"The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought."

[septimus]

@FXMastermind

There is little doubt at his point, based on available evidence, that global warming has not occurred as predicted by the consensus science.

I’m rather ignorant of the topic, but the constant claim that a recent lull contradicts warming predictions fails the sniff test. Look at the graph from a Wikipedia page. One does indeed see temperature trending to no increase (not a fall) over the last decade, but one also sees major falls in the 1900’s, 1940’s, early 1960’s. One sees periods of about eight years with no rise centered near 1972, near 1982 and near 1992.

In other words, the failure of temperatures to rise over the recent decade is just an example of the normal variation one sees clearly in that graph. The graph even shows three years in the 2000’s higher than any 20th-century year!

To claim that this “trend” argues against continued warming, ISTM, is to misunderstand the nature of the temperature signal, which is the sum of various factors, many of higher local amplitude than the long-term AGW trend.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@GIGObuster

And the cherry is picked again, what you always miss from this is that good data is being separated from the context to arrive to misleading say so’s.

For example, even the point that “As well as the die hard sect that insists warming has proceeded just as the models predicted.” is misleading as scientists like Latif explained how the false skeptics would misinterpret his statements on the **expected **slowdowns in the surface temperatures.

Climatecrocks.com
Once again, this is a case for why one should clean up their sources of information, the reality is that no matter how even headed one thinks he/she is. One does eventually pick up really dumb information that shows up in discussions like this one.

I have seen even relatives begin to repeat certifiable nonsense, even if one assumes that we have to be fair, the problem here is that just as Oreskes showed many sources are even reporting false equivalency or are even committing fraud, or they are not giving you good information, out of ignorance or malice. And the bull does accumulate.

is using your own source cherry picking?
The only source is your 2008 one that you now augment with a 2009 one.
The whole “the heat is in the deep ocean” stuff only comes as an answer to the lack of atmospheric temperature rise.

I’ll repeat again: I only aswer for what I say or quote.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

is using your own source cherry picking?
The only source is your 2008 one that you now augment with a 2009 one.
The whole “the heat is in the deep ocean” stuff only comes as an answer to the lack of atmospheric temperature rise.

I’ll repeat again: I only aswer for what I say or quote.

Actually anyone can see that in the Skeptical Science cite:

Figure 1: Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter OHC increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

This result is consistent with the ‘hiatus decades’ found in Meehl et al. (2011) and (2013).

These studies in combination with Guemas et al. (2013) and Balmaseda et al. (2013) suggest that the more efficient ocean heat uptake is a temporary effect that will sooner or later reverse and lead to accelerated surface warming. Meehl et al. (2013) suggests this will occur when the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) next switches to its positive phase.

With links to the science papers.

No idea why you want to “impress” all others with your capacity to discover a 2008 cite there. Actually you only show that for all your claims that you also look at Skeptical Science, you only show that you do not like to check the science.

[GIGObuster]

As for your Cherry Picking complaint, the reality is that once again other science organizations and even groups that are dedicated on busting pseudoscience still tell us that concentrating only on the last years and mostly on the land surface and a few ocean points to be Cherry Picking indeed.

Science organizations still report that the warming is increasing, and that once again, the cherry picking of surface temperatures (Itself also a cherry pick when no other global data are included) is misleading.

British Met Office refutes “misleading” claim “Global Warming stopped 16...

The British Met Office (Britian’s “NOAA”) responded to the article Sunday, and continues to address with comments in the Met Office News Blog.

Again here’s an excerpt. You can read the whole post from the link above.

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

The Updraft Take: Why the Daily Mail piece is (intentionally) misleading and misses the point.

1. Looking back at the global temperature surface record since 1850, you can find many multi year periods where global temperature has plateaued or even fallen.

But the overall long term trend of warming is undeniable.

Heres’ an even better version from Skeptical Science.
**
Planetary warming has not been, and is not expected to be a uniformly linear trend. To suggest otherwise is to deliberately mislead the public.**

2. The Daily Mail piece seems to have “cherry picked” a high point of warming in 1997, and a relative low point in 2012 to get a “level” temperature trend.

