Open thread for "One or Two Warm Years is not Global Warming"

It's also worth pointing out that global warming refers to global climate, which is completely different to local climate, and even more different to local (or even regional/global) weather - a concept which appears to confuse many otherwise intelligent people.

Of course, that's why many scientists (esp. climate scientists) also use the terminology 'climate change' as opposed to 'global warming'.

No matter how one looks at it, the amount of warming over the past century or so is nothing unusual. It's well within normal operational parameters of natural climate change. Sorry, but AGW alarmists have nothing and are just using scare tactics in the worst possible way (ie, exaggerations and corrupted science) to frighten everyone into action.

"No matter how one looks at it, the amount of warming over the past century or so is nothing unusual. It's well within normal operational parameters of natural climate change" - POS

Incorrect, the rate of temperature increase is occurring much faster than the last large extinction event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 mya. That in itself was an unusual event.

No matter how one looks at it, the amount of warming over the past century or so is quite unusual. It's well outside normal operational parameters of natural climate change. Sorry, but AGW denialists have nothing and are just using libel in the worst possible way (ie, exaggerations and claims of corrupted science) to frighten everyone from action.

In other words, Mr Peter, you are full of shit.

Thanks Jean. Your tone and language just proves that I'm right and you are wrong. I suppose next you are going to say we never had a MWP and that temperatures now are higher than back then. Are you a member of the discredited and infamous hockey stick team?

I checked the Greenland and Vostok ice core temperatures, and nothing jumps out at a first glance.

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

"Your tone and language just proves that I'm right and you are wrong"

I'm confused Peter - How can tone & language affect the science? If I said "gravity sh*tting exists motherf*cker" would that mean we would all start spiralling off into space?

I'm also confused as to how you can respond to post #4 and not to post #3. Does that mean Dappledwater is right & you are wrong? How can you be both right and wrong? Something to do with quantum I suppose...

@romunov: you do not see anything unusual, because it lacks just about ALL the warming of the 20th century. Not included in the figures. Just so you know, in several place on Greenland, the warming since 1900 is about 2-3 degrees Celsius. Just plot that into the figures...

And unlike the claim in your link, it isn't the "hockeystick" climatologists who claim only CO2 can explain most of the recent warming. That claim actually comes from OTHER climatologists. Those that study the causes of climate change, not those that study historical climate.

Post 9 is spam.

Peter of Sydney - the current warming is only the start, we are due another degree or so even if we stop emissions of all greenhouse gases,changes in land use etc. We know that the warming is caused by CO2 because of stratospheric cooling. If it was caused by the sun the entire atmosphere would be warming, including the stratosphere. WE can also model the climate to show that without the CO2 and other gases, the warming of the last 30 years would not have occured.

So what are the normal operational parameters of the climate then? Do you have any evidence for this?

http://cartoons.nytimages.com/wieck_preview_page_210565

Of course Peter has no evidence - denialists dont need any, because they simply know the "truth".
And shown the facts they just claim that the evidence is corrupted and the conclusions are exxagerated - just because they simply know the "truth".

How is it possible to convince someone so entrenched in his fanatism? Thats a problem.

"Incorrect, the rate of temperature increase is occurring much faster than the last large extinction event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 mya. That in itself was an unusual event."

If you believe that the numbers aren't fudged or tampered with in some way. Until that matter is addressed everything mus be questioned.

Number 9 was not spam. It was a legitimate comment that the blog owner disagreed with and erased/censored the post becuase he disagreed with the content. AKA climategate. That's waht happened to my post, that's what happened at the IPCC. Censorship sucks.

The former post #9 was one of three posted at the same time promoting the same commercial URL, aka spam.

trugreen has not had any comments of his/hers removed.

"every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992"

I think these were bad statements to make. Not every year since 1998 has been warmer than 1998; what of that?

The main point to emphasise is the trend, while reminding there is noise on top so it's not a monotonic increase.

But when people get excited by the wiggles, it is good to remind them that even with the wiggles, it's still nowhere close to the temperature of 1970.

Hi carrot eator,

I don't disagree with your main point at all. The OP was an attempt to respond to a "wiggle" argument in kind, but you are correct that the wiggles are a distraction that good statistics easitly removes.

Re 1998, if it remains true for another ten years that no other year is clearly warmer (ie in CRU as well as a larger margin in GISS), it will probably be significant.

