Twenty years of overestimating global warming?

So basically, you are trying to state year to year fluctuations are not accounted for by these graphs. Also the rising trend in other years are higher in some period due to the fluctuations of singular yearly temperature trends?

Oh I see, you feel that the graph only represents the trend of one year. That fact that it represents the trend over the years set out in the IPCC's projections has been missed on you.

First of all, fluctuations either random or specific are not trends. You are trying to justify the fact the IPCC have actually gotten it wrong due to fluctuations. The fact that these figures represent the trends including the fluctuations has been missed upon you. The projections are based from 1990 levels and are clearly wrong. You show signs of intending to ignore the IPCC's projections to extrapolate over a longer period to justify the outcome of over estimating. Problem you have is that it matters little of how far you go back the IPCC have based its projections using flawed models from 1990. Trends have not in any way agreed with the IPCC's projections and no amount of mudding the water will change that. They announced that they were 90% certain that temperatures will rise from 1990 to 2012 by x amount. This is the trend that the IPCC where so sure (90% certain) would occur. And the actual observations have shown it false.

 

I'm stating that year to year fluctuations are not significant.

Please clarify

No such thing as a one year trend in multi-year data.

My point exactly! Glickstein does not use a trend but uses single year fluctuations.

IPCC did not get it wrong if trends are used instead of single year data.

IPCC graphs do not address fluctuations; only glickstein does

Only wrong if you ignore the trend in the observations from 1990 to 2012

I'm not ignoring IPCC trends; you're ignoring the fact that Glickstein compares his fluctuations to IPCC's trends

Incorrect! That's what Glickstein states. IPCC projections are based on trends and not on yearly fluctuations. If you look at the woodfor trees graph, you'll see that the trend is well within IPCC's projections

Only if you compare apples & oranges; fluctuations & trends

 

However, you suggest that this is the failure of the IPCC?

A trend can be seen in short period or long period. Your next post seems to contribute to the idea that the short term trend of yearly basis should be considered. Fact is that the trend is lower than the predicated assumption (and I mean guess) of the IPCC.

There are such things as one year trend, however, as in your assumption that Glickstein used single year trend does not account for yearly fluctuations and thus the IPCC have not over estimated anything is actually incorrect. The fact that over the past several years a pause has been noted and accepted demonstrate that the trend has continued at far lower range than the 90% certainty that the IPCC predicated.

Interesting note though, is the fact that time frame demonstrates they were always going to get it wrong. If you examine much of these calculations you would see the longer the trend the less certainty that can be granted. This is a basic mathematical mistake that these entire scientists should have known at time of the conception of their projections.

Yes they have, if you had taken the time to examine the trends you would find that the closer to the original projections are far to small to distinguish a difference. The fact that the only way that the trend could be higher could only be due to fluctuations. If the claim is that latest it distinct drop in global mean temperatures is only the last year would show great cooling trend in a year (as you suggest) which would be far more a problem than the lower trend of the graph.

So you really do believe that the they are comparing fluctuations with a trend?

So what is the trend? As pointed out a trend is not a fluctuation.
The fact that at this time, it is accepted that actual observations demonstrate a pause in the mean temperatures thus it is acceptable to believe that the trend is lower than a constantly rising projections of the IPCC.

No, I am not ignoring your claim that Glickstein is using fluctuations. I am stating it is the trend, If not then the AGW theory has a great problem with major cooling while GHG gases that supposedly raise the temperature are continuing to increase at such levels that the IPCC have hung their hat on.

What IPCC have created these projections before 1990? Do they not adjust them as time goes by? Glickstein states no such thing

So if we ignore the actual projections of the IPCC and then examine another graph compared to the actual observations they will fall within the projections due to fluctuations.

Fact is in 2012 the end of the trend is .12 to .16 which is well below projections of the trend for 2012 by the IPCC. Nothing can deny that and no matter how hard you try and defend the IPCC, they are wrong.

There are many areas that this theory has problems, so many projections which to this day still have no supportive evidence by actual observations. The IPCC and many other groups continue change the input of these models to attempt to get something that is close to actual observations. Fact is that the only thing that can be agreed on is that climate change is happening.

 

No. Let me re-state: year to year fluctuations are not mathematically significant. No conclusions can be drawn from fluctuations; no projections can be made for a yearly temperature.

The shorter the period examined, the less reliable the trend. How long was the trend that Glickstein used to get the 0.12C - 0.16C values?

