Yet another long opinion piece, with no scientific or any evidence really.
It is more on the money rather than the incomplete cherry picks that you do that ignore what the scientists that work with that data are telling you is really happening.
At least there is something that can be determined. Last decade 2004-2013, even using GISS shows a decline, for the annual global mean. Satellite data shows more, but so what? You see how easy that is to show?
Here’s the previus decade. And the satellite data.
So when you see " scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous", and that obviously didn’t happen, that’s when the fun begins. Haha.
The staunch “denier” wants to dance and sing and declare “victory”, a most unscientific view of things.
But the firm believer in global doom, that’s another ball of melting wax. The different stories are enlightening, even entertaining. Here they are in no particular order.
It’s not happening.
It’s happening, but it means nothing.
It was expected.
The warming hasn’t stopped, it is in the oceans.
Pollution from China is counteracting the warming.
Models show this can happen, it means nothing.
The warming hasn’t stopped, we can’t measure the arctic and that is where it is happening.
Strong La Nino’s countered the warming.
It’s still warmer than ever.
The only thing for sure is that according to the measurements, the warming did not go as predicted, by any model.
Now the winters, that is another story.
And still, no scientist from the organizations you are cherry picking support the conclusions coming from your twisted say so’s and cherry picks.
**wolfpup **is correct.
And here is more of what GISS reports:
Unlike the claims of the uninformed, who resist and deny even the thought that winters might be trending colder, peer reviewed published science has to deal with facts, not rhetoric, hence the peer reviewed science states clearly what the data I presented shows.
Like I say, actual science and data never swayed the alarmists in any way.
That paper does not contradict the overall picture, it only remarks on an specific location and once again it confirms what scientists are reporting elsewhere, global warming can increase snow cover in some regions.
As pointed before, there are no easy pickings, so cherry pickings and misinterpretations of scientific papers are the norm among contrarians.
Once again, you are using a strawman argument, responding to something nobody claimed, and avoiding the clear data and information I posted. The colder winters is indeed a real problem for climate models, as they predict they exact opposite, based on the physics of CO2 forced warming, and assumptions about feedbacks from CO2 forced warming. And that is the issue you keep avoiding.
Because somebody posted a link to a Salon page which used xkcd as a source, and the xkcd used St, Louis as an example, I posted a link to an actual science source, to show why it is nonsense.
You see? xkcd used Missouri (which they got from Climate Depot) to “debunk” the idea that winters are cold there. And they used data only from 1970 to do so. If you actually look at the data, you can see why they did, and why it’s bullshit in regards to climate.
No, the reason we use trends is because it shows the change happening, rather than the individual years, or months, or events. Climate is weather over time, so you have to use time periods to know if there is a change, and what the change is.
The reason Cohen et al(2012) used data from 1987-2012, or from 1988-2012 is to show that the trend in large areas shows cooling. It’s what the peer rreviewed paper is talking about. I used shorter trends to dispel the myth that winters are getting warmer most everywhere, which is obviously bullshit when you look at the data.
If the data showed warmer winters, as predicted by theory, then that is what I would be discussing.
The thing about science is, you can state your opinion all you want, it won’t change the facts. But if you actually study the facts, you might change your opinion.
That is not accurate as I posted already about the research of Latif, the reality is that you are avoiding the fact that researchers predicted the “apparent” pauses and cold winters in locations.
And of course you did not claim it the point is that what you reported was not the complete picture of what the scientific paper was all about: How **warming **is increasing snow cover in some regions.
Nobody said that, it’s why you are fighting your own straw man.
I stated clearly, multiple times now, that the data, the trends, the reality of what has happened, shows that there is something wrong with the theory, and the models based on theory. This does not mean that an increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not cause warming. I never said that.
It might be too complicated for most to follow, but hell, that never stopped me before.
Here is 2002 to present for January for the NH, notice the cooling trend.
Here is the same for July, notice the warming trend.
Spring trend, not cooling
Fall trend, hard to see, but it’s warming
Even with the entire NH it shows up. The winter season is cooling, but that is the only real cooling trend.
Here’s all the above together. As well as the annual trend.
You can do the math yourself, so don’t take my word for it. The cooling trend for NH winters is what is bringing the entire annual trend down. If you ignore the winter trend, you will see warming has not stopped, not paused.
Obviously this view, which I consider a fact based view, as it is based on the facts as we know them, obviously this view does not put me in either camp.
It’s also not from any blog, paper or any research I have found anywhere online or off. It’s just the facts.
