Has the world actually been cooling since 2002?

[wolfpup]

@FXMastermind

That’s real simple. After I checked the figures, only after 2002 did GISS show a cooling trend.

It’s not a “cooling trend”. But thanks for confirming that you cherry-picked the start year that came closest to what you wanted to show.

@FXMastermind

We can use the more reliable satellites if you want to illustrate how data always trumps your rhetoric.

Satellite data from 1995

trend from 2002

trend from 1998(oh! cherry picking! cherry picking!)

trend from 1996

hey wait a minute

trend from 1995

See how easy that is?

Yes, I definitely see how easy that is – and I hope everyone else does, too!

The actual temperature chart:

And it’s remarkably creative how your woodfortrees blog – the one that you use whenever its particular form of data manipulation suits your purposes – has a pretty colored line showing cooling from 1998. Anyone can plop the GISS data set below into Excel (this new set now starts at 1980), plot it and draw a trendline, and they’ll see that your amazing “cooling” from 1998 is non-existent and is actually a strong warming, as it is from just about any other year except 2002, where the trend line is flat.

Furthermore, that entire graph and/or the processing algorithm looks like total gibberish – the RSS MSU data has bizarre errors that you can clearly see when you plot every data point like this – 1998 is hugely out of whack, completely wrong – no wonder it shows “cooling” thereafter – the whole thing is total garbage. No wonder the blog warns that it’s just for fun and shouldn’t be used for academic work.

And BTW, I take it that “more accurate satellite data” is another one of your psuedo-scientific pronouncements. Satellite “temperature” readings are approximated indirect inferences of surface temperature from adjusted MSU measurements of radiance taken at different levels of the atmosphere. The adjustments and algorithms are far from simple and have often been problematic.

---

GISS Global Land-Ocean Annual Mean – °C Anomalies from 1951-1980 baseline

1980	22
1981	28
1982	 9
1983	27
1984	12
1985	 8
1986	15
1987	28
1988	34
1989	24
1990	39
1991	38
1992	19
1993	20
1994	28
1995	43
1996	33
1997	45
1998	61
1999	40
2000	40
2001	52
2002	61
2003	60
2004	52
2005	65
2006	59
2007	62
2008	49
2009	59
2010	66
2011	55
2012	57
2013	60

[wolfpup]

@RaftPeople

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.

ORAS4 (mentioned in the paper) is just the reanalysis component of an observational data collection system called Ocean Analysis System 4 that’s used for long-range forecasting, among other things. You can browse some of the datasets here. As the paper says, “Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation based reanalysis of the ocean.”

[watchwolf49]

@wolfpup

You can browse some of the datasets here.

Using “full field”, “sea surface temperature” and “30N” settings, I got that web site to say there’s no global warming at all. Statistics, what a joy they can be.

[wolfpup]

@watchwolf49

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 …

Raftpeople didn’t ask any question in that post, he was asserting, based on the OP, that it has clearly been cooling since 2002. I merely pointed out all the flaws in the OP, and it was a pretty long list, and that this was not a correct conclusion. I have subsequently pointed out further flaws in further posts from the same source as the OP.

I don’t know what you think I’m “hiding”. I’ve answered all your question AFAIK. Much of the answer to this key question about the missing heat energy is likely in the hypothesis in the Balmaseda paper (and others) that I referenced above and that GIGO originally linked. As I mentioned before, as much as 95% of the earth’s heat uptake goes into the oceans, so even small changes in the uptake balance can make a huge difference in regional and global temperatures for a relatively short time, often followed by a rebound effect, as in the ENSO cycles.

[watchwolf49]

@wolfpup

As I mentioned before, as much as 95% of the earth’s heat uptake goes into the oceans, so even small changes in the uptake balance can make a huge difference in regional and global temperatures for a relatively short time, often followed by a rebound effect, as in the ENSO cycles.

So … like … a runaway greenhouse effect?

[wolfpup]

@watchwolf49

So … like … a runaway greenhouse effect?

No, just more rapid warming for awhile to bring us back up to the average. Tipping points – aka “runaway greenhouse effects” – are caused by self-reinforcing feedback loops.

Of course a good question at this point would be “what is the ‘average’?” There’s no credible reason for any change to the generally accepted value of climate sensitivity, which would lead to a global average temperature around 3°C above the pre-industrial average at 560 ppm CO2. This implies a rate of warming much more like that of the late 20th century than the present rate.

