51% of GOP now accept anthropogenic global warming

[Iceweasel]

Don't have to, 'cause there has been no temperature increase on Mars. You've fallen for another propaganda myth that has no substance.

Global warming on Mars?
Dr. Steinn Sigurðsson
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa

I'll raise you by bringing in NASA.

NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up
For the past 30 years, NASA scientists have been using high-tech satellite equipment to study features on the face of Mars. It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise.

You'll "raise me" with an article about how changes in Mars's albedo caused by dust storms may be causing slight temperature changes? LOL. You are an incredibly stupid and probably insane little denier cultist. That article does not in any way support the denier cult myth that a non-existent increase in solar output is warming all of the planets. Instead the very first line of that article, which you quoted but obviously didn't understand, says:
"For the past 30 years, NASA scientists have been using high-tech satellite equipment to study features on the face of Mars. It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise.".

Right there, it attributes some small observed temperature changes to slight changes in the surface albedo, NOT solar irradiance. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, retard.

It goes on to say:
"They discovered that a wind-whipped, dusty surface has a measurable effect on the amount of sunlight that is reflected by the planet. The results of this research show that an increase in darkened surface areas may account for a one degree Fahrenheit rise in the surface air temperature of the planet. “We know that warmer temperatures and increased wind strengths are near the darkened areas where less sunlight is reflected by the surface, and cooler temperatures and weakened winds generally correspond to brightened areas” explained Lori Fenton, the experiment’s principal investigator at NASA Ames Research Center, in California's Silicon Valley. “What we don’t understand is how these changes in the planet’s brightness affect the martian climate.” “Albedo” is the technical term for a planet’s ability to reflect sunlight. According to scientists, variations in the planet’s albedo are generally attributed to changes in distribution of dust on the surface. Research indicates that as the dark areas on Mars expand and darken over time, its albedo decreases, and its surface air temperature rise."

In short, the NASA article has nothing to do with the warming and climate changes that are currently happening on Earth. I'd be curious to know what denier cult blog misinformed you about the meaning of that article. You obviously didn't read it or else you're just too stupid to understand it.

People confident in their beliefs don't fly off in a blind rage when challenged. You're the one acting very much like a cultists. Yes, warming and cooling patterns cause other things to happen, duh. How many SUVs do they have?

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

 

[Iceweasel]

LOLOL.

With the world scientific community saying that mankind caused global warming and its consequent climate changes are, in fact, what is happening, your statement amounts to very insane, ideology-driven reality denial.

That's the online equivalent of slobbering all over your baby bib.

No little retard, that's the online equivalent of kicking another delusional denier cult retard's butt to the curb over an incredibly stupid remark. Like I just did with you over your moronic attempt to use a NASA quote that didn't actually support your idiotic myths.

I don't have a myth and being a smarmy asshole means that you are a frightened boy under the bravado. Does that normally work for you? LOL. I didn't think so.

 

[RollingThunder]

Granger Causality, interesting yet still statistical.

Defined: "Granger causality is a statistical concept of causality that is based on prediction. According to Granger causality, if a signal X1 "Granger-causes" (or "G-causes") a signal X2, then past values of X1 should contain information that helps predict X2 above and beyond the information contained in past values of X2 alone. Its mathematical formulation is based on linear regression modeling of stochastic processes (Granger 1969). More complex extensions to nonlinear cases exist, however these extensions are often more difficult to apply in practice."

So based on the mere fact that temperatures have not increased over the previous fifteen years as explained in the IPCC report, even the statistical Granger Causality is not proven. So we're back at you or yours providing some fundamental experimental evidence since CO2 did not drive climate for the past fifteen years, nor did it from 1940 to 1970. So, statistically speaking, this fails.

LOLOLOLOL......and there's a really classic denier cult troll for you......he demands evidence that increasing CO2 levels are driving the current abrupt warming trend and then when shown massive amounts of scientific evidence supporting that fact, he goes into total denial and finds some new absurd reason to reject all of the evidence using his previously debunked faulty assumption - "based on the mere fact that temperatures have not increased over the previous fifteen years" - but of course temperatures have increased, both in the oceans and the atmosphere. Denialism is a mental disease afflicting ignorant retards.

 

[jc456]

Granger Causality, interesting yet still statistical.

Defined: "Granger causality is a statistical concept of causality that is based on prediction. According to Granger causality, if a signal X1 "Granger-causes" (or "G-causes") a signal X2, then past values of X1 should contain information that helps predict X2 above and beyond the information contained in past values of X2 alone. Its mathematical formulation is based on linear regression modeling of stochastic processes (Granger 1969). More complex extensions to nonlinear cases exist, however these extensions are often more difficult to apply in practice."

