Every statistical test of the linear trend fails to separate it from normal variability. That is part a function of sample size and part a result of the fact that the test variables are not stationary. You do not need a course in statistics to see that mean annual temperatures for the last 18 years are all skewed toward – or exceed – the upper end of the distribution curve – and that suggests a big fcking problem. It means that (1) something is still pushing annual mean global temperature upward and (2) the clustering of the temperature values at one end of the distribution is limiting our explanation of the variance which has to led to the hypothesis that additional heat is being stored somewhere else in the system.
If correct, it means that temperature will eventually take a significant turn upward – and when that begins to happen, it will look something like this:
>>Seven years later, 2005 was hotter. Five years after that, 2010 became the hottest. Now, four years later, 2014 has passed 2010.<<
Now or later, the implication is that global warming is happening faster than we expected and we should be more – not less – concerned.
====
Raisin Caine ----
>> Where can the "heat go"??? Eitehr you are not accounting for all of the heat being lost to space, in which case, it is not going to cause problems later on. OR you are not accounting for all the energy the OCEANS are sucking up. <<
It could be volcanoes, atmospheric water vapor, aerosols, the sun, ENSO, AMO, or PDO --- but it is not:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3...
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
OR – it could be the oceans and radiation balance physics (which show large forcing) ---- and it is
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1...
http://www.ocean-sci.net/7/783/2011/os-7...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1...
And, yes, it most definitely will jump up and bite our as-.
How much hotter? 0.01 degrees??? Why if we keep increasing 0.01 degrees every 4 to 5 years, the earth is going to burn up in ... ohhh... about a million years.
I have frequently said that the temp of the Earth is increasing, but we have NO reason to assume it is going to increase in an exponential-like manner. BTW, some dataset still have 1998 as the hottest year. Indeed, the ones that have not been "corrected". And their "corrections" were to make the earlier years colder and the later years warmer.
Bottom line is this. You can barely show any warming at all. This is NOT what you have to show to justify your multi-trillion dollar "solutions". You need to show the exponential warming promised in your models to justify such expenditures. WHY??? Because you need to understand the consequences of your solutions.
4 million people a year die of respiratory problems from heating their hovels with dung. Thats 4 million people a year dying due to lack of electricity. Now YOU have not shown that even ONE person will die from AGW.
Instead, you pull scare-mongering idiocy to justify things like the World Bank NOT giving loans to third world countries to build coal power plants. THAT CAUSES DEATHS!!!!! YOUR SCARE-MONGERING IS CAUSING DEATHS!!!
All the while you act as if you have shown your case because by SOME measures 2014 is 0.01 degrees warmer than 2010. YOU HAVE NOT!!!
You want to talk about SMART ways of reducing CO2 emissions that DO NOT CAUSE SUFFERING, then have at it. I will fully support those measures. BUT I will NOT support your scare-mongering methods of PUSHING a Machiavellian agenda based upon 2014 being 0.01 degrees warmer.
Propose solutions that will NOT cause suffering and STOP EXAGGERATING AND LYING!!!
Gary F,
COME ON. Use your brain. The heat is not just hiding somewhere like some rascally nymph that going to bite you on the bottom when you are not looking. Lets use jsut a bit of common sense here. Where can the "heat go"??? Eitehr you are not accounting for all of the heat being lost to space, in which case, it is not going to cause problems later on. OR you are not accounting for all the energy the OCEANS are sucking up.
The oceans are vast and hold a LOTTTTTTTT of energy. Once again the fear you discuss are irrational.
What worries me is that climate "scientists" like yourself KNOW your models are not accurate, KNOW you are "missing heat", KNOW the variability is high, but you TALK like you do.
What are you even talking about??? DO you know? Heat is hiding somewhere in the system and will come back to bite us??? Seriously??? Is this science to you??? I don't even call that thougth process educated guessing. Sounds to me like the data is telling you that AGW is not as bad as you initially predicted, but you don't want to stop the gravy train quite yet.
What's to spin? 2015 is already declared the hottest year on record, and the year just started.
Initially, I think that many will claim the data was 'adjusted'. Then, assuming 2015 isn't even warmer, they will say that a new cooling trend has started. Regardless, they'll say the scam goes on.
That is land and ocean temperatures combined, it still only amounts to 0.8C since 1891 an insignificant amount.
