Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[bit_pattern]

What global warming? There has been NO statistically significant global warming since 1995

http://www.skepticalscience.com/the_global_global_warming_signal.html

• New global temperature series confirm the GISTEMP results using only the HadCRUT3, NCDC and/or UAH data.
  
• Once El Nino is taken into account there is no evidence for a slowdown in warming over the period 1996-2010.
  
• If the HadCRUT4/HadSST3 ocean temperature corrections are also included then the underlying global warming rate is ≳0.2°C/decade.
  
• There remain uncorrected cool biases in the temperature trends.

 

[DC]

Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed

those people only discovered recently that the sun is linked to the climate? they seem a bit slow.

 

[DC]

Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.4041&rep=rep1&type=pdf

for those interested in the full paper.

 

[Puppycow]

People don't understand what is going on. A 1 degree average increase, say, means a 70 degree day is now 71. An 80 degree day is now 81.

You might have a small amount of increased storms, but not some kind of holy hellmouth releasing all over the Earth.

Actually, I believe a 1 degree average increase would actually have some pretty severe negative consequences. There was a book published a few years ago called Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet which explained what each degree of temperature increase would mean. Even just one would be bad, and 6 would be damn near armageddon, with various degrees of badness in between.

http://green.tv/videos/6_degrees/

 

[Puppycow]

This US summer is 'what global warming looks like'

WASHINGTON — If you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, scientists suggest taking a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks.

Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.

These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.

 

[Trakar]

And yet you and a few others have yet to mention albedo

WE hadn't yet mentioned that the planet is round (which has a tremendous impact upon how solar radiance is distributed into our environment), either, but obvious issues tend to be,...well, obvious.

 

[Trakar]

Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed

4-5 years into their decade and we've had 3 of the hottest years on record, in ascending order and what looks to be another year near the top of that list in the current year in progress! Not an auspicious start for their "forecast" or their "theory."

2007 - 8th hottest

2009 - 7th hottest

2010 - 2nd hottest

2012 -? but on track to be one of the warmest - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-p...rameter=tmp&year=2012&month=5&state=110&div=0

 

[lomiller]

What global warming? There has been NO statistically significant global warming since 1995

Wrong null hypothesis. The correct null would be to ask whether there were any change in the warming trend, and the correct reporting test is to say it shows that there is no statistical evidence for a change in the warming trend.

So CO2 continues to shoot up and the warming has stopped!

See above. There is no statistically significant evidence for any change in the warming trend. In fact you were the one who just said the data from 1995 (more likely 1996, 97 0r 98 now) isn't statistically significant.

 

[Haig]

Wrong ... snip ...Global warming since 1995 'now significant'

Mmm ... you think a warming for 1995-2010 of 0.19C is statistically significant? Is this rate of Global warming what the IPCC and others had been predicting? ... NO it wasn't and you should try to understand why the rate has slowed while CO2 races on upward ... how much has CO2 increased in the same period?

And here there is a cooling that started about 3 p.m. and now -5 a.m- it has dropped several degrees. I have evidence that the same is happening everywhere.

Don't worry it is just a coincidence and nothing to do with that big yellow ball in the sky ... the IPCC say so ... "the Sun has nothing to do with climate change" and they haven't made many mistakes ...right? IPCC Gives Up On Science, Makes Grey Literature Official

Are we going to die?

Yes, we all do

But seriously, I suppose that your "1995" comes from what you -or others- suppose to be the beginning of "statistically significant global warming", that is, from 1994 to present "there is a statistically significant" global warming", what is an interesting acceptance. Otherwise, what does that "1995" come from? Is it some normal? Is it some exploit of someone saying 17 years is climate (instead of 30)? Did you need to tune the term "statistical significance" to match the whole package or you have a credited source for your claimed "NO (sic) statistically significant global warming since 1995" that defines how to determine the statistical significance of a variable series? Can you show this criteria clearly and the set of data used to arrive to your conclusion? Is that conclusion inescapable?