So based on the mere fact that temperatures have not increased over the previous fifteen years as explained in the IPCC report, even the statistical Granger Causality is not proven. So we're back at you or yours providing some fundamental experimental evidence since CO2 did not drive climate for the past fifteen years, nor did it from 1940 to 1970. So, statistically speaking, this fails.

LOLOLOLOL......and there's a really classic denier cult troll for you......he demands evidence that increasing CO2 levels are driving the current abrupt warming trend and then when shown massive amounts of scientific evidence supporting that fact, he goes into total denial and finds some new absurd reason to reject all of the evidence using his previously debunked faulty assumption - "based on the mere fact that temperatures have not increased over the previous fifteen years" - but of course temperatures have increased, both in the oceans and the atmosphere. Denialism is a mental disease afflicting ignorant retards.

Dude, as stated previously, you have no proof. Keep trying, but you'll never convince those who have data that is different than your theoretical models, inferring they had no evidence to make a statement as was made. Nor, in your Granger Causality, it didn't predict correctly so is invalid. So proof you don't have. Hah

Edit: oh....BTW, what happened 1940 to 1970, no heat up there either. LOL is correct at you and your repeated failure.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Granger Causality, interesting yet still statistical.

Defined: "Granger causality is a statistical concept of causality that is based on prediction. According to Granger causality, if a signal X1 "Granger-causes" (or "G-causes") a signal X2, then past values of X1 should contain information that helps predict X2 above and beyond the information contained in past values of X2 alone. Its mathematical formulation is based on linear regression modeling of stochastic processes (Granger 1969). More complex extensions to nonlinear cases exist, however these extensions are often more difficult to apply in practice."

So based on the mere fact that temperatures have not increased over the previous fifteen years as explained in the IPCC report, even the statistical Granger Causality is not proven. So we're back at you or yours providing some fundamental experimental evidence since CO2 did not drive climate for the past fifteen years, nor did it from 1940 to 1970. So, statistically speaking, this fails.

LOLOLOLOL......and there's a really classic denier cult troll for you......he demands evidence that increasing CO2 levels are driving the current abrupt warming trend and then when shown massive amounts of scientific evidence supporting that fact, he goes into total denial and finds some new absurd reason to reject all of the evidence using his previously debunked faulty assumption - "based on the mere fact that temperatures have not increased over the previous fifteen years" - but of course temperatures have increased, both in the oceans and the atmosphere. Denialism is a mental disease afflicting ignorant retards.

What "Abrupt warming trend"?

"July 2013 - Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013."

The recent pause in warming - Met Office

 

[RollingThunder]

OK, dumb fuck, name a Scientific Society that states that AGW is not real, and poses no danger. Just one, even in Outer Slobovia. How about a National Academy of Science, again, even that of Outer Slobovia. Or a major University.

You cannot because there are none. Just a bunch of willfully ignorant idiots like you.

And bite the titty that feeds them? Are you serious? Answer the question genius, how is Mars warming? Could it be the .....sun? Gasp.

LOLOLOL......your denier cult conspiracy theories are soooooo insane, but you can't see that because you're insane too or you wouldn't fall for such nonsense. In your insanity, you imagine that all of the national and international scientific organizations, societies, universities and government science departments in the world are all part of a conspiracy to deceive and defraud the public and you're too retarded to notice how completely wacko and impossible that is. LOL.

And once again, little retard, Mars is not warming and solar irradiance has been declining.

 

[skookerasbil]

Denialism is a mental disease afflicting ignorant retards.

But the ignorant retards are winning s0n!!!!

How 'bout that?!!!!!



A huge majority think the scientists are fucking with the data>>>>


69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?


Fossil fuels will continue to dominate for decades >>>>


10 predictions for the world's energy future » News » OPB




On the list of concerns for Americans, global warming is 2nd to dead last >>>> ( 21 out of 22 )



Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.







L


O


S


E

 

[skookerasbil]

Love schooling the 's





The cheesedicks spend 20 minutes creating this long rant of drivel about the science........and nobody cares about it!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Granger Causality, interesting yet still statistical.

Defined: "Granger causality is a statistical concept of causality that is based on prediction. According to Granger causality, if a signal X1 "Granger-causes" (or "G-causes") a signal X2, then past values of X1 should contain information that helps predict X2 above and beyond the information contained in past values of X2 alone. Its mathematical formulation is based on linear regression modeling of stochastic processes (Granger 1969). More complex extensions to nonlinear cases exist, however these extensions are often more difficult to apply in practice."

