I’m interested in the ocean data, and as explained before, the PDF seems to be discussing model data, can you point to the non-model data for the ocean?
Maybe I’m just missing it in the PDF, thanks.
Just a quick point about average ocean temperatures … it takes an amazing amount of energy to to raise the temps of water even a slight bit. It has about double the specific heat capacity as air per unit mass but 200 times the mass. So the 2ºC change in air temp only gives 0.01ºC change in water temp.
Not true. The SSTs are effected quickly and change by a lot, from the air temperatures. You are thinking of the entire mass of the ocean. It doesn’t work like that.
If it did, there would never be any sea ice. Or warm tropical seas.
And the SSTs also effect the air blowing over the water. Cold water cools and dries air, while warm water warms and adds moisture to the air.
Because water rises as it warms, a warm layer can sit on top of very cold water. I should tell my cold water upweling story.
Gather round the campfire childrens, let me tell you about the wind …
(It’s more of a gradient than a shell)
No. My point was that the OP was a mass of both obfuscation and cherry-picking. First of all if you look at the actual average annual land-ocean temps that I posted for that particular time period, any reasonable interpretation would be that there is no discernible statistically valid trend at all (put it in Excel and plot a 5-point moving average), even assuming such a timeframe in itself had climatological significance (it doesn’t, but that’s another issue).
But if you extend it back just one or two years to either 2000 or 2001, you get a significant warming trend. In fact you get a significant warming trend for just about any other starting year. Since the paper that the OP linked talked about “21st century temperature”, why didn’t FX pick 2000 or 2001 as the start year?
Because picking 2002 comes closest to skewing the result in the direction he wanted, but that was just the beginning. He then linked to a bunch of temperature maps based on individual months or month ranges. The end result being the combination of a cherry-picked unusual start year and cherry-picked months appearing to show significant cooling that doesn’t actually exist on average. And then of course choosing a temperature map showing “trend” rather than the usual method of showing anomalies with respect to a reference average. Using trends on a temperature map makes the result very sensitive to the choice of starting point, especially if the starting point skews the trend, as it does in this case.
And then there are more obfuscations where 1997 and some other starting years are mentioned with a great deal of wordy spin around what this supposedly shows; you have only to copy my original numbers into Excel to bypass the FX spin and see what it really shows. Or just look at the NOAA NCDC temperature plots of the same GISS data set – the straightforward global temperature plots that FX has never once linked to.
You said you had an impartial interest in objective data – well there it is. You’re trying here to defend someone who constantly spews unscientific nonsense, having spent about half a dozen pages of postings elsewhere trying to convince us that solar variations are a huge factor in modern climate change and the IPCC and the American Institute of Physics don’t know what they’re talking about, claims that water vapor isn’t a feedback, confuses seasonal variations with climatic changes, gets the effects of jet streams backwards, and no end of other bizarre claims that I can’t remember now.
Calm down, it’s OK
That’s real simple. After I checked the figures, only after 2002 did GISS show a cooling trend. GISS always overestimates warming, it’s the real poster child for guessing, rather than directly measuring temperatures. The Satellites pretty much match each other and all the other datasets, GISS is the step child who uses surface stations and guesses at the parts not covered.
So to avoid anyone posting the GISS data to “prove” the Nature paper is wrong, I used 2002. because that is when the GISS flatlines, or is negative. We can use the more reliable satellites if you want to illustrate how data always trumps your rhetoric.
Satellite data from 1995
trend from 1998(oh! cherry picking! cherry picking!)
hey wait a minute
See how easy that is?
Nope. And if I was trying to twerk you over this I would have made it, “Did the world stop warming in 1996?”, but the whole SSTs and the satellite wars would have dominated the entire thread.
This way, even GISS clearly shows the cooling, as well as why it’s happening. Well, not exactly why, but what is causing the global mean to trend down.
Now you can’t really have a cooling trend for the troposphere with out also a cooling trend for the SSTs
SSTs show a clear and unexpected trend
But why? The CO2 levels have gone up faster than ever before. Why no warming at all?
Something changed.
Yes, so easy to mislead yourself.
Not unexpected, you are not really trying.
When looking at a longer trend it is clear what is being omitted by the cherry picks.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1970/plot/best/from:1980/to:1988/trend/plot/best/from:1987/to:1995/trend/plot/best/from:1998/to:2005/trend/plot/best/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/best/from:1973/to:1980/trend/plot/best/from:1995/to:2001/trend
I told you he wouldn’t get it.
This gets funnier each day.
We already know that even woodfortrees does not agree with you, your denial is even worse than just a simple rejection of what scientists conclude, you are even denying what your sources are telling you, you are doing it wrong. A double denial.
It’s not rocket science
That is still cherry picking and denial. We already know that you use good data but small time periods, we already know that you do not look at the big picture for a reason. Once again, experts do not agree with your methods.
I agree, I agreed all the way back in post 33. Keep in mind that “land surface temperature” focus is one of the primary and specious methods FX uses to make his points, along with his focus on even smaller areas when he sees fit. Global includes the oceans.
Now that we are in agreement, let’s ask you some questions.
Do you agree that the earth hasn’t been cooling since 2000?
Do you agree that the earth hasn’t been cooling since 2008?
Do you agree that the earth hasn’t been cooling since 2011?
Do you agree that the earth hasn’t been cooling since 2012?
Do you agree that the earth hasn’t been cooling since 1850,1851,1852,1853,1854,1855,1856,1857,1858,1859,1860,1861,1862,1863,1864,1865,1866,1867,1868,1869,1870,1871,1872,1873,1874,1875,1876,1877,1878,1879,1880,1881,1882,1883,1884,1885,1886,1887,1888,1889,1890,1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898,1899,1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950,1951,1952,1953,1954,1955,1956,1957,1958,1959,1960,1961,1962,1963,1964,1965,1966,1967,1968,1969,1970,1971,1972,1973,1974,1975,1976,1977,1978,1979,1980,1981,1982,1983,1984,1985,1986,1987,1988,1989,1990,1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998, and 1999 ?
GIGO, I see you are back in this thread, can you help me out with this request:
Of course.
For any data range that is chosen, if the trend is up it’s up, if it’s down it’s down, if it’s flat it’s flat.
Without checking every single year listed, I’ll just say “yes”.
Whoa, sounds personal … other than character assassination, is there anything you’re saying that we should be alarmed about … other than objectivity? RaftPeople asked an honest question and just saying FX is wrong isn’t an answer. Obviously, increasing CO[sub]2[/sub] but plateau’ed temperatures means there are other components to the current state of affairs. The energy has to be someplace and apparently, it’s not in the atmosphere. If just simply asking the question incurs your violent wrath, one wonders what you’re hiding …
It is hard to accuse others of character assassination when the wounds of the one talked about are self inflicted.