OK. So your take is that global warming did stop in 1960. But then it started again. And global warming stopped in 1998 and until or unless it starts again, global warming is over and should be forgotten about. Is this correct?
I ask sincerely; I have not had the bandwidth to read your posts above carefully and missed it if you expressed something different.
Ají, is this what you think too? That global warming stopped in the 60s? Here is a graph for reference.
Oops, and I guess that it was the 40s, not the 60s.
How about if 2018 falls short of 2008? Or 2019 falls short of 2009? Or 2020 … 2010? Et cetera? *Because if each of ten such “failures” has a probability of, say, only 5%, the probability that any of them fail could approach 50% ! *
I don’t know the name of this statistical danger (which I tried to explain to you last year when you expressed confusion about an apparent trend after the unusually hot 1998).
Here’s a very simple example, if you miss the point. The chance that I’ll deal myself a poker hand of precisely Queen and Ten of Diamonds, Four of hearts and both Black Sixes is less than the chance I get a Royal Flush! Yet that’s what I just dealt myself a moment ago!!
Uri Simonsohn has recently made a name for himself demonstrating that the same sort of bias you risk isn’t uncommon in published science, for example.
Maybe I’m not making myself clear; I’m not the one coming up with these bizarre yardsticks. Indeed, I think they’re incredibly stupid yardsticks.
Let me further clarify: I think making everything hinge on a tenth-of-degree prediction from '07 to '17 is foolish for the same reason you do. I likewise think the tenth-of-a-degree prediction from '17 to '27 is foolish for the same reason you do.
But those are the falsifiable predictions I’ve been given. I’m glad to see you deride them; I, too, find them worthy of derision, and said so well before your post. But that’s where the goalposts were moved to, so they’re the only claims I can respond to.
Before the goalposts were shifted, I placed focus on 1998; why? Because it fit the incredibly foolish prediction I’d been given. I’ve now been given a different incredibly foolish prediction, one which makes '98 irrelevant. I didn’t come up with either of those predictions; I wouldn’t dream of coming up with such astonishingly foolish predictions. But so long as they’re placed before me, I react accordingly.
[QUOTE=L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]
OK. So your take is that global warming did stop in 1960. But then it started again. And global warming stopped in 1998 and until or unless it starts again, global warming is over and should be forgotten about. Is this correct?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, good heavens, no. That’s not even close to correct.
I’m not saying it should be forgotten about; I’ve said, repeatedly, that it should be taken seriously as of right now. 1998 is irrelevant, because the goalposts have been definitively moved; we should thus keep taking global warming seriously, so long as (a) that tenth-of-a-degree prediction comes true, and so long as (b) the other tenth-of-a-degree prediction comes true a decade later.
Warming will not be bad and mostly good for a majority.
I love your “…the clear implication..”, when there is a simple phrase. That’s the problem when you go for a script. I’m sure that if I said “Pachauri has two lungs” you’d respong “the clear implication is that he doesn’t believe albedo is important”.
"Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average (see blue curves in the Figure 1 below).
The warmest year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record in 1998, with a temperature of 0.40°C above long-term average. The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases."
2017 = 0.43°
1997 = 0.40°
A difference of 0.03° in 20 years.
The 90% confincdence can even get to 0.28°, 0.16° lower than 1997.
Mostly useless pap, but once again there is the demonstrated constant avoidance that scientists look at the big picture to report that once again, the earth is warming.
Of course as the arguments from contrarians have the consistency of baby poop many do not care that their arguments also include the contradictory point that it is warming anyhow, and it will be good.
Oh well, at least their inconsistency grants it that we can get forward.
So, yeah, it is a script that you can not reply to, so you have to ignore it, never mind that it is the experts reporting it, and once again, the attempt at making the Met office say a contradictory thing is misleading, they look at the longer thrend to report how misleading is to concentrate just on the last years to claim the opposite of what is reported, of course the contradiction can not be avoided as reality is showing that indeed the earth continues to warm.
Well, that is true assuming that the data you are reviewing is valid.
Interestingly, the GAO did a study on the USHCN (United States Historical Climate Network) weather stations in 2011. The USHCN is the gold standard for climate information in the U.S What did they find?