I used 2002 because that is the date from which even GISS shows a global cooling trend. But, and this is the important part, if you THROW OUT THE WINTER TREND and only use the rest of the year, it’s still warming. The global mean would still be going up.
This is evident when you compare the summer anomalies (red) with the winter anomalies (green) for the NH. Like this.
(those are not actually the winter vs summer, but doing that makes it very hard to see, but the trend is the same when using the entire season)
The same thing shows up looking at just the land data for the NH
Notice that the red line just keeps going up. (NH midsummer anomaly)
Same for this plot, red is early summer, green is February
If it wasn’t for the winter trending down, there would be no pause in warming.
Which is EXACTLY why you can’t just hand wave away the winters in the NH
Utter nonsense. The authors are putting forth the possibility that the reduction in arctic sea ice is leading to an increase in fall snowfall, leading to the cooling winters with more snow.
Not that warmer temperatures in winter are causing more snow, but that the larger open water in the arctic, along with the … oh hell, anyone can read the paper and see what they say.
It’s certainly not that myth that “warmer winters will lead to more snow”, which is bogus as hell.
Sure, tell everyone that “Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling” is not in their title and their conclusions. As usual if you think you are better than the scientists you should publish to show the error of their ways, not holding my breath for that one.
I take the word from woodfortress.org, thank you very much:
Hey, Gigo, where’s Plass’ calculations?
Hey, Gigo, did you read the conclusions from Plass (1956)?
Doesn’t say what you want it to say, or was it to difficult to copy/paste?
Where’s your SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
You don’t have any? Maybe that’s why you flood this thread with nonsense.
When you ape others, you sound like a fool … when your speak from you HEART, I can tell you care … Please, only your heart is convincing.
Do you think Scientific America and all the scientists that referenced Plass’ work are full of it?
Do tell.
Piffle, the science record is not there to reinvent the wheel, the only people that complaint about it are just ignorant of the record, or are willing to remain ignorant about that record.
Besides the point was that indeed, you only told everyone about your ignorance when claiming there was no basic theory, and you were just boasting about that ignorance.
BTW the paper from Plass with the calculations and conclusion is available as a PDF on the link on the right of my cite, just saying that you also need to get some experience on looking at the cites that were already given to you.
The scientific data is there for all to see. And all of the data we have points to a long term warming trend of 0.2 - 0.3 C per decade. This has increased between 1/10th and 1/3rd in the last two decades.
Some people object to the interpretation that it’s all humanity’s fault. Let them offer up evidence and different views of the data. Pretending that there is a monopoly on how the data is to be interpreted is incredibly dangerous and harkens back to the attempts of the Catholic Church to tell scientists what conclusion to reach on on their research. Dismissing this stuff out of hand is what empowers those that are claiming that we need to repeal the EPA and other such reckless ideas.
FX makes a good point: The reason that the global averages have flattened out may have a lot to do with the winters getting colder. Instead of attacking this view of the data, maybe you should discuss the potential causes:
A) Climate Change may be pushing the cold air out of the arctic and sending more cold air our way. Nuance to this: It’ll disappear over time as the cold air becomes warmer. Points for it: Explains why masses of cold air are descending on the northern hemisphere more vigorously now then they have in the last two decades. Points against it: Previous to 1980, there was a lot of cold air, but no one recording how air masses were moving in the arctic. More study needed: Is Antarctica displaying the same trends in the summer/winter rotation? Is this a part of a natural weather cycle that exists outside of the climate’s temperature?
B) The sun’s slightly weaker output in the last 8-12 years may have more of a temperature effect on the winter months than on the summer months, when any greenhouse effect is most pronounced. Nuance to this: Not much. A direct localized energy budget. Point for this: One of the problems with a lot of these climate change calculations is that they look at things in aggregate that may not be useful as an aggregate. Aggregating yearly numbers may be less helpful than season numbers. Yes, overall, the yearly average is going up, but what, for instance, is the January-March temperature trend compared to the April - June? What if we cut the northern hemisphere from the southern? Point against this: It may be missing the forest for the trees, as activists would likely say.
What else can you think of?
Note that both of these don’t say warming isn’t happening, it’s looking for a deeper understanding of the climate system, which we do need.
Complete bullshit as usual. The differentiation between summer and winter warming is latitude-dependent and is primarily significant in the Arctic where models predict greater winter warming as a side effect of the same albedo feedbacks that drive accelerated warming there throughout the year. And indeed observations completely bear this out:
This can also be clearly seen in the GISS temperature maps linked before, using any meaningful timeframe. You can even see it – though it’s a little harder to see – in the crap that you linked to, which basically constructs a trend using a spectacularly anomalous time period that doesn’t represent the trend.