@watchwolf49

Using “full field”, “sea surface temperature” and “30N” settings, I got that web site to say there’s no global warming at all. Statistics, what a joy they can be.

“Full field” deals in absolute temps in integral degrees, and doesn’t have the accuracy to resolve temperature anomalies, which are of the order of fractions of a degree. But it’s giving you the answer that you want, so it’s all good!

[RaftPeople]

@wolfpup

ORAS4 (mentioned in the paper) is just the reanalysis component of an observational data collection system called Ocean Analysis System 4 that’s used for long-range forecasting, among other things. You can browse some of the datasets here. As the paper says, “Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation based reanalysis of the ocean.”

Yes that quote from the paper is part of what tripped me up, “reanalysis”. It sounded like the data wasn’t pure and in their description they confirmed the graphs I was looking at were at least partially from a model, which isn’t raw data.

The link is interesting but I was hoping for a graph, similar to surface temp, are you aware of any? I tried googling “ocean temperature anomaly” and I find sea surface temps and also land and ocean combined - but no ocean only.

Ultimately this will be my next question after finding that graph: if the reason for the current plateau is because of a shift of heat to the ocean, then I would think we would see this same pattern previously in our history. Has anyone confirmed that previous plateaus coincided with ocean increase?
If FX is correct that we don’t have adequate ocean data (which I assume is correct otherwise that paper wouldn’t need to use a model, it would just publish the graphed data) then it seems that it would be much more difficult to confirm the heat into the ocean idea.

[DMC]

@RaftPeople

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.

Yes, and for 95% of the starting years in the past 164 years (100% if you choose a span greater than 13 years), the trend ending in 2013 is up. The point is that while one can easily find a short time span in which the trend is down, it’s impossible to find a longer time span ending in 2013 that trends downward. Hell, I can find short ones trending down all over the place, for instance from 1952-1964, 1964-1976, etc. I’m not aware of a single proponent of AGW who thinks that the global temperature can’t have such fluctuations over a short time span. Are you?

Let’s see what GIGObuster thinks. Hey GIGObuster, in a hypothetical world where we listened to those who said to do nothing, so that 300 years from now AGW had continued to heat up, would it surprise you if there were short time spans during that period where there was a downward trend, as long as one was very careful to cherry pick the right years? Are you aware of anyone who would be surprised by that?

Without checking every single year listed, I’ll just say “yes”.

For the record, I didn’t skip a single year in that 150 year range and you are correct. Using any one of them as the starting year shows a warming trend.

So, do you think it is more significant that there is a short term of minor cooling when starting with a cherry picked year or that there is a very strong warming when starting with any year when looked at on a long term basis?

[wolfpup]

@RaftPeople

Yes that quote from the paper is part of what tripped me up, “reanalysis”. It sounded like the data wasn’t pure and in their description they confirmed the graphs I was looking at were at least partially from a model, which isn’t raw data.

A “reanalysis” is just a standard technique in climatology to apply models to observational data in order to understand underlying processes and ascertain trends.

@RaftPeople

The link is interesting but I was hoping for a graph, similar to surface temp, are you aware of any? I tried googling “ocean temperature anomaly” and I find sea surface temps and also land and ocean combined - but no ocean only.

Ultimately this will be my next question after finding that graph: if the reason for the current plateau is because of a shift of heat to the ocean, then I would think we would see this same pattern previously in our history. Has anyone confirmed that previous plateaus coincided with ocean increase?

What graph do you hope to find? If you’re hoping to eyeball a graph of the total heat content of all the oceans of the world at all depths then you’re not going to find it. But the Argo network and many others have done marvels in giving us an enormous amount of information about SSTs, circulation systems, and other important ocean phenomena, as well as some deep-ocean readings. That’s what the Balmaseda paper draws upon – if the underlying evidence was complete it wouldn’t be a hypothesis, it would be a simple fact.

There have been many other papers on short-term climate changes in the past caused by changes in ocean heat uptake – Foster et al. for instance, and there’s new research by England et al. on remarkable changes in Pacific circulation systems that supports Balmaseda’s basic hypothesis.

[FXMastermind]

And now, the parade of the straw men.

@DMC

Yes, and for 95% of the starting years in the past 164 years (100% if you choose a span greater than 13 years), the trend ending in 2013 is up.

If anyone was arguing what you are talking about, you would win! The straw men burn so bright, don’t you think? Arguing with something only you are bringing forward is actually pretty easy.

It does nothing to discuss the topic however.

