16 year plateau in global surface temperatures puzzles climate scientists

[carbonhed]

Want your money back yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml

[Jantar]

And even those scientists who won't accept that a 16 year plateu exists still admit that the anthropogenic portion of climate change is only half of what has been previously claimed.

When the AMO is included, in addition to the other explanatory variables such as ENSO, volcano and solar influences commonly included in the multiple linear regression analysis, the recent 50-year and 32-year anthropogenic warming trends are reduced by a factor of at least two. There is no statistical evidence of a recent slow-down of global warming, nor is there evidence of accelerated warming since the mid-20th century

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...AS-D-12-0208.1

[Akzle]

yeah, like you were going to do something about it anyway...

[carbonhed]

And even those scientists who won't accept that a 16 year plateu exists still admit that the anthropogenic portion of climate change is only half of what has been previously claimed.



http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...AS-D-12-0208.1

I saw that.

Half the warming expected so presumably the feedbacks in the models are exagerated. Plus there's been no acceleration in the rate of warming since the mid 20th century despite CO2 levels increasing so markedly... explain that.

[SPman]

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for September 2012 was the lowest in the satellite record, and was 16% lower than the previous low for the month, which occurred in 2007

So,this is all a figment of our imagination then...........

[Ocean1]

So,this is all a figment of our imagination then...........

Can't see pic. But it wouldn't surprise me if the hysteresis in polar ice melt were decades behind mean air temp.

[ducatilover]

So,this is all a figment of our imagination then...........

You serial? There are not enough colours for that to be legitimate.

[scumdog]

Ge, I'm really surprised at that revelation...

[SPman]

..............

[ducatilover]

That looks pretty legit to me, more colours and lines.

WE'RE DOOMED!

[Woodman]

Yes, but according to the Earths natural cycle we are supposd to be heading into another ice age and the Earth should be cooling therefore an even temp IS actually warming.

[Winston001]

Want your money back yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml

The glaring warning about the accuracy of this article is that it is published by the Daily Mail, a cheerful tabloid which plays fast and loose with piffiling things like facts and accuracy. Plus the author David Rose is a known anti-climate science ranter.

If it was in the Guardian or the Telegraph then it could be read more seriously. But it ain't.

Then there is the small matter of the Met Office itself - the alleged source of this astonishing "fact" - which says the article is wrong. In some detail. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...-october-2012/


If that isn't enough, Sceptical Science which challenges dodgy stuff including some climate science, nevertheless says the Daily Mail article is plain wrong. http://skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html


The Earth's temp is slowly increasing, sea levels are rising, sea water is acidifying (very bad news for shell fish and corals), our atmosphere is becoming polluted, and soils are poisoned in spots of dense population. None of this is going to get better any time soon.

[Jantar]

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for September 2012 was the lowest in the satellite record, and was 16% lower than the previous low for the month, which occurred in 2007

So,this is all a figment of our imagination then...........

While at the same time antarctic sea ice was at a record high.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOT...c=twitter-iotd

[Jantar]

..............

Mmm, the CRU 2005 graph? How about the 2012 one?


http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:1997/to:2012

[carbonhed]

The glaring warning about the accuracy of this article is that it is published by the Daily Mail, a cheerful tabloid which plays fast and loose with piffiling things like facts and accuracy. Plus the author David Rose is a known anti-climate science ranter.

If it was in the Guardian or the Telegraph then it could be read more seriously. But it ain't.

Then there is the small matter of the Met Office itself - the alleged source of this astonishing "fact" - which says the article is wrong. In some detail. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...-october-2012/


If that isn't enough, Sceptical Science which challenges dodgy stuff including some climate science, nevertheless says the Daily Mail article is plain wrong. http://skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html


The Earth's temp is slowly increasing, sea levels are rising, sea water is acidifying (very bad news for shell fish and corals), our atmosphere is becoming polluted, and soils are poisoned in spots of dense population. None of this is going to get better any time soon.

Actually the Met Office article doesn't dispute the fact that there's been a 16 year plateau in global temperatures. How could they? It's their own figures.

What they do dispute is the significance of the plateau :-

"The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely."

That's what they're saying now but let's take a look at what the team were saying a few years ago.

NOAA 2008 :-

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Dr Phil Jones from the Climategate emails :-

‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

Dr Roger Pielke Jr in 2009 :-

“Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions — 15 years of no warming.”

Dr Ben Santer :-

"They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere."

It's 16 years at the moment and in another couple of months it'll be 17. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation went into it's cold phase a couple of years ago and the latest El Nino sputtered out recently... the 7th Cavalry is not riding over the horizon to save you. At which point do you admit you're wrong? Is there actually any way to falsify your beliefs?