It’s called looking at evidence and interpreting it honestly, a rather key tenet of science.
You also appear not to understand the Cohen paper at all. Not even remotely. Cohen et al. note that for the previous two decades (that would be 1991 to 2011, incidentally) several geographical areas have shown winter cooling trends contrary to the larger spatial and temporal trends, and he posits that there may be systemic feedbacks responsible rather than just random variability. Cohen has a special interest in seasonal forecasting and is suggesting potential areas for improvement of such, but even if he’s right, these are feedbacks that drive the Arctic Oscillation and the AMO so they ultimately have no net effect on the energy budget and long-term global temperature.
I agree. And if you have any interest at all in facts, you might stop claiming that water vapor is not a feedback, you might stop posting trends extrapolated from anomalous snippets that show the opposite of the actual trends, you might stop making false claims about climate models and winter temperature predictions, and you might even consider ceasing to misinterpret scientific papers.
Not really, and that was taken care of in the many cites already made. In essence, as Latif and many others reported in the past “slowdowns” were expected and he is refusing to even acknowledge that.
Actually instrumental records are available for the arctic since the 1950’s and a lot comes thanks to the cold war (Interestingly the original task for Plass was to identify the background heat signal in the atmosphere at different altitudes, running into the discovery of the real ways CO2 captured and emitted heat.)
Even Judith Curry (cited early) explained the way Antarctica is gaining ice inland and how the Antarctic weather behaves.
Not as Schneider explained, and this was also posted early:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm
You still have to note that there is a lot that is being willfully ignored by one side here.
Just forgot more background there, Plass was originally involved in the cold war because he was part of the team looking to identify the background heath radiation at different levels in the atmosphere for the purpose of properly setting up the new heat seeking missiles of then.
Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere as he had all that data that was originally obtained for weapon’s research.
The funny thing to me has been that many contrarians are also very conservative and I think they forget or are not aware that the modern understanding of the issue (and Gore did not invent this) came about thanks to shooting down commie planes.
Why is it so important that he acknowledge that? Even if he did, it wouldn’t change the fact that “slowdowns” as a function are poorly understood. His review of the data might give a jumping off point for further understanding. His current line of reasoning is operating almost entirely in the realm that is poorly understood. Sure, he extrapolates that to the models they are using being flawed, but we all know that those aren’t perfect - and I’d be surprised if you found anyone using them claiming that they are.
Is our flattening increase due to natural variations? Less cow farts? Aliens? We have indications that the slow down might be going into the ocean, but ocean temperature trends are woefully short term. Everything before ~1960 is almost exclusively surface temperature and the subsurface data is extrapolated via ratios derived from the following 60 years. Even the studies that look at this show a huge (upto 1 C in periods) error margin on this early data set. As a result, we have a reliable record of 60 years for down to 750 meters, about 35 years down to 1500 meters and 10 years down to 2000 meters. Yes, the ocean has warmed, but it’s hard for us to say (although that hasn’t stopped some people from saying so) that it’s warmed way faster the last decade(s) when we don’t even have a century of records under our belts.
Temperature records are not air mass records. We don’t have historical records of air mass movements. Thus, hot air moving into the Arctic and displacing cold air that hits the US and such we can’t prove as the reason winters were colder in the US 40-50 years ago. We can extrapolate based on what we do have, but with the climate changing, we can’t rely on the data and results from our modern, accurate records to reliably predict the past or tell us what was happening back then.
Which, once again, doesn’t talk about how air masses move off of the Antarctic. I don’t care if the cold air mass freezes the south pacific ocean instead of Tasmania, just whether a similar weather pattern is happening. I get that there is a significant difference in how these are transmitted (e.g. water sinks a lot more heat than land, leading to the air mass being warmer once it moves off Antarctica), but that doesn’t mean we can’t look for it.
But that would mean they have to look at the data, and admit something unexpected is happening. If they had the presence of mind to be scientific and to observe and think, they would already know this. So there is nothing that will get through to that sort of mind, closed and extreme.
It’s probably much more than that, but this exceeds the scope of the topic, which seems to be an actual argument over the measurements themselves. So that what we observe is wrong, that all the data is wrong, and that the warming is actually much greater than we can measure, and that there not only has been no pause, warming has actually increased.
Obviously a dozen and a half other issues get slapped into any and all topics about climate, but that doesn’t change the OP in the least. The claim is that due to shortcomings in the GISS data collection, the satellite data should be grafted in somehow, and that would change the entire global mean, no small claim to make.