No, global warming has not stopped

Skeptic Statistics 101:

- Time required in dataset to find a trend you don't like = 2*(length of data series)

- Time required in dataset to find a trend you do like = 1*(Data Point Separation)

Fun to see Bob Carter being cheekily referenced in Robin Fawcetts piece.

And if you look at the GISS surface stations, warming stopped in 1981 and didn't start again until 1990!

I would hardly call it a cheeky mention of Carter- I was pointed at one of his screeds yesterday that is nothing but a farrago of lies and misdirection.

Indeed, there is no trend on a timescale until 2006 that would indicate that global warming has stopped (see Australian link above). I plooted a HatCRUT3-chart from 1850-March 2008 with monthly and running annual anomalies. I like to argue that it is now, in March 2008, more clearly visible what was already partly visible at the end of 2006 (with or without short-term ENSO-like events being adjusted), that a shift in "decadal or multidecadal ENSO-like events" could be happening just now, along with a cooling started cooling trend for the coming decade. Cai and Whetton (2001) seems to be the latest paper that took into account multidecadal natural ENSO-like fluctuations (SOI, PDO, AMO) when looking at the CO2-warming-signal. Since then, as far as I am informed, the only explanation that explains some cooling between 1940 and 1970 is increased sulfure aerosols. Nothing natural (Maybe I am wrong on this one?).

So my point is: global warming has not stopped? Well, it depends on the climate sensitivity of all greenhouse gases, its future accumulation in the atmosphere, and its amplitude towards natural (medium and long-term) fluctuations of the climate system.

And if you look at the GISS surface stations, warming stopped in 1981 and didn't start again until 1990!

When referring to GISS temperature, you should precisely define which GISS dataset you're talking about. Because the GISS has been caught by webarchives for constantly "adjusting" its past data, always in favor of a warming.

For exemple, between GISTEMP 2002 and current GISTEMP, the warming trend has increased 30%, for a SAME past period.
That's the real definition of man made warming, litterally.

And if you look at the GISS surface stations, warming stopped in 1981 and didn't start again until 1990!

When referring to GISS temperature, you should precisely define which GISS dataset you're talking about. Because the GISS has been caught by webarchives for constantly "adjusting" its past data, always in favor of a warming.

For exemple, between GISTEMP 2002 and current GISTEMP, the warming trend has increased 30%, for a SAME past period.
That's the real definition of man made warming, litterally.

from those graphs, especially the blue ones, it looks like we're just on the other side of a fluctuation that is otherwise even about both sides of zero. Seem then, that it's too soon to tell for certain that the global mean temps won't turn around.

Is anyone at all, anyone serious that is, actually investigating the possibility of a stabilizing feedback mechanism that could turn the temperature around, or do scientists only look for the worst possible case scenarios?

i spot the fundamental methodological error in each of the 3 sceptic replies above. (ben, demesure, cp).

do you?

Climatepatrol.

Upon what basis do you include that languidly hanging arrow at the right of your graph?

Specifically, what selection criterion or criteria did you employ that could not almost as easily have been used to construct an arrow that passes through the first three months of 2008, which you have conveniently marked, to illustrate a Viagra-triumphal increase in temperature that is just as difficult to justify as your current arrow seems to me to be?

You and those others of your persuasion seem to see elephants in the clouds of global warming, but from what I am able to glean you don't see the simple irreducible statistical story in the data that Occam's razor necessitates.

Demesure writes:

For exemple, between GISTEMP 2002 and current GISTEMP, the warming trend has increased 30%, for a SAME past period. That's the real definition of man made warming, litterally.

Huh? What? Come again?

Yes Demesure, its all a conspiracy, we're all out to get you.

Meanwhile, I note you didn't actually answer my point, which was that temperatures have "stalled" in the past.
Moreover, if you could read, you'll have seen that I mentioned which data I used in my post.

Barton,

Demesure and climate patrol have inadequate "plooting " skills. The adjustment is http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html, and it gives a lower temperature after data correction than the original. I guess if you made 2002 lower then that makes the subsequent *US* temperatures seem higher. If you were an idiot, then you would think that this means the rate of *global* warming has been artificially increased.

When referring to GISS temperature, you should precisely define which GISS dataset you're talking about. Because the GISS has been caught by webarchives for constantly "adjusting" its past data

Shorter Demesure - average human body temperature really is 100F, those "adjustments" to Fahrenheit's thermometer calibration made after his initial effort is just a commie plot to make it appear that average human body temperatures have been declining the last few centuries...

@Bernard
HAHAHA
I knew somebody would ask that about my amateur plot. Well, just assume it is like putting a ruler over the two equally rising temperature upswings to illustrate that a similar warming period has happened before which was suddenly interrupted. I apologize to all statistics profs. And demonstrating the "Viagra-triumphal" increase of the March'08 anomaly (due to the polar haze "heatwave" over Siberia and Northern China), that was quite funny.

But seriously, I also looked at the ocean temperature of NOAA. The last time we had a sustainable drop in ocean temperature was 1944-1947. This must have been a coupled event. Well, looking at the global sea ice area and at the formation of the curve, one may wonder if such an event is taking place right now (ENSO-PDO-NAO?). I daresay this would mess up the IPCC scenarios. But then, it is too early to tell.

demesure:

When referring to GISS temperature, you should precisely define which GISS dataset you're talking about. Because the GISS has been caught by webarchives for constantly "adjusting" its past data, always in favor of a warming.

Just like Spencer and Christy's satellite measurements. They openly admit they constantly "adjust" their past data, virtually always in favor of warming.

demesure, what a troll.

cp:

a shift in "decadal or multidecadal ENSO-like events" could be happening just now, along with a cooling started cooling trend for the coming decade.

You seem to be suggesting that a permanent shift to La Nina conditions would cause a permanently cooler climate. If you understand conservation of energy you would realize this is not true. La Nina causes it to cool down at the surface because it brings cooler water to the surface. If La Nina became permanent then it would sooner or later run out of cool water and the cooler weather would come to an end. El Nino/La Nina cannot cause a permanent or even long term change in surface temperature. Long term average temperature (30 years should be long enough) is not affected by El Nino/La Nina.

summary:

all downwards fluctuations (as follow large peaks) are evidence of the end of warming. all subsequent upwards fluctuations, therefore, are mere anomalies upon this downward trend, which happen to add up/average over time to a positive slope; which does not however constitute a warming trend, merely an increasing frequency of ever-increasing positive temperature anomalies.

Just like Spencer and Christy's satellite measurements. They openly admit they constantly "adjust" their past data, virtually always in favor of warming.

demesure, what a troll.

