, how can we be sure an additional X degrees of accelerated warming is good?  If the answer is "we can't", should we be cautious in the face of the uncertainty?


Hoping to be nice.

"...But regardless of the phase relationship between the coil flow and our hand motions, we always knew that our hands were driving the system.
The idea that a driving function and a driven function must always be in phase is wrong. The phase relationship depends on the responsiveness of the functions.
It is thus also wrong to think that there can be no cause-and-effect relationship between functions which are sometimes (or even always) out-of-phase..."

Your "slinky" toy may seem a good analogy, but bear in mind that it is a very "pure" purpose-built machine, which has no significant inefficiencies, and all the +/- impulses and elastic reactions are in-series in special appositions.  Another thing is that it is not really driven by the hands, but by utilizing bio-feedback of hand-eye-brain, to learn and tune a skill for a desired result.  A subtle error in skill in trying to achieve desired complex interactions, and I imagine, (I have not tried a slinky), the result would be "disappointing".  Can you think of any natural process that is analogous to your more complex intelligence driven synchronicity skills on a special machine?

Also, your special purpose-built machine would not work if it was less perfect, say with randomly varying diameters of the coils, or something with different responses were to be linked in parallel, (as distinct from in-series), to it etc.  In free-fall, the machine would behave differently without the downward gravitational force on your "rainbow" shape, and so-on.  A clever (and very, very patient) engineer, could probably accurately calculate the weird relative movements and phases etc, if all its material and metrology details were known.  This again makes the machine very different to what happens in climate change matters.

The greenhouse theory as it is applied to an increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere requires that all other things being equal, the average surface air temperature, will increase in a progressive but complex way.  (~logarithmically)

Whilst there has been a general rise in both parameters over the last century or so, there was a pronounced cooling period from about 1940 to 1958, depending on source and smoothing method.  It was also arguably ~flat from about 1950 to maybe 1978.   It has also been ~flat for the last ten years, and 2008 may well net a down-trend for eleven years. (again, depending on source and smoothing/trending techniques used)

Remember, that the AGW theory, all other things being equal, should show a progressive rise in temperature, with the progressive rise of CO2.  Not only are the down, or flat trends uncharacteristic of this simple progressive relationship, but the very sharp rise for two decades prior to 1998, is also uncharacteristic.  

There are several possible causes for these deviations:
a)  There is something else causing temperature change other than, or in addition to increasing CO2.........and/or
b)  The data contain errors, and/or c) are not representative of realistic parameters.  

Concerning b)   Bad data can be proven in part, and c) What the heck is a global average temperature anyway, and does recent infra-red measurement of CO2 on a volcanic Hawaiian island at over 3,000 metres altitude represent a global average anyway?
But that's all another L  O  N  G story!

Regards,  BobFJ

If I were to do the same thing usin' Phoenix, then we could conclude that the global average tempurature reaches over 100 degrees in the summer and that the Amazon rainforest is a desert.

Second, and once again as we've discussed before, stop trying to use global warming as the primary reason behind the human population explosion.  

Any real reasearch will show that the populoation explosion is attributed to a large number of causes.  Also that, as a whole (with notable exceptions), until recently, the temperature was relatively stable during the population explosion.

Also, as has been pointed out to ya before, the vast majority of the people born in the population explosion were born in third world countries, live in poverity, and lack access to things such as clean water and adequate food supplies.  

Yes, I agree, but the T versus CO2 relationship alone, (= all other things being equal), is not a complex system, therefore, obviously there must be something else that causes departure from that simple characteristic relationship.
Thank you for further demonstrating my point.  

Both the surface and satellite records show that there has been no warming in the past decade (1998-2008).
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

To confirm this, all you have to do is download the monthly data from January 1998 to today into Excel and put in the linear trend line.

You will see that it is flat.

When the IPCC Chairman was recently asked about this, he said he would check if there were possibly natural factors that had caused this observed "plateau".

The prior trend from 1976 to 1998 has been used by IPCC as the basis for claiming accelerated global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

This record covers 22 years, or 2.2 times the time span of the most recent flat trend.

On this basis IPCC projected temperature increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century.

Is the most recent 10-year record a "trend"?  Is it a temporary "anomaly"?  Who knows?
We will have to wait and see.

But it does raise serious questions about the ability of the IPCC climate models to project future temperature increase.

Now there are those that will "debunk" the statement that global warming appears to have slowed down by accusing me of introducing an "artifact" by choosing January 2008 as the start of the "past decade", since 1998 was the warmest year on record.

So I did the same analysis with different starting points.

If I plot the trend starting January 1999 I get a linear trend of +0.009 degrees C per decade (less than 5 percent of the +0.2 degrees C per decade as projected for the first two decades in the 21st century by IPCC in its 2007 SPM report). Looks pretty close to "flat" to me.