Hello there Coby,

Hope all is well with you, i just wanted to ask for a clarification of what you said. Are you saying if the temps do not rise (ie stay the same) for another ten years then that would be significant? As in a need for a rethink on AGW significant or have i misread what you said. The reason i ask is because it would only be 20 years and not thirty thats all.

10 years was not carefully thought out but I am comfortable with it though we are bumping against the narrow limits of my understanding of statistics.

In 2020 it will be possible to determine the trend in the 30yr mean global temperature from 1998 to 2005. That is a short time, but it is a statistically meaningful window to average. If no year has significantly exceeded 1998 by then, then the trend would be known to be 0 or negative right now.

This would require as explanation, whatever it would be (volcanoes like crazy in the 2010s, the sun went out, Lindzen's Iris effect happened for the first time in geological history, CO2 stopped being radiatively active).

Check this post for more detail and a link to Open Mind asking the question, when will we get a new record?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/07/so_when_will_we_get_a_new…

Regarding how long one would expect to wait before a new record year: RC took a shot at that as well, using model results.

See the third figure here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-mod…

Thanks for following this up.

I have been working hard on some contrarians who are up-to-the-minute on the latest climate "scandals" such as the Himalayan "fiasco" etc etc. It is wearing, but I enjoy the fight, and I'm winning them over slowly.

Keeping this site and the data up to date helps, but on the other hand, seeing that it was 5 years out of date, I went and did my own research, and (independantly) discovered the same things that you did.

and I'm winning them over slowly.

Maybe you could pinch hit for me with Crakar for a week?

What the!!!, a week? thats alright Skip you go off on a weeks holiday dont worry about me. I will box a few rounds with this Dylan character but it wont be the same, you know that.

Here's looking at you, kid.

Thanks for the offer. Actually, arguing with climate contrarians in online comment sections can be fun, but I would question the usefulness here where most everyone either understands AGW, or is a troll.

Much better to talk in other forums where the population is more generic, and you will win more converts.

here is blog that counters the people who feel that "GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL!!".Check it out.. http://mrinalc.blogspot.com/2010/03/global-warming-are-we-concerned.html

If it is true that man-created CO2 has been the cause of the earth heating up so "catastrophically" since 1988, then please can you explain how it is that the Romans used to grow wine in Northern Scotland?

The evidence is that the earth has warmed by .8 degrees celcius since 1900, but that the earth has been far warmer during earlier periods (also far colder), and that we are in a mild warming cycle which is completely natural.

"and that we are in a mild warming cycle which is completely natural." - lojo

Yeah, and murder is impossible because people die of natural causes all the time eh?. By the way, what "natural" mechanism is causing the warming if not the extra CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere?.

lojolondon

".....If it is true that man-created CO2 has been the cause of the earth heating up so "catastrophically" since 1988, then please can you explain how it is that the Romans used to grow wine in Northern Scotland?..."

The Romans never grew wine - in northern Scotland or anywhere. Wine is not a crop, and cannot be grown. You can grow a variety of crops such as grapes from which you can make wine, and the Romans certainly did this in a lot of places. But there is little evidence to suggest that they ever did it in Britain at all - in any quantity at least - and certainly not in northen Scotland. If you remember your history (sorry - apparently you don't) the Romans never occupied northern Scotland - the local tribes there offered fierce resistance. You may have even heard of a little thing called Hadrian's Wall.

So here's a little tip. If you want to come in an discuss the issue of climate change, please don't do so from the position of a completely ignorant moron (Oh, sorry. You are a denier. Being a completely ignorant moron goes with the territory).

There is no doubt that the climate isa changing. Yet, from my recollection 60 million BC was warmer now, and I do belive there were a few ice ages in between. Does 100 years make a hill of beans to 4 billion years of cliamte change, o' the humanity of it all.

David, to earth it will not matter much. But as you invoke humanity...*we* will...

"Yet, from my recollection 60 million BC was warmer now"

Really, David?

HOW OLD ARE YOU????

David, so you'd agree that four minutes is nothing, right?

So stick your head under a bucket full of water for four minutes. Compared to the billions of years the planet has been around, it can't be of any importance what happens to your head for four minutes, right?

You have to wonder what your average denier is thinking when they post their nonsense.

