Has the world actually been cooling since 2002?

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

Nature published a peer reviewed paper showing that since 2001 the planet has not warmed.

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century

GIGO seems to think I made the entire thing up.

Priceless.

[RaftPeople]

@wolfpup

The claims in your OP are based on cherry-picked bullshit.

But the data you provided shows a slight cooling trend since 2002. Seems like this isn’t really a debate, either the data shows a cooling trend since 2002 or it doesn’t, it’s just math.

61
60
52
65
59
62
49
59
66
55
57
60
It seems like many are mis-interpreting the OP and arguing other points about a longer term trend when the OP was simply focused on a shorter term trend.

FX has consistently stated that anyone that thinks the planet hasn’t warmed since year 1900 isn’t looking at the data, but most responders don’t seem to even be aware of that and appear to interpret his “2002” trend as meaning “the data shows no global warming, ever, period”.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

It’s so totally ironic, you know? Because everything I posted in the OP was from the people you claim to speak for.

You seem to think I made things up, which is hilarious actually. I give links to solid evidence for every last claim I make.

It’s why you are so lovable and funny.

Straw man, a cherry pick is the abuse of real data. it s not unlike the abuse astrologers do when astronomy found Neptune Uranus and Pluto. Without missing a beat many astrologers just added those planets into their pseudoscience, and so it is with your cherry picks, using good data in a selective way to allow you to deny what scientists, academics, people that debunk pseudoscience for a living and even philosophers are telling us.

http://blogs.bu.edu/pbokulic/2012/11/02/cherry-picking-fallacy-of-the-day/

Cherry picking is the fallacy of selecting a small subset of data that supports your thesis while ignoring other data that undermines it.

This is a fallacy because for just about any claim one can always find a small amount of data that can be viewed as supporting that claim. A reasonable assessment of the evidence requires us to look at all the data available, and to make sure that we are not biased in choosing which data we present.

So the challenge to you is still there, and you only continue to run away from it, if you are following science then a huge number of the ones that work at the sites you continue to cherry pick should be available to support your cherry picks, lets see their quotes in support of your misleading arguments.

Because in the end, they still conclude the opposite of what you claim.

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

But the data you provided shows a slight cooling trend since 2002. Seems like this isn’t really a debate, either the data shows a cooling trend since 2002 or it doesn’t, it’s just math.

61
60
52
65
59
62
49
59
66
55
57
60
It seems like many are mis-interpreting the OP and arguing other points about a longer term trend when the OP was simply focused on a shorter term trend.

FX has consistently stated that anyone that thinks the planet hasn’t warmed since year 1900 isn’t looking at the data, but most responders don’t seem to even be aware of that and appear to interpret his “2002” trend as meaning “the data shows no global warming, ever, period”.

And you have missed a lot of what he replied, clearly FX is just following a conspiracy theory as he refuses to acknowledge what the scientists report about this pause not being expected by scientists or FX ignores that that “pause” does not really exist in the ocean data as warming continues to accumulate. You are only looking at the surface temperature data.

[RaftPeople]

@GIGObuster

And you have missed a lot of what he replied, clearly FX is just following a conspiracy theory as he refuses to acknowledge what the scientists report about this pause not being expected by scientists or FX ignores that that “pause” does not really exist in the ocean data as warming continues to accumulate. You are only looking at the surface temperature data.

Ok, this could be progress.

You agree that the surface temperature data shows a cooling trend since 2002, right? (I know, you don’t think that’s the full picture, and that’s ok, but that’s step 2 to go into additional details).

[FXMastermind]

@RaftPeople

Ok, this could be progress.

You may be getting ready to create history here.

But I’m not holding my breath

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

Ok, this could be progress.

You agree that the surface temperature data shows a cooling trend since 2002, right? (I know, you don’t think that’s the full picture, and that’s ok, but that’s step 2 to go into additional details).

No, what I have seen reported is that there is no significant cooling, and even though there is significant warming I could go for it being a “pause”.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/

What about the last decade, as claimed above? The linear trend (the blue line) over the past decade is relatively flat, but in fact it still exhibited a warming trend, despite the temporary cooling forces that are masking the overall warming. As the British Met Office noted this week, in a reply to a misleading claim that the warming had stopped: “what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.”

FX and others ignore the warming that is accumulation in the oceans, that is one of the main reasons scientists are more confident that once the cycles that are moving more of the warming into the oceans will eventually turn around and then a portion of the warming going out will be added to the one caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere that was put there by humans.