@DMC

The point is that while one can easily find a short time span in which the trend is down, it’s impossible to find a longer time span ending in 2013 that trends downward.

No, that is your point, unrelated to the topic. The recent trend, most unexpected, predicted by no climate models, is actually the subject of some seriously intenive reseacrh at the moment. It’s a scientific issue. It actually matters, to people who live in the real world.

@DMC

So, do you think it is more significant that there is a short term of minor cooling when starting with a cherry picked year or that there is a very strong warming when starting with any year when looked at on a long term basis?

again, you argue with yourself. Nobody is saying the long term trend is cooling, or that somehow the world has entered an ice age.

Try to think of it like a car, the accelerator is down, the car is gaining speed. Over the last 150 years it’s moving faster, every now and then it slows, but then starts up again, faster than before. It reached a hundred mph (fuck you km, in America it’s mph goddamn it), and the predictions are it will slowly keep gaining speed.

Then, it slows slightly, but it’s still faster than it has been for most of the time. It keeps slowing, very slightly. After 17 years, the average speed has dropped slightly. it’s still going quite fast, but it’s not increasing anymore.

All the while this slight slowdown is happening, the car engineers are putting even more gas to the engine. It should be going faster.

the scientist is the person trying to figure out why it’s not gaining speed still.

the denier is the one saying “it’s still going faster! we just can’t measure it!”

the political fools are trying to tell us why it’s not going faster, how it will never go any faster, that the amount of gas has nothing to do with it

and the vast majority of the people on earth would say, “what car? what are you talking about? who cares?”

and a very tiny few are saying, “it doesn’t matter that it isn’t speeding up, look at how much it sped up in the last 150 years!”

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

And now, the parade of the straw men.

That we know already you are an expert of.

@FXMastermind

[snip]
The recent trend, most unexpected, predicted by no climate models.

Like if the 70’s did not happen, once again, most scientists reported that warmig was coming, even if the surface temperatures “paused”, that previous pause was taken into account by scientists like Latif that reported that:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/14/205350/science-dr-mojib-latif-global-warming-cooling/

When he writes that global warming may halt “over the next several years,” that’s what he means — a few years, not decades. And then the warming accelerates to “catch up” to the long term trend.

I won’t repeat a full explanation of this figure or the entire paper, which you can find here. But it bears repeating that Latif doesn’t believe this forecast has any skill past 2015. Indeed, he is quite aware of predictions that 2010 will be the hottest year on record, and it wouldn’t surprise him if it were.

I’m sure this won’t clear things up 100%, and I’m sure the anti-science crowd will continue to misquote and misrepresent his work. But there remains only one way to truly halt global warming over a long time period — and that is to cut greenhouse gas emissions sharply and quickly.

Incidentally, they were correct on 2010 being the warmest.

http://mediamatters.org/print/research/2010/01/13/quick-fact-hannity-cites-questionable-report-th/159054

U.N. Conference presentation addressed “decadal variability,” noting “we all believe that this long-term warming trend … is manmade.” Latif opened his August 31, 2009, presentation at the U.N. World Climate Conference-3 by stating: “What you see here is just the globally averaged temperature during the 20th century. And you can clearly identify the long-term warming trend, and we all believe that this long-term warming trend is anthropogenic in nature, is manmade. However, you see also a lot of fluctuations superimposed on this trend, interannual, as Tim has pointed out, but also decadal scale variations.” Latif went on to discuss the “mechanisms” of decadal variability and the potential for predicting climate at the decadal timescale. [U.N. World Climate Conference – 3, 8/31/09]

Latif chart suggests temperatures are “cooling” in the short term, but that these temperatures are still indicative of a long-term warming trend. Latif’s chart shows that “cooling” period follows the hottest decade on record last century.

From Latif’s World Climate Conference PowerPoint presentation:

Latif: “It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two … when the temperature cools … relative to the present level.” Latif stated that due to natural climate variability over the decade-long timescale, “it may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, you know, when the temperature cools, all right, relative to the present level.” Latif added: “And then, you know, I know what’s going to happen. You know, I will get, you know, millions of phone calls, you know – ‘What’s going on?’ ‘So is global warming disappearing, you know?’ ‘Have you lied on us, you know?’ So, and, therefore, this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue.” [U.N. World Climate Conference – 3, 8/31/09]

Latif: Media mistakenly think of global warming as “a monotonic process,” in which “each year is warmer than the preceding year.” During his presentation, Latif stated: “All right, so, first point: Why decadal prediction? Now, people who know me, at least my German colleagues, know that I do a lot of media work, OK. There is almost no day in the year when I’m not called by some media person, OK. And so, they basically think about global warming as a kind of slowly evolving process and a monotonic process, OK – so each year is warmer than the preceding year.” He added: “However, we all know there is variability.” [U.N. World Climate Conference – 3, 8/31/09]

Well, at least all scientists, but not the armchair ones or the blogessors that FX relies on.