Chris,
Spencer and Christy have adjusted their data and the adjustements have been fully documented, contrary to what's happening under the hood at the GISS.
I've shown the many undocumented changes for GISTEMP always in favor of warming and uncovered by web archives (see the link on the graphic). So if you have some evidence that S&C have made changes to UAH temperature to suit their need, please show it.

BTW if trolling mean banging unconvenient truths at your face, so yes, I'm trolling.

h was that temperatures have "stalled" in the past.
Moreover, if you could read, you'll have seen that I mentioned which data I used in my post.

_#11 guthrie

Temperatures have stalled in your description because of El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991).
But the current stall is due to what ?

Aerosols concentration has been at its lowest ever since satellite data exist. And CO2 emissions have accelerated more than ever over the past decade. But the heat promised by the AGW church has been AWOL. Pesky reality isn't it ?

"I guess if you made 2002 lower then that makes the subsequent US temperatures seem higher. If you were an idiot, then you would think that this means the rate of global warming has been artificially increased."

@12,Tracy

If you were not an idiot, then you should know that that change was just for the USA, "was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable" (contrary to the change I've shown in my above graphic) and has been made only thanks to ClimateAudit which has found the error that "thousands of climate scientists" have ignored.

demesure:

Spencer and Christy have adjusted their data and the adjustements have been fully documented, contrary to what's happening under the hood at the GISS.

Why didn't you say the alleged lack of documentation was your problem in the first place? Some one who brings up a new excuse only after their previous one was found wanting is a troll.

BTW, I can just imagine what the trolls would complain about if GISS had reduced their estimated rate of warming. They would say GISS had been caught out exaggerating the rate of warming and had been forced to reduce the rate. Trolls always try to have it both ways.

Ah yes, I thought there was a volcanic eruption out there somewhere. Meanwhile, you keep on hoping that a mere 3 years, not 9 years, shows that its cooling. Temperature has stalled for 3 years before now, you know. Go and look at the graphs.

Actually dem, CA was hoppily moving down the Surface Sites bunny trail, till Eli pointed out that there was a software problem. What Steve did was trace it back to the source

BTW, I can just imagine what the trolls would complain about if GISS had reduced their estimated rate of warming.

@21
Why the hell are you talking about "estimated rate" ?
Its not about estimations. It's about past temperatures in GISS databases which have been tampered to make 30% more warming for a SAME 20 year period and there are traces of that tampering in web archives. Got it now ?

@23 Yes, that has been thanks to the splash between you and Byrnes. Steve has recognized it.
Now Eli, you have an occasion to score back: find the source error which generates a +30% warming in GISTEMP for the 1980-2001 period (see link in my post 5) ;)
And this "manmade" warming was not just for the US but the globe.

Barton what demsure is referring to an odd little artifact
in GISSTEMP, the algorithm for filling in missing data operates in such a way that at as new data comes in, the past data get readjusted, so that if you compare the 2002 version
of giss with the 2005 version, for example, the 2005
version will have different data for 1880 to 2002, than the
2002 version. It's covered over at CA.

These are the major revisions to the GISTEMP analysis since the 1999 and 2001 papers, as documented on the GISTEMP website. The Spencer/Christy diurnal error (one of many errors) caused a 40% upward correction. UAH still shows about 25% less warming than RSS.

August 2003: A longer version of Hohenpeissenberg station data was made available to GISS and added to the GHCN record. This had no noticeable impact on the global analyses.

March 2005: SCAR data were added to the analysis. This increased data coverage over Antarctica, as evident in the global maps of temperature anomalies.

April 2006: HadISST ocean temperatures are now used only for regions that are identified as ice-free in both the NOAA and HadISST records. This change effects a small number of gridboxes in which HadISST has sea ice while NOAA has open water. The prior approach damped temperature change at these gridboxes because of specification of a fixed temperature in sea ice regions. The new approach still yields a conservative estimate of surface air temperature change, as surface air temperature usually changes markedly when sea ice is replaced by open water or vice versa. Because of the small area of these gridboxes the effect on global temperature change was negligible.

August 7, 2007: A discontinuity in station records in the U.S. was discovered and corrected (GHCN data for 2000 and later years were inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center). This had a small impact on the U.S. average temperature, about 0.15°C, for 2000 and later years, and a negligible effect on global temperature, as is shown here.

This August 2007 change received international attention via discussions on various blogs and repetition by some other media, with no graphs provided to show the insignificance of the effect. Further discussions of the curious misinformation are provided by Dr. Hansen on his personal webpage (e.g., his post on "The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla").

September 10, 2007: The year 2000 version of USHCN data was replaced by the current version (with data through 2005). In this newer version, NOAA removed or corrected a number of station records before year 2000. Since these changes included most of the records that failed our quality control checks, we no longer remove any USHCN records. The effect of station removal on analyzed global temperature is very small, as shown by graphs and maps available here.

March 1, 2008: Starting with our next update, USHCN data will be taken from NOAA's ftp site - the original source for that file - rather than from CDIAC's web site; this way we get the most recent publicly available version. Whereas CDIAC's copy currently ends in 12/2005, NOAA's file extends through 5/2007. Note: New updates usually also include changes to data from previous years. Whereas the GHCN and SCAR data are updated every month, updates to the USHCN data occur at irregular intervals.

Meanwhile, you keep on hoping that a mere 3 years, not 9 years, shows that its cooling. Temperature has stalled for 3 years before now, you know. Go and look at the graphs.

@guthrie ,

Temperatures have stalled, even decreased since 2002, that is 6 years, not 3, and for all data sources (see graphic). You won't find such stasis over the past 30 years of "unprecedented warming".

Sorry, that should be UAH shows about 20% less warming than RSS, or RSS shows about 25% more warming than UAH.

@26,
Steven, the changes to GISTEMP around Dec 2002 has been much more substantial than a simple back-propagation and the curves show it clearly.

And if you examine the web archives, changes at the GISS are always in favor of warming. Would you trust a coin which always yields head and no tail ?

@29
No cce, on long trends from the start of satelitte data (since 1979), RSS shows LESS warming than UAH.
But over the past decade, RSS shows more warming.

@31 Oh so sorry, it's the other way round: should read
"since 1979, RSS shows MORE warming than UAH. But over the past decade, RSS shows less warming".

And GISS shows more warming than HADCRU over the last decade, but less warming over the previous decade. Which tells you that you shouldn't make comparisions of a decade or less.

http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg

Demesure, proving that he has little scientific acumen whatsoever, wrote: "only thanks to ClimateAudit which has found the error that 'thousands of climate scientists' have ignored".