For land and atmosphere temperatures 1998 is till the warmest
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image002.png
Not where I live, it was no where near the warmest year on record
Even if climate change is happening the fact is man did not cause it and man can not stop it
The global warming hypothesis is not that adding more co2 in the atmosphere will cause a rise in temperatures, but rather a significant rise in temperatures. Breaking records by hundreds of one degree does not prove your hypothesis. BTW satellite data will not show a record warm year, not even close.
2014 ends up being only 1/2 degree above average. Even an extremist has to agree that will make no change. But then they are liberals and facts mean nothing to them.
So what. The trend from peak to peak since 1998 will be less than one C per century. And that is after one sixth of a century.
We are not deniers! It was also the coldest year! I felt like I can make ice cream.
The Global Warming Scam is nothing more than a pretentious gimmick. You are a tool.....
The Japan Meteorological Agency has released its figures for 2014, making it the hottest year on record. It used to be 1998 was far and away the hottest year on record. Seven years later, 2005 was hotter. Five years after that, 2010 became the hottest. Now, four years later, 2014 has passed 2010. How many lies will deniers tell about the science in service of profit and politics? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/
I think for many deniers they seem to think that what is happening where they live is what is happening to the world
i.e. OMIJEN (southern Canada)
2014 is now set to be the warmest year on record and trying to pick out of that a few small regions in what was a cooler region of local weather is something deniers have been trying to do for most of the year.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/gl...
The Eastern U.S. and Southern Canada where cooler, most of the rest of the world was not.
Then there's the fiction posted by BB from (you guessed it (watts)
"What happens when it becomes well-known that the Polar caps aren't melting?"
This is not even trying to cover it's stretching of the truth, as if you read it past the snappy headline watts/levi is actually only talking about ice thickness (in sea ice) so the actual poles (the glacial ice) is not mentioned
for obvious reasons - http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land...
Not sure what BB thinks needs to be spun on the discovery that Antarctic sea ice was thicker than was thought as this was an unknown till the tests mentioned in watts story where conducted.
It's not really that hard to see that deniers see what they want to see, when you have a quote from Benny Peiser telling deniers Arctic sea ice has recovered from 2012 levels when you look at what 2012 levels where.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arct...
There is and always has been variation in year to year Arctic sea ice levels but calling something a recovery when compared to a record low year is denier logic at it's best (i.e. worst)
So you have Arctic sea ice declining, Greenland glacial ice declining, Antarctic glacial ice declining and only Antarctic sea sea ice increasing and this is what deniers want to call "Polar Ice Caps More Stable Than Predicted" to quote watts, who it seems lives on fantasy island.
If deniers want to see spin then keep reading watts.
Are you not aware that short term swings in temperature mean absolutely nothing?
The Medieval Warm Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Wa...
was followed by the Little Ice Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_...
where each swing in temperature lasted for centuries only to be reversed.
What happened to all that claimed scientific fidelity on the part of AGW supporters?
EDIT: OPTIONAL SECTION, ATTN: Joe Joyce and Jeff M especially.
In the commentary boxes the issue of what precautionary measures I favor came up. Jeff M correctly pointed out that I favor what is known as Iron fertilization, a potential inexpensive method of carbon sequestration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequ...
Jeff M has cited alleged more recent experiments of Iron fertilization that have allegedly produced hypoxic dead zones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(en...
(Skip down to the section Aquatic hypoxia.) About which Jeff M writes: "yet he writes off the presence of dead zones as a result because it is "naturally occurring" and fails to understand the consequences." In order to reply to this misunderstanding, I must briefly recap what Iron fertilization is:
In the oceans iron is an essential nutrient for all the microscopic plant life (phytoplankton), but iron does not readily stay in the sea water. Because of this there are extensive times and places where all nutrients are present save the iron is insufficient or absent and therefore there is little to no life there. This is why the deflection of nutrient and iron rich bottom currents to the sunlit surface waters is so significant to fisheries. There are other quite sporadic natural introductions of iron such as dust storms and volcanic ash. A proportion of the phytoplankton sink and sequester carbon quite naturally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_...
This is not guesswork. The results are clearly visible in the sea beds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sed...
(This will become clearer after diatoms enter the discussion.)
