Hiatus? What hiatus?

Consider the global temperature for 1975-1999:


Add the linear regression trendline:


Now put 1-sigma and 2-sigma error ranges around that:


Extend the same trendline and the same ranges forward for 14 years (in red):


And finally, plot the global temperatures actually observed since 1999 (in red):


And this is a "hiatus"?

 

Curious, what part of the globe are these charts showing?

 

The whole globe. That's why it says "Global".

 

who would've guessed global means the entire globe...

 

how unfair, youve included pre 1999....

 

And this doesn't even include the increased energy capture by the ocean.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...t-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

 

From the IPCC AR5 report:
The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that
agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed
trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}
• The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012,
is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal
variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend
in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar
cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced
warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the
difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural
internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of
the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4,
Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

Note the reference to the the shorter 10 to 15 year trend being called the haitus.

 

Very good post and temperature analysis. You are right, There has been no "hiatus" or "pause" or "extended lack of warming", as some of the deniers like to call it. The basic laws of physics combined with the direct satellite measurements of the incoming solar energy versus the amount of energy the Earth is radiating away into space demonstrates conclusively that the Earth has continued to receive more energy from the sun than it can shed into space, so the accumulation of heat has continued unabated. The oceans have always been absorbing over 90% of the solar energy the Earth receives but recently scientists have discovered that even more of the excess heat that the elevated levels of CO2 have been retaining has been going into the oceans and moving into even deeper ocean waters too. Even an apparent slowdown in the rate of (just) surface air temperature warming, based on the somewhat incomplete HadCRUT data, turned out to be the result of an underestimation of the speed with which the Arctic is heating up (see the first article in the list below).

There was no "hiatus". The surface air temperatures are still rising fast, the oceans are still heating up, the Arctic ice cap is still rapidly melting away, Greenland and Antarctica are still losing ice mass at accelerating rates, most of the world's mountain glaciers are melting and disappearing, sea levels are still rising, the permafrost is still melting, and seasonal timing is still changing. Currently, 2010 is the hottest year on record but a new global record high temperature for the year will almost certainly be set within the next three years.

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
13 November 2013

Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
10 December 2013

Global warming continues with no slow down
March 27, 2013

Global Warming Is Rapidly Accelerating
12/31/2013

New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
25 March 2013

Global Warming is Accelerating, but it's Still Groundhog Day at the Daily Mail
17 April 2013

In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms
MARCH 25, 2013

UN: GLOBAL WARMING IS ACCELERATING, AND WITH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES
July 3, 2013

Accelerated Warming Driving Arctic Into New Volatile State
December 5th, 2012

New Research Confirms Global Warming/Ocean Acidification Accelerating Faster Than Previously Thought
MAR 27, 2013

Global Warming Accelerating, Say Scientists
ABC News Video

 

I suppose the OP is not aware of the different methods of "calculating" global temperatures and the variation is +/- 1 degree so depending on how you "calculate" the global temperature depends on what you will see. What is readily apparent is that there is hiatus denial going on since both MIT and the IPCC recognize the hiatus though they both theorize different reasons why. Oh, and he is posting Tamino's graphs which could be manipulated even more.

 

Note that nowhere does IPCC say that these differences are statistically significant. Because they aren't.

 

Which is precisely why we use anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. When you use anomalies, the differences are trivial.

What is readily apparent is that neither MIT nor the IPCC say the differences are statistically significant. Because they aren't.

Source data is available publicly on the web. If you think there's manipulation going on, it should be easy for a math whiz like you to show us all where. If you can't, then you're just plain wrong. As usual.

 

You make a lot of claims but you never seem to be able to provide any links to actual reputable scientific sources. The reason for that common denier cult tactic is that your claims are fallacious drivel that you just make up to suit your denial of reality.

What is readily apparent is that you are parroting old denier cult myths and ignoring the recent research showing that global warming is still accelerating. I just cited 11 articles about this acceleration of AGW and all of them were published in the last year and a quarter.

 

The calculations use anomalies and the variation is +/- 1 degree. There are different ways to calculate it and they all use some assumptions about the missing data.

- - - Updated - - -

So the articles from MIT and the language in the IPCC discussing where the "hidden" warming is all just a denier cult? LOL You evidently think they are all deniers.

 

BWAHAHAHA! From less than eleven lefty fever swamps!