Then I also checked the actual trend with later start dates:
Starting in 2000, the warming trend is +0.004 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2001, the cooling trend is -0.009 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2002, the cooling trend is -0.018 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2003, the cooling trend is -0.023 degrees C per decade

It looks like the IPCC Chairman is correct when he refers to the recent flat trend as a "plateau" in global warming and the "debunkers" of the flat trend are "flat wrong", based on the facts.

Regards,

Max

The record over the past 10 years shows that global warming has stopped.

The IPCC Chairman has acknowledged that there has been a "plateau" in global warming.

So let's all accept this fact and be happy.

The end of the world (from global warming) is not near despite the hysterical predictions of James E. Hansen and Al Gore.

Isn't that good news, folks?

Max

Really, now?  Care to cite him specifically with that statement?  Provide a link?

Check:
http://www.globalgoldtalk.com/investments/72825-ipcc-chai ...
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/2008_01.htm ...
http://groups.google.com.eg/group/aus.invest/browse_threa ...
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/200 ...
http://www.britanniaradio.co.uk/?q=node/4659
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/cli ...
Regards,

Max

You can confirm, all for yourself, that there has been a "plateau" in warming over the past decade.

The facts are there.

All you have to do is check the data. It's real easy.

Regards,

Max

If anyone has any data that refute this, please bring it now.

Otherwise admit that this is the case.

Global warming showed major temperature increase during the 22-year period from 1976 to around 1998 (following a cooling trend during the 31-year period from around 1945 to 1976).  Now it has started to level off (or even cool down) in the 10-year period starting in 1998.

Whether this trend will continue is anyone's guess.

You can go back even further and you will see multidecadal swings from warming to cooling, with an underlying warming trend of around 1 degree C over the past 150 years.

Those are the facts, folks.

Everything else is conjecture and hype.

Max

Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel
Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look
into the theory of a temperature plateau so far this century.

"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this
really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors
compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.

Where, exactly, in there does it say that he confirms, and supports the theory that there is a "plateau".  He says he'll "look into it".  

Just because someone looks into somethin', that doesn't mean they acknowledge it's existence.

Hi TP,

You wrote: "Just because someone looks into somethin', that doesn't mean they acknowledge it's existence."

The temperature "plateau" is an established fact, supported by the actual global land and sea surface temperature anomaly record, as measured by Hadley and others.

All you have to do to confirm this is download the data, plot it in Excel and put in a linear trend line.

The trend for the past decade has been "flat".

This is true even if you eliminate the record year 1998.

It is true if you start with the 21st century.

Pachauri is well enough informed to know about these things.

He said he would look into the reasons for this apparent plateau (i.e. "are there natural factors compensating?"), not that he would confirm that it actually exists (since no confirmation or acknowledgement of an established fact is required).

Whether the past decade constitutes a new trend or is just a 10-year "blip" in the curve is a matter of conjecture and not really pertinent to the discussion at this point.

IPCC projected linear rate of increase of 0.2C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century.  So far the first 8 years of the 21st century have been flat.

Pachauri will let us know his take on what the causes are for this plateau.  Let's see what he tells us.

Regards,

Max

Here's some more stuff on temperatures that might interest you.

Since global temperature records have been kept (based on the UK's Hadley Centre), and we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age, there have been several multi-decadal cycles from warming to cooling, with an overall slight warming trend.

Period    Trend    Years    Increase   
1860-1879    0.196    20    0.39   
1879-1906    -0.047    27    -0.13   
1906-1940    0.161    35    0.56   
1940-1976    -0.020    36    -0.07   
1976-1998    0.175    22    0.39   
1998-2008    0.000    10    0.00   

Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
Increase is linear increase over period in degreesC

Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend.  

This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken).  

This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906.  

Then came another warming trend until around 1940, followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (this one has been very briefly rationalized by IPCC, without any supporting evidence, as having been caused by anthropogenic aerosol emissions).  

Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase from 1976 to 1998.

This trend appears to have reached a "plateau" from 1998 to today, in sharp contrast to the IPCC projections from model studies, which predicted a record rate of increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades in the 21st century.

The longer-term trend over all these cycles has been an increase of somewhat more than 1 degree C over the 150+ years of measurement.  

In its TAR (2001) IPCC reported an increase over the 20th century (1901-2000) of 0.6 degree C.

If one "jiggles" the definition of the 20th century (as IPCC did in its 2007 SPM report) to replace the 1900-1906 cooling trend with an essentially flat trend from 2000 to 2006, one can show a 100-year increase of 0.74 degrees C.