The difference was not statistically significant either way, before or after the correction, hence it is of trivial value or less, hence why it was ignored.

Pedantics. Pedantics. Pedantics. And still more pedantics. Add to that clutching at straws. Yup, give the sceptics an inch and they'll take a thousand miles (or so they think). Methinks Demesure you ought to start reading up on the primary literature, instead of depending on a few web sites to generate your world view.

demesure's final victory is assured:

http://www.gahanwilson.com/pbc1ithinkiwon.htm

And GISS shows more warming than HADCRU over the last decade, but less warming over the previous decade. Which tells you that you shouldn't make comparisions of a decade or less.

@33 cce,

My main point was not about one decade trend comparisons between 2 temperature providers. It was about 20 year (or more) trends between 2 datasets of the same provider : GISS.
And I was talking about a +30% UNDOCUMENTED change in that trend.

If you want to defend the GISS data or falsify my claim, just show the documentation for the change in dec 2002 does exist or show my results are not reproducible. It's like finding a 30% change in a financial account. You would'nt hope you can get by with just some vague rhetorical diversions, would you ? (here it's much more than that since even a total compliance to the billion $ Kyoto protocol would lead to estimated results an order of magnitude lower than 30% in temperature trend).

"Demesure, proving that he has little scientific acumen whatsoever, wrote: "

Don't talk about "science" Jeff.
Because you don't have the slightest idea of what a scientific discussion is about.

Can I be the firt!

HAHaHHAHHaaaaaaahaaaahahhahahahaaaaahhhhaaaaa.#

Demesure, I laugh in your face. You don't actually know who Jeff is, do you?

For exemple, between GISTEMP 2002 and current GISTEMP, the warming trend has increased 30%, for a SAME past period.

That graph gives its claimed 1.2 deg C/century for the 2002 data for the period 1980-2001 and its claimed 1.6 deg C/century for the 2008 data for the period 1980-2002.

Maybe the words "SAME past period" have a different meaning for demesure than they have for everyone else.

Would you trust a coin which always yields head and no tail ?

Apparently, demesure does if the coin is documented as being biassed (UAH).

@39

Where is it that you have seen different periods Chris ?
The two trends are for the SAME 1980-2001 period. I know it because I made the graph.

The thing is, I'm sitting here looking at the Giss graphs for global temperature land-ocean, and meteorological stations, and both show 2005 as definitely higher than 2002, and 2007 a bit higher. Obviously it stopped warming in 2005...

I missed the original Demesure hilarity, because I have [kill] on. After seeing the reaction by guthrie, I unkilled, laughed my *ss off at the stupitude, then reinvigorated the [kill].

What did Bugs Bunny say...oh, yes. What a maroon. Lad, take a little more time and think thru your tactic. The first knee-jerk reaction that comes to mind may not be the best tactic.

Best,

D

Don't talk about "science" Jeff. Because you don't have the slightest idea of what a scientific discussion is about.

Here is Jeff's publication list ("selected papers", which means there are others he hasn't bothered listing).

Now, turkey, show us yours ...

Demesure.

Uncharacteristically, I think that I shall be a little kinder than the others and tell you that you may be on to something...

However, you will need statistical evidence to back yourself up. I suggest that you collaborate with Harold Pierce Jnr, who has developed a novel way of employing t tests to elucidate the significance or otherwise of temperature comparisons.

Seriously, collaborate.

Between the two of you I reckon that you could turn the world of climate science on its head - and fame, glory and adulation will be eternally yours.

Imagine it: between yourself and Harold, you could send thousands of scientists and mathematicians to the unemployment offices of the world, win the admiration of your compadres at Climate Audit and elsewhere, and almost certainly be awarded a future Nobel for unmasking the Greatest Conspiracy of All Time and thus correcting the misapprehensions of billions of the world's deluded.

My cockles are warming just at the thought of it.

Where is it that you have seen different periods Chris ?

Being a fact-checking type of person, I took the December 2002 GISS data and the March 2008 GISS data and calculated the regression slope for both for various periods (using SLOPE in OpenOffice BTW). The 2002 data gives 1.19 deg C/century for 1980-2001 and the 2008 data gives 1.45 for 1980-2001 and 1.64 for 1980-2002.

The two trends are for the SAME 1980-2001 period.

Keeping shouting it and it's sure to come true.

I know it because I made the graph.

Oh I'm so impressed.

BTW you should get Mr McIntyre on to this. I'm sure he'll show that the GISS data is now corrupted for no other reason than that GISS decided sometime after 2002 that people weren't impressed enough with the rate of warming so they decided they'd add an average of 0.045 deg C to the global temperature after 1995. This is obviously a conspiracy.

First of all, I quoted the major changes to the GISTEMP analysis.

Using the December 2002 archive, and calculating the trends based on the monthly anomalies, the January 1980 to December 2001 trend is 1.16 degrees per decade. For the current series (as of January, the latest version I have since the GISTEMP website is currently down), the trend is 1.41 degrees per century, or a 21% increase.

If you start in 1975, about the time when the current warming trend began, and go to November 2002, the difference is 10%. And this is for the meteorological stations only. The land+ocean index, which is the one people actually use, would be even less.

GISTEMP is consistent with the other analyses despite their various differences.

http://cce.890m.com/temp-compare.jpg

@cce #47
Thanks for the enlightment (seriously!) and the "temp-compare-graph" which shows all datasets with the same baseline. Can you tell us why GISSTEMP has a less accentuated warming peak during El Nino 1998 and a more pronounced warming ever since? Is there sort of a land surface and polar surface bias?

Thank you Chris & CCE for your review, with the current GISS data, the trend for 1980-2001 is indeed 1.446°C/century (calculated on annual, not monthly values, not rounded for comparison purpose), so the undocumented increase is "just" 21% not 30%. It must be that the GISS has "back-propagated" its March 2008 update and temperatures for the past has changed ever since I made the graph (no kidding).

@CCE, I don't use the land+ocean index because ocean's data are not from Hansen. And if you compare the two versions back to the 1900s, the "manmade" change is always in favor of warming and is the most important in recent years. Such substantial change must not be done under the hood ! (HADCRUT is no better, just compare their temperature curves in TAR & 4AR for a same past period).

Thanks Dhogaza, I appreciate the support.

And to reiterate, Demesure, I would be delighted to see your list of peer-reviewed publications.