So David, it was warmer 60 million years ago was it? It was warmer 3 billion years ago as well. So what? How many humans were around 60 million years ago? What crops did they grow?

5 seconds to answer......................

How many cities were at, or close to, sea level 60 million years ago?
How did the stockmarkets fare 60 million years ago?

Long time no post. I see some are still engaged in the battle against faux skepticism. Hats off ladies and gents.

I just saw the headline about the new ice core study confirming what everyone whose head is not anally sequestered already knew: It's getting hot and we're doing it.

It inspired me to say hi to the crew.

Hope all is well down under, Coby.

skip

Not an ice core study, Skip!

David Keator @ 28

CO2 forcing in the early Cenozoic was substantially greater than the Holocene, hence the higher global average temperature ( see Hansen & Sato 2012 Fig 1(a) and section 2).

Hi Skip, long time no see.
Hope everything is well with you and the family.

hi skip, you certainly know that AGW alarmisn is about to die since global temperatures do not correlate with CO2 air concentrations since 16 years. Therefore all your friends are depressed and have changed their interests to fierce evolution theory learning.

Domestication.

Follow the linkies freddy. You asked for evidence, but you've been quiet about the answers.

freddski doesn't want answers, he just wants to complain they aren't answered.

"since global temperatures do not correlate with CO2 air concentrations since 16 years"

Prove it, idiot-boy.

wow. wrong statement, disqualified

-------ignore--------

Yeah, that was a wrong statement, idiot boy, it's why you can't prove it.

wow, you again missed the point.

---------ignore-----------

I may have missed the point you thought was there, but the actual proof is that you made a statement with absolutely no proof behind it, hence you're idiot-boy.

Bernard, could you please elaborate on why you think that domestication proves the evolution speculation.

Have you ever considered other mechanisms than primitive evolution speculation as cause of the origin of differing species or is your imagination or knowledge too limited for that?

Go do your own homework, you nut.

You demanded a single sentence of proof. Now you want a whole essay. And when you get that, you'll demand more proof.

Because an idiot like you doesn't want to know the truth, you find your fantasy projections much more conducive to your ego's welfare.

wow, who has asked you ????????

freddy, why are you afraid of the answers that you keep demanding?

I asked Bernard, not you, or are you Bernard?

You asked a question.

It was answered.

Do you not like answers?

Freddy, Wow frames it exactly as I would.

You wanted a single sentence - tricksie of you, but I went one better... I gave you a single word. And with that word I linked to a wealth of information, for your education and edification and hopefully your eventual understanding.

If you don't comprehend why that single word points to a whole field of research, learning and simple, empirical fact that provide all the evidence you'd need, that is your problem and not mine.

Have you ever considered other mechanisms than primitive evolution speculation as cause of the origin of differing species or is your imagination or knowledge too limited for that?

Knock yourself out. Amaze me with detail to follow on from your question.

We're all ears - and eyes.

Bernard, always the same with you guys! You consider youself intelligent when you just don't answer a specific question addressed to you and redirect it to the person who originally raised the question and asking this person, he should anwser it youself. Do you think the readers here are stupid enough not to be able to recognize how primitive your argueing behavior is?

Again my question to you, Bernard:

Have you ever considered other mechanisms than primitive evolution speculation as cause of the origin of differing species or is your imagination or knowledge too limited for that?

What is the problem with you that you object to answer such a simple question? Does the question offend you somehow? If so, why?

Again my question to you, Dreddy:

Why do you demand answers then ignore them, even get scared of them?

You're just an idiot, aren't you, freedy.

Scared of reality and spiteful of everyone who has a brain that actually works, so go all anti-intellectual and anti-science and run to God who you are told loves you even if you are a nasty piece of shit.

wow, who has asked you????????

wow, who has asked you????

How does who answered change the fact it's been answered?

Does

E=mc^2

only become correct if it's from Albert Einstein himself?

wow = einstein/c^2

Is it this what you intended to state?

Is your brain actually allowed out on the street in public, or are you safely locked away in an insane asylum? Because only a seriously damaged and non-functional brain could come up with THAT interpretation.

Bernard

you did not elaborate yet on answering my question:

Have you ever considered other mechanisms than primitive evolution speculation as cause of the origin of differing species or is your imagination or knowledge too limited for that?