Interestingly, the highest decadal rate of increase occurred over the 20-year period from 1860 to 1879, in the "horse and buggy" days long before AGW was a problem.  

The multidecadal cycles are apparent in the record, as is the underlying warming trend over the entire period.

Whether or not the past 10 years are the beginning of a new "flat" or cooling cycle remains to be seen.

What is apparent, however, is:
·    that temperatures are in an overall slow rising trend
·    that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming
·    that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe
·    that the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends is limited

Regards,

Max

Kinda like when I say I'll "look into" the research of Bigfoot's existence.

Just cause I look into it, that doesn't mean that I'll determine that Bigfoot exists.

IPCC projected linear rate of increase of 0.2C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century.  So far the first 8 years of the 21st century have been flat.

I don't know which version of the report you're referin' to, but the latest version cleary shows a rise in temperatures...not a predicted rise, but an actual, measured worldwide average rise in temperatures, for at least the first 6 years of this century.

Please provide a link to the section of the latest IPCC report that indicates that temperatures have remained flat durin' the first 6 years of this century to verify your claims.

Hey TP,

You wrote: "Please provide a link to the section of the latest IPCC report that indicates that temperatures have remained flat durin' the first 6 years of this century to verify your claims."

I am not talking about the "first 6 years".  I am talking about the latest decade, i.e. 1998 to 2008.

The IPCC report?  Duh!

Of course they have not brought anyone's attention to this fact.  

You need to go to the SOURCE of the data, in this case the Hadley record of the globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

Then you need to download the data for the period January 1998 to February 2008.

You need to plot this actually observed temperature trend into Excel and then put in a linear trend line.

You will see that the trend is flat (as I am sure Dr. Pachauri is fully aware, since it is his business to be aware of what is going on in "global temperatures").

It's not too hard to do this to convince yourself of what is REALLY going on out there, TP. If you are not able to do these steps yourself, get someone who knows how to work Excel to do it for you.

Just try it, and you will see that there has been a "plateau" since 1998.  

And Pachauri has said he will let us know the reason for this observed "plateau"

Get it?

Regards,

Max

Once you have absorbed the fact that the temperature trend over the past decade has been flat, you may wish to check out my other post covering longer term trends and fluctuations.

You won't find much about these in the IPCC reports either.

But follow my advice. Eliminate the "middle man".

Go to the SOURCE of the data, not to IPCC, if you want facts on global temperature trends.

Regards,

Max

The first six years was from 2000 to 2006, dummy.  

Figures aren't even out for 2008 (because the year isn't even over yet).

And the report was released before the figures for 2007 could be confirmed.

The IPCC report shows an increase in average temperatures from 2000 to 2006.  It also shows an increase from 1995 to 1999.

Once again, these were actual measurements, not predictions, so where exactly do ya get the idea that the temperature plateau was reached in the last decade?

Don't be impolite and call me "dummy".

Just get someone who can work Excel to download the Hadley temperature anomaly figures from January (or if you prefer March) 1998 to February 2008 and put in a linear trend line.

YOU WILL SEE THAT THE GLOBALLY AVERAGED SURFACE LAND AND SEA TEMPERATURE ANOMALY TREND HAS BEEN FLAT FOR THE PAST DECADE.

Do not obfuscate, do not change the subject, do not waffle.

Just check the facts.

They are plain for everyone to see.

And do not call those that bring your attention to this fact a "dummy".

It just shows that you are impolite (and, possibly, immature).

Got it?

Regards,

Max

Did ya do this just by yourself?

'Cause I find it awfully suspicious that somehow you've come up with a different conclusion than almost every other reputable climatologist on the planet.

I find it even more suspicious since you're not a climatologist yourself.

So what, exactly, you're sayin' that the thousands certified climatologists are wrong and you're right, just 'cause you're usin' the Hadley model?

They are plain for everyone to see.

Then how come none of the climatologists seem to agree with you, if the "facts" are so plain to see?

There's a reason why we call people like you dummys...it's cause you somehow think that you know more 'bout the subject than thousands of experts who have spent decades researching the subject of climate.

I would encourage all Grist readers who are curious about this to use the link below, visit the Hadley web site, and look at the graph which Hadley plots from their data set, for the years 1850 - 2007.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

The blue line on the graph is the smoothed annual average of the annual average temperatures, within their 95% confidence bars.  As best I can read the graph, this blue "smoothed annual average" line shows a temperature increase of around 0.1 degrees C for the eight years from 1998 - 2005 inclusive, with a slight decrease of perhaps 0.01 degrees C from 2005 - 2007, giving an overall increase of 0.9 degrees C over that specific ten year span.

This trend does not seem to be flat.

We might reasonably wonder how it is that a commenter on this thread can calculate a flat trend from the Hadley data, when Hadley's calculations from the same data show a significant temperature rise.