As for me 'not understanding science', I got my PhD in 1995 and am now a senior scientist based at a research institute in The Netherlands. What's your story?

demesure writes:

Temperatures have stalled, even decreased since 2002, that is 6 years, not 3, and for all data sources (see graphic). You won't find such stasis over the past 30 years of "unprecedented warming".

Which proves nothing. Six years is not a large enough sample size to prove anything. Climate is defined as the mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more. There have been lots of six-year periods of "cooling" in the past 120-150 years of data, but the overall trend is still up.

Have you taken an introductory statistics class?

@ALL
After always reading the same - at times demeaning - statements regarding what statistics does and does not prove about a trend, here is what a professor in statistics says:

Attempting to quantify, to the level of precision given, the uncertainties in effects caused by global warming, particularly through the use of mathematical equations that imply a level of certainty which is not felt, can lead to charges that I have done nothing more than build an AGW version of the infamous Drake equation (Drake and Sobel 1992). I would not dispute that argument. I will claim that the estimates I arrived at are at least within an order of magnitude of the actual uncertainties. For example, the probability that AGW is true might not be 0.8, but it is certainly higher than 0.08.
...
Taken together, then, it is indisputable that we are less certain that both global warming and its claimed effects are true than in either AGW or its effects alone.

William M. Briggs on "Quantifying Uncertainty in AGW".

For example:

During most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Pacific was locked in the oscillation's warm phase, during which these warm and cool regions are reversed.

Josh Willis, Oceonographer
I am glad this link is from NASA.

That's what skeptics have been telling all along. But I don't know of any AGW proponent who actually admitted or even quantified such effect up until now (just for an instance).

@Barton
Now if you take your minium of 30 years of temperature history that makes an AGW climate trend slope, you have to be very careful to choose the right starting and end point, right? And this is only one of the "low" or "very low" areas of the IPCC AR4.

As for me 'not understanding science', I got my PhD in 1995 and am now a senior scientist based at a research institute in The Netherlands. What's your story?

I have never said you "don't understand science". Stop that ridiculous strawman.

"Which proves nothing. Six years is not a large enough sample size to prove anything. Climate is defined as the mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more."

If six years cooling (with no volcanic eruption and record low atmospheric aerosol concentration in the satellite era) means nothing, then you should tell the IPCC to scrape shitty claims in its SPM like "it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record"

you don't have the slightest idea of what a scientific discussion is about.

I have never said you "don't understand science".

This could be called atomistic quibbling. Another favorite technique of trolls.

The satellites measure the lower troposphere and are more sensitive to large perturbations like ENSO and volcanic eruptions, so that is why they show larger swings. Also, RSS excludes Antarctica and the high altitude regions of the Himalayas and Andes. The largest difference between HadCRUT and GISTEMP is that GISTEMP interpolates polar regions and HadCRUT doesn't. So if you get years where the Arctic or Antarctic have strong anomalies, the two series will diverge. Over the last 30 years, however, GISTEMP and HadCRUT show virtually identical rates of warming (~0.17 degrees per decade) even though at any given time they are slightly different. It is pointless to look at any instant and draw conclusions that one is exaggerating warming and another is not.

This graph shows them all on the same baseline (in this case, GISS'). What's obvious is that the two major satellite analyses bracket HadCRU and GISS. What's also apparent is that GISS shows a warmer "past" (pre 1930s) than HadCRU.

http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg

you don't have the slightest idea of what a scientific discussion is about.

Then the claim that he never said Jeff doesn't understand science.

No, that's not "atomistic quibbling" . It's flat-out lying, which is consistent with Demesure's posting history.

If six years cooling (with no volcanic eruption and record low atmospheric aerosol concentration in the satellite era) means nothing, then you should tell the IPCC to scrape shitty claims in its SPM like "it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record"

1998 isn't, by itself, claimed to prove a trend. The 1990s, by themselves, aren't used to prove a trend.

Nothing inconsistent there with our pointing out that six years of flat temps doesn't prove a trend.

But since you're a clueless, ideologically-driven proven liar, you'll ignore the obvious, won't you?

That's what skeptics have been telling all along.

Please point us to an endless chain of commentary by skeptics that state:

During most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Pacific was locked in the oscillation's warm phase, during which these warm and cool regions are reversed.

And please provide us a reference showing that Willis believes that climate science is wrong about AGW. And also please explain why you quote-mined Willis rather than include further snippets like this (from your link):

"The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate," said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. "In fact," said Willis, "these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it."

In other words, Willis is making clear that the PDO signal does not in any way suggest that there is no AGW signal from increased CO2 concentrations, indeed he is suggesting that the increase in GHG concentrations MAY BE AMPLIFYING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PDO SIGNAL.

Exactly the OPPOSITE of claiming that PDO effects on climate "prove" that AGW is false.

Why did you quote mine? You do realize that quote mining is a form of lying, right?

And if you're dumb enough to quote mine from a NASA source, you should avoid linking directly to the source in your post. Makes it far too easy to point out your dishonest tactic.

And please provide support for your implication that climate scientists are unaware of the PDO (ha ha ha, this will be fun!).

Demesure:

Temperatures have stalled, even decreased since 2002, that is 6 years, not 3, and for all data sources

Actually, the GISS record has risen at a regressed rate of 0.04 deg C/year over the past 6 years (April 2002 to March 2008 inclusive).

You won't find such stasis over the past 30 years of "unprecedented warming".

Absolute blatant lie. The 6 year periods beginning anytime from January 1979 to August 1981 and beginning anytime from December 1986 to March 1990 all experienced declining regressed temperature (NCDC temperatures).

dhgoza, instead of using ridiculous intimidation tactics, you should care for your own credibility. Your zynicism just reconfirms sceptical commenters' concerns about scientists who want to rule the world.

quote mining? a form of lying? ...dishonest tactics....

HA HA HA HA . I laugh right into your face. You are the wicked schemer here if not a liar.

First, quoting a person giving the original post for the readers to prove its context is one of the most honest form of web communication. The opposite is plagiarism. My sources are in German and the known sources of sceptical scientists. One of them, Skeptic Roy Spencer, has similar sweeping ramblings about AGW within a paper because he has to. In fact I don't know the conviction of Willis and it is of minor relevance to me. Fact is that this statement of his along with your gloating about AMPLIFYING the PDO signal both proves that the IPCC scenarios are flawed if they are taken for more than greenhouse gas sensitivity studies. Contrary to you, cce earns the respect of readers of all colour as a credible source without crab mentality.

@cce
Thank you very much for your detailed explanation in #56

But since you're a clueless, ideologically-driven proven liar, you'll ignore the obvious, won't you?

Yeah, of course, hysterics always repeat such crap to me. Now don't forget to take your pills, dude.