Here’s is the Daily Mail “proof” graph below. As an example of cherry picking, the black lines are my additions selecting other data points along the graph that can be chosen had somebody wanted to misleadingly suggest the strong warming between 2000 and 2012 is the best trend, or the relative cooling between 1997 and 2007.

Both of my starting and ending points (black lines) would be misleading and draw inaccurate conclusions for the reader about global temperature trends in the next few years.

It’s very dangerous, misleading, and scientifically dishonest to pick any one 16 year period and make inferences about where long term climate trends are headed.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

The first chart on this link(your link)you provied does not go to 2012, it only does to 2008.
The paper can be 2012, but the chart goes to 2008. (The climate crocks one is from 2009). From this very link “Research on the causes of slowed surface air warming is of course ongoing. The question remains how much other factors have contributed to the surface warming slowdown”. There is a slowdown on the surface temperature rise. It doesn’t mean that the guys on your link think GW has stopped.

Unless cherry-picking means “not including everything” it’s silly to say that only mentioning surface temperature is cherry-picking, surface temperature is THE most important point of the whole GW/CC debate. Is it cherry picking that the chart stsrts only in 1960 or that it cannot separate how much of the warming is natural and how much man made?

From your quote “The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.” (please, in the interest of NOT being decpetive please do check the full quote on GB’s post).

What (non-volcano non-Niña) year would be OK to show a trend?

[GIGObuster]

Ohh, big letters, like if one can not check the follow ups, NOAA still points out that the heat content is still going up in more recent data:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Surface temperature alone is not the only thing climate scientists are looking for, you need a big fat cite to report that they were not looking at all the global temperature, but we all know why it is important to attempt to keep your mistake going, it is because otherwise the Cherry Pick does not work for the lousy point.

So the point stands, It’s very dangerous, misleading, and scientifically dishonest to pick any one 16 year period and make inferences about where long term climate trends are headed.

[GIGObuster]

As for the OP, other science groups already had noticed how the Economist was not quite accurate, and while it indeed covered their butts, the end result was that false skeptics missed a lot of the points.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/ocean-holds-answer-reduced-warming-130411.htm

A recent article in The Economist stated that “over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.” The Economist went to great lengths to point out that “the mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures … does not mean global warming is a delusion.” But the piece was predictably lauded by climate skeptics as “further evidence” of the case against climate change.

Except that … it wasn’t.

As The Economist piece itself pointed out, this wasn’t an argument that “global warming has ‘stopped.‘” The past two decades have been the hottest in recorded history; of the nine hottest years on record, eight have come since 2000.

First, the smaller the temporal time scale, the more the short-term fluctuations, forcings and feedbacks — from aerosol emissions to La Niña events — can distort the bigger picture. Over a longer scale, the evidence is increasing that the rate of warming is probably unprecedented in over 11,000 years.

Second, The Economist article, and the skeptic narrative that has absorbed it, focuses on what is known as “climate sensitivity,” which is how much surface warming the planet will experience in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations relative to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. (Those pre-industrial levels were approximately 280 ppm; a doubling therefore would be roughly 560 ppm. Present levels are closing in on 397 ppm.)

But, as climate blogger Joe Romm points out, climate sensitivity is but one factor in determining how much the planet will warm in the future; another hugely important one is the extent to which CO2 concentrations will actually increase, and present trends suggest they will blow past 560 ppm and wind up closer to 1,000 ppm. Additionally, while climate sensitivity estimates are greatly influenced by short-term feedbacks such as sea ice extent and water vapor, they do not factor in “slow” feedbacks, such as the release of methane as a result of tundra melt. Nor do they consider the non-linearity of such feedbacks – i.e. the fact that they may become significant relatively suddenly.

Third, the data referred to by The Economist suggest that climate sensitivity may be at the very low end of projected estimates of between 2 degrees Celsius and 4.5 degrees Celsius. If that indeed does prove to be the case, then that’s obviously good news. But, as Zeke Hausfather pointed out in a post at the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media: “A world with a relatively low climate sensitivity — say in the range of 2 °C — but with high emissions and with atmospheric concentrations three to four times those of pre-industrial levels is still probably a far different planet than the one we humans have become accustomed to. And it’s likely not one we would find nearly so hospitable.”