How did you come to this conclusion? Because that is mathematically incorrect.

Who is "they"?

What evidence do you have that actual observations do demonstrate a pause of the increase in the mean temperatures?

What evidence do you have that a major cooling is occurring. Again, look at the woodfortrees graph and show me the cooling trend.

Glickstein uses a yearly fluctuation for his 0.12C - 0.16C values. It's like a few years ago when the January values for temperature dropped. All the pseudo-scientists were claiming that warming had stopped. Neither one month nor one year values can be used to determine if cooling has stopped. Statistics requires a longer period than one month or one year. Glickstein draws his "trend" line for observed temperatures to the year 2012. The actual trend line should look like the one in woodfortrees.

Who's ignoring the actual projections of the IPCC? When the projected trends of the IPCC are compared to the observed trend (the woodfortrees graph), the IPCC's projections are spot on.

NO! The end of the trend is not 0.12C - 0.16C! 0.12C - 0.16C is a fluctuation, not "the end of the trend"!

Prove it! Show who and how the input was changed.
And don't bother linking to a lying pseudo-scientific blog.

 

Yes very true.

So you are suggesting the final trend is higher than .12-.16c? Is that now your claim?

let us put it this way, 90% certainty over say 5 years gives you 10%, uncertainty over the next five a further 10%, a further 10% in other words as time goes by the certainty rate decreases by a factor of 10x10x10x10..... as time goes by. There is no way the IPCC could have predicted, projected, suggested that they could create a certainty rate of 90% with any accuracy as time passes it is reduced.As is your conjector that they can continue to have this 90% certainty when they have already adjusted their projections several times?

Glickstein, The IPCC and whoever else contributed to the figures

The actual observations, and the continued effort of the AGW Scientists and IPCC to explain this current Pause.

LOL... I have no evidence of major cooling. That is the infurence you are making by stating that the fluctuation are being used. You are infering that Woodforestree graph shows much higher trend, Yet if this is true. then major cooling has occured within a short period. As I do not believe this I am not even going to attempt to show this. However, with the studies continueing into Ocean currents (considered to be the answer to the questions raised) I would consider it a major problem if this has occured as you are suggesting.

I believe that climate has a warming trend. However, In contrast To you, I do not believe man is creating it.

Again, you are ignoring a well marked problem with your theory. There has been a pause for several years in the warming trend. I do agree that many have made this to mean there has been a cooling (and maybe there is a small one) but I do believe it is simply a pause and a rising trend will continue eventually.

In other words if we look at filtered graphs they agree. So how about you give us another source for this? Perhaps NASA? But anyhow


Clearly demonstrates misleading of the forum.
If you are trying to demonstrate that your correct using that Graph, you will note that you are trying it create a trend from .2C starting point and showing the same trend as being demonstrated by the Glickstein graph. That is an attempt to show misleading information. Also if you go to the temperature index at the same point they demonstrate that the IPCC figures you are attempting to use to discredit the OP are approximately .2C difference in actual observations from 1990 to 2012. Interesting that you would attempt to use this style of subterfuge to ascertain a agreement with a faulty premise.

Again, if this is simply a fluctuation perhaps you could clearly demonstrate the true trend you are claiming to be in line with the IPCC?

LOL... Far, Sar, Tar and the AR4 projections are all that is need to demonstrate this. I do not need to quote anybody. Perhaps you could explain (If not I will quote from a source you find credible) Why they made so many different projections?...LOL Was it because they changed the input into these models?...LOL that is pretty stupid point to attempt to make.

No need, If you think about it for a moment you will see. It is obvious that that comment went right over your head. The point was not to demonstrate how they influenced the models to say what they want them too. It was to point out that they are continually adjusting the models to emulate the Actual Observations for predicated means and they have been unable to gain agreement.

 

HADCRUT4, which is what IPCC uses in the 5AR draft and what Glickstein address, shows a trend of about 0.30C between 1990 & 2012.

That is a projection, not a trend. Yes, projections become less certain; that's why you see a an increase in the range of the IPCC reports as time increases. Trends which are determined from observations are become more significant as the period increases.

One more time! A single year of data is not enough to declare a "pause". And that is what Glickstein is trying to imply; that a single year of data shows the IPCC models are wrong. Glickstein is wrong; either lying or incompetent.

I am implying nothing. The data shows that the trend from 1990 - 2012 is higher than the fluctuation that IG references.
Define major cooling! Yes, there are 1 year variations, but these variations are certainly not "major".
I have no idea what your addressing here

What is the force that's creating the warming trend?