Absolute blatant lie. The 6 year periods beginning anytime from January 1979 to August 1981 and beginning anytime from December 1986 to March 1990 all experienced declining regressed temperature (NCDC temperatures).

@59,
I was talking about 6 year stasis so why the hell do you bring about declining temperatures. Am I comdemned here to grotesque strawmen as soon as an observation is made that the AGW church dislikes ?

Look at the graph for all global temperature providers here and tell me where you can find a 6 year stasis similar to what we see over the recent years.
Why such stasis while AGWers are promising us for years tipping points, accelerated warming, catastrophic positive feedback... ?

Over the last 30 years, however, GISTEMP and HadCRUT show virtually identical rates of warming (~0.17 degrees per decade) even though at any given time they are slightly different. It is pointless to look at any instant and draw conclusions that one is exaggerating warming and another is not.

CCE,
I don't dispute that different datasets have minor differences in coverage and in interpolation (even if the stated difference due to the poles is overblown since the non covered poles account for less than 5% of total surface). BTW, even the GISS 1500km and 250 km interpolations give different trends so (check it out on their site)... talk about trustworthy data.

No, I was talking about undocumented changes made between 2 datasets of the same GISS for a same past 20 year period. And it's no minor change. It's +21% warming !
HADCRU is no shyer in "tweaking" its past data, always in favor of a more warming trend (look at this comparison between TAR and 4AR), either by warming recent years, or by cooling the past. And since the Hadley Center has never published its raw data, despite many FOI requests, it can claim what it wants about the validity of its temperature curves, that's beyond falsifiability.

Those are facts. Wether you like them or not, facts are facts!

I was talking about 6 year stasis so why the hell do you bring about declining temperatures.

Temperatures have stalled, EVEN DECREASED since 2002, that is 6 years

Liar.

BTW, any pedantic half-wit should realize that:

"The 6 year periods beginning anytime from January 1979 to August 1981 and beginning anytime from December 1986 to March 1990 all experienced declining regressed temperature"

means that the regressed temperature for 6 years from just before January 1979 has zero slope. Similarly for August 1981, December 1986 and March 1990.

As if it matters.

@59, I was talking about 6 year stasis so why the hell do you bring about declining temperatures.

do the people who you save millions of dollars for know, that you don t have the slightest understanding on how a trendline works?

by choosing your start or end date correctly, you can make a "stasis" trend out of each period of decline.

sorry, you simply are wrong on all accounts..

Why such stasis while AGWers are promising us for years tipping points, accelerated warming, catastrophic positive feedback... ?

Because climate scientists have never claimed that increased GHGs would lead to weather variability and natural phenomena like the ENSO cycle to end.

In other words, you've erected a classic strawman to demolish.

More bluntly, you're lying.

In fact I don't know the conviction of Willis and it is of minor relevance to me. Fact is that this statement of his

So now we're treated to the inner working of the mind of a dishonest quote-miner.

All that is important is finding a statement that agrees with your position. The fact that the person you're quoting makes clear in further quotes that he in no way agrees with your position is irrelevant. All that counts is that you can cut out a snippet that makes it APPEAR as though the person agrees with your position.

Classic science denialist technique used by creationists, tobacco denialists, HIV denialists, etc.

...the IPCC scenarios are flawed if they are taken for more than greenhouse gas sensitivity studies.

In particular the reference you link to explicitly does NOT support this statement.

Maybe you're not dishonest, just stupid, though "both" is my best guess.

The adjustments occur when better and more complete data becomes available. The adjustments are also automatic, other than the changes that I have quoted. If that enhances the warming trend, then that means that past analyses underestimated warming. "Modern" warming began about 1975, and we have satellite data since 1979 that is consistent with the surface measurements. The satellites, the radiosondes, and the thermometers all have their share of problems, but they all point to warming between 0.14 and 0.18 degrees per decade over the last 30 years. If the "surface stations" project has accomplished one thing, it's the vindication of the GISTEMP methods for the United States. It works for its intended purpose, which is to calculate the surface temperature anomaly for large areas. The only people going out of their way to find warming are the auditors who post every example they find (although they are almost always classified as urban, and therefore do not go into creating the GISTEMP trends). People need to acquaint themselves with these facts.

And the reason that the poles matter despite their small area is because the anomalies tend to be strong. This shows the effect of removing portions of just the arctic:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ArcticEffect.pdf

@dhogaza
Call me stupid if you want, just clueless.But maybe you are not as bad after all. If you have anything significant and scientific to contribute in response to my claims and questioning, you are welcome to continue. But please spare the readers with those tedious "big tobacco", "creationist" and other "politics of science bla-bla" scoffing. Just stick to the issue, please.

In particular the reference you link to explicitly does NOT support this statement.

It neither supports nor refutes my statement.

Please enlighten me. I am still clueless. What is wrong with my statement?

You are totally wrong there. But you have a major problem with what science is all about. If you avail to contribute anything substantial to the discussion for the readers of this blog, you may answer this question: What is your problem with the nature and content of the following

Now this was stupid! But since I did not erase the last paragraph from the comment box before I was interrupted and pressed the post button: You know what your problem with science is?

Irrlehren der Wissenschaft brauchen fünfzig Jahre, bis sie durch neue Erkenntnisse abgelöst werden, weil nicht nur die alten Professoren, sondern auch die alten Schüler aussterben müssen."

Max Planck

False doctrine in science take fifty years until they are exchanged by new scientific understanding because it not only takes for the old scholars to become extinct but their old students as well.

You behave like an oldie who is prone to cling to old doctrines of concensus when confronted with new evidence.

The adjustments occur when better and more complete data becomes available. The adjustments are also automatic, other than the changes that I have quoted. If that enhances the warming trend, then that means that past analyses underestimated warming.

Your justification for the tweaking of past data at the GISS is irrelevant. What is done at the GISS is just history rewriting and is scientifically nonsense. Nowhere in science would you find a selective and self-serving adjustments of past physical measurements because of the presence new & recent data. Would 20.0°C in 1970 someday somewhere become 19.9°C because some new data NOW have appeared ? That's crazy !

Besides, you keep uttering qualifiers like "consistent", "similar" in the defense of the supposedly relevance of the notion of "global temperature". But stick to the numbers. If trends on 30 years are from 0.14°K/decade to 0.18°C/decade, that's a discrepancy of 25%! That means even a total compliance to Kyoto supposed to reduce the world emissions by about 8%/1990 would be swamped by the uncertainties of observations. Would you trust someone selling you 8 pounds of grain using a scale which can't tell the difference between 0 or 25 pounds ?