The problem here is that FX claims to follow that saying that “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” Here one has to notice that the intention is a classic denier move, get the simple but in context wrong answer and continue to mislead others regarding the big picture.

[RaftPeople]

@GIGObuster

No, what I have seen reported is that there is no significant cooling, and even though there is significant warming I could go for it being a “pause”.

Ok, we won’t call it cooling, just a “pause” or plateau.

FX and others ignore the warming that is accumulation in the oceans, that is one of the main reasons scientists are more confident that once the cycles that are moving more of the warming into the oceans will eventually turn around and then a portion of the warming going out will be added to the one caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere that was put there by humans.

Ok, this is good, this is a valid response to the “pause” and the OP’s question of “why?”.

So, let’s work through this, are there graphs of ocean temp over the last 50 or 100 years so we can see that the overall temp has shifted to the ocean during this recent period?

(I’m sure you’ve linked to ocean data before, but I figure it would be quicker for you to resupply the data instead of me searching through all the pages).

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

GIGO seems to think I made the entire thing up.

Priceless.

And as usual you even wrong on what I think. The point stands, the experts are not amused with your cherry picks that are not even original, we know already that deniers use them time and time again.

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked"...

The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. Therefore (they conclude) scientists must be wrong when they say that climate change is caused by humans, worsening, and ultimately a serious environmental problem that must be addressed by policy makers.

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth. Here is a tiny sample of the false claims, gleaned from various blogs, comments to my previous Forbes posts, op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, news stories, and statements from pundits who spread climate misinformation:

“The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.”

“Current pause in global warming”
“lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”
“There is no credible (statistically significant) data that says global warming is occurring”
“fifteen years of warming, then fifteen of cooling”
“The last decades “rate of warming” is flat.”
“Forget global warming…no warming in 15 years.”

I could find a hundred more variations, but you get the idea. These statements are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming – an observation noted by every climate research institution tracking temperatures, the US National Academy of Sciences (over and over and over), every other national academy of sciences on the planet, and every professional society in the geosciences.

The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they are posted and regularly updated, freely, on public websites around the world. The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are available from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, and the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Center. [Feel free to redo my analysis using any of these – they all independently say the same thing: I’m using the NASA GISS data in my pictures below.]

All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.

Here is exactly what I mean by cherry-picking:

It turns out that 2011 was slightly cooler than 2010 and 2009. Oooh, global cooling? But wait, 2011 was warmer than 2008. Global warming? But wait again, 2011 was slightly cooler than 2007 again. Cooling?

No, these are minor year-to-year changes well understood to be tiny variations largely attributable to natural causes

[RaftPeople]

@GIGObuster

Here one has to notice that the intention is a classic denier move, get the simple but in context wrong answer and continue to mislead others regarding the big picture.

This is where you are just plain wrong.

Your focus on this “us-them” mentality and calling people “deniers” really gets in the way of any kind of discussion and exploration of the facts, the data and the theories.

You said the same thing about me and implied I was getting my points from denier web sites and stuff like that when in reality I don’t read anything about this stuff at all other than the links or googling based on these threads. I’m just an analytical person that enjoys diving into the details and making sure they all fit together properly and not reaching a conclusion when it’s not warranted.

I personally couldn’t care less what the answer is, as long as the data supports it, that’s all.
If you truly think you have valid data, and want to attempt to add to someone else’s understanding of this complex topic, you need to acknowledge any valid point/fact openly without worrying where it leads. When you don’t acknowledge data/facts openly then all other information from you is discounted - that’s human nature.

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

Ok, we won’t call it cooling, just a “pause” or plateau.

Ok, this is good, this is a valid response to the “pause” and the OP’s question of “why?”.

So, let’s work through this, are there graphs of ocean temp over the last 50 or 100 years so we can see that the overall temp has shifted to the ocean during this recent period?

(I’m sure you’ve linked to ocean data before, but I figure it would be quicker for you to resupply the data instead of me searching through all the pages).

The Conversation interviewed one of the most renown Atmospheric Scientists, Kevin Trenberth and he told us that:

The Weekend Wonk: Trenberth on Ocean Heat and Surface Temps

Global warming is here to stay

Coming back to the global temperature record, one thing is clear. The past decade is by far the warmest on record. Human induced global warming really kicked in during the 1970s, and warming has been pretty steady since then.