Wooo, that's convincing

 

Here are six global temperature datasets, all anomalies from the 1979-2008 baseline:



Note that the entire vertical axis is one degree C. And you're claiming these differ by one degree?

I guess it's true what they say: watching FOX News makes you stupid.

 

No, I don't think the scientists at MIT or the IPCC are deniers (of course, I think you are a denier of the clear scientifically established facts about AGW). Those scientists all acknowledge and affirm that the Earth is warming up in an un-natural way, driven by the enormous amounts of fossil carbon that mankind's use of fossil fuels has put into the atmosphere. A 43% increase (so far) in a powerful greenhouse gas like CO2 creates a very significant change in the Earth's energy budget by preventing very large amounts of heat from leaving the planet. This excess heat energy is manifesting in many ways, with most of it going into warming the oceans, and the rest warming the atmosphere and the land surface, and melting the Arctic ice cap, Greenland, Antarctica, the mountain glaciers, and the permafrost.

For several decades now, with the use of satellite instrumentation, scientists have been able to determine exactly how much less energy is being radiated away into space than is being received from the sun, but they couldn't account for where all of this energy was going within the entire system enclosed by the Earth's atmosphere, therefore they talked about the "missing heat" and speculated and experimented and deployed more advanced instrumentation to find out where it was going.

The common measurement of global warming that the public is the most familiar with is the instrumental record of surface air temperatures that goes back to the late 1800s in many places, but this reflects only about 2% of the total energy the extra CO2 is retaining and isn't a good representation of the energy in the whole system. Additionally, only about 85% of the planet's surface has reasonably good temperature station coverage and one of the very important regions with very little coverage was the Arctic.

When scientists (from MIT or the IPCC or anywhere) talk about the ""hidden" warming", they don't mean that global warming has somehow stopped, as you foolishly seem to assume, but rather they are referring to the unaccounted for heat that they are now tracing down. Various recent scientific studies have shown that the oceans started taking in even more of the excess heat energy (i.e. - at an increased rate) and that heat has been penetrating into much deeper waters than it had been a decade or two earlier.

Other studies have integrated satellite temperature records, that cover the whole planet, into the existing surface station temperature records, and found that the Arctic has been warming much faster than the existing records that ignored the Arctic had indicated.

These new, truly global, records indicate that even the surface air temperatures have been increasing at the same rate in the last 16 years as in the two preceding decades (no "hiatus"), even though previously some scientists who were using the older, incomplete records, had said those records indicated a slowdown in the rate of increase in (just) the surface air temperatures in the last decade or so.

Important point to remember - "Hidden" does not mean 'non-existent'.

 

I think you are proving that you don't have to watch FOX news to prove your stupid. If you actually read any of the actual dataset limitations you would already know what I am talking about but then, I guess you don't.

 

Compared to what? The dramatic increase in CO2 began around 1950 and the 1910 to 1930 increase was just as "dramatic". How about before that? Well, we wouldn't know because we only have proxy records that are a completely different animal compared to measured data.

 

Bullmanure. Starting with 2001 (red dots) regression looks just horizontal. No increase.



And question: why my picture is small? What did I do wrong when attaching it?

 

And if you had actually read the scientific papers upon which these data are based, you would have known long ago that the 95% uncertainty range for anomalies is about 0.2° C. As shown, for example, here.

 

First, the anomaly data will be different depending on how you treat the missing data, second ask yourself why they are trying to explain where the "hidden" warmth is with more theory and third, the information is readily available on the net discussing the limitations and uncertainties of all the datasets and measurements.

 

You mean if I had actually read the opinion pieces of the papers written. Oh, and thanks for linking to a graph that distinctly shows the hiatus.

 

Oh very nice. Let's just leave out the year 2000, because using all the data is just so darned inconvenient. And who needs convenience when dishonesty is the goal?

Now go back and use all the data. Instead of the denier's eyeball trick, actually determine the trend by regression, and also determine the error in the trend. Which I'm sure a math whiz like you will have no trouble with at all.

And guess what? You're the one spouting bullmanure. The trend is upward, not flat.

To make it full sized, check the box labeled "Retrieve remote file and reference locally".

 

Or we could just use the graph you linked to that clearly shows the hiatus.

 

Dishonesty is all yours. You cannot apply linear regression to non-linear data. Period.

Thank you for help.