If the "surface stations" project has accomplished one thing, it's the vindication of the GISTEMP methods for the United States.

That's YOUR interpretation of things. The only irrefutable vindication is that USHCN is made of a huge number of junk stations yielding junk data and claiming junk data may give good results is a farce. And that's for the USA, richest nation of the world with the densest network, imagine data from Mongolia or Africa.

@dhogaza Call me stupid if you want, just clueless.But maybe you are not as bad after all. If you have anything significant and scientific to contribute in response to my claims and questioning, you are welcome to continue. But please spare the readers with those tedious "big tobacco", "creationist" and other "politics of science bla-bla" scoffing. Just stick to the issue, please.

Don't dream too much about it, CP. He's too tore down to do any such thing. All you're in for with him is trolling so just ignore.

do the people who you save millions of dollars for know, that you don t have the slightest understanding on how a trendline works?

by choosing your start or end date correctly, you can make a "stasis" trend out of each period of decline.

sorry, you simply are wrong on all accounts..

@66 Sod,

The people I saved M$ for couldn't care less about what you'd think I know about trends. Now stick to facts and show me a 6 year period similar to 2002-2008 with as few variability and lack of warming when CO2 emissions increase more than ever. With the start and end dates you want. Can you or not ?

climatepatrol quotes Max Planck:

>False doctrine in science take fifty years until they are exchanged by new scientific understanding because it not only takes for the old scholars to become extinct but their old students as well.

Sounds about right. Fifty years ago hardly anyone accepted AGW.

@Demesure
#74

Don't dream too much about it, CP. He's too tore down to do any such thing. All you're in for with him is trolling so just ignore.

sorry, you simply are wrong on all accounts..
...is the usual tactics of a troll called sod who is a master in multiple "brain exploding" twisting of comments of people he does not agree with. (Note: "expression" borrowed from sod's friend bi).

@ Demesure
#74
Sorry. I'll try again. The spaghetti monster has eaten a sentence. ;-)

Don't dream too much about it, CP. He's too tore down to do any such thing. All you're in for with him is trolling so just ignore

Thank you for your advice, friend.

Demesure writes:

If six years cooling (with no volcanic eruption and record low atmospheric aerosol concentration in the satellite era) means nothing, then you should tell the IPCC to scrape shitty claims in its SPM like "it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record"

What does one have to do with the other? It sounds like a pure non sequitur to me. With a rising trend, you will more and more often hit record individual years and decades. Again, have you taken an introductory statistics class?

Demesure, who never likes to give up a trope, posts:

Look at the graph for all global temperature providers here and tell me where you can find a 6 year stasis similar to what we see over the recent years. Why such stasis while AGWers are promising us for years tipping points, accelerated warming, catastrophic positive feedback... ?

Repeat after me, Demesure:

Six years is too short to prove a climate trend.
Six years is too short to prove a climate trend.
Six years is too short to prove a climate trend.

And memorize this definition:

Climate is mean regional or global weather over a period of thirty years or more.

And read an introductory statistics text, and do the problems. An example would be Brase, C.H. and Brase, C.P. 1995. "Understandable Statistics." Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.

Demesure writes:

Nowhere in science would you find a selective and self-serving adjustments of past physical measurements because of the presence new & recent data.

This is so stunningly clueless it's hard to believe. Demesure, are you familiar with any actual scientific literature? Try following the economic statistics for one example; the magnitude of the size of the 1974-1975 recession has been reevaluated many, many times since then. Ditto the size of past volcanic eruptions in geology. Ditto various facts about extinct animals and plants in palaeontology ("Brontosaurus" didn't exist, but "Camarasaurus," with a different head, did).

Past values of scientific data are re-estimated all the time.

BPL:

I can't read Demesure's (and climtepatrol's and Kent's) comments because [kill] is on, but judging from your latest comment, he is saying something dumb. It appears as if he is tap-dancing and pretzeling to maintain his ideology (and thus his identity). He'll say whatever to keep believing the bases for his identity are correct. Fuhgeddaboudit.

Best,

D

@All
Btw did you notice that my claim in # 4 April 22, 2008 9:35 AM :

a shift in "decadal or multidecadal ENSO-like events" could be happening just now, along with a cooling started cooling trend for the coming decade. Cai and Whetton (2001) seems to be the latest paper that took into account multidecadal natural ENSO-like fluctuations (SOI, PDO, AMO) when looking at the CO2-warming-signal.

...came just after the press release of Nasa? Then in #14 I called it a coupled event when the ocean temperature cooled last time on a large scale worldwide (1944-1947) which could be happening just now.

@Chris O'Neill (you did not agree at #16) and
@dhogaza (scoffer of all sorts)

Did you notice that the climatepatrol sources were dated April 16 (and April 17 see comment)? This hypothesis of a climate shift taking place was before the Nasa press release of April 21. It's not about me, just in general: Never underestimate a true skeptic. This is more than just a tooth of global warming being extracted here. It's a significant part of your 30-year warming trend which is now attributable to natural causes. You can put one "scientific understand=low" to "medium" for the next IPCC.

NASA Josh Willis Take 2: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/jason-20080421.html . Apologies.

Re #82
I like to give credit to Joseph d'Aleo and his essay regarding the hypothesis of the great pacific climate shift:.

Why do idiots believe that the fact that there are multiple drivers of weather variability somehow overturns the basic physics underlying CO2 forcing?

Someone please help me out here.

CP, the reason you're compared with other science denialists is because you (and many other climate science denialists) act like one.

1. Quote mine source to appear they believe in things they don't believe in

2. Unshatterable and uncritical faith in cranks like d'Aleo, coupled with assurance that mainstream science is a fraud

3. The belief that since sometimes major beliefs in science are overturned (as suggested by Max Planck), then everything known by science is false (though everything known by hackish retired TV weathermen like d'Aleo is, of course true).

Etc etc.

...sometimes major beliefs in science are overturned (as suggested by Max Planck), then everything known by science is false...

Since this is a general denialist tactic, and not restricted to climate change denialists, I think it would be instructive to build a website detailing the major overturns in the past 50-100 years, including a description of how the change came about. There certainly haven't been many, so it wouldn't be a huge endeavor. And it would be a great resource to use every time someone tries to use this argument.

Does anyone know if such a site already exists? (I'd work on compiling the info, but I'd need help with the examples outside math and physics.)

demesure:

Now stick to facts and show me a 6 year period similar to 2002-2008 with as few variability and lack of warming when CO2 emissions increase more than ever. With the start and end dates you want. Can you or not ?