Well, freddykaitroll, why don't you propose such mechanisms?

What? Can't? How unsurprising!

MarcoWowMandasTroll, who has asked you?

"other mechanisms" is not "such mechanisms": how illiterate are you really? Your remark is of utter stupidity and ignorance!

"you did not elaborate yet on answering my question:"

That's because you've shown that you don't want an answer to it, fredski.

Yes, our remark is of utter stupidity and ignorance!

Yours!

fredskikaitrollidiotboy, who said that Bernard has to answer your questions?

Ever thought that Bernard may be ignoring you, idiot-boy?

Why? Because you're a waste of his time.

Freddykaitroll can't handle a small challenge, the challenge of proposing such other mechanisms. Freddykaitroll just wants to bother others with demands. I guess that's one way of freddykaitroll admitting he has no idea and is just huffing and puffing to hide his incompetence.

Wow, between civilized persons it is normal that the addressee (i.e. Bernard, who in turn has asked me before) politely answers questions posed to him. Your and Marco's brat-like behavior are not tolerable and you therefore disqualify yourself as poorly educated brats from further discussion.

PS: Have you learned in the meantime the lesson I have given you on your idiotic views on not-increasing global temperatures? Show me that you can read and learn, before I teach you the next lesson.

I am in no way used to interactions with such terribly uninformed and misbehaving non-scientists like you, Marco and Mandas.

freddy can't handle an answer he demanded.

he's scared of answers. They aren't comforting to him.

Because he's a fucking moron.

@Wow,

"Because he’s a *** moron.

Yes, I agree. freddykaitroll is a moron of the worst kind. Nevertheless I would still refrain form using foul language.

Uh, Jan, two things.

1) Nobody is fooled by using an asterisk. It still MEANS fucking. Therefore, since the entire point of words are their meaning, it is STILL THE SAME THING.

2) Who said you had to go swearing?

Freddykaitroll is doing the tone trolling again...and can't help insulting us in doing so!

Hypocritical much, freddykaitroll?

WowJanMarcoMandasTroll, instead of giving you nasty brats back what you deserve as uneducated misinformed AGW church pupils with a terribly low degree of knowledge, I try to introduce you to facts which you have to learn and accept:

Please have a look at the cooling trend in Isla De Pascua in the last decades of the 20th century:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=304854690…

The data are from GISS, so you don't need to be nasty again with me, but just take the lesson for your enlightenment that there was an impressive cooling in Isla De Pascua despite increasing CO2 levels. Conclusion: no correlation between temperature and CO2 in Isla De Pascua. You have to digest this. Please do decently and try to abstain from brat-like behavior again.

Greenhouse gas theory total wrong?

It is extemely interesting to take note of the fact that is substantially warmer in areas with much less greenhouse gas concentrations in the air (e.g. in the Sahara), as compared to tropical regions near the equator (e.g. in Africa) with much much more greenhouse gases in the air. The conclusion appears justified that more greenhouse gases in the air lead to lower surface temperatures! This in sharp contast to the beliefs of warming alarmists.

Freddykaitroll, did you just seriously show you have absolutely no idea about climate science?

You might want to talk with an actual climate scientist. They can explain to you that it is rather naive to think that there should be a uniform increase in temperature with increasing CO2 amounts (you could have a look at the climate models) and even more naive to state that the Sahara is warmer than the tropical regions near the equator and that this contradicts the influence of greenhouse gases. Small hint: at night the Sahara can show subzero temperatures, something that never ever happens in a tropical rainforrest.

Tell me, freddykaitroll, why do I understand this rather basic aspect of climate science better than you, who claims to be such an expert? Is it perhaps because your knowledge is just "my ideology says..."?

Marco, any reaction to Isla De Pascua? I know you don't like it since the linked GISS chart does not meet your biased ideas about AGW.

Does fredyykaitoll really expect an answer to his cherry-picking "problem"?

How does he account for this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

(With the exception of the El Nino year 1998, the last 15 years were warmer than ANY other year since measurements began)

and this

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

and this:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ic…?

Artic sea ice extension is already poised for another all-time low and there is no mistaking the development of the sea ice volume, which clearly shows the impact of global warming.

freddy, any reaction to the knowledge that you're clueless?

"Greenhouse gas theory total wrong?"

No.