Finally, and most importantly, there is plenty of reason to suspect that climate sensitivity isn’t lower than expected; because, critically, discussions of climate sensitivity tend to focus on surface warming of the planet; but several recent studies have shown that in fact an increasing amount of warming is taking place beneath the surface, in the ocean depths.

Ninety percent of warming goes into heating, not the land or the atmosphere, but the ocean; two recent papers, in 2012 and earlier this year, showed that approximately 30 percent of recent ocean warming has been taken up by waters below depths of 700 meters (about 2,300 feet), where few measurements had previously taken place. That was reinforced by a European study, published earlier this week, which, according to Reuters, found “that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief

[Paranoid_Randroid]

If the warming primarily occurs in the oceans, then I have the perfect solution: just drop some giant cubes of ice in there. But we’ll need a rather large teaspoon …

[GIGObuster]

Narrator: [in movie] Of course, since the greenhouse gases are still building up, it takes more and more ice each time. [There are shots of bigger ice cubes being dropped into the ocean.] Thus solving the problem once and for all.

Suzie: [in movie] But–

Narrator: [angry; in movie.] Once and for all!

From Futurama, Crimes of the Hot.

Global Warming - None Like It Hot!

[Cyros]

@Paranoid_Randroid

If the warming primarily occurs in the oceans, then I have the perfect solution: just drop some giant cubes of ice in there. But we’ll need a rather large teaspoon …

If we run out of ice we can always gather all of the robots on the Galapagos Islands and have them vent their exhaust straight up!

Thank you Matt Groening! Your vision will save us all yet!

[Lobohan]

You know, if we just wait awhile, some very large ice masses will fall into the ocean.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

The nicest thing is that the whole lull-in-the-warming started with the warmists saying “is still going very fast”, then it was “right on schedule”, then “just a little bit behind”, still on “you’re cherry pciking a Niño year”, but finally “yeah, it’s kinda stopped but don’t worry, the heat is in the deep ocean”.

It’s a victory of sorts for us sceptics, but it took 15 years for deludeds (aka warmists) to at least accept the slowdown. Surface temps had to get almost to the bottom of the 95% confindence level of the 5 IPCC projections for them to get it.

And still most deluded won’t give either a (non-volcano non-Niña) year for the trend to start or a time period.

[Richard_Parker]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Surface temps had to get almost to the bottom of the 95% confindence level of the 5 IPCC projections for them to get it.

Wait. Wouldn’t that point, and not before that point, be the logical time to question the projections?

[FXMastermind]

No

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Richard_Parker

Wait. Wouldn’t that point, and not before that point, be the logical time to question the projections?

If your 5 projection are consistenly running too high with no change in sight (even if measurements are still within the very wide 95% confidence) then you need to be checking them up before.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

Linear trend - 73 models from 1979 vs reality

Linear trend 19 US model from 1979 vs reality

Real projection from 1979 - 73 models

[FXMastermind]

It’s an odd sort of science, when reality shows that there hasn’t been any sort of feedback leading to extreme warming, and this is greeted with sorrow. We are not facing some immediate warming disaster (in fact, cold has been the real problem of late), based on all the data, yet the voices of doom can’t spare a single sigh of relief, much less take their foot off the pedal of fear.

Most odd.

[FXMastermind]

The follower of this subject knows full well old Gigo will be along soon enough to beat the drum of panic and bemoan how everyone is stupid for not simply believing his story of impending tragedy

[A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion]

Al Gore was right about needing a lock box.

If only we could build it big enough to keep him and you greenies from getting out.

[septimus]

I don’t claim to follow the science. Recently my only real exposure is skimming these threads. :smack:

But …

@Aji_de_Gallina

… but it took 15 years for deludeds (aka warmists) to at least accept the slowdown.

15 years ago was 1998, an unusually hot year. What do I misunderstand? (And, BTW, if 1998 and 2002 hadn’t been unusually hot, there’d be no apparent lull for denialists to gloat about.)

@FXMastermind

We are not facing some immediate warming disaster (in fact, cold has been the real problem of late) …

As I say, I’ve been skimming. Where should I have learned that “cold has been the real problem of late” ?