2013 is not over. 17 years is not 1997-2013, but 1996-2012.
The reason why the warming from 1996-2012 was not statistically significant, is not because warming stopped or slowed down, but is because of signal to noise. We need to go further back, before 1996, to be able to come to a conclusion about the temperature trend. What matters is not the statistically insignificant short term trends, but the longer term trends which are statistically significant.
JImmy
Antarctica is not the whole world.
Who is moving the goal posts? We will not have 17 years of data since 1997 until the data for December 2013 is available? And if it took 18 years for the data to be statistically significant, that would either mean that short term fluctuations had become bigger or that global warming had slowed down.
There may have been no average warming for 17 years but the poles are melting ever faster.
This is why:
"Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), and his team found temperatures from ?92 to ?94 degrees Celsius (?134 to ?137 degrees Fahrenheit) in a 1,000-kilometer long swath on the highest section of the East Antarctic ice divide."
With temperatures like that the ice does not stand a chance!
An ocean temperature graph for Alph:
ClimateRealist, Ben Santer published a 17 year time frame for discerning a signal of global warming, and now you are seeking to move the goal posts with other excuses. Yes, temperatures have not returned to a long term average, but that is not the same as global warming is ongoing.
The lack of warming suggests that climate models with high levels of sensitivity need to be reconsidered.
There's a lovely analogy here: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/scie... about a man walking a dog on a long leash. Short term trends are not reliable when you're talking about a system as "noisy" as climate. And 17 years is still a short-term trend. In order to truly be talking about climate, you need to look at 30-year periods. Get back to me when there's 30 years of no statistically significant warming...
Well if the warming effect of CO2 can be hidden by noise or natural cycles, it means that if the warming effect does exist it must be an extremely small one.
John your link doesn't work, you left the http www on
try this link http://ph.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A2oKmJ...
ROTFLMAO @ "climate realist"
Aren't you the one always cut and pasting crap about the last 12 years or so have been the hottest on record or some BS like that only to come here and make a stupid excuse about no significant rise in global temps due to...uuuhhhhh..."signal to noise" ??!!?? WHAT??????
We now learn that the lowest temp EVER recorded on earth was recorded in Aug of 2010 in Antarctica (during one of the hottest years on record according to you, climate realist) yet the AGW cultists never once mentioned it. Nor did the AGW cultists ever mention the 3000 record lows recorded in the US during the summer of 2013. I guess those record lows are what true climate deniers like climate realist is calling "noise."
Bullsh*t You are too easily swayed by lies. The ten warmest years globally have been in the past 17
why would you ignore oceans?
EDIT: GRAPHICC, see link. Sea Surface Temperatures are only one measurement
emission, yet an 11% increase in plants in the world between 1982 and 2010. Does this mean CO2 is the greenest gas money can buy?