The answer might be that a linear trend line is not very good at showing trends in data with non-linear variations, such as this temperature data.

That may also explain why Hadley does not use a linear trend line on their graph of their data.

For comparison, another graph of the temperature trend was recently posted on Grist, accessible at the link below:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/4/121748/2663

This graph uses a 5 year mean (the red line on the graph) to try to identify the trend.

-----

I think it is very important to understand that even though non-linear trend calculations are more accurate than linear trend calculations when dealing with non-linear data sets, focusing on small parts of a data set can lead to confusion about overall trends regardless of the calculation method.

The complexity of trend calculations also means that readers who don't have math educations should not rely exclusively on their own calculations, but should seek interpretation from credible sources.

------

Hope this helps...


Hoping to be nice.

"The blue line on the graph is the smoothed annual average of the annual average temperatures, within their 95% confidence bars.  As best I can read the graph, this blue "smoothed annual average" line shows a temperature increase of around 0.1 degrees C for the eight years from 1998 - 2005 inclusive, with a slight decrease of perhaps 0.01 degrees C from 2005 - 2007, giving an overall increase of 0.9 degrees C over that specific ten year span."

Obviously that 0.9 degrees C number was supposed to be 0.09 degrees C.  Sorry for the typo.

-----


Hoping to be nice.

The Hadley trend from January 1998 to February 2008 is flat.

The Hadley record from January 2000 to February 2008 shows a warming trend of +0.05C/decade.

The Hadley record from January 2001 to February 2008 shows a cooling trend of -.11C/decade.

Go to Hadley, the source of the data, MNG, not to a Gristmill graph or to an IPCC report. These will only confuse the issue.  

This is what I have advised TP to do, but he has not done so. Maybe it is because he knows full well what the data show.

The data are the data and that is what they tell us has happened over the past decade including the most recent data points.

It's actually quite simple.

The trend has been flat for the past decade.

Regards,

Max

Happy plotting!

Regards,

Max

Another tip for TP alone.  Get someone who knows how to work Excel to download the Hadley data directly and draw a linear trend line for you (if you are unfamiliar with how Excel works).  You will see that I am not a "dummy", after all.

Happy plotting!

Regards,

Max

Deniers are not interested in reason or discourse. They are engaging in a propaganda war. Motivated by greed and ideology, they are interested only in perpetrating the notion that there is a controversy about global warming and its causes.

The good news is that the public and the media are finally on to them, and are no longer buying it.

"Motivated by greed and ideology?"

Hmmm... What a bunch of unsubstantiated rhetorical hogwash!

Grow up, buddy.

We need MNG (or your Mommy) to teach you some basic manners (or spank your bottom).

Max

Don't let the rant from Robco1 distract you from downloading the Hadley data and checking it out.

It will probably be an eye-opener for you.

Keep me posted on your progress.

Regards,

Max

PS  Just stick with facts, MNG. No need to get distracted by a "temperature trend" that "was recently posted on Grist", or get into a philosophical discussion about "readers who don't have math educations should not rely exclusively on their own calculations, but should seek interpretation from credible sources."

Just a tip, so you don't look silly next time.

Regards,

Max

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

When you visit this web page, look at the header at the top of the page.  You will see that you are at the Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets web site.

Look at the graph on this page.  This isn't a Grist graph.  It isn't an IPCC graph.  It is Hadley's own graph, with Hadley's trend line calculated from Hadley's data.

Judge for yourselves...

-----


Hoping to be nice.

I haven't confirmed this with the author of that Grist story, but I think the graph on that page was derived from NASA GISS data.

The link below, to a NASA GISS web site, has a very similar graph on it, which as I mentioned previously uses a different method of calculating the trend than Hadley used with their data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

There are other graphs of temperature on that web page as well.

This GISS web page is the responsibility of James E. Hansen, which is probably why one of the other commenters on this thread referred to the graph in the aforementioned Grist story as an "IPCC" graph.

Grist readers should be aware that there is more than one "data set" of temperature data in use by climate researchers.  Hadley and NASA GISS are two of them.  The data sets apparently don't precisely agree with each other and each data set has its supporters and detractors.

-----

Hoping to be nice.

Do you realize that you are avoiding the issue here?

Rather than talking about what is an "IPCC graph" and other obfuscations, just do yourself a simple favor and actually download the Hadley Centre raw data.  It is actually very easy for anyone to do, without the need of expert opinion or advice from climate experts.

You made a statement: "Grist readers should be aware that there is more than one "data set" of temperature data in use by climate researchers.  Hadley and NASA GISS are two of them.  The data sets apparently don't precisely agree with each other and each data set has its supporters and detractors."