I'm sure you've read Pixel42 post above yours and she gives a link to the Prof Phil Jones saga "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News." Something worth repeating here ... So HadCRUT shows a warming for 1995-2010 of 0.19C and some think that is statistically significant !!!! but what were the dire predictions, for Global warming, made 10 or 20 years earlier that would definitely happen if we did nothing to stop the rise in CO2? So we did nothing ... and the warming rate slows That should make you wonder a little

The Stern Review on Climate Change: Inconvenient Sensitivities

Abstract - Nicholas Stern's Review of “The Economics of Climate Change” (2007) triggered considerable discussion, essentially by condensing a complex problem - the question of how to act in the face of global warming - into juxtaposing two numbers, the cost of mitigation and the cost of climate change. The Review concludes that mitigation today is economically superior to adaptation tomorrow. The review was widely criticized for the assumption of a pure rate of time preference of almost zero, on which its conclusions seemed to depend. In this paper we argue first, that this assumption discriminates against current in favour of future generations. Second, we perform a sensitivity analysis to test for the extent to which the conclusions of the Review are indeed based on the assumption of a rate of time preference of almost zero. We demonstrate that the conclusions of the Review are no longer valid as soon as parameter values are used which are standard in economic analysis. Combined, these results raise a bigger question: how wise is it to base crucial policy choices on a model so dependent on a single, deeply subjective, judgement call?

 

[lomiller]

I think you mean at the surface of the earth.

As for the sun and climate, I was just reading this page http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/index.php?section=136

No. Over 1/2 the Sun’s energy output is in or near the visible spectrum, and the intensity of the visible spectrum MUCH higher than anywhere else.

As for the sun and climate, I was just reading this page http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/index.php?section=136

Link doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion. The new satellite shows a different base around which the 0.1% variation in TSI occurs but all satellites that monitor TSI calibrate differently.

 

[lomiller]

Astronomical observatory in Japan say it's the Sun and it's expected to cool the Earth. Seems to support the OP very well RC

http://www.earthchangenews.com/2012/04/sun-may-soon-have-four-poles-say.html

Their claim is absurd. 2.5 deg of cooling would take a decrease in TSI of ~2% which is an order of magnitude higher than what you would see in a Maunder Minimum.

 

[Haig]

4-5 years into their decade and we've had 3 of the hottest years on record, in ascending order and what looks to be another year near the top of that list in the current year in progress! Not an auspicious start for their "forecast" or their "theory."

2007 - 8th hottest

2009 - 7th hottest

2010 - 2nd hottest

2012 -? but on track to be one of the warmest - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-p...rameter=tmp&year=2012&month=5&state=110&div=0

Those statistics DON'T include the whole World only part of the USA!

The "Contiguous United States" refers to the 48 states that do not include Alaska or Hawaii.

The rest of the Globe was a lot cooler ....

[B]Latest HadCRUT Analysis Confirms Slight Global Cooling Trend Last 15 Years[/B]

Conclusions: The global warming science facts do not support the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis that is continuously promulgated by bureaucrats and paid-off scientists. A global cooling trend has developed despite the IPCC's climate model predictions and the immense human CO2 emissions over the last 15 years (a 1.7 times increase over the 15-yr period ending in 1996) . Catastrophic, dangerous, unequivocal, accelerating and unprecedented global warming are non-existent as of April 2012. In summary, the data strongly and irrefutably suggest that human CO2 emissions are not a powerful greenhouse gas and that, instead, natural climate forces are the likely primary drivers of global temperature changes.

 

[Haig]

Wrong null hypothesis. The correct null would be to ask whether there were any change in the warming trend, and the correct reporting test is to say it shows that there is no statistical evidence for a change in the warming trend.

I think it's more important to point out the global warming science facts do not support the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis

There is no statistically significant evidence for any change in the warming trend. In fact you were the one who just said the data from 1995 (more likely 1996, 97 0r 98 now) isn't statistically significant.

Sure there is ...Why has global warming turned to cooling or, as some prefer, "stalled"?

 

[DC]

Mmm ... you think a warming for 1995-2010 of 0.19C is statistically significant? Is this rate of Global warming what the IPCC and others had been predicting? ... NO it wasn't and you should try to understand why the rate has slowed while CO2 races on upward ... how much has CO2 increased in the same period?