@FXMastermind

the denier is the one saying “it’s still going faster! we just can’t measure it!”

No, it is clear that you are even denying what was reported before, Latif and the reaction of the scientists during the previous pause of the 70’s was pointed out many times before.

@FXMastermind

the political fools are trying to tell us why it’s not going faster, how it will never go any faster, that the amount of gas has nothing to do with it

and the vast majority of the people on earth would say, “what car? what are you talking about? who cares?”

and a very tiny few are saying, “it doesn’t matter that it isn’t speeding up, look at how much it sped up in the last 150 years!”

And here (besides being insulting) you continue to deny even what Gallup found about how the world sees this issue, the majority does care. The scientists already told us the rise in temperature was not going to be an steady pace. And the biggest mistake is to think that nature is ignored, as one of the few remaining skeptical scientists (they are only skeptical about the pace or warming we get from the CO2 and other emissions, but they get that wrong many times too) told us at the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming skeptics) Dr Patrick J Michaels warned against cherry picking for some sort of ‘proof’ of a cooling trend:

“You’ve all seen articles saying that global warming stopped in 1998. Well, with all due respect that’s being a little bit unfair to the data. This is 1998 here, and it was a HUGE El Nino year, and the sun was very active in 1998, and so what you’re going to have you’re going to have a fall … as the consequent La Nina … takes place.”

"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all… If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"

It is really not surprising, but I have seen several examples of those skeptical scientists shooting down papers that deniers attempt to publish because even the few skeptical scientists do not want to carry water or to then work overtime defending very dumb ideas.

Pat Michaels then explained that when the El Nino cycles return, it’s going to get really hot again.
**
“SO! Global warming is real, and the second warming of the 20th Century, people have something to do with it! Now get over it!”**

[GIGObuster]

@DMC

Yes, and for 95% of the starting years in the past 164 years (100% if you choose a span greater than 13 years), the trend ending in 2013 is up. The point is that while one can easily find a short time span in which the trend is down, it’s impossible to find a longer time span ending in 2013 that trends downward. Hell, I can find short ones trending down all over the place, for instance from 1952-1964, 1964-1976, etc. I’m not aware of a single proponent of AGW who thinks that the global temperature can’t have such fluctuations over a short time span. Are you?

Let’s see what GIGObuster thinks. Hey GIGObuster, in a hypothetical world where we listened to those who said to do nothing, so that 300 years from now AGW had continued to heat up, would it surprise you if there were short time spans during that period where there was a downward trend, as long as one was very careful to cherry pick the right years?

As Latif and many others reported before, it would not surprise me.

@DMC

Are you aware of anyone who would be surprised by that?

Only armchair “scientists”, bloglessors and deniers. This denial does require also to deny what took place in the 70’s, so the denial is a double one.

Back in the 70’s a super majority of scientists declared that warming was going to come regardless of what the record was showing then. The warming that came (and remains) was one of the most dramatic pieces of evidence that showed that most scientists were on the right track. It is no wonder that that needs to be ignored by contrarians.

Today the consensus is even stronger among scientists: warming will be more apparent soon. And it is mostly the denier media the ones that are talking about cooling with their cherry picks.

[watchwolf49]

@wolfpup

No, just more rapid warming for awhile to bring us back up to the average. Tipping points – aka “runaway greenhouse effects” – are caused by self-reinforcing feedback loops.

Of course a good question at this point would be “what is the ‘average’?” There’s no credible reason for any change to the generally accepted value of climate sensitivity, which would lead to a global average temperature around 3°C above the pre-industrial average at 560 ppm CO2. This implies a rate of warming much more like that of the late 20th century than the present rate.

You’ve not stated the time frame for this 3ºC increase. How long will it take for man-kind to add an additional 160 ppm? We’ve only added to date 120 ppm, and this was done without a lot of pollution considerations. Are you assuming that there will be no technology in the future that will suppress these emissions? Are you assuming that natural forces won’t have any effect at all?