Duh!  This is a rather obvious statement that has nothing to do with the issue here. UAH is another data set.  This also has nothing to do with our discussion.

You will see, MNG, that all of these "data sets" agree that the temperature trend from January 1998 to February 2008 was flat. "Flat" means no increase in temperature for 10 years (= 1 decade). Is this difficult to grasp?

Just admit this fact and then we can move on.

Otherwise, bring evidence why this is not correct.

This is called "put up or shut up".

"Hoping to be nice, anyway."

Regards,

Max

Have you heard the expression:  "you can prove anything with statistics'?  There is another coarser one about knickers, you may have heard.

Did you know there are quite a variety of filters, and whatnot, which can give different outcomes over a long-term data set.  However, these do not make any sense at all over a short term period.  Max is perfectly correct in taking a linear trend over the past ten years or so. Nothing else would be meaningfull.

Incidentally, the infamous hockey-stick (MBH99)
used a 40-year smoothing, with an end-cheat of 20-years, but what sort of filter I do not know.

There's a charity I'm involved with called Together.com that is based around these principles. Some of the things you can do are so straightforward, and they're also running a competition at the moment in which you can win a load of eco-friendly prizes. Seeing as its a "confess your eco sins" theme, even some of you sceptics might be interested...

In your reference recently to a trend graph, I was surprised to see that the annual trend graph was stated to use a: 21-point binomial filter.   I had not heard of such a filter before and it was late, so I let it pass.  My puzzle was that if this was a weasel-name for 21-year smoothing, then the smoothed line should end 10.5 years short of the end of the data.  To explain more; a 21-year smoothing, (of which there are several varieties) means that for any point in the data set, all the data for 10.5 years either side of that point is treated mathematically to obtain a smoothed trend at its centre.  This is done, in order to eliminate noise, and emphasise low frequency trends.Thus, at the end of the data set, there is no data available to the right of that point.  Why 21 years?  Well it can be any period in order to achieve a desired result in smoothing.  As I mentioned before MBH99 employed 40-year smoothing.

So the question remains; where did Hadley find additional data out to about 2018?

So, I went to a data expert's site, and here you have a more detailed review @
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955

Enjoy your reading.   BobFJ

Hi Sarah,

While I fully agree with your premise that "it make sense to be proactive", I can also endorse Black Wallaby's remark to you.

The 4 million deaths annually attributed by the WHO to lack of clean drinking water and electrical power among the hundreds of millions of poorest individuals of this world is a horrible problem, as you will surely agree.

The 20,000 individuals that lose their lives from "extreme weather events" (including extreme cold) annually are an insignificant drop in the bucket in comparison.

The real problem here, Sarah, is that "global warming" is a "rich man's (and woman's)" problem involving billions of dollars of research grants, etc. and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, ( i.e. really big bucks) being shuffled around by politicians, bureaucrats, carbon trading companies, hedge funds, etc.  This translates into big bucks for some already rich folks.

The problems of the poorest who are dying every year from the lack of clean drinking water or electrical power to cook without inside burning of wood, dung, etc. is less "sexy", because it is a "poor man's (and woman's) problem.  No "big bucks" being shuffled around by already well-to-do individuals.  No big PR or media campaigns. No big bucks to be made by already well-to-do folks.

My suggestion would be: let's solve the real problems first, before we get distracted by the virtual computer generated "maybe future" problem of possibly alarming "global warming".

What do you think, Sarah?

Regards,

Max

The wiggly black line is an arbitrarily selected 20-year smoothing of apparently unpublished code which was selected to give a desired low frequency smoothing. By definition, there is no data available for the last half cycle of 10 years, (See my earlier posts), so there is apparently an extrapolation coding to "invent" that missing data through to ~2018.

However, if we draw a vertical line at 1998, and then black-out everything to the left, that becomes irrelevant, and we can then purely consider the trend from thence forward.  Notice that 1998 is a high spike, which is followed by two down reversals which virtually neutralize it.

Now don't worry about what sort of statistical treatment of whomever's choice might be applied to this 10-year period, or any part of it; just eyeball it and you should be able to see that the trend over that short period is flat.  It's quite simple really, no need to make a meal of it!

PLEASE READ @: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
For greater understanding

Just went through all four global temperature records.

They all pretty much show that the most recent global warming trend stopped in 2001.

The linear trend of the 4 records from January 2001 to today is:

Hadley: -0.108 deg C per decade
RSS:   -0.060 deg C per decade
UAH:   -0.004 deg C per decade
GISS:  0.00 deg C per decade

Who knows if this flat/cooling trend will continue beyond the past seven years?

At which point will we be able to say that these data, indeed, constitute a new trend and not just a "blip" in the curve?