I have already told you the answer in #65. Examples are:

December 1978 to November 1984;

September 1981 to August 1987;

November/December 1986 to October/November 1992;

March/April 1990 to February/March 1996.

Now start being honest and admit your assertion:

You won't find such stasis over the past 30 years of "unprecedented warming"

was wrong.

Did you notice that the climatepatrol sources were dated April 16 (and April 17 see comment)? This hypothesis of a climate shift taking place was before the Nasa press release of April 21. It's not about me, just in general: Never underestimate a true skeptic. This is more than just a tooth of global warming being extracted here. It's a significant part of your 30-year warming trend which is now attributable to natural causes. You can put one "scientific understand=low" to "medium" for the next IPCC.

Mann wrote a paper in 2000 (peer review and such..), observing and SIMULATING multidecadal variability in the atlantic.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~gth/netscape/2000/td0004.pdf

could it be that he was/is aware of t he similar pacif ic event?

@66 Sod, The people I saved M$ for couldn't care less about what you'd think I know about trends. Now stick to facts and show me a 6 year period similar to 2002-2008 with as few variability and lack of warming when CO2 emissions increase more than ever. With the start and end dates you want. Can you or not ?

you can t simply add weird additional parts to your claims, when people have contradicted you.

why don t you show us that man is not responsible for the current warming AND that i m wearing pink slippers at this moment?

cp:

This is more than just a tooth of global warming being extracted here. It's a significant part of your 30-year warming trend

Says you. Since the PDO SST index is now lower than it was in the early 1980s, why is the world now warmer? BTW, PDO doesn't change global temperature significantly, it changes the distribution of temperature over the Pacific, the so-called "warm" phase has a lot of cool areas and the so-called "cool" phase has a lot of warm areas.

This is so stunningly clueless it's hard to believe. Demesure, are you familiar with any actual scientific literature? Try following the economic statistics for one example; the magnitude of the size of the 1974-1975 recession has been reevaluated many, many times since then.

@80,

I was talking about science, not about economics. So try better Barton Paul even if I suspect you could tell the difference between the 2 fields.

But after all, you're right. Climate "science" is comparable to economics: it's based on shoddy statistics susceptible to revisionism (they call it "adjustement" in climatology), unvalidated & unvalidatable theories and million $ useless models which can predict anything to order to serve politicians or ideologues' purpose.

"Ask one question to 3 economists and you'll get 5 different answers".

"I have already told you the answer in #65. Examples are:

December 1978 to November 1984;

September 1981 to August 1987;

November/December 1986 to October/November 1992;

March/April 1990 to February/March 1996."

@87

None of the above periods have such few variability as the past 6 year stasis (stasis means stasis, not cooling or whatever). And they all bracket a massive volcanic eruption whereas the current stasis DOES NOT. So re-read my post if you don't understand and pls, stop your childish strawmen.

BPL.

Six years Is too short to PROVE a climate trend.
Unfortunately, the question is not to prove, but to disprove.
Over the past six years the data indicate that trends claimed by the IPCC, namely .2c per decade, are unlikely. So YES,
it takes a lot of data to PROVE a trend ( think beta error)
It takes less data to disprove specified trends. I'll give
you a simple example. If I claimed in 2001 that temperatures
would increase at 10C per decade ( no typo) then after 74 months of observing a trend of around zero with a 1sig of .1c you would be WISE to REJECT my claim. So, the issue is not PROVING a trend, the issue is rejecting a hypothesis made by the IPCC that from 2001 to 2011 we would se a trend line at .2C per decade.

All that said, I fully expect that in the next few years the warming will return and we will be close to a .2C per decade
trend.

Demesure writes:

"Nowhere in science would you find a selective and self-serving adjustments of past physical measurements because of the presence new & recent data."

If you actually believe that, you are beyond hope. First of all, scientists constantly correct for measurment problems. Secondly, do you think it was in Spencer and Christy's "best interest" to increase their warming trend by 40% when their analysis was shown to be faulty?

The rate of warming for the current RSS and UAH analyses still differ by more than 20%. They start with the same data. They treat the data differently. RSS excludes data that UAH includes. The next versions of these analyses will undoubtably be different than the current analysis. They "adjust" past data.

The sunspot counts are adjusted from historical observations. Different scientists over the centuries counted them differently. In order to make a time series, you have to make the data consistent.

The PMOD and ACRIM TSI data are different. They begin with the same data. The data has to be adjusted because they were measured using different instruments, and the instruments age. If the data wasn't adjusted, the data would be worthless.

Past reconstructions of TSI show more variation than current reconstructions. The methods that were used in the past are no longer valid based on our current knowledge. The data is adjusted.

Temperature records are imperfect. They were measured by many thousands of people over 150 years with no intention of creating a global temperature anomaly series. They used different instruments, different methodology, different quality control, and made those measurements at different locations. In order to get the best representation of global temperature change, you have make adjustments to the data.

"If trends on 30 years are from 0.14°K/decade to 0.18°C/decade, that's a discrepancy of 25%"

Yes, it's difference between UAH and RSS. If we exclude UAH, it varies from 0.17 to 0.18.

"The only irrefutable vindication is that USHCN is made of a huge number of junk stations yielding junk data and claiming junk data may give good results is a farce."

Actually, the irrefutable vindication is that GISTEMP takes those junk stations and creates a temperature plot virtually identical to only the best stations. But you will never see Anthony Watts flashing that graph on Glenn Beck.

As for flat 6 year trends, in the last 29 years, there have been two such instances in GISTEMP, HadCRUT, RSS and UAH that had no volcanic influence. One period beginning around January 1995 (with the exception of HadCRU) and another period beginning around January 1997 (with the exception of GISTEMP).

"I have already told you the answer in #65. Examples are:

December 1978 to November 1984;

September 1981 to August 1987;

November/December 1986 to October/November 1992;

March/April 1990 to February/March 1996."

None of the above periods have such few variability as the past 6 year stasis (stasis means stasis, not cooling or whatever).

I wasn't aware that the past 6 years had ZERO temperature variance. Please point us to the record that shows this.

And they all bracket a massive volcanic eruption whereas the current stasis DOES NOT.

I notice you mentioned volcanoes in a separate thread. I suppose that gets you out of your bald assertion in #28:

You won't find such stasis over the past 30 years of "unprecedented warming"

However, if volcanoes are not your thing then May 1997 to April 2003 had zero temperature trend and so did September 1997 to August 2003, according to NCDC.

You can now withdraw your wrong assertion.

@Chris O'Neill

Since the PDO SST index is now lower than it was in the early 1980s, why is the world now warmer?

