<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Hadley Center says we’re warming, not cooling]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by josullivan58 http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/ Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:41:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/1 Pielke is having a fit

RPjr has a post on his blog about how he is persecuted. Next thing he'll do is compare himself to Galileo.

Considering RPjr's history of misquotes (one incident involved comments I wrote on RealClimate) and his confrontational tone on his blog he is overreacting to being called a delayer.

]]> Pielke is having a fit

RPjr has a post on his blog about how he is persecuted. Next thing he'll do is compare himself to Galileo.

Considering RPjr's history of misquotes (one incident involved comments I wrote on RealClimate) and his confrontational tone on his blog he is overreacting to being called a delayer.

]]> Comment #2 by Interfaith Power and Light http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/ Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:49:43 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/2 Thanks Joe, great graphs.

Just messin' around at work, hangin' with the Gristers.

]]> Thanks Joe, great graphs.

Just messin' around at work, hangin' with the Gristers.

]]> Comment #3 by StillSkeptical http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/ Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:49:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/3 2007?

Notice how the axis goes to 2007, but the actual temperatures only go to 2004 or so.  Now why is that?

]]> 2007?

Notice how the axis goes to 2007, but the actual temperatures only go to 2004 or so.  Now why is that?

]]> Comment #4 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/ Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:10:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/4 Wrong units my friend.

Notice how the axis goes to 2007, but the actual temperatures only go to 2004 or so.  Now why is that?

Because the next hashmark represents 2010
Not 2005

Notice how the previous labeled hashmark says 1980.

]]> Wrong units my friend.

Notice how the axis goes to 2007, but the actual temperatures only go to 2004 or so.  Now why is that?

Because the next hashmark represents 2010
Not 2005

Notice how the previous labeled hashmark says 1980.

]]> Comment #5 by StillSkeptical http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/ Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:30:16 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/5 Graph

Yeah, you're right, stupid mistake.  I need to go to sleep, I've been up for about 26 hours.

Not that I stay up to read grist, I was just killing time until it was time to take my son to school.

]]> Graph

Yeah, you're right, stupid mistake.  I need to go to sleep, I've been up for about 26 hours.

Not that I stay up to read grist, I was just killing time until it was time to take my son to school.

]]> Comment #6 by StillSkeptical http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/ Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:25:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/6 Graph

Ok, I got some sleep.  Here's a better graph:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

]]> Graph

Ok, I got some sleep.  Here's a better graph:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

]]> Comment #7 by Bob Tisdale http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/ Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:09:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/7 Great Post, But

I enjoy reading your blog. I especially like the term delayer.

But here are a few observations:

Your link to Wattsupwiththat is over a month old.  Global temperatures have continued to drop.  Here's a more recent link to their analysis.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/another-g ...

Regarding your comparison of 1998 and 2007:  That analysis fails to mention that the peak anomaly of 2007 (January) was a result of the 2006/2007 El Nino, which continued to warm the planet well through mid year. Recall that there is a 3-month lag between ENSO anomalies and global temperature fluctuations.  The La Nina didn't really start to impact global temperature until November/December of 2007.

Your comment on solar "this explanation doesn't even note that total solar irradiance in 1999 was 0.3 W/m2 higher than in 2007" fails to consider the 2- to 5-year lag between solar and global temperature.

"2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not boosted by the El Niño conditions that augmented the warmth of 1998."  2005 was actually boosted by positive El Nino temperatures in the NINO3.4 region until September, where the 1998 El Nino turned into a very strong La Nina starting mid-year.  In fact, the average ONI temperature for 1998 (the year of the Historic El Nino) was 0.21 deg C lower than 2005.  Refer to the NOAA El Nino data here.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso ...

The Hadley Centre graph is extremely outdated. Updated is here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

On the current graph, the smoothed data (the black line) appears to be in a downward trend for the last 4 years, which makes it possible for the Watts and Pielke analysis with which you begin this post.

The observational data (the black line) in the graph you included in your "Climate Forecast:  Hot, and then Very Hot" link ended in 2004.  I've updated the graph with a big black "X" where the global temperature is now. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2e0r0qb&s=3  It's outside (below) the confidence levels of the authors, indicating they missed the mark so far.  They better hope for a stong El Nino, because it's going to take the earth a couple of years to respond to an upturn in solar when that eventually happens.

You failed to mention the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which, if it hasn't started to drop, it should start its 30 year decline soon.  That'll chop some more off global temperature.

Other than that, I liked the article.  I don't agree with it, but I liked it.

]]> Great Post, But

I enjoy reading your blog. I especially like the term delayer.

But here are a few observations:

Your link to Wattsupwiththat is over a month old.  Global temperatures have continued to drop.  Here's a more recent link to their analysis.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/another-g ...

Regarding your comparison of 1998 and 2007:  That analysis fails to mention that the peak anomaly of 2007 (January) was a result of the 2006/2007 El Nino, which continued to warm the planet well through mid year. Recall that there is a 3-month lag between ENSO anomalies and global temperature fluctuations.  The La Nina didn't really start to impact global temperature until November/December of 2007.

Your comment on solar "this explanation doesn't even note that total solar irradiance in 1999 was 0.3 W/m2 higher than in 2007" fails to consider the 2- to 5-year lag between solar and global temperature.

"2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not boosted by the El Niño conditions that augmented the warmth of 1998."  2005 was actually boosted by positive El Nino temperatures in the NINO3.4 region until September, where the 1998 El Nino turned into a very strong La Nina starting mid-year.  In fact, the average ONI temperature for 1998 (the year of the Historic El Nino) was 0.21 deg C lower than 2005.  Refer to the NOAA El Nino data here.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso ...

The Hadley Centre graph is extremely outdated. Updated is here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

On the current graph, the smoothed data (the black line) appears to be in a downward trend for the last 4 years, which makes it possible for the Watts and Pielke analysis with which you begin this post.

The observational data (the black line) in the graph you included in your "Climate Forecast:  Hot, and then Very Hot" link ended in 2004.  I've updated the graph with a big black "X" where the global temperature is now. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2e0r0qb&s=3  It's outside (below) the confidence levels of the authors, indicating they missed the mark so far.  They better hope for a stong El Nino, because it's going to take the earth a couple of years to respond to an upturn in solar when that eventually happens.

You failed to mention the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which, if it hasn't started to drop, it should start its 30 year decline soon.  That'll chop some more off global temperature.

Other than that, I liked the article.  I don't agree with it, but I liked it.

]]> Comment #8 by Pangolin http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/ Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:30:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/take-that-delayers-this-means-you-pielke/8 I heard the ice stopped melting!!

And it didn't quite melt as much as last year. Which made it only the second worst melt of Arctic ice on record.

The deniers will try to use that somehow but it helps to have never had a class in statistics.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> I heard the ice stopped melting!!

And it didn't quite melt as much as last year. Which made it only the second worst melt of Arctic ice on record.

The deniers will try to use that somehow but it helps to have never had a class in statistics.

Put the Carbon Back

]]>