What pause? There is no pause
Even if there were a pause in atmospheric warming, you still need to address OHC. OHC is also part of the theory. Why do Glickstein & watts ignore OHC?

First off, the observed data from 5AR is from HADCRUT4; so that is the woodfortrees graph I posted.
Second, we are discussing trends so why did you leave out the trends between 1990 & 2012 in your graph..

http://www.woodfortrees.org/

I am trying to mislead no one. As a matter of fact, I linked to Tamino in my post. Tamino addresses this very issue.
Starting point is irrelevant. It's the difference between the values at the start of a trend and the values at the end of the trend, no matter where the starting point, that's relevant

I've done this 3 times now. LOOK AT THE WOODFORTREES GRAPH!!!!

So in other words, you have no evidence.
Tells me you are arguing from ignorance. I recommend you read up on models and how they're developed. That will end your confusion.

So in other words, it's true because you state it.
Tamino offers a comparison of trends instead of fluctuations and gets this:

source
See how the trends are within IPCC projections? Only when Glickstein uses yearly data do you get a discrepancy.
Definition of climatology from wiki:
"In contrast to meteorology, which focuses on short term weather systems lasting up to a few weeks, climatology studies the frequency and trends of those systems. It studies the periodicity of weather events over years to millennia, as well as changes in long-term average weather patterns, in relation to atmospheric conditions."
Do you see a reference to a years data? Basing any significance on a year's data, which is what GS does, is not science. Basing any significance on a year's data, which is what GS does, is pseudo-science. Basing any significance on a year's data, which is what GS does, is not relevant to the accuracy of the models.

 

yes with a different starting piont. Look at your own first graph and explain how this is the same as your next.

So why was my previous comment incorrect if now it is correct? You are assuming that the range indicated by the IPCC is infallable because it is a range. As pointed out the increase as time by the certainty rate is reduced by factor on 10x10... as time goes by, so the increase in range is only important if you ignore the fact the modelling does not account for all known forces.

Surely you are not intending to state that you know nothing of the current pause over the last fifteen or sixteen years? Surely you are not that ignorant? The fact you ignore, is that all your attempts to demonstrate the figures are in line with the IPCC projections start from a point and then create a futrther point of starting, only demonstrates that you are trying to cloud the point that IPCC started from zero and projected .3C average increase. If you start from .2 you will have you average increase using these figures, but that is not the case is it.

Your claim that from 1990-2012 is in line with the IPCC is only accurate with the modelling if you start at .18c-.14c As your woodfortree graph clearly demonstrates. This ignores the point that the predelections where from a different point in 1990.

I know.

There are many forces that are creating the warming trend. However, rather than being a problem of cooking the planet to death I believe it will be a preamble to major cooling. If we consider the geothermal ocean currents with the warming of the oceans (which is what is considered to be occurring in the IPCC and is actually observed to be wrong) the currents will slow to a stop. This slowing increases global trends while still being in keeping with the hypothesis of the AGW theory. However, at a point it will slow to such an extent that cooling will be initiated. This cooling will be that if major significances and would be far more detrimental than your claim of cooking the planet to death. As all these trends have been recorded before without any intervention from man and the fact that natural GHG levels have been far higher (and I mean a great deal higher) than they are now.

Ignoring the obvious then

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/skeptical-science-video-on-global-warming-pause-(1)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2L8T9QjAV

LOL... so you hedge your bets? What Pause... but even it there is the IPCC have accounted for such...Please.
Yes the IPCC have accounted for such a pause. However, the certainty range created by projections have not.

Actually that is not correct is it? The Hadcrut4 is the graphed from modelling isn't it? The graph is not that of simple observed data.

Again, you have totally missed the point of the graph. It was not to show trends or even demonstrate the fluctuations to validate or invalidate. I put it there to demonstrate that you are attempting to justify ranges by adjusting the figures from 0.0c at 1990 to 0.2c. This of course will show that your figures are within range BUT it is totally incorrect as it is not the actual observations from 1990-2012. Is it?