. Okay, no quoting of people this time, who know more so much more about the subject, just what I believe strongly: Not so much due to any primary greenhouse effet but rather other - human and natural - factors. Interestingly, the aerosol factor, which is supposedly a negative anthropogenic feedback, is likely to have turned out to be positive since 1980. With sulfure aerosol, a cloud forming anthropogenic factor has decreased over time. Now, we don't have worldwide cloud observations back to 1980. But what we can say is that those kind of clouds with a negative climate forcing have decreased since the eighties, thus resulting in a positive forcing or feedback if you will, more sunshine heating up the land surface in particular. Then there are other aerosols that form a kind of haze in high latitude areas which also cause warming, especially over a big junk of the Arctic Ocean and Siberia. Then the snow albedo has decreased over the NH. That is an anthropogenic warming. Why don't I believe that CO2 is the main culprit during this period? Because according to NOAA, mid-troposhere temperature has warmed less than surface temperature, which I learned is opposite to what they should when claiming that CO2 is the major driver. So the whole controversy lies in the feedbacks that supposedly amplify a CO2 forcing. I know I am touching many subjects here.

Call me clueless why people are still arguing about a 6 year trend that has most stasis since satelite measurements becan when already a NASA oceanographer has an explanation for this. Of course there is a new stasis that is likely to continue now! Demeasure is right. 30 years is not enough to confirm an anthropogenic trend when there is suddenly a natural climate shift.

climatepatrol writes:

Demeasure is right.

As far as I can tell, he hasn't been right yet.

30 years is not enough to confirm an anthropogenic trend when there is suddenly a natural climate shift.

We have 128 years of data from NASA GISS and 158 from Hadley CRU. The trend over that time is up. And we pretty much know why.

cp:

the aerosol factor, which is supposedly a negative anthropogenic feedback,

negative forcing actually.

Why don't I believe that CO2 is the main culprit during this period? Because according to NOAA, mid-troposhere temperature has warmed less than surface temperature,

No, you're wrong. This was corrected more than two and a half years ago.

a 6 year trend that has most stasis since satelite measurements becan

Not true.

when already a NASA oceanographer has an explanation for this.

Sure if you say so. You don't seem to realize that even if PDO affects the statistics of El Niño/La Niña, a single El Niño and a single La Niña (which is all it took to cause a cooling trend lasting just six years) are not attributable to the state of the PDO.

Of course there is a new stasis that is likely to continue now!

Sure if you say so. Your stasis has disappeared pretty quickly. The six year trend from April 2002 to March 2008 inclusive is positive.

Demeasure is right.

Good joke. Wonderful irony.

30 years is not enough to confirm an anthropogenic trend when there is suddenly a natural climate shift.

Right so 30 years is not enough to confirm a trend but 6 years is. It's so logical now.

@Barton Paul Levenson

We have 128 years of data from NASA GISS and 158 from Hadley CRU. The trend over that time is up. And we pretty much know why.

Ok. I don't deny that. The question is just - how much. I just did a rough spreadsheet with CO2*2 = 2,0K forcing. That's the lower limit of IPCC AR4. Knowing this formula, I roughly broke it down to decadal growth rate depending on the increase of CO2 so far each decade.
This is the rough result:

1880......1980......1990......2000......2010......2020
280ppm..338ppm..352ppm..368ppm..388ppm..407ppm
0,0K......0,3K.......0,4K......0,54K......0,7K......0,86K

We are a bit above this "2K-forcing-line" right now in 2008, with roughly +0,8K since beginning industrial era.
Now if a big junk of the warming since 1976-1980 is not connected with rising CO2, I conclude, the 30-year-trendline since then does not stand for rising CO2 alone, and climate forcing for 2*CO2 must then be below 2,0K. But maybe I am wrong.

"30 years is not enough to confirm an anthropogenic trend when there is suddenly a natural climate shift. "

?? And yet, it appears to be an article of faith that "since 1998" is long enough to confirm a natural trend in the face of an anthropogenic shuift?

But maybe I am wrong.

Nah, you're right, have a little faith in yourself. Climate scientists are, after all, a bunch of librel nannygovernmentcompoops out to destroy your freedoms. It's not a big surprise that someone clever like you can bring their entire pseudo-scientific house of cards tumbling down.

1880......1980......1990......2000......2010......2020 280ppm..338ppm..352ppm..368ppm..388ppm..407ppm 0,0K......0,3K.......0,4K......0,54K......0,7K......0,86K

But maybe I am wrong.

Yup. Try putting 560ppm into your formula to see if you get the right result. Once you've fixed it up, this is what you should get:

1880......1980......1990......2000......2010......2020 280ppm..338ppm..352ppm..368ppm..388ppm..407ppm 0,0K......0,54K.......0,66K......0,79K......0,94K......1,08K

BTW, why do you think a sensible choice for sensitivity is a figure that has a 97.5% chance of being lower than the real sensitivity?

Actually, CP, the work has been done for you (you should really use a log dependence)

@dhogaza HAHAHAHA!
@ Eli Rabett & Chris O'Neill
Thank you! I fixed it.

BTW, why do you think a sensible choice for sensitivity is a figure that has a 97.5% chance of being lower than the real sensitivity?

Aha. Time lag until the water planet finds its equilibrum. Hmm. That goes for both natural and human induced forces. And if you decouple aerosols from the main CO2-driver and match it with the real aerosol development, IPPC's CO2+feedback-sensitivity looks overestimated to me.

"...sometimes major beliefs in science are overturned (as suggested by Max Planck), then everything known by science is false..."

i know. every since einstein and relativity, it's been impossible to figure out what MA equals. How did people think it was F for so many years?

Time lag until the water planet finds its equilibrum.

There are a "few" scientists who haven't just assumed this to be zero in arriving at an empirically derived climate sensitivity just from warming over the 20th century or a few decades. e.g.

Knutti, R., T. F. Stocker, F. Joos, and G.-K. Plattner (2002), Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles, Nature, 416, 719-723;

Andronova, N. G., and M. E. Schlesinger (2001), Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D8), 22,605-22,611;

Forest, C. E., P. H. Stone, A. P. Sokolov, M. R. Allen, and M. D. Webster (2002),Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations, Science, 295 (5552), 113-117.

And these are separate from other wide-ranging empirical sources that Annan describes in his paper.

IPPC's CO2+feedback-sensitivity looks overestimated to me.

You'll pardon me if I don't take the word of someone who both gets his facts wrong and deliberately ignores them over the results of a lot of scientists published in a lot of papers.