I do not want to make any forecasts here, because forecasts are tricky.

Hope this concludes our exchange on recent global temperature trends.

Regards,

Max

Why is it, exactly, do ya think that your analysis, contradicts that of more than 4,000 certified climatologists with advanced degrees and decades of research behind 'em?

What, exactly, is your profession of field of study that would make you or your idea that temperatures have stabilized, in anyway credible?

You keep sayin' that these "facts" are plain to see, and yet the scientific community doesn't seem to agree with these "facts"...so how, exactly do ya explain?

Do ya believe it is all a conspiracy?

BTW January 1, 2001 is the official beginning of the "21st century" (Wikipedia), so it is accurate to say that all four temperature records confirm that there has been no trend of global warming in this century, right?

(Maybe one should add a "so far" disclaimer, to be on the safe side.)

But it does raise a question about the sub-headline of the lead article here: "Global temps may drop this year, but, alas, world still warming"

Hmm... Just something to think about.

But I have enjoyed our exchange on this and other subjects, and you are a nice guy.

Regards,

Max

Check the data for yourself.  They are out there for one and all to see.

Regards,

Max

_

1. We're experiencing a La Nina right now. (The Reverse of an El Nino) That causes cooling.
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2008/03/2 ...

2. We're currently at the very very bottom of the last ~11 year solar radiation cycle.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif

Take those two temporary(!) factors away, and it's gonna be a lot hotter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL11121643 ...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle2 ...

(And yes, climate change isn't caused by a single variable, however here are four of the big ones)

1. Solar Irradiance
   
2. Volcanic/Other Airborne Dust
   
3. ElNino/LaNina
   
4. Greenhouse gases.
   

Thanks for your weather (`scuse me, climate) forecast.

So maybe 2008 will continue the observed cooling/flat trend of the past seven years. That will make it an eaight-year "blip" in the curve.

And I really hope you are right that it will start warming again (or at least not continue to cool) after 2008.

But what if you are wrong?

Could happen.  Happens to the best of guys when they are forecasting the weather (`scuse me, climate).

Regards,

Max

Imagine for a moment that we have been measuring the daily temperature fluctuations inside a greenhouse.  Suppose we now have a temperature vs. time graph that spans 5 days, with 100 data points.  Imagine that the temperature data forms an up-and-down oscillation, kind of like: VVVVV  with 20 data points per down-up cycle (one "V").

Now imagine that we want to look at the trends, but we don't like the full data set for some reason, so we choose to limit ourselves to a tiny subset of this data, say the 10 data points that make up the last upswing of the last temperature oscillation, which rises upward in temperature like a "/".

Why would we do that?  If we ignore the preceding 90 data points and just calculate the temperature trend for these final 10 data points, the trend would indicate a half-day temperature increase with an upward slope equal to the angle of the "/".  Even though the trend calculation for this data subset is done properly, how much does it tell us about the future temperature in the greenhouse?

If we calculated the linear temperature trend for the entire 100 data points, it would be a flat, horizontal line through the middle of the data, which is obviously a very different trend than the trend for the last 10 data points in isolation.

If we wanted to estimate what the future temperatures would be in the greenhouse, wouldn't our estimate of future temperatures be most accurate if we used the full data set to try to see what the past temperature oscillations looked like, to help us understand what drives the oscillations, and reduce the uncertainty in our estimates of future temperatures in that greenhouse?

And if our predictive abilities would be better when using the full data set for that greenhouse, why would we want to limit our analysis of Earth's surface temperature history to the most recent 10 years of data when we are trying to estimate what our future temperatures might be?

-----

Hoping to be nice.

If you actually think about the question: what has happened over the past ten years, the result is plain to see.

Try to understand my post above entitled "just eyeball it".  Forget about what happened before that period, and forget about broad band filtering (statistical) treatments, because they cannot be applied to a ten year period alone.

Remember not to address a direct question by responding on matters which are on different data or context etc.

You need to understand what the issue is and not react as if it were something else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Something that caught my interest in your many wisdoms, are your curious abbreviations, such as:

Sayin'

Why do you do that rather than type saying?

Do you think it saves a byte or two in the ether?
Do you think it is clearer in expression?
Do you think it saves ink if thousands run a print copy to hang on their wall?
Do you think it it reveals your personality?

This is the only thing I found interesting in your posts

Uh-huh...then why, exactly, is it that none of the scientific community "sees" it?

If you are so sure that you're correct then I hereby issue a challenge to ya, Max.

Here is the challenge: send the data, along with your assertions, to a certified climatologist, and see what (s)he makes of it.

If ya need help, I can direct ya to some people who study the subject here at the state technological college.  Or ya can just choose a reputable climatologist of your own.

This is a chance for ya to prove yourself, and your assertions correct.