Don't worry it is just a coincidence and nothing to do with that big yellow ball in the sky ... the IPCC say so ... "the Sun has nothing to do with climate change" and they haven't made many mistakes ...right? IPCC Gives Up On Science, Makes Grey Literature Official
Yes, we all do
I'm sure you've read Pixel42 post above yours and she gives a link to the Prof Phil Jones saga "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News." Something worth repeating here ... So HadCRUT shows a warming for 1995-2010 of 0.19C and some think that is statistically significant !!!! but what were the dire predictions, for Global warming, made 10 or 20 years earlier that would definitely happen if we did nothing to stop the rise in CO2? So we did nothing ... and the warming rate slows That should make you wonder a little

The Stern Review on Climate Change: Inconvenient Sensitivities

so Jones's intervew is worth repeating when he said no significant warming at 95% level. But why not repeat the Jones interview one year later?

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'

because it does not fit your beliefs?

 

[DC]

I think it's more important to point out the global warming science facts do not support the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis

Sure there is ...Why has global warming turned to cooling or, as some prefer, "stalled"?

lol you expose the fact that you have not the slightest idea what statistically significant means.

 

[Pixel42]

Mmm ... you think a warming for 1995-2010 of 0.19C is statistically significant?

The mathematics says that there is a less than 5% chance that this increase is due to chance variation rather than a genuine underlying warming tend. That is the definition of statistically significant. There's no "think" about it, it's not a matter of opinion. It's maths.

Is this rate of Global warming what the IPCC and others had been predicting?

Pretty much, yes. The prediction of the original models reported by the IPCC was IIRC between 0.15 and 0.2C per decade, based on business as usual and assuming a figure of about 4C for the warming to be expected per doubling of CO2. Later research suggests a figure nearer 3.5C per doubling, and over a period of only 15 years other short term random variations will produce a lot of noise. So yes, those early predictions have proved reasonably accurate. Surprisingly so, I would say, given the relative crudity of those original models.

 

[Pixel42]

Those statistics DON'T include the whole World only part of the USA!

Here's a better link to the global data (my bold):

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/2011/13#gtemp

[2011] marks the 35th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above the 20th century average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average. Including 2011, all eleven years in the 21st century so far (2001–2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm sure you've read Pixel42 post above yours and she gives a link to the Prof Phil Jones saga "The trend over the period 1995-2009 ....

Hold your horses! What does authorize you to extend that study adding three years? You said exactly "What global warming? There has been NO statistically significant global warming since 1995" and now your are going back on it: firstly, "since 1995" includes 2010, 2011 and a few months of 2012 which final records are available; secondly, 90% statistically significant is YES statistically significant, not NO statistically significant. .

By the way, before start discussing what is significant, you better get the published work where those figures arises. You also should get how significance is more or less "significant" according there are independent lines to prove something is actually operating in the world or not. I bet the published work doesn't even exist as that "95% that people use" is obviously a phrase said by a journalist, not a scientific, together with the lack of understanding of the whole "significance" matter that exudes the article you linked. So, there's no really a Prof. Jones saga but your "aloofness" about him (Please, share if you have any feelings about Prof. Jones).

So far, you are doing a pretty good job in showing there's an AGW as you are flash-linking and flash-quoting whatever you want (a blog post, an article with a journalist saying a scientist said something) and you are always one step away from seeing your "debunking" debunked.

 

[Reality Check]

FYI , RC :
Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere

FYI, Haig, the poles are not the entire world!

The simple facts remains that global temperatures have risen in the past 35 years despite the Sun's output decrerasing:
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24, Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics February 9, 2012
Try reading the abstract: "This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 "C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed."
(my emphasis added)

 

[Reality Check]

What global warming? There has been NO statistically significant global warming since 1995

Oh dear - that old misinformation !
Phil Jones and the meaning of 'statistically significant warming

When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.

Not statistically significant means that there was a warming trend, but that it may have been caused by the noise in teh data

This urban myth dates from 2009. We have 3 more years of data wiith each being hotter. The warming trend since 1995 is now statistically signficant as other posters have pointed out to you.