There really is no excuse for this, from Michael Duffy:

Global warming stopped six years ago. It might start again tomorrow, but from 2002 until now, average global temperatures have remained fairly constant. This is in contrast to the previous period when, as everyone knows, the temperature trend was upwards.

Look at the graph below, showing 8-year trends for each 8-year period in the data. (Graph is from RealClimate.) Notice that the eight year trend is sometimes negative. That’s because an eight year trend can be greatly affected by an unusually warm or cold year or two. But Duffy doesn’t say that warming stopped in the 80s and again in the 90s. Instad he says “the temperature trend was upwards”. Which is only true if you look at trends longer than ten years.

i-40fd335381b1ef2b239dfe5e3758ba0d-weather_vs_climate.png

Oh and notice that the current 8-year trend is for strong warming — you have to go to just six years if you want to find a trend that doesn’t show warming.

Duffy is aware of Fawcett and Jones explanation that warming hasn’t stopped:

A good source for this position is the paper Waiting For Global Cooling, published last month by Robert Fawcett and David Jones of the National Climate Centre at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

And some blog that’s been going on on this simple point for years now:

The mainstream view is represented by the University of NSW’s Tim Lambert at scienceblogs.com/deltoid

But he doesn’t seem to understand. Look:

It’s worth reflecting on the number of scientists who are certain about what the temperature trend will be in a 100 years, yet in 2001 were unable to predict what would happen in the next six.

I can’t tell you with any accuracy the percentage of heads you will get if you toss a single coin, but I can tell you that you will get close to 50% heads if you toss a thousand coins. I guess Duffy would argue that if I can’t tell you the result of one toss I can’t possibly predict the result of a thousand tosses.

Here’s Michael Ashley’s letter to the Sydney Morning Herald (He’s a Professor of Astrophysics at UNSW):

Michael Duffy (“New climate figures would make a great debate”,
SMH, 3 May 2008) is convinced that there is a global conspiracy to
hush up results from the UK’s Hadley Center that show that the earth
cooled in the six years from 2002.

If he had investigated further he would have found that the
Hadley data also show that global warming stopped in six-year or
longer periods beginning in 1941, 1951, 1959, 1969, 1979, and 1987.

After each of these periods the earth warmed up to more than
compensate for the drop.

The conclusion? Not a global conspiracy of the world’s scientists and
media to protect the orthodoxy against Duffy’s pioneering scepticism,
but simply that six years isn’t long enough to measure the long term
trend.

And here’s Andrew Dessler also explaining it:

There has been a lot of nonsense written about the lack of much if any warming over the last few years. It’s not a new argument — in fact, I blogged about it here — but like an axe-wielding psycho from a cheap horror flick, it just keeps coming back. …

A close look at the plot shows that this situation is not abnormal. In fact, global warming has stopped repeatedly over the last 150 years — meaning that there are many instances when the temperature reached a maximum that took many years to surpass.

The reason is clear. A warming rate of 3 degrees C per century corresponds to an annual average rate of warming of 0.03 degrees C per year. At the same time, interannual variability, such as El Niño events, are of the order of 1 degree C per year. Thus, over short time scales, the slow upward trend can be completely swamped by the large year-to-year variability.

Over the course of several decades, however, the slow warming trend dominates, and you end up with significant warming. Thus, to determine if global warming is occurring, you have to look at time periods of decades, not years.

Comments

  1. #1 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 8, 2008

    cohenite posts:

    there has been effectively no sea level increase for the last 2500 years;

    In reality, there has been:

    Rising Sea Level

    More on Rising Sea Level

  2. #2 cohenite
    May 8, 2008

    Gavin’s pussycat; I have to take you seriously with a sobriquet like that; just quickly, because “Lost” is starting and I get most of my climate info from it; the Hansen piece says:

    “In fact the principal physical mechanism which leads us to believe that notall committed GHG warming has yet been experienced, and a substantial amount remains “in the pipeline”, is the warming of the deep ocean.”

    Won’t that come as a surprise to ARGO. The thing about Schwarz, is that right now he is right, and all the predictions are for cooling for the next 5-10 years. That’s cursory and I appreciate the link.

    Bernard; good point; however, have you considered the depletion of bore water by humanity as direct sources of drinking water and as a by-product of such things as oil and ore extraction; then there is Saddam’s handiwork with the Southern marshes and the big sea in Russia which was drained. “Lost” calls.

  3. #3 sod
    May 8, 2008

    cohenite, an obvious and petty basic problem is, that Barton just showed that EVERYTHING that you brought up lately is FALSE.

    so why not pause and READ a couple of PEER REVIEWED papers, before you post more nonsense?

  4. #4 sod
    May 8, 2008

    anyway, I prefer an expert on PDO’s and IPO’s such as Easterbrook

    your “emeritus expert” fails to note his field of EXPERTISE when listing his Research Activities.

    http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/

    but i m sure you gonna flood me with his publications on this subject?!?