Iron fertilization is an attempt to emulate the sporadic natural introductions of iron.
Now then, can hypoxic dead zones occur as a result of natural and man made algal blooms? Yes they can. Do they always? No they do not. Far from failing to understand this, I recognized what went wrong and mentioned the way to avoid such. But first, what are hypoxic dead zones?:
In this case too much nutrients allow too many phytoplankton to live in too small an area, for when they eaten directly or die and decay bacteria consume them, this consumes all the dissolved oxygen leaving a hypoxic (low oxygen) dead zone.
The solution I mentioned, is blazingly obvious and mentioned in the Wiki cited. If there is too much nutrients in an area, then don't add so much. How is this hard to mentally grasp?
Furthermore, not all phytoplankton are the same, what is desired are diatoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom
They form siliceous shells that make them significantly more resistant to being eaten and far more rapid to sink on death. If you read the experiments list in the Iron fertilization Wiki, you may get a hint of where Jeff M's (and others) misunderstanding comes from. Jeff M also says: "Therefor, in his mind, it's all a conspiracy". Fine, what is LOHAFEX if not a deliberate contrivance? It conducted an experiment where the nutrients for diatoms were known to be absent.
I most certainly can go on about this if there is an interest in me doing so, but this should be sufficient.
I don't think anyone who isn't brainwashed by the media buys that particular lie. The sane gave up listening to that propaganda when history was rewritten to make temps from 1930 to 1960 colder and later temperatures warmer. Until that point 5 of the ten warmest years were between 1930 and 1960.
You also forget that we're actually here to see for ourselves that it hasn't been a particularly warm year, on a local level this year was so much colder than 1976 as to be a joke. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the method used to get this figure also seems to be a secret. Obviously though this will fall on deaf ears just as any information opposing your unscientific cult will, and it's obvious for all realists to see that you proudly wear your badge of cult membership by your use of the ad hom denier chanting that you employ.
Why do you think anyone will need to spin anything?
Is that just psychological projection at work?
As for "... and just how global were the MCA and LIA?". They were just as global as 2014 being the hottest year ever.
Why is it that when you want to proclaim the hottest year ever it does not have to be hotter everywhere but when contrary evidence is presented it does have to be the hottest everywhere? Cognitive dissonance, possibly?
A little nice weather won't hurt anyone. We have been blessed to be born in times of warm weather. I can't help but wonder what you ancestors would think of you fretting over a nice warm day.
Nothing will happen because while some are in denial, most understand that consensus is not science and don't want to pay the price for an unknown benefit.
i will be happy as it may knock out some cold out of my country and we shall be warm
You sound like the Vatican in the 16th century, calling those who believed in the Heliocentric theory Deniers of God.
APG is ***-backwards pseudo-science, a fraud perpetrated by Leftists and alarmists, "Listen to me or disaster will destroy the Earth" Sounds a lot like Pat Robertson doesn't it?
Not around here - last summer was rotten - I submit many of those findings are exaggerations by scientists who wish to create a sense of urgency in order to keep their jobs
2014?? huh?? Where? Certainly not in my part of the world... It is now 2015.... I live in southern Ontario Canada and 2014 was one of the coolest summers in the last 10 years.... Hope for some warmer weather in 2015.. More concerned with the sudden and violent weather patterns... Everyone needs to get used to extreme weather being the norm.... Until the greedy high tech countries put climate before $$$ nothing will ever change... Not going to happen in my lifetime...
nothing to say about this
(fingers in ears)
"It's cooling"
"Remember the pause"
"We're still warming from the little ice age"
"More CO2 means we'll grow more food."
"I like warm weather."
"Warmer is better."
"More people die of cold than warm weather."
"Lalalalalalala, Not interested in anything warmers have to say. They're probably dumb educated liberals."
1998 was hotter
I know what you mean. I'm in Canada harvesting my pineapples.
But it snowed and got cold. The farm workers are frozen till spring.
I don't know what the "deniers" will do, but the majority of scientists will exercise healthy skepticism and verify the quality of data, collection methodology....etc. That's what REAL scientists do.
What happens when it becomes well-known that the Polar caps aren't melting? How will the AGW Activists spin that?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/05/po...
The us will do it
#felling hot hot hot#
Its not a fact , cooked numbers
the data is made up.
the urban heat islands extend to the arctic and oceans.
mother nature is socialist
anything but reality.
