I'm loathe to deal with these short time periods because they are mathematically ambiguous. However, I have looked at literally thousands of such graphs over the years and have a better-than-average ability to read them. I don't know that I see a change in rate as much as I see a possible phase shift. The graph looks like a system where the mean value is "stepping" upward.
If you had told me twenty years ago that that top-10 warmest values would all post-date 1997, I would have thought that to be an extreme forecast. Nevertheless, that is what we have. It may, in the long run, turn out not to be as bad as it looks - but there is no way that it looks good. If this trend turns out to be real and not just normal system variance then things are going to begin changing more rapidly than any of us would like.
Yes; lived in Alaska from 1973 to 2002.
Summer temps have risen by 15 degrees.
Major Glaciers have receded and all but disappeared.
Polar bears as well as other species are threatened by extinction.
The world dropped by 1 degree F two years earlier because Mt. Pinatubo injected over 18 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratospheric, which chemically changed to Sulfuric Acid which is highly reflective and caused a reduction of sunlight by 10%. This caused the stratosphere to heat up by several degrees, but by 1995 the Sulfuric Droplets dissipated there by increasing the amount of sunlight we receive and causing the planet to warm up at an even faster rate. This is because a substantial reduction of stratospheric ozone occurred and caused more energy to reach the troposphere than did before the eruption.
So the answer is absolutely.
Nice tool however
Easy to see the cooling trend of the last decade
HADCRUT shows cooling
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
UAH is Flat
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fro...
GISS is slightly cooling
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
RSS shows significant negative trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...
Did global warming reverse in 2002?
MYA -
Your statement was so last century, Alaska has been cooling with the rest of the world since 2003.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
No, absolutely not. The "science" underlying the GW premise is fundamentally flawed. Please consult a book, "The Deniers," which begins with skepticism of the "deniers," then finds that there are serious problems with GW orthodoxy, such as the reality of areas in the Antarctic ice-cap which are now thicker, not thinner, how the test stations are biased toward large cities, and away from uninhabited wastelands, and how CO2 rise is linked with temp. increases in a "retrograde direction," i.e., tends to FOLLOW the temp. rise. We also come to see that there have been much warmer periods in the history of the planet, e.g., during the Middle Ages, so even if we have seen some temp. rise (question-able), the record suggests that this is merely represents, cyclical variation, and that the long-term, very dire, predictions are like Biblical forecasts of doom (pretty screwy, and conceivably productive of very significant mischief in the world today).
I think it depends on what data you look at.
EG I changed the datasets on your graph, the trend using HADCRUT3 (unadjusted) is the same for both periods (albeit about 0.1C higher for the 1995-2009 period):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
And HADCRUT4 shows a steeper trend in 1995-2009, but less of a gap between the two:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Mike obviously doesn't know the first thing about stats, which is sad for someone who really really wants to argue against science. If he had any respect for the intelligence of you CR, or other YA users; he would include error margins with the means from the 3 datasets he has C&Pd from wattsup I mean AR5. Without error margins, a mean is meaningless ;)
The only problem I have with all this talk about significant warming is the fact that everyone just ignores the forcings. Papers have been published showing GHGs offset by aerosols and reduced solar activity FFS. So why the focus on the trend itself? Again, it is meangingless. Unless I suppose if you are a denialist.
Ottawa Mike. You, and others, are once again making errors. They did not say "There has been no significant warming since 1995" they did say "There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995" Why is it you continue to have such a problem differentiating between the two?
Well frankly I don't have the time but you are lying that all kinds of climate scientists agree warming has stopped or paused for 15 years, if that is what you mean.
Ottawa Mike: as I stated, you either have a grammatical error in your post or you, once again, are attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of those that do not understand this sort of stuff. You have done it before and, i'm sure, will continue doing it. It has been explained to you numerous times what the differences between statistical significance and significance is. why don't you go read the dozens of times people have attempted to tell you the differences in the past?
The earth has been warming since 1650. It is a natural cycle.
For over a decade now the globe has cooled.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Why are you using extrapolated instead of raw data? Because raw data hasn't been corrupted by James Hansen (Well not so much, anyway.)
I don't think anyone doesn't admit that it is globally hotter now than it was in 1995. That is part of earth's natural cycle. But you are forgetting that the CO2 level have climbed during the last decade where we have seen that the temperature has gone down. DISPROVING that CO2 drives the temperature. You mean you don't get it yet?
Why are you putting linear trend lines on non-linear data?
Edit. OK... so you're doing it to show you know how to put trend lines on a chart?
Well the IPCC makes some statement on this issue although it is on temperatures since 1998 and it is from their second order draft for AR5 which presumably could change:
_______________________________________...
From Chapter 10 – Detection and Attribution of Climate Change:
While the trend in global mean temperature since 1998 is not significantly different from zero, it is also consistent with natural variability superposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trends projected by climate models.
_______________________________________...
From Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Much interest has focussed on differences in the period since 1998 and an apparent flattening in HadCRUT3 trends. … all products now show a warming trend since 1998
HadCRUT: 0.055 °C per decade;
MLOST: 0.042 °C per decade;
GISS: 0.093 °C per decade.
None of these are statistically significant.
_______________________________________...
So there you go. The foremost authority on climate science has uncategorically stated that there has been no significant warming since 1998, which is currently the past 15 years of temperature data.
You can argue the reason for that or if it means warming has stopped or not. And you can argue if it's a long enough time period. But you can't argue the data and the basic statement that warming has paused. And frankly I don't have the time but all kinds of climate scientists agree with this.
And I even just asked a question where alarmist James Hansen even acknowledges this in his latest temperature study.
Edit@Jeff M: "Why is it you continue to have such a problem differentiating between the two?"
Why don't you provide your own explanation?
_______________________________________...
Edit: Hey, I'm just reporting what the IPCC is saying. If you have a problem with their statements, then take it up with them. "No statistically significant warming since 1998".
Denialists love to claim that there has been no warming for 16 years? Such nonsense can be traced to Phil Jones' answer to a question about the statistical signicance of the trend of global warming from 1995-2009
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm
The reason why Phil Jones was even asked such a question can be traced to a statement by Richard Lindzen from 2009.
"This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years."
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
However, X number of years without satistically significant warming does not mean that global warming has stoped or even slowed down. It does not even mean that global warming hasn't speeded up. What it does mean is that X number of years is not sufficient data to be able to tell whether the warming is due to a trend or just due to noise.
So, did global warming speed up in 1995?
From the following graph, it looks like it did.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1978/to:2009/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1978/to:1995/trend/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1995/to:2009/trend
disagree!
Whats the problem. On the graphs it is obvious there are periods of warming and cooling. The period of recent past just happens to be cooling. The warmers only look at the longer run and see warming, but then they call liar on the deniers. I think this is done from frustration, due to the climate not following laid down proven and scientifically accepted rules. When CO2 driven climate is accepted by 99.9% of all climate scientists, the damn climate should have the decency to follow the rules and not cool down when the CO2 level keep going up, It is going against accepted scientific rules. Why don't we adjust the temperature figures to fit the accepted science and all will be OK, won't it?
I think the answer is YES.