While the overall warming is about 0.16°C per decade, there are three ten-year periods where there was a hiatus in warming, as the graph above shows, from 1977 to 1986, from 1987 to 1996, and from 2001 to 2012. But at each end of these periods there were big jumps. We find exactly the same sort of flat periods in climate model projections, lasting easily up to 15 years in length.

Focusing on the wiggles and ignoring the bigger picture of unabated warming is foolhardy, but an approach promoted by climate change deniers. Global sea level keeps marching up at a rate of more than 30cm per century since 1992 (when global measurements via altimetry on satellites were made possible), and that is perhaps a better indicator that global warming continues unabated. Sea level rise comes from both the melting of land ice, thus adding more water to the ocean, plus the warming and thus expanding ocean itself.

Global warming is manifested in a number of ways, and there is a continuing radiative imbalance at the top of atmosphere. The current hiatus in surface warming is temporary, and global warming has not gone away.

The graph showing the accumulated heat in the oceans for the last 60 years is coming from his research over here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

This is where you are just plain wrong.

Your focus on this “us-them” mentality and calling people “deniers” really gets in the way of any kind of discussion and exploration of the facts, the data and the theories.

Uh, no, I do make a distinction, the problem is if you are not capable of seeing how different is one that continues to tell us that his cherry picks are better than the whole context that the scientists use to conclude that the warming continues, unless you are claiming that you agree also with that move of his, then I do not think that you are like him.

FX is not only denying that NASA GISS and many others do not agree with his declarations and cherry picking of the data, but he is also denying that the released CO2 is increasing the warming of the earth.

[RaftPeople]

@GIGObuster

The Conversation interviewed one of the most renown Atmospheric Scientists, Kevin Trenberth and he told us that:

The Weekend Wonk: Trenberth on Ocean Heat and Surface Temps – This is Not Cool

The graph showing the accumulated heat in the oceans for the last 60 years is coming from his research over here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

Ok, so I looked at a few graphs but it’s unclear which ones are based on measurements, it looked like some of the data was based on models.

Can you point out which graph is based on data/measurements, like the surface temp graphs?

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

Ok, so I looked at a few graphs but it’s unclear which ones are based on measurements, it looked like some of the data was based on models.

Can you point out which graph is based on data/measurements, like the surface temp graphs?

:dubious:

The link to see the paper is marked

View Full Article with Supporting Information (HTML)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

[RaftPeople]

@GIGObuster

:dubious:

The link to see the paper is marked

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

I have the PDF open with the graphs, but I’m trying to understand which of the graphs within the paper are based on data/measurements.

The description of ORAS4 includes the word “model” - so I’m trying to figure out where the raw data is.

[FXMastermind]

There is pretty much zero raw data for deep ocean temperatures before the ARGO program. The coverage is so small, it’s almost meaningless.

[FXMastermind]

That being said, it’s certainly possible the “missing heat” is due to ocean convection, both increased trade winds and an enhanced great current heat transfer. This doesn’t change the surface and SST readings, which is what the *NATURE *and other papers are all talking about.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

That being said, it’s certainly possible the “missing heat” is due to ocean convection, both increased trade winds and an enhanced great current heat transfer. This doesn’t change the surface and SST readings, which is what the *NATURE *and other papers are all talking about.

And again, that does not contradict what the experts are telling us:

Focusing on the wiggles and ignoring the bigger picture of unabated warming is foolhardy, but an approach promoted by climate change deniers. Global sea level keeps marching up at a rate of more than 30cm per century since 1992 (when global measurements via altimetry on satellites were made possible), and that is perhaps a better indicator that global warming continues unabated. Sea level rise comes from both the melting of land ice, thus adding more water to the ocean, plus the warming and thus expanding ocean itself.

Global warming is manifested in a number of ways, and there is a continuing radiative imbalance at the top of atmosphere. The current hiatus in surface warming is temporary, and global warming has not gone away.

[RaftPeople]

@FXMastermind

That being said, it’s certainly possible the “missing heat” is due to ocean convection, both increased trade winds and an enhanced great current heat transfer. This doesn’t change the surface and SST readings, which is what the *NATURE *and other papers are all talking about.

That’s exactly what a denier would say.

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

That’s exactly what a denier would say.

The denial from FX comes from yet another cherry pick that goes meta: He is picking only the short trend (of the incomplete picture of the surface temperature) and omits what experts like Kevin Trenberth reports about the big picture with the ocean temperatures included, last time I checked the oceans remain part of the earth.