Just to make sure you know what this means. When sitting a climate station there are guidelines to ensure that the data being collected by the stations is valid and not impacted by local environmental interference. For instance, sitting a station next to a parking lot is a bad idea as the asphalt is a heat sink and will skew the data. According to the GAO, 42% of the stations failed to meet the guidelines for station sitting. In short, 42% of the data is worthless. Furthermore, the method used to adjust station measurements is to average stations with other near by stations. What this does in actuality is take data from good stations and artificially inflate it by averaging it with bad stations.
The guidelines:
From the previous link.
I went to surfacestations.org, which is a website that tracks the surface stations used by the USHCN and picked a couple at random:
Look around. The stations are unreliable. Read the whole GAO report, it is enlightening. Then ask yourself what the climate stations must be like poorer areas of the world.
Next, what was the temperature in Fallon Nevada on May 1st 1900? Any idea? How about Lubbock Texas in 1940? New York in 1800? How accurate are the instruments that made those measurements? Guess what, we may have a temperature record but we have no idea how accurate that record is or how consistently they were made. Hell, we can’t even get accurate data right now. In the last week a station in Jal New Mexico reported the temp at 96 when the rest of the state was in the 60s. Someone did a typo but they don’t get caught and make it into the record.
Next, lets look at the adjustments done by those helpful climate scientists. They ‘adjust’ data due to station sitting issues and also when they homogenize the data.
This linkshows the adjustment to a station in Reykjavik Iceland. Note that the temp in 1900 is ~4.5 with the unadjusted data. The temp series is then adjusted by an algorithm. After the adjustment the beginning temp in 1900 is, TA DA!, a bit under 4. Then it pops back up. Read the article, it explains what seem to be the issues with the adjustments. Note, the adjustments consistently cool the past.
The question is, of course, why do you think we know the past temperatures with any degree of accuracy? We don’t and anyone who tells you we do is either lying or fooled.
There are serious problems besides those listed above. Dodgy statistical methods, a concerted effort to keep contrary papers from being published in journals, incomplete and lost data, extremely bad and undocumented code, blackballing researchers if they don’t toe the climate change line.
Climate science is a mess.
On a side note,
When the error bars are larger than the trend, you have a problem.
That was the point of Muller and the BEST Berkeley team funded by skeptics, what hey found was in a nutshell that even with the issues reported the corrections employed were proper and they found that indeed the earht is getting warmer, and that we are the most likely cause of the current warming.
On aside note, the previous times you came to post silliness like that you were also shown to post just regurgitated misleading information. This is no different.
The Met office and others look at a bigger picture to report that uncertainty is not your friend. And once one looks at the previous decades the errors bars are not much of an issue.
A better explanation of why fake skeptics like the ones from WUWT are fakes by continuing to ignore that error bars are not really a deal breaker as they claim to be in short time periods:
Not playing your game, the Met already replied to the misleading efforts. Deal with what they report, and never forget to stop relying on tabloid press for your sources, lulls on the temperature rise were expected and the current cycle remains higher than the past ones, so the warming continues and it continues to be irresponsible to do almost nothing to limit our emissions.
As for true skeptics, they were already mentioned before, but we already know that you are never willing to learn, it is not my problem that you ignored what science reporters like Peter Hadfield reported on scientists that do propose alternative explanations for the warming do.
Once again, fake skeptics just spew totally contradictory points and expect to impress many with their folly.
And this video BTW was the one posted on a previous tread explaining what real skeptics do, they bring evidence for their skepticism, not tabloid pap or discredited “I’m having my cake and will eat it too” silly contradictory points telling all that warming is not happening… and at the same time claim that there is no denying that is happening and anyhow it be beneficial.
Real skeptics do not ignore what nature’s thermometers are telling us, so to go against the idea that the current cause of the warming is human CO2 and other emissions, they do and come with alternative mechanisms for that warming, unfortunately, all so far failed to get confirmation and failed on their predictions, as pointed before, the most accurate scientists remain the ones in the super majority that faced already a few lulls in the temperature record in the past, and still predicted that warming was more likely to come in the future. Those predictions were confirmed, And they continue to be correct.
