So you are happy to use OLS as the basis for measuring the trend 1970-1996 and the trend from 1997-2012. Clearly the two are different. At what point do you say they are different enough to say they are really different?
BTW as an idle curiosity why not reverse the time axis on the graphs so they run from 2012 to 1970. How do you feel about whether the trend from 2012 – 1997 has continued through to 1970?
Thread summary so far. What has been established:
1) The global warming trend since 1970 shows no sign of having stopped.
Wrong. There’s definitely some sign of that. The sign is, however, not conclusive.
2) Temperature variations since 1997 are indistinguishable from variations around a long term warming trend.
3) “OLS since 1997″ is a flawed method for testing whether warming has stopped. It leads to wrong results.
What does mean “warming has stopped”? That expression may interpreted in many ways. For some interpretations “OLS since 1997″ is the right method, for some other interpretations it is not a powerful method. For the latter we don’t really know whether the method of little power gives the right or the wrong answer. For other reason I’m personally pretty sure that the answer is wrong, but that’s only a personal judgement.
What I want to say is that it’s stupid to argue against facts. What one should concentrate on is the significance of the facts. It’s wrong to claim that the 14 or 15 year period of little temperature change is irrelevant. It’s clear that such a period was not expected by climate scientists and an unexpected observation is always of some significance. It’s, however, equally wrong to claim that this period is strong evidence against AGW or against the expectation that in longer term the warming will continue.
Judith Curry
My remark was not specifically related to the climate science “brouhaha”.
he one-sided, exaggerated “projections” of model simulated “impending disaster” scenarios by a politically appointed and supposedly gold standard inter-governmental science assembling and reporting group (IPCC) is bad for many reasons, which have been discussed here and on other threads.
There is really no direct link to the Italian earthquake story, however, because the differences are far too great:
- the Italian earthquake was real (not a computer model forecast for the distant future).
- it killed people and destroyed buildings and property (nobody has been killed and no property has been destroyed as a result of AGW)
- there are precautionary measures to minimize damage and loss of life from earthquakes, but no actionable precautionary measures having a demonstrable potential impact on AGW have been brought forward
- seismologists (unlike many “consensus” climatologists) are not trying to “sell a bill of goods”, there is no multi-billion dollar big taxpayer-funded business involved and and there are no trillions in potential tax revenues for politicians to collect and distribute
IOW it’s a different story entirely.
Max
Yeah, lolwot, and the predictors of climate disaster (leading to a shutdown of the fossil-fuel driven World economy) will be pilloried when it turns out that their models predictions (oops! projections) turned out to be wacky.
Max
There is an analogy between the increasing failure of the climate models and the increasing frequency of seismic events, granted, a shaky one.
====================
Iolwot
Instead of creating your own data why not examine the three Hadley global records from 1850 to 2011? All appear to show a cooling or at least a pause this century.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
Why is it so hard to admit that there has been, at the least, a ‘pause’ in warming or perhaps even a drop, albeit it is much too soon to know if that has any significance.
Here is CET to show that in some places there has been a notable fall in temperatures this century
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
BBC News Online: The head of Italy’s disaster body, Luciano Maiani, has resigned in protest at prison sentences passed on seven colleagues over the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila.
Six scientists and an ex-official were convicted of multiple manslaughter for giving a falsely reassuring statement.
Prof Maiani, a physicist, said the Serious Risks Commission could not work “in such difficult conditions”.
Prof Maiani’s decision to quit was announced by the Italy’s Civil Protection Department, which said the commission’s vice-president, Mauro Rosi, and emeritus president Giuseppe Zamberletti had also tendered their resignations.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20039769
Whether or not the Italian advisers were at fault in underplaying the risk, this will have a chilling effect on scientists and others in providing advice on such uncertain issues (climate alarmists excluded, of course).
JCH
Frankly, I don’t give a fiddler’s f*** whether there was a La Nina last year or several big El Ninos during the late 1980s and 1990s, culminating with a real big one in 1997/1998, and followed by another one in 2005. Whatever ENSO throws at us, we’ll handle.
I just see that the climate models are unable to make any realistic projections.
- Hansen’s 1988 forecast was off by 2:1.
- IPCC forecasts were off both in magnitude and sign!
When will these modelers finally realize that, in their myopic fixation on human GHGs (especially CO2), they have programmed in a climate sensitivity that is exaggerated by a factor of at least 2?
Once they clear that up their projections may start to be less goofy.
And once they learn how ENSO, PDO AO and all the others plus natural (solar) forcing are all tied together, they might even start to be able to make some realistic projections for the short-term future.
But the longer the projection time period, the more likely a “black swan” will render the projection useless.