Starting point is extremely relevant. The fact that you are attempting to justify a rise in trends and are trying to use the empirical data then you must start at the same point. If you attempt to use different starting point from actual observations then you need to adjust the observations by the same point. Any adjustments in actual observation will mean they are no longer actual observations. They become adjusted observations. If you suggest that the starting point is irrelevant then you are trying to get to my original assumption that you want to traverse a longer period.

and clearly this continues to demonstrate the Flaw in the modelling

Your question was 'Prove it! Show who and how the input was changed.' The answer is 'Far, Sar, Tar and the AR4 projections are all that is need to demonstrate this' Are you so stupid you do not know what these particular projections are? If you do not understand what they are, how the hell can you debate, argue or even comment on climate change in any degree of credibility? Each one of these are projections are based on different models with different inputs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/jan/09/global-warming-met-office-paused
If you are stupid enough to attempt to suggest that this is not correct...Guess what model they used here...HadGEM3

It is not my confusions. It is obviously your confusion... YOU say they are not adjusted which is clearly wrong. YOU say that the figures you are attempting to justify are of actual observations... they are not. Perhaps you need further instructions from your handlers, you seem to have overstepped you limits.

So far you have not demonstrated anything but attempts to mislead everybody over this. The fact you deny the most basic of what has occurred over a period of time (the pause) and you insistence that it is not important due to the fact that IPCC have accounted for such (which they needed to while 10years of it had occurred) and try and proclaim models are not adjusted at all (IYO). So far my word is much better than YOURS

actually I see that the projections are far lower than those the IPCC have created. I also see a cooling trend to the actual observations that demonstrates that you are wrong. So, if that is the REAL trend you seem to use to bludgeon the actual observations with, clearly again you are wrong.

HOWEVER, That last being said

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2012/12/18/global-warming-ipcc-46896/

So because you state it is a years data and not a trend, because adjusted actual observations from 1990 is acceptable to you that the trend falls within the IPCC observations. You are correct? LOL... first the models are not changed...then the data is fallacy...then the data is a fluctuation and not a trend... then it is everything is accounted for within the IPCC... Now it is your claim that data was not collaborated by woodfortree.org.

Perhaps you should go back to the WOODFORTREE graph on that sight and click to the bottom of the graph the words RAW DATA. Then you might want to explain to all about... How you can do anything without defining a starting point.

Just for your edification

http://woodfortrees.org/
Obviously you do not know how to evaluate the information you are attempting to use. As you consider that a point in data is Irrelevant because it does not agree with your premise.

Now we have come down to the point of obviously trying to discredit or insulting each other. Either you have something or you do not. Try a different angle with this, instead of parroting others, produce your own. If it is nothing but the brainwashed mumblings of the AGW order, my interest is disolved and I could not be bothered.

 

Sorry, you're the one who´s just plain wrong. The IPCC FAR (1990) contained several estimates for global annual temperature, based on several estimates for anthropogenic radiative forcing. FAR's scenario D (the lowest forcing scenario) assumed greenhouse gas forcing of 0.63 W/m² between 1990 and 2010. The actually observed greenhouse gas forcing between 1990 and 2010 was in fact 0.63 W/m², a match with Scenario D. Scenario D predicted temperature increases of 0.25, 0.17, and 0.11°C per decade, based on sensitivities of 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5°C for CO2 doubling. The actually observed rate of warming has been 0.16 +- .02 °C per decade (Foster & Rahmstorf 2012), matching the IPCC´s estimate based on their own preferred (at the time) sensitivity of 2.5° C.

The IPCC got it right.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/wsj-skeptics-misrepresent-ipcc.html

 

There is no such thing as observed forcing.

 

Silence implies consent, so thank you for agreeing that the IPCC got it right.

Anthropogenic LLGG forcing was taken directly from NOAA.

 

You need to read (and understand) your own link:
"My verdict

The "global warming has stopped" line from climate sceptics has always hung its hat heavily (and conveniently) on the freakishly anomalous warm year of 1998 as its starting point or baseline. As has been pointed out repeatedly by the Met Office and many climate scientists, this is tantamount to picking the sweetest of cherries. The rate of decadal rise in average global temperatures has clearly slowed over the past decade or so, compared to the previous couple of decades, but to say it has "stopped" altogether seems to be a misleading statistical sleight of hand."

""The warming trend has not gone away," Julia Slingo, the Met Office's Chief Scientist told a newspaper."

"So press reports that global warming is at a standstill are not true, even in the short term. Right now the oceans are taking up almost all the extra heat. That is most unlikely to persist."