The current effort here of using only a few recent years to claim that we should ignore what was reported and tested before is a very silly one.
Are you calling a direct quote from the Met Office’s own website tabloid?
I give that tabloid/righ wingers/Heartland Institute /orphan rapists spin the news to their own evil purposes, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Met office says clearly that the anomnaly in 1997 was 0.40° and that the most likely for 2017 is 0.43°.
Do you deny that the Met office’s own website, link again, says that
1997 = 0.40°
2017= 0.43°
and, therefore, expected warming per decade in those two decades is 0.015°?
I’ll hold your hand and copy the first part
"Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average (see blue curves in the Figure 1 below).
The warmest year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record in 1998, with a temperature of 0.40°C above long-term average. The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases. "
It doesn’t matter where I got the info if I link to the original.
As to the context, implications, and scientific assumptions behind the forecasr I submit my second answer in post 61.
It’s clear that the only real scpetic is only real is they fully accept GW but have small, but always wrong, complaints. That isn’t the definition of sceptic used for this debate.
Real sceptics, evil and ignorant as they may be, deny that
And somehow you only found a way to get more rope, once again, doubling down on a misleading cherry picked point is not my problem, suffice to say that the Met office looks at what other scientists reports to mention that looking only at surface temperatures is misleading as the heat is increasing on other places of the globe.
The experts reports that indeed it is dishonest from outfits like the Daily Mail to come with such misleading nonsense and twist of words to come with a conclusion completely opposite of what the experts report. It is still like trying to teach grandma to suck eggs.
And then you rely on more straw men.
The IPCC remains conservative in their predictions and likely outcomes, insisting that they are just pushing for catastrophes is not what they are.
No expert also has said that CO2 is the main driver of climate, only one of the main factors present in the current warming observed, nature is still there as cycles still show, the problem for fake skeptics is to continue to ignore how the cycles are getting warmer and how that helps mask the global increase in temperature, it is really silly to claim that the current cycle is evidence that “global warming has stopped” that is a fraud.
I didn’t see where this has been challenged upthread, but it’s beyond stupid as an assertion if you are talking about AGW related to CO2 production. Not to mention that a lot of the stuff China is making is for us in the US, so it hardly seems fair to assign them a carbon footprint if the reason they are generating the carbon is to make new golf clubs for the Pedant here in Tennessee while I pretend that my geothermal energy for my house gets me off the responsibility hook.
I know everyone wants to live like me and Al Gore, but they aren’t even close in those two countries, unless you’ve got some sort of numbers I’ve never heard of.
The general dilemma is that developing world populations are still multiplying, and everyone wants our lifestyle a lot more than they want to leave the room tidy for the next occupant. Power consumption to meet this immediate demand for stuff and lifestyle will far outstrip any efforts to swap over to a greener grid. Heck; Al has already bought most of the available green energy in the US, just for his own lifestyle. .
Just so it’s clear, as you didn’t specify, these are per capita figures. China emits the most CO2 of any nation (nearly 24% of the worlds total…the US is around 18%), and saying that this is because they build us golf clubs sort of misses the point and is a bit of a handwave (it’s also inaccurate that they emit so much simply to make us stuff…they have an ever increasing energy budget, mainly due to domestic use which is increasing at a phenomenal rate, and they still have a lot of older and dirtier coal power plants, and are building more all the time).
Once again, the idea is clear to all, get a cherry picked quote to dismiss then everything else the organization reports, once again, the idea is to mislead others by ignoring how deceptive it is to concentrate on surface temperatures when scientists are not just looking at that to report that global warming still continues, like the Met office themselves reports, your requests are only geared to stick the head in the sand.
And before you do, read again for comprehension, the point was precise for a reason, climate depends on several forces, no serious researcher claims that CO2 is driving all, that is the straw man, the point stands, it is precisely by taking those other forces into consideration that scientists continue to report that the earth is warming, natural cycles are still there masking the human warming for a time on the surface, but as for the specific current warming (you see, the stupid point is to remove the warming brought by our CO2 emissions) we are taking control of one knob in the forces that drive the climate of the earth.
The straw man is in declaring that scientists are claiming that CO2 is the single driver of the climate we have now.
.
.svg){kind=link}