Max
Join Facebook group FreeItalianSeismologists
Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Waiting for Bill McKibben and the rest of those “extreme weather” loons to call for prosecutions of “cllimate deniers” if Hurricane Sandy impacts the U.S.
I happen to live in Kansas in “tornado alley”. Tornado warnings can run the gamut in terms of seriousness, with luck more or less the driver. However, the idea of suing the various forecasters if you get hit (or not hit) doesn’t even register as a consideration.
The Italian justice system is a joke and, IMO, symptomatic of the “I’m a victim, give me money” mentality that characterizes large swaths of Europe.
Yes, excellent idea. Let’s trust the courts. SUre worked in Italy. And the hell with imprisonment. Let’s burn the reckless bastards at the stake.
“falsely reassuring statement”. One thing I have learned from the movies… if anybody says “it’s going to be okay” or “it’s going to be alright”, it’s not. I gather they even said that to the people who died in 9/11. For some reason, everyone assumes they want to be reassured, even falsely. Either that or it’s better for the rest of us if the victims don’t panic. There must be a pysch study in here somewhere. Of course, if they do live they are going to be fuming mad.
John Whitman,
I take it from your comments so far that you are:
- willing to mention the “get rid of MWP” meme without delving into it;
- talking about “IPCC mimics” without identifying to whom you are referring;
- taking David Rose’s article at face value without any diligence due;
- refusing to answer my question about the implications you had in mind;
- using the results of a report whose result contradicts your ideals of auditability, openness and transparency;
- proposing an exercise in righteous hindsight;
- proposing to focus on your favorite whipping boy;
- proposing all this in a thread about David Rose.
I truly enjoy our conversation, but please do not overegg the ad superbiam, for I can respond in kind.
I’ve asked a question in my previous comment. If you answer it, I’ll think about your offer once again. You still have time to remove it from the table.
Best,
w
BBD “But the main point here is that if the climate system was sensitive to small changes in forcing in the relatively recent past, then it still is today. ”
Not necessarily. Snow/glacial field melt is both an albedo and heat capacity feedback. The world we live on is a sphere, The area impacted by retreating snow/glacial field melt decreases rapidly with increasing latitude. Sensitivity, is non-linear.
Anyone who is a climate change skeptic and presents information to that end to any governmental group that uses that information to slow down, stop or just change activities desired by the alarmists would be liable for prosecution under the Italian example. Saying you should not take alarm when you should is the crime: if someone claims a recent hurricane is a direct outcome of global warming, that which the skeptic denied, then his denial was a causitive action that lead to harm from the hurricane.
What a world! The witches are about, all those who deny witchcraft are responsible for the terrible things that the witches just did (because we didn’t burn them at the stake as we wanted to).
Pekka Pirilä
You seem to have missed the point. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially (or statistically significantly) since 1997. That’s a fact and disputing that is stupid.
Thanks Pekka.
According to WoodForTrees, the global mean temperature trend for 15-years period has dropped from 0.23 to 0.05 deg C per decade warming, showing deceleration of the warming rate:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1990/plot/wti/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2012/trend
Two corrections:
First, I should say “using the results of a report whose production” etc.
Second, when I say that I want an answer to my question, i mean that
> Auditability, openness and transparency in public funded research all the way from grant application through post published paper replications requests by independent critical thinkers.
simply repeats the sentence I was asking to be elucidated, viz.:
> I find problems with what I interpret [the IAC report] implies about openness and transparency of in-process research when publically funded.
All that is added is the concept of auditibility.
I fail to see how this answers a request for an explanation.
Tomcat | October 19, 2012 at 3:37 am said: ”You have completely missed the point here Stefan, which is that Myrrh is trying to tell us that Nasa et al don’t realize we get warmth from the sun”
Tomcat, you cannot even understand Myrrh’s explanations. 2] you and Memphis keep bragging that you have discovered that: going on the sunlight will get you warm… wow! Between two of us: ”my cat has discovered that same thing: after cold night -> he spreads on the sunlight, to warm up” his IQ of 45… he is as clever as you and Memphis. You should inform the humanity of your discovery; in some science magazines, before my Sylvester bits you to it.
It’s much more complicated, to understand that: the sunlight ”in many colours”, comes from the other side of the water cloud and the dirty cloud. It is much more to be intercepted from direct sunlight, than from secondary reflection. b] intercepting part of radiation high up; where cooling is much more efficient – makes milder temperature on the ground.
Tomcat, you have lost your 8 lives, on silly arguing, use your last one, to learn, have an open mind. See, Memphis is even more ignorant than you; because you always talk, instead of listening occasionally -> because of that, in the past you never had a chance to learn. You have two ears and one mouth = to listen twice as much than you talk. Cheers