@wolfpup

“Full field” deals in absolute temps in integral degrees, and doesn’t have the accuracy to resolve temperature anomalies, which are of the order of fractions of a degree. But it’s giving you the answer that you want, so it’s all good!

You said above that temps were going up 3ºC, here you’re saying temps are going up less than a half of a degree. Which is it?

A “reanalysis” is just a standard technique in climatology to apply models to observational data in order to understand underlying processes and ascertain trends.

I’d like to see a more detailed explanation from you on what exact these models are. You seem to rely heavily on these results, yet in the literature I’m finding that they are still subject to quite a bit of “tweaking”. Just throw me a bone and give me the algorithm of the CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations you stated above.

“Composition of the Atmosphere” is one factor that influences climate change, but it’s not the complete story. This current plateau in the raw data is an excellent time to investigate the other factors to climate change, with an eye on the last time temperatures plateau’ed and then started to decrease. I understand you believe this is just white noise in the data since 2002, I think everyone understands that by this point. Exploring other components of climate change isn’t going to change the truth of the matter, but it might expose practical solutions.

Just how much energy is the ocean sinking away? Without Joules, carbon dioxide has nothing to radiate.

[GIGObuster]

One note here, the implied ongoing idea that models should not be used or trusted runs contrary to the idea that we will be able to use technology in the future to suppress these emissions or that nature is (once again) not taken into account.

This is because, guess what will be used to check if the solutions will the be safe to use? And guess who we will consult to see how we will implement those solutions?

[watchwolf49]

@GIGObuster

One note here, the implied ongoing idea that models should not be used or trusted runs contrary to the idea that we will be able to use technology in the future to suppress these emissions or that nature is (once again) not taken into account.

This is because, guess what will be used to check if the solutions will the be safe to use? And guess who we will consult to see how we will implement those solutions?

What makes you think that this has been implied here recently? I, myself, have presented “raw data” that’s based in part on computer models.

These dynamic models take a cubic unit volume of air, looks at the six adjacent unit volumes and apply fluid mechanic equations to calculate what will happen to the original unit volume, then repeat for each unit volume. Faster computers give smaller unit volumes and/or shorter time periods and thus more accurate forecasts … or in the case of the NOAA data, get a reasonable estimate of the temperatures over the open ocean.

How do climate models work? I just can’t imagine researchers using the same equations.

[magellan01]

You know, I bet I’m not alone is wishing ALL of you would leave the snark to the pit threads on the subject.

GIGO, is it possible for you to discuss this issue with people who disagree with you without constantly disparaging them with labels and ad hominems? Now if your goal is to make the thread unpleasant to read, I will congratulate you, as you are succeeding immeasurable.

If, on the other hand, you are confident of your position and think that a debate more focused on an examination on facts and the theories surrounding climate change, I look forward to you change of tone.

FX, maybe take a shot at dialing back the snark on your end, too?

Just a thought.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

What makes you think that this has been implied here recently? I, myself, have presented “raw data” that’s based in part on computer models.

Good for you, but FX already told us in this thread that “all the models are flat wrong.” Do you agree with him?

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

You know, I bet I’m not alone is wishing ALL of you would leave the snark to the pit threads on the subject.

GIGO, is it possible for you to discuss this issue with people who disagree with you without constantly disparaging them with labels and ad hominems? Now if your goal is to make the thread unpleasant to read, I will congratulate you, as you are succeeding immeasurable.

When we are accused of being political fools, it is clear that you are the one not paying attention of who is reaching for the ad hominems.

@magellan01

If, on the other hand, you are confident of your position and think that a debate more focused on an examination on facts and the theories surrounding climate change, I look forward to you change of tone.

FX, maybe take a shot at dialing back the snark on your end, too?

Just a thought.

Hard to think that there is an equivalency here when your snark and ad hominen detector is not pinging for you regarding what FX is doing, And he continues to not to acknowledge how wrong he is regarding what most of the people in the world thing about the issue, how wrong he is regarding models, and how he still pretends that no one from the sources he uses has made the advise of how misleading the cherry picking of short time lines is. And many more. The snark he uses to disparage the experts and posters is weapons grade.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

One note here, the implied ongoing idea that models should not be used or trusted

Who is implying that?

[FXMastermind]

@magellan01

FX, maybe take a shot at dialing back the snark on your end, too?

Just a thought.

No problem. What happens in the pit should stay in the pit.

Also, junior modding.