Not where I live, it was no where near the warmest year on record
Even if climate change is happening the fact is man did not cause it and man can not stop it
The global warming hypothesis is not that adding more co2 in the atmosphere will cause a rise in temperatures, but rather a significant rise in temperatures. Breaking records by hundreds of one degree does not prove your hypothesis. BTW satellite data will not show a record warm year, not even close.
2014 ends up being only 1/2 degree above average. Even an extremist has to agree that will make no change. But then they are liberals and facts mean nothing to them.
So what. The trend from peak to peak since 1998 will be less than one C per century. And that is after one sixth of a century.
We are not deniers! It was also the coldest year! I felt like I can make ice cream.
The Global Warming Scam is nothing more than a pretentious gimmick. You are a tool.....
The Japan Meteorological Agency has released its figures for 2014, making it the hottest year on record. It used to be 1998 was far and away the hottest year on record. Seven years later, 2005 was hotter. Five years after that, 2010 became the hottest. Now, four years later, 2014 has passed 2010. How many lies will deniers tell about the science in service of profit and politics? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/
I think for many deniers they seem to think that what is happening where they live is what is happening to the world
i.e. OMIJEN (southern Canada)
2014 is now set to be the warmest year on record and trying to pick out of that a few small regions in what was a cooler region of local weather is something deniers have been trying to do for most of the year.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/gl...
The Eastern U.S. and Southern Canada where cooler, most of the rest of the world was not.
Then there's the fiction posted by BB from (you guessed it (watts)
"What happens when it becomes well-known that the Polar caps aren't melting?"
This is not even trying to cover it's stretching of the truth, as if you read it past the snappy headline watts/levi is actually only talking about ice thickness (in sea ice) so the actual poles (the glacial ice) is not mentioned
for obvious reasons - http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land...
Not sure what BB thinks needs to be spun on the discovery that Antarctic sea ice was thicker than was thought as this was an unknown till the tests mentioned in watts story where conducted.
It's not really that hard to see that deniers see what they want to see, when you have a quote from Benny Peiser telling deniers Arctic sea ice has recovered from 2012 levels when you look at what 2012 levels where.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arct...
There is and always has been variation in year to year Arctic sea ice levels but calling something a recovery when compared to a record low year is denier logic at it's best (i.e. worst)
So you have Arctic sea ice declining, Greenland glacial ice declining, Antarctic glacial ice declining and only Antarctic sea sea ice increasing and this is what deniers want to call "Polar Ice Caps More Stable Than Predicted" to quote watts, who it seems lives on fantasy island.
If deniers want to see spin then keep reading watts.
Are you not aware that short term swings in temperature mean absolutely nothing?
The Medieval Warm Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Wa...
was followed by the Little Ice Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_...
where each swing in temperature lasted for centuries only to be reversed.
What happened to all that claimed scientific fidelity on the part of AGW supporters?
EDIT: OPTIONAL SECTION, ATTN: Joe Joyce and Jeff M especially.
In the commentary boxes the issue of what precautionary measures I favor came up. Jeff M correctly pointed out that I favor what is known as Iron fertilization, a potential inexpensive method of carbon sequestration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequ...
Jeff M has cited alleged more recent experiments of Iron fertilization that have allegedly produced hypoxic dead zones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(en...
(Skip down to the section Aquatic hypoxia.) About which Jeff M writes: "yet he writes off the presence of dead zones as a result because it is "naturally occurring" and fails to understand the consequences." In order to reply to this misunderstanding, I must briefly recap what Iron fertilization is:
In the oceans iron is an essential nutrient for all the microscopic plant life (phytoplankton), but iron does not readily stay in the sea water. Because of this there are extensive times and places where all nutrients are present save the iron is insufficient or absent and therefore there is little to no life there. This is why the deflection of nutrient and iron rich bottom currents to the sunlit surface waters is so significant to fisheries. There are other quite sporadic natural introductions of iron such as dust storms and volcanic ash. A proportion of the phytoplankton sink and sequester carbon quite naturally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_...
This is not guesswork. The results are clearly visible in the sea beds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sed...
(This will become clearer after diatoms enter the discussion.)
Iron fertilization is an attempt to emulate the sporadic natural introductions of iron.
