NOAA says global temps same as 1995

[brenthutch 383]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Wow no increase in 13 years! Obama was right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQNkVmdicvA&feature=endscreen

Kallend, are the scientists at NOAA, climate scientists?

[winsor 185]

Quote

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Wow no increase in 13 years! Obama was right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQNkVmdicvA&feature=endscreen

Kallend, are the scientists at NOAA, climate scientists?

Bunch of shills for the oil companies, I'm sure.

[billvon 2,380]

Warmest years on record:

Year Degrees above average
=== =====
2010 0.6590
2005 0.6523
1998 0.6325
2003 0.6219
2002 0.6130

[JSE 1]

Your post is misleading. The average temp for one month, January 2013, was the same as Jan. 1995. Even this article shows a warming trend over 20th century averages and multi-degree increases over recent averages in certain regions.
As far as your clip about rising oceans, the article states that "The January 2013 globally-averaged ocean temperature anomaly of 0.41°C (0.74°F) was the eighth warmest on record for January."
Does this article prove conclusively climate change one way or the other - no. Will people who already made there mind up that there is no climate change incorrectly assert this article supports their position...

[Remster 24]

Quote

Your post is misleading

File this one under "No Shit Sherlock" .

Remster

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Warmest years on record:

Year Degrees above average
=== =====
2010 0.6590
2005 0.6523
1998 0.6325
2003 0.6219
2002 0.6130

--------------------------------------

Let me break out my crayons and explain it to you.
Let’s say I have a child, I feed that child, that child grows, and grows every year. When my child reaches the age of 19 I notice despite the fact that he is still getting food, he no longer appears to be growing. Now I can infer, as you have, that he MUST still be getting bigger because his current size is greater than his average size. Or I can deduce, as I have, that despite the fact he is still eating, his size, while unprecedented, remains the same, and after two years, and at the age of 21, he has stopped growing.

If you still don’t understand, replace food, with CO2, 19 year old with 2010, the age of 21 with 2012 and replace child with global temperature.

[lawrocket 3]

What the source (Hadley, GISS, NOAA)? And what's the metric (surface, ocean surface, combined)?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

I will concur with this as being "misleading." Problem is, weather is attributed on all sides as evidence for or against climate change. Hence, someone will mention, "Chicago had the latest snow start, less snