Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Robert Fawcett and David Jones of the National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology have written a short paper debunking the global-warming-has-ended myth:
There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world's warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño's warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.
Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the "noise" of those year-to-year fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend.
Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since 1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling trend has established itself.
All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidently asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or so, but the data do not support them.
From the paper, this graph shows the temperatures smoothed to remove noise. (GISS and NCDC have been shifted vertically for clarity.)
And another interesting graph from the paper shows unsmoothed temperatures with the effects of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation removed:
The big drop in the early 90s was caused by the eruption of Mt Pinatubo, but since then, underlying temperatures have risen steadily.
Robert Fawcett also has a paper in the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 20 pp 141-148 giving more details.
Environment
Politics
Comments
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)
Posted by: Andrew Dodds | April 22, 2008 7:16 AM
Fun to see Bob Carter being cheekily referenced in Robin Fawcetts piece.
Posted by: Nick | April 22, 2008 8:17 AM
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.
Posted by: guthrie | April 22, 2008 8:46 AM
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.
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 22, 2008 9:35 AM
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.
Posted by: Demesure | April 22, 2008 9:39 AM
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.
Posted by: Demesure | April 22, 2008 9:43 AM
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?
Posted by: ben | April 22, 2008 10:44 AM
i spot the fundamental methodological error in each of the 3 sceptic replies above. (ben, demesure, cp).
do you?
Posted by: sod | April 22, 2008 11:04 AM
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.
Posted by: Bernard J. | April 22, 2008 12:30 PM
Demesure writes:
Huh? What? Come again?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 22, 2008 1:28 PM
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.
Posted by: guthrie | April 22, 2008 1:57 PM
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.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton | April 22, 2008 1:59 PM
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...
Posted by: dhogaza | April 22, 2008 2:36 PM
@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.
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 22, 2008 3:49 PM
demesure:
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.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 22, 2008 4:04 PM
cp:
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.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 22, 2008 4:24 PM
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.
Posted by: z | April 22, 2008 10:53 PM
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.
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 3:09 AM
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 ?
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 3:24 AM
@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.
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 3:33 AM
demesure:
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.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 23, 2008 5:46 AM
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.
Posted by: guthrie | April 23, 2008 6:01 AM
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
Posted by: Eli Rabett | April 23, 2008 9:35 AM
@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 ?
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 9:48 AM
@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.
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 9:56 AM
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.
Posted by: steven mosher | April 23, 2008 10:00 AM
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.
Posted by: cce | April 23, 2008 10:07 AM
@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".
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 10:07 AM
Sorry, that should be UAH shows about 20% less warming than RSS, or RSS shows about 25% more warming than UAH.
Posted by: cce | April 23, 2008 10:21 AM
@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 ?
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 10:22 AM
@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.
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 10:26 AM
@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".
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 10:29 AM
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
Posted by: cce | April 23, 2008 10:41 AM
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.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | April 23, 2008 10:53 AM
demesure's final victory is assured:
http://www.gahanwilson.com/pbc1ithinkiwon.htm
Posted by: luminous beauty | April 23, 2008 11:06 AM
@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).
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 12:11 PM
Don't talk about "science" Jeff. Because you don't have the slightest idea of what a scientific discussion is about.
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 12:15 PM
Can I be the firt!
HAHaHHAHHaaaaaaahaaaahahhahahahaaaaahhhhaaaaa.#
Demesure, I laugh in your face. You don't actually know who Jeff is, do you?
Posted by: guthrie | April 23, 2008 12:19 PM
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.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 23, 2008 1:56 PM
Apparently, demesure does if the coin is documented as being biassed (UAH).
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 23, 2008 2:02 PM
@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.
Posted by: Demesure | April 23, 2008 4:15 PM
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...
Posted by: guthrie | April 23, 2008 6:21 PM
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
Posted by: Dano | April 23, 2008 7:03 PM
Here is Jeff's publication list ("selected papers", which means there are others he hasn't bothered listing).
Now, turkey, show us yours ...
Posted by: dhogaza | April 23, 2008 8:16 PM
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.
Posted by: Bernard J. | April 23, 2008 9:53 PM
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.
Keeping shouting it and it's sure to come true.
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.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 23, 2008 10:57 PM
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
Posted by: cce | April 24, 2008 12:04 AM
@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?
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 24, 2008 3:44 AM
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).
Posted by: Demesure | April 24, 2008 4:08 AM
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?
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | April 24, 2008 4:42 AM
demesure writes:
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?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 24, 2008 8:05 AM
@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:
William M. Briggs on "Quantifying Uncertainty in AGW".For example:
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.
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 24, 2008 8:43 AM
I have never said you "don't understand science". Stop that ridiculous strawman.
Posted by: Demesure | April 24, 2008 8:55 AM
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"
Posted by: Demesure | April 24, 2008 9:02 AM
This could be called atomistic quibbling. Another favorite technique of trolls.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 24, 2008 10:07 AM
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
Posted by: cce | April 24, 2008 11:28 AM
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.
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?
Posted by: dhogaza | April 24, 2008 11:38 AM
Please point us to an endless chain of commentary by skeptics that state:
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):
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!).
Posted by: dhogaza | April 24, 2008 11:47 AM
Demesure:
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).
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).
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 24, 2008 11:59 AM
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
Posted by: climatepatrol | April 24, 2008 4:09 PM
Posted by: Demesure | April 24, 2008 4:18 PM
@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... ?
Posted by: Demesure | April 24, 2008 4:31 PM
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!
Posted by: Demesure | April 24, 2008 4:55 PM
Liar.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 24, 2008 5:19 PM