Anyone with a rudimetary understanding of science that believes AGW caused the warming that occured in the 80's and 90's was caused by AGW is a true denialists. If the Asian brown cloud caused the pause then why does the Southern Hemisphere show a cooling trend over the last 10 years. There are at least 4 pieces of evidence that invalidate the AGW theory and it only takes one.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
A combination of PDO, the Asian brown cloud, a "slow" sunspot cycle, and possibly other factors I am not aware of have caused a slowdown or halt in *surface* warming.
It doesn't mean that the oceans aren't warming, and it doesn't mean that warming is gone forever. Once the sun is more active and China and India get their acts together about sulfate pollution, I expect temperatures will more or less shoot up to about what we had previously predicted.
The trend in RSS since 2001 is -0.057 +- 0.264 C per decade. The +- bit is an estimate of the confidence. We are 90% confident that the true trend is between -0.32 C/decade and +0.21 C/decade.
Statistically, you can't reject a warming trend of up to 0.21 C/decade using that satellite data, so you can't say scientifically that "there is no global warming". That might be your opinion, but it's not supported by the measurements.
The confidence interval is calculated based on random autocorrelated noise: a lot of the short term wiggles are caused by things like the El Nino Southern Oscillation and recently the pattern of stronger trade winds has a) encouraged more La Ninas, which suck heat out of the atmosphere and b) increased the speed of the subtropical gyres, which move heat into the deep oceans.
This is going to be temporary: for now, a lot of heat is being dumped in the oceans, but since El Ninos have happened for millions of years there's no reason to expect that they'll keep hiding forever. Some of the 4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat that's currently being sucked into the oceans every single second will go into the atmosphere again and we'll see bumper warming.
This is the heat change in the upper 2000 m of the ocean:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CON...
Some studies that calculate these effects are Balmaseda et al.:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
Foster & Rahmstorf:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/...
Kosaka & Xie:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vao...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
EDIT:
CO2 can heat the oceans, and so can solar activity. However, solar activity has been going down in recent decades, so it is not the cause of recent warming. See Lockwood, 2008:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...
My statement amount the amount of heat going into the oceans is based on the measurements from the Argo floats, the link I gave is to the National Oceanograhic Data Center. The data and techniques are described in Levitus et al., 2012:
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIO...
Your link refers only to the top 700 metres of the ocean, I showed the data down to 2000 m. As I said, natural cycles driven by changes in the wind have been pushing the heat deeper into the ocean. From your link: "heat can be temporarily moved to the deeper ocean below 700m due to changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation - the oceanic conveyor belt that transports vast amounts of heat in the North Atlantic Ocean. Both these explanations are supported by recent observations of ENSO and upper ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic."
From your Express link: that doesn't say we're seeing global cooling, and since I know Mike Lockwood I know that he doesn't say there's global cooling either. If you calculate a trend on a graph, there is always an uncertainty or a confidence limit linked to that trend. You have to calculate what that is using the right statistical techniques. Here's a calculator which calculates the trend and confidence intervals using the ARMA(1,1) model:
http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
As I said, the confidence interval on a short trend, like ones starting in 2001, is quite big. That means you can't rule out warming using standard statistics. It's your opinion that warming has stopped, but the statistics don't support that.
No global warming can not cause anything when there is no global warming. However, for the time periods you show on your graph, there is global warming. Look at the endpoints.
MTRStudent, why do you say auto-correlated noise is correct? Have you considered that there might not be a stochastic trend?
It is causing panic in the minds of the uninformed. It is the same as the the bogeyman. There is no such thing but at one time or another every kid is afraid of it.
http://shine.yahoo.com/green/talk-kids-g...
This is an article presented by Yahoo. Yes the same ones who sponsor this site. It is shameful and irresponsible for an organization to present proven bogus science. But it proves what I am always saying or in fact what Goebbels put more eloquently than I ever could:
Joseph Goebbel,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
I causes fear and that is the tool of con men.
And yet 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record ...
Additional: Ah yes, the predictable response. When the data doesn't fit the argument the deniers/skeptics make, it must be falsified, tampered, and messed about with. If that's going to be the response to everything anyone says then you've made up your mind and no evidence anyone produces can persuade you otherwise. That's not scientific but dogma. The statistic is taken from the World Metrological Office but you'll claim they're a UN organisation staffed by liberals trying to push through some eco-agenda and shouldn't be trusted. Which sort of makes your position the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting 'nah nah nah I can't hear you' ... if you don't mind me saying so.
Why chose 2001 as a start point?
try looking at ocean temperatures too.
Exactly it cant, the fiasco will go down in future history, as an example of how stupid and gullible people really are.
If there is no global warming, explain to me, why are countries invest immense amount of money on global warming researches? These countries certainly are not stupid. If global warming didn't exist, they wouldn't invest there.
-----------------------
Hadcrut4 and RSS global temperatures since 2001
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to/plot/rss/from:2001/to/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to/trend
-----------------------
This could be fun... What is a statistical insufficiency?
"Good question"
It will be fun to watch people like you starving as global warming closes in on our coastal areas and food supply. But keep denying it right down to the wire - this serves your Billionaire and FOX FAKE "News" the best.