Well, are ya up for the challenge?

Oh, and to answer Black Wallaby...it's just who I am.  I guess ya can say it helps reveal my personality, if ya like.

Tell me oracle, who enjoys being cold? ...It's good to know the recent short-term trend does not worsen eh?

And the oracle did further announce in part:
"... and it's gonna be a lot hotter...
(And yes, climate change isn't caused by a single variable, however here are four of the big ones)
Solar Irradiance
Volcanic/Other Airborne Dust
ElNino/LaNina
Greenhouse gases."

Why just four?   What about clouds....and?  And for example:
Tell me oracle, have you deeply considered why the unusual lack of sunspots parallel with the cold 2008 so-far, why the puzzling reluctant start of cycle 23, why the logical comparisons made with cycle 14, the developing  barycentric theory of orbital dynamics of the Sun, the influence of the field reversals and other magnetic stuff and various non EMR emissions from the Sun WRT the Earth's magneto-sphere, and a few other BTW's?

Oh, and why dost thou keep avoiding comment on that 5-year programme at CERN involving over 50 scientists from around the World?

Still, it's good that you can forecast the climate with such confidence, although when you say:  "...it's goanna be a lot hotter.", do you actually have a time frame or magnitude for that?

Still, it's reassuring to learn that it is not lizard be colder!

With awe and respect,  BobFJ

Looking at the time of day, might you be from Tasmania?
Max (in Switzerland)is out of circulation right now, but to comment for him:

What you do not seem to understand is the significance of broad width smoothing of long-term data.  It cannot be used over a short-term, and if the filter width is 20 years, as is the case with Hadley, then shocking as it may sound, the last ten years have to be derived by some other technique.  Both the latter and the selection of filter code and width are actually rather arbitrary, and selected for preferred outcome.

These methods apply to graphical illustration of data in any field of science.  It could be say; how many eggs did the frogs in this pond lay each year over the last 100 years per capita.  It does not require a frog expert to draw a wiggly line to depict a trend from the raw data.  Anyone familiar with data interpretation such as an engineer could do it.  You could even argue that someone from an independent discipline is a better party to ensure unbiased interpretation of the raw data.  

If we ask the question, what happened over the last ten years, the 20-year Hadley filter cannot be used, and it does NOT require a climatologist to do a simple trend determination of the data. (not what a climatologist hopes the data might mean)

You should perhaps read carefully my recommended link above by a data EXPERT.

Briefly:
The subject is the apparent plateau in the raw data over the past decade and less. The decade starts early in 1998 and ends recently.  Max has also looked at 2001 till now etc.  The subject does not include consideration of the years before 1998, or even the LIA or MWP.  We are discussing what has actually been observed over the past decade, and make no forecast for the future.

THAT IS THE SUBJECT

For more relevant information, please refer:
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
And the links therein

Hi MNG,

You sure used a lot of nice prose to say absolutely nothing about the observed recent "plateau" in global warming.

Since someone said it would be introducing an "artifact" by starting the most recent decade with the year 1998, I also started the trend with the year 2001 (coincidentally the first year of the 21st century).

No matter how you slice it, it is apparent that the warming trend of the latter part of the 20th century has stopped and flattened out or even reversed itself to a cooling trend over the past 10 years.

These are just observed facts.  No fancy prose needed.  No "climate expert" needed to rationalize why this has occurred.  Just the facts, that's all.

And you have been unable to refute these facts.

The lead article on this thread predicts that this cooling trend will continue through 2008 (whether this is correct or not is anyone's guess).  

Believe Black Wallaby has answered your rather strange remark on "tiny data subsets", so there is no point in my repeating it all.

Now to the future.

Who knows what the temperature trends will be going forward (let's say for the next decade)?

I do not.  You do not.  The IPCC does not.   WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud does not.  "2,500 climate experts" do not.  A whole lineup of supercomputers does not.  Check the "Farmers' Almanac".  They have the best track record to date.

There is an old farmers' saying in German:
"Wenn der Hahn kräht auf dem Mist
Dann ändert das Wetter, oder es bliebt wie's ist."

(When the rooster crows on the dung heap, the weather will change, or stay as it is.)

I think our discussion on this topic has ended, but it was nice chatting with you.

Regards,

Max

Oh, and why dost thou keep avoiding comment on that 5-year programme at CERN involving over 50 scientists from around the World?

Last I checked, Svensmark admitted that IF there is any effect from cosmic rays, that it's so inconsequential that it falls within the margin of error.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

This graph on the Cryosphere Today web site just hammers that home. Even in a "cool" year the maximum extent of Arctic ice coverage no longer reaches the multi-year median.