So based on the mere fact that temperatures have not increased over the previous fifteen years as explained in the IPCC report, even the statistical Granger Causality is not proven. So we're back at you or yours providing some fundamental experimental evidence since CO2 did not drive climate for the past fifteen years, nor did it from 1940 to 1970. So, statistically speaking, this fails.

LOLOLOLOL......and there's a really classic denier cult troll for you......he demands evidence that increasing CO2 levels are driving the current abrupt warming trend and then when shown massive amounts of scientific evidence supporting that fact, he goes into total denial and finds some new absurd reason to reject all of the evidence using his previously debunked faulty assumption - "based on the mere fact that temperatures have not increased over the previous fifteen years" - but of course temperatures have increased, both in the oceans and the atmosphere. Denialism is a mental disease afflicting ignorant retards.

Dude, as stated previously, you have no proof.

You state a lot of crap that isn't true. Your unsupported statements are meaningless noise.

And, BTW, retard, there are no such thing as a "proof" in science. There is only a preponderance of evidence supporting one explanation for observed phenomena over another. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You denier nitwits have no evidence or viable alternative explanations.

Keep trying, but you'll never convince those who have data that is different than your theoretical models, inferring they had no evidence to make a statement as was made. Nor, in your Granger Causality, it didn't predict correctly so is invalid. So proof you don't have. Hah

Retarded rationalizations for denying the scientific evidence for AGW that you shown. Your idiotic myths about the climate models and the nature of the scientific evidence that was cited amount to just more of your insane denial of reality.

Edit: oh....BTW, what happened 1940 to 1970, no heat up there either.

Are you going to recycle every debunked denier cult propaganda meme out there? LOLOL.

Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?
SkepticalScience
(excerpts)
Although temperatures increased overall during the 20th century, three distinct periods can be observed. Global warming occurred both at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century, but a cooling trend is seen from about 1940 to 1975. As a result, changes in 20th century trends offer a good framework through which to understand climate change and the role of numerous factors in determining the climate at any one time. Early and late 20th century warming has been explained primarily by increasing solar activity and increasing CO2 concentrations, respectively, with other factors contributing in both periods. So what caused the cooling period that interrupted the overall trend in the middle of the century? The answer seems to lie in solar dimming, a cooling phenomenon caused by airborne pollutants. The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.

* Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise in aerosols in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
* A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).​

Combined, these events led to aerosols overwhelming the warming trend at a time when solar activity showed little variation, leading to the observed cooling. Furthermore, it is possible to draw similar conclusions by looking at the daily temperature cycle. Because sunlight affects the maximum day-time temperature, aerosols should have a noticeable cooling impact on it. Minimum night-time temperatures, on the other hand, are more affected by greenhouse gases and therefore should not be affected by aerosols. Were these differences observed? The answer is yes: maximum day-time temperatures fell during this period but minimum night-time temperatures carried on rising. The introduction of pollution control measures reduced the emission of sulphate aerosols. Gradually the cumulative effect of increasing greenhouse gases started to dominate in the 1970s and warming resumed.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOLOL......and there's a really classic denier cult troll for you......he demands evidence that increasing CO2 levels are driving the current abrupt warming trend and then when shown massive amounts of scientific evidence supporting that fact, he goes into total denial and finds some new absurd reason to reject all of the evidence using his previously debunked faulty assumption - "based on the mere fact that temperatures have not increased over the previous fifteen years" - but of course temperatures have increased, both in the oceans and the atmosphere. Denialism is a mental disease afflicting ignorant retards.

What "Abrupt warming trend"?

This one, CrazyFruitcake.

Global temperature (annual values) in the data from NASA GISS (orange) and from Cowtan & Way (blue), i.e. HadCRUT4 with interpolated data gaps.
One can clearly see the extreme year 1998, which (thanks to the record-El Niño) stands out above the long-term trend like no other year. But even taking this outlier year as starting point, the linear trend 1998-2013 in all four data sets is positive. Also clearly visible is 2010 as the warmest year since records began, and the minima in the years 2008 and 2011/2012. But just like the peaks are getting higher, these minima are less and less deep.
(source: RealClimate)

"July 2013 - Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013."

The recent pause in warming - Met Office

1.) They are referring to just "surface temperatures". Surface air temperatures account for only less than 3% of the sun's energy. Over 90% goes into the oceans. The oceans have been warming at accelerating rates and the heat has been going even deeper. The total heat gains the Earth is accumulating have not slowed or "paused" at all.

2.) The MetOffice temperature data set doesn't include the Arctic. The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet. New research that integrated the surface station temperature record and the satellite temperature records showed that there has been no "pause" in even the surface air temperature record.

Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half
RealClimate
Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf
13 November 2013
A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.

Here's the rest of that MetOffice article that you deliberately left out.

The recent pause in warming
The Met Office
July 2013 - Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously. The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions:

1.) What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period?
2.) What are the potential drivers of the current pause?
3.) How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate?​

The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works. The second suggests that it is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role. The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity.

 

[HenryBHough]

OK, so SCREAMING something makes it important?

OK, maybe important but certainly not interesting.

 

[RollingThunder]

OK, so SCREAMING something makes it important?

OK, maybe important but certainly not interesting.

Are you really too stupid to notice that all of your posts amount to content-free, pointless drivel? Or are you just another retarded troll?

 

[Iceweasel]

You cannot because there are none. Just a bunch of willfully ignorant idiots like you.

And bite the titty that feeds them? Are you serious? Answer the question genius, how is Mars warming? Could it be the .....sun? Gasp.

LOLOLOL......your denier cult conspiracy theories are soooooo insane, but you can't see that because you're insane too or you wouldn't fall for such nonsense. In your insanity, you imagine that all of the national and international scientific organizations, societies, universities and government science departments in the world are all part of a conspiracy to deceive and defraud the public and you're too retarded to notice how completely wacko and impossible that is. LOL.

And once again, little retard, Mars is not warming and solar irradiance has been declining.

[/QUOTE]Looks like baby warmer just puked on his bib again. So theatrical too! NASA says it is warming, you don't think it's the sun, it just happened on its' own volition I suppose. Maybe because it doesn't fit YOUR agenda.

So.... you believe they had accurate enough instruments to measure global temperature differences of 1.5 degrees from the 1880s. How does that work?

 

[flacaltenn]

SkepticalScience crayon jobs.. Goes well with the Big Font TinkerBelle..
When you gonna try and read REAL analysis and topical content??

We've got a brand new paper from Max Planck and another from Judith Curry stating that delays in climate equilibrium may be multi-decadal or even on the century scale. So if the sun quit warming in the 70s -- we'd be seeing the result about RIGHT FREAKING NOW..

OH WAIT !!! Something like that ACTUALLY HAPPENED didn't it?

 

[RollingThunder]

That's the online equivalent of slobbering all over your baby bib.

OK, dumb fuck, name a Scientific Society that states that AGW is not real, and poses no danger. Just one, even in Outer Slobovia. How about a National Academy of Science, again, even that of Outer Slobovia. Or a major University.

You cannot because there are none. Just a bunch of willfully ignorant idiots like you.

East Angelia, remember them?

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes...

BBC: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

Phil Jones No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade)

And CrazyFruitcake's severe retardation strikes again. Soooooo gullible. Sooooo full of denier cult propaganda and bullshit.

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent, BBC News
10 June 2011
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"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. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising. The dataset that Professor Jones helps to compile - HadCRUT3 - is a joint project between the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), where he is based, and the UK Met Office. It is one of the main global temperature records used by bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). HadCRUT shows a warming 1995-2010 of 0.19C - consistent with the other major records, which all use slightly different ways of analysing the data in order to compensate for issues such as the dearth of measuring stations in polar regions.

 

[RollingThunder]

SkepticalScience crayon jobs.. Goes well with the Big Font TinkerBelle.. When you gonna try and read REAL analysis and topical content??

We've got a brand new paper from Max Planck and another from Judith Curry stating that delays in climate equilibrium may be multi-decadal or even on the century scale. So if the sun quit warming in the 70s -- we'd be seeing the result about RIGHT FREAKING NOW..

OH WAIT !!! Something like that ACTUALLY HAPPENED didn't it?

Nope. Solar irradiance has diminished slightly but the Earth has continued to take in more of the sun's energy than the amount of energy that is being radiated away into space at the top of the atmosphere. That's been verified by satellite measurements. The whole Earth, including not just the surface air temperatures but also the oceans and the ice, has continued to warm up at an increasing rate. No pause, no cooling.

 

[flacaltenn]

SkepticalScience crayon jobs.. Goes well with the Big Font TinkerBelle.. When you gonna try and read REAL analysis and topical content??

We've got a brand new paper from Max Planck and another from Judith Curry stating that delays in climate equilibrium may be multi-decadal or even on the century scale. So if the sun quit warming in the 70s -- we'd be seeing the result about RIGHT FREAKING NOW..

OH WAIT !!! Something like that ACTUALLY HAPPENED didn't it?

Nope. Solar irradiance has diminished slightly but the Earth has continued to take in more of the sun's energy than the amount of energy that is being radiated away into space at the top of the atmosphere. That's been verified by satellite measurements. The whole Earth, including not just the surface air temperatures but also the oceans and the ice, has continued to warm up at an increasing rate. No pause, no cooling.

The surface temps have essentially paused and your explanation of the seas eating the recent imagined warming has no basis because the RATE of ocean heat consumption hasnt changed since the 70s and has actually minimally decreased during the pause. IN FACT -- the only conditions under which the BTK OR NOAA Ocean heat studies explain the pause is IF delays to equilibrium are delayed by decades.. So you best ditch the juvenile concept that the climate adapts yearly to forcings of any kind..

Just saying NO to the wise assertion that thermal equilibriums of the planet are measured in decades, not months or a year is just uninspired by coomon sense or scientific estimation. You got nothing but FORMATTING AND BIG FONT and a cheesy lying skepticalscience view of the issues.

 

[RollingThunder]

So if the sun quit warming in the 70s -- we'd be seeing the result about RIGHT FREAKING NOW..OH WAIT !!! Something like that ACTUALLY HAPPENED didn't it?

Nope. Solar irradiance has diminished slightly but the Earth has continued to take in more of the sun's energy than the amount of energy that is being radiated away into space at the top of the atmosphere. That's been verified by satellite measurements. The whole Earth, including not just the surface air temperatures but also the oceans and the ice, has continued to warm up at an increasing rate. No pause, no cooling.

The surface temps have essentially paused

Nope, they haven't. Repeating your debunked myth won't make it true.

Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half
RealClimate
Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf
13 November 2013
A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared. Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve. But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

Now Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University of Ottawa) have developed a new method to fill the data gaps using satellite data. Cowtan and Way apply their method to the HadCRUT4 data, which are state-of-the-art except for their treatment of data gaps. For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05 °C per decade – which has often been misleadingly called a “warming pause”. The new IPCC report writes:

Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).​

But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC. The trend of 0.12 °C is at first surprising, because one would have perhaps expected that the trend after gap filling has a value close to the GISS data, i.e. 0.08 °C per decade. Cowtan and Way also investigated that difference. It is due to the fact that NASA has not yet implemented an improvement of sea surface temperature data which was introduced last year in the HadCRUT data (that was the transition from the HadSST2 the HadSST3 data – the details can be found e.g. here and here). The authors explain this in more detail in their extensive background material. Applying the correction of ocean temperatures to the NASA data, their trend becomes 0.10 °C per decade, very close to the new optimal reconstruction.

The corrected data (bold lines) are shown in the graph compared to the uncorrected ones (thin lines).

Conclusion

The authors write in their introduction:

While short term trends are generally treated with a suitable level of caution by specialists in the field, they feature significantly in the public discourse on climate change.​

This is all too true. A media analysis has shown that at least in the U.S., about half of all reports about the new IPCC report mention the issue of a “warming pause”, even though it plays a very minor role in the conclusions of the IPCC. Often the tenor was that the alleged “pause” raises some doubts about global warming and the warnings of the IPCC. We knew about the study of Cowtan & Way for a long time, and in the face of such media reporting it is sometimes not easy for researchers to keep such information to themselves. But I respect the attitude of the authors to only go public with their results once they’ve been published in the scientific literature. This is a good principle that I have followed with my own work as well.

The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years is nothing unusual – even despite the record El Niño year at the beginning of the period. It is still a quarter less than the warming trend since 1980, which is 0.16 °C per decade. But that’s not surprising when one starts with an extreme El Niño and ends with persistent La Niña conditions, and is also running through a particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum in the second half. As we often said, all this is within the usual variability around the long-term global warming trend and no cause for excited over-interpretation.

 

[flacaltenn]

0.1degC/decade is not even newsworthy is it TinkerBelle? And THAT EXCUSE only exists with FAULTY BOGUS methodology in one study and lack of Satellite evidence and corroboration especially. That's flop sweat -- and data doctoring at it's finest to save face.

And you didn't address ANY of the important points about Ocean Heating studies. Go pull up a copy of BTK or the NOAA Ocean warming charts (NOT from skepticalscience) and tell me ---- WHEN in those charts the RATE of ocean heat intake changed the MOST??? To within a couple years. And whether you see that rate INCREASING anywhere near the time that the surface temperatures stalled..

Hint: Your cheaters at SkepticalScience can't help you here. You are on your own....

OR -- you might just ask yourself WHERE all the breathless follow up studies on "The Ocean Ate My GLobal Warming" have been. BTK was published in a short "Letters" format -- not EVEN a full paper with data traceability. WHERE ARE ALL the confirmations??? BTK doesn't even agree with NOAA on the MECHANICS of HOW the ocean suddenly went ravenous for heat..