Now then, can hypoxic dead zones occur as a result of natural and man made algal blooms? Yes they can. Do they always? No they do not. Far from failing to understand this, I recognized what went wrong and mentioned the way to avoid such. But first, what are hypoxic dead zones?:
In this case too much nutrients allow too many phytoplankton to live in too small an area, for when they eaten directly or die and decay bacteria consume them, this consumes all the dissolved oxygen leaving a hypoxic (low oxygen) dead zone.
The solution I mentioned, is blazingly obvious and mentioned in the Wiki cited. If there is too much nutrients in an area, then don't add so much. How is this hard to mentally grasp?
Furthermore, not all phytoplankton are the same, what is desired are diatoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom
They form siliceous shells that make them significantly more resistant to being eaten and far more rapid to sink on death. If you read the experiments list in the Iron fertilization Wiki, you may get a hint of where Jeff M's (and others) misunderstanding comes from. Jeff M also says: "Therefor, in his mind, it's all a conspiracy". Fine, what is LOHAFEX if not a deliberate contrivance? It conducted an experiment where the nutrients for diatoms were known to be absent.
I most certainly can go on about this if there is an interest in me doing so, but this should be sufficient.
I don't think anyone who isn't brainwashed by the media buys that particular lie. The sane gave up listening to that propaganda when history was rewritten to make temps from 1930 to 1960 colder and later temperatures warmer. Until that point 5 of the ten warmest years were between 1930 and 1960.
You also forget that we're actually here to see for ourselves that it hasn't been a particularly warm year, on a local level this year was so much colder than 1976 as to be a joke. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the method used to get this figure also seems to be a secret. Obviously though this will fall on deaf ears just as any information opposing your unscientific cult will, and it's obvious for all realists to see that you proudly wear your badge of cult membership by your use of the ad hom denier chanting that you employ.
Why do you think anyone will need to spin anything?
Is that just psychological projection at work?
As for "... and just how global were the MCA and LIA?". They were just as global as 2014 being the hottest year ever.
Why is it that when you want to proclaim the hottest year ever it does not have to be hotter everywhere but when contrary evidence is presented it does have to be the hottest everywhere? Cognitive dissonance, possibly?
A little nice weather won't hurt anyone. We have been blessed to be born in times of warm weather. I can't help but wonder what you ancestors would think of you fretting over a nice warm day.
Nothing will happen because while some are in denial, most understand that consensus is not science and don't want to pay the price for an unknown benefit.
i will be happy as it may knock out some cold out of my country and we shall be warm
You sound like the Vatican in the 16th century, calling those who believed in the Heliocentric theory Deniers of God.
APG is ***-backwards pseudo-science, a fraud perpetrated by Leftists and alarmists, "Listen to me or disaster will destroy the Earth" Sounds a lot like Pat Robertson doesn't it?
Not around here - last summer was rotten - I submit many of those findings are exaggerations by scientists who wish to create a sense of urgency in order to keep their jobs
2014?? huh?? Where? Certainly not in my part of the world... It is now 2015.... I live in southern Ontario Canada and 2014 was one of the coolest summers in the last 10 years.... Hope for some warmer weather in 2015.. More concerned with the sudden and violent weather patterns... Everyone needs to get used to extreme weather being the norm.... Until the greedy high tech countries put climate before $$$ nothing will ever change... Not going to happen in my lifetime...
nothing to say about this
(fingers in ears)
"It's cooling"
"Remember the pause"
"We're still warming from the little ice age"
"More CO2 means we'll grow more food."
"I like warm weather."
"Warmer is better."
"More people die of cold than warm weather."
"Lalalalalalala, Not interested in anything warmers have to say. They're probably dumb educated liberals."
1998 was hotter
I know what you mean. I'm in Canada harvesting my pineapples.
But it snowed and got cold. The farm workers are frozen till spring.
I don't know what the "deniers" will do, but the majority of scientists will exercise healthy skepticism and verify the quality of data, collection methodology....etc. That's what REAL scientists do.
What happens when it becomes well-known that the Polar caps aren't melting? How will the AGW Activists spin that?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/05/po...
The us will do it
#felling hot hot hot#
Its not a fact , cooked numbers
the data is made up.
the urban heat islands extend to the arctic and oceans.
mother nature is socialist
anything but reality.