That's a lot of open water exposed to 24 hour sunlight during the summer and retaining heat. As we can see it appears to be a multi-year, progressive, process that is also subject to sudden changes that could represent "phase shift" transitions. Since we don't seem to have good predicted models of Arctic sea ice behavior things could get dicey very quickly.

Put the Carbon Back

Now certainly, there is the CERN study, and it might yield evidence to the contrary.  But frankly it hasn't yet.

So until you have any actual evidence, you don't have any actual evidence to prove your point.

You wrote to Black Wallaby: "Last I checked, Svensmark admitted that IF there is any effect from cosmic rays, that it's so inconsequential that it falls within the margin of error."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

You got it wrong, Greyfalcon.  Better check again.

Nowhere in your linked BBC blurb does it say "Svensmark admitted that IF there is any effect from cosmic rays, that it's so inconsequential that it falls within the margin of error."

Some other guy named Sloan from the University of Lancaster made that claim and Svensmark replied that Sloan "failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds".

Just to clear up an apparent misunderstanding on your part.

Regards,

Max

Svensmark's lab results showed an observed link between cosmic rays and cloud formation.  Whether the CLOUD study at CERN will confirm this, is a matter of conjecture at this point.

Critics of Svensmark's theory point out that, while it may have shown fairly good correlation with global temperature in earlier years the link after around 1980 is poor. This is often referred to as the "fatal flaw" in Svensmark's theory.

This argument may be valid, but it raises the question:

Is there an actually observed link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature?

The Hadley Centre has a published record of "monthly globally averaged land and sea surface temperature" that goes back to 1850.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration only started in 1958.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.htm ...

IPCC estimates based on ice core readings go back to pre-industrial times. These show an estimated gradual increase from around 285 ppm in 1850 to 315 ppm in 1958, when actual measurements started.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

CO2 concentrations have risen steadily over the entire period.  The rate of increase has also accelerated slightly over the period, particularly following WWII.

Global temperatures have risen over the period, but a closer look at the record shows that this has been anything but steady.

Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend.  

This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (at +0.196C per decade this period shows the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken). There was essentially no increase in CO2 during these "horse and buggy" years.  

This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906 (-0.047C per decade).  

Then came another warming trend until around 1940 (+0.161C per decade), followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976  (-0.02C per decade), during the post-war boom period of rapid increase in CO2

Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase (+0.175C per decade) from 1976 to around 1998.  This trend occurred during a period of rapid CO2 increase and has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).

Since the end of the 20th century, this rapid warming trend has stopped.  Over the seven-year period since 2001 there has actually been a very slight cooling trend, despite the continued high rate of increase of CO2.

So it appears that last 25 years of the 20th century provide the only observed link between CO2 and temperature.

The immediately preceding period had CO2 increase with cooling.

The immediately ensuing period since the start of the 21st century shows slight cooling with high increase in CO2.

The period from 1860 to 1879 showed the highest rate of temperature increase of all periods measured, with essentially no CO2 increase whatsoever.

In summary, the actually observed data show that there does not appear to be a very "robust" link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.

Is this the "fatal flaw" in the AGW theory?

Just some food for thought, Greyfalcon.

Regards,

Max

You got it wrong, Greyfalcon.  Better check again.

Nowhere in your linked BBC blurb does it say "Svensmark admitted that IF there is any effect from cosmic rays, that it's so inconsequential that it falls within the margin of error."

Perhaps, but it does say this:

"Sloan predicts much bigger effects than we would do, as between the equator and the poles, and after solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see those big effects, he says our story is wrong, when in fact we have plenty of evidence to support it."

i.e. Svensmark himself admitting that the impact of cosmic rays, if any, is very small.

Ya keep sayin' that, and yet the consensus amongst the scientific community is the opposite.

I've issued the challenge to you: send the data and your anaylsis to a reputable climatologist to confirm your ideas.  Find a reputable climatologist who agrees with, and is willing to back up, your assessment.

Otherwise, without confirmation from an established climatologist, what reason do we have to believe you?

Given the warming from Feb to March 2008, ie +0.41ºC over one month, the globe is now warming at 4.9ºC per year. Perhaps this means the January "Ice Age" is now over?

Get out your foil hats, deniers, you'll need them to protect your aura from all those "cosmic rays" that are surely driving this warming trend.

Check the record.

You are smart enough (I hope).

Believe me, you do not need an "established climatologist" to tell you what the record shows.

It is painfully obvious.

Globally averaged land and sea surface temperature according to the Hadley Centre have cooled over the past seven years, i.e. over the period from January 2001 to February 2008.

But, hey, I'm not saying this is part of a 100-year or 1000-year trend.  It's just the facts for now.

Got it?  Really not that hard to grasp, TP.

Regards,

Max