"
I think the story here is one of failed science communication. Media outlets around the world have conflated 'surface temperatures' and 'global warming'. The fact is that heat that goes into melting ice, or the thermal expansion of the oceans, is as much a factor in climate change and a threat to our lives as heat going into raised surface temperatures. A pause in the latter means a surge in the former, as the earth's energy balance (heat received minus heat radiated) is still way too high, and getting higher."
Dr Richard Allan, reader in Climate Science at the University of Reading: Global warming is not ‘at a standstill’ but does seem to have slowed down since 2000 in comparison to the rapid warming of the world since the 1970s. In fact, consistent with rising greenhouse gases, heat is continuing to build up beneath the ocean surface:"

"Prof Myles Allen, head of the climate dynamics group at the University of Oxford: Comparing the expected temperature for 2013-2017 with a single exceptionally warm year [1998], as some reports have done, is just daft."

"Prof Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London: I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘global warming has stopped’! Global mean temperatures - whether measured or predicted - are not the issue. What matters is the energy balance of the planet and the changes that an energy imbalance will drive in the climate system - as well as the consequences for humans."

 

Learn to read more critically. NOAA only measured CO2. Forcing was calculated using IPCC estimates. There is no way what so ever to measure forcing.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If you leave out the 98/99 el nino the trend is actually more negative. Your source is hopping that everyone is an idiot

Go to wood for trees and do it yourself. Run a trend from the la Nina and see what you get.

 

Not sure which of the quotes you're declaring BS but la Nina to la Nina
MEI data
JanFeb 1999 : -1.233
DecJan 2011 : -1.678


0.37C - 0.53C; that's 0.13C / decade
And that's with a less solar influence in 2011 than in 1999

 

So, I supply Windigo with a link to NOAA's webpage on the Aggregate Greenhouse Gas Index, which measures twenty (yes, twenty) greenhouse gas concentrations, along with their radiative forcing properties, and Windigo (1) falsely claims the cited page "measured only CO2"; and (2) throws stones at me for not reading more critically.

If you were deliberately trying to look more stupid, you couldn't have done a better job.

No, forcing was calculated using IPCC recommendations. These are based on the radiative spectra of the molecules themselves. And yes, you can measure that.

 

Har-pwnd.

 

I said leave the high.

Try again from the end of the la Nina in 2001 and see what you get.

 

No you cant measure it. There is no way to measure the spectral broadening of a CO2 molecule in the high troposphere it is entirely theory.

That is why there are are so many different versions of models with different forcings.

If we could just measure the actual forcing there would be no need to make multiple runs. We would know what it is.

 

The 98-00 ENSO doesn't lower the trend as most suggust it actually raises it.

 

That will certainly come as news to these guys, who have already measured CO2 line-broadening:

Burch et. al. 1962
Burch & Gryvnak 1966
Burch et. al. 1969
Tubbs & Williams 1972
Predoi-Cross et. al. 2007

No, the reason there are many versions of models with different forcings is, nobody can predict with certainty how much CO2, CH4, N2O, etc., there will be in the air 50 years from now. How much forcing there would be with a given atmosphere is well known.

 

Can you spell "cherry-picker"?

 

Even with less solar influence the temp trend was still flat.

Plot temperature trend from solar min to solar min and you get

Even though the 2008 solar min was less than the 1997 solar min the temp trend was still 0.13C /decade

And then you have OHC

source

Reason Watts and other pseudo-scientists like to focus on atmospheric temps is that the temps are so variable. They cherry-pick atmospheric temps and "prove" the atmospheric warming has stopped all the while ignoring the elephant in the room, the ocean.

 

And with even more CO2 the temperature trend was flat. See two can play that game.

And you are falling for the pot and stove fallacy. A pot of water does not stop warning just because you turn the burner from hi to 7.

Its well documented that warmmongers talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to thermal lags.

We have 0.6C of future warming due to CO2 and decades of lag but solar response should be instantaneous.

 

Read today's Guardian to discover who is financing all the anti-scientific crap the mugs fall for. I'm not usually a fan of Monbiot, but he's usually on the ball when it comes to facts.

 

Conspiracy theory. Billionaires give money to think tanks. Think tanks give some scraps to skeptics for things like watts NOAA database which is in its entirety nrutral . Ergo through a 6 degree of seperation argument these billionaires are directly funding skeptics.

We saw this stupidity in the forged heartland memo where the Koch brothers gave money to research health insurance option and the insane warmmongers tried to argue that the money went to Watts.

Its the same kind if argument that 9-11 truthers use to associate anyone they want to with Bin Laden.