  5. #5 sod
    May 8, 2008

    ouch. actually i have to thank cohenite.

    while doing some reading on Easterbrook, i stumbled over this paper, which seems to be the source of the so called “easterbrook projection”

    “GEOLOGIC EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING ”

    http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/responses/2007AM/281.doc

    (warning, word document)

    it is a pretty wild collection of ratehr wild ideas. notice that that easterbrook is a fan of the wikings greenland green and english grapes.
    not as well, that his “projection” seems to be pulled, hm, from where there is no sunshine.

    as it is based on the PDO shift, our EXPERT on this subject again is reamrkably silent on the phanomenon itself in the paper.

    perhaps he knows as much about PDO as about english grapes?

  6. #6 Chris O'Neill
    May 8, 2008

    cohenite:

    “Presumptuous.” Who are you, the pope?

    You were the one who presumed I meant it was uniform, hypocrite.

    If the oceans are rising then the water isn’t coming from the Antarctic

    Where did I say it was coming from the Antarctic? You’re becoming delusional.

    As to CO2 temp forcing, I doubt it, given the temp rise last century was less than that

    CO2 rose last century from 296 ppm to 369 ppm. With a doubling sensitivity of 1.2K from CO2 alone, this would give a temp rise from CO2 alone of 1.2*log(369/296)/log(2)=0.38K while the temp rise last century was about 0.7K. cohenite apparently believes that 0.7K is less than 0.38K.

    Presumptous; coming from someone who throughs wiki at people; peer review indeed.

    The wiki statements were from peer-reviewed papers. I must say you’ve been very reassuring cohenite. You have confirmed that global warming denialists are mathematically incompetent, presumptuous and prone to delusions. This is very reassuring that you have to be incompetent to doubt AGW. And BTW, maybe you should stop blaming the IPCC for your council’s actions.

  7. #7 cohenite
    May 8, 2008

    Chris; I don’t deny global warming; I just don’t think it’s anywhere as bad, or entirely human caused as you guys say; nor do I think humanity should be punished with the draconian measures proposed by the ipcc; I was being ironic with the council; I’ve dealt with councils for 30 years; their irrational, bloodymindedness will be no greater for using ipcc as an excuse for extracting funds.

    sod; research Franks; as to Easterbrook; have you heard me malign Mann or Hansen for some of the skeletons banging in their closet; or the predictive success rate of ipcc: nil.

  8. #8 dhogaza
    May 8, 2008

    nor do I think humanity should be punished with the draconian measures proposed by the ipcc; I was being ironic with the council; I’ve dealt with councils for 30 years; their irrational, bloodymindedness will be no greater for using ipcc as an excuse for extracting funds.

    I just love it when denialists come out of the closet and admit that they’re driven by their political beliefs to argue against science, when science reaches conclusions that they fear may lead to political action they don’t like.

  9. #9 cohenite
    May 8, 2008

    Don’t verbal me dhogaza; that’s not what I said nor what I’m about; you, on the other hand, have a sense of certainty which has made you pedantic and hubristic. Now, I’m off to study.

  10. #10 dhogaza
    May 8, 2008

    that’s not what I said nor what I’m about

    I don’t believe you for a moment …

    You wouldn’t be doing most of your “learning” by reading right-wing whackadoodle websites if it weren’t true …

  11. #11 Chris O'Neill
    May 8, 2008

    I just don’t think it’s anywhere as bad

    That was entirely the point when you made the garbage statement:

    As to CO2 temp forcing, I doubt it, given the temp rise last century was less than that

    I’ve dealt with councils for 30 years; their irrational, bloodymindedness will be no greater for using ipcc as an excuse for extracting funds.

    You had me fooled.

  12. #12 sod
    May 10, 2008

    sod; research Franks; as to Easterbrook; have you heard me malign Mann or Hansen for some of the skeletons banging in their closet; or the predictive success rate of ipcc: nil.

    the predictive success of the IPCC is NOT nil. the majority of skeletons that you are talking about, are a myth.

    talking about Easterbrook, you claimed that he is an EXPERT on PDO.

    but the term does NOT show up on his website as i linked above.

    he simple made up that famous PDO graph that you are referering to, when you call him an EXPERT on PDO!

  13. #13 rdan
    May 11, 2008

    Tim,
    You get a lot of argument here with numbers. LOL. You have my best wishes…

  14. #14 rdan
    May 11, 2008

    Tim,
    You get a lot of argument here with numbers. LOL. You have my best wishes…

  15. #15 Tilo Reber
    May 15, 2008

    “you have to go to just six years if you want to find a trend that doesn’t show warming.”

    As usual, Tim has his head up his backside.

    Here is the lastest ten year trend, updated to April. As you can see, there has been no warming for 10 years.

    http://tinyurl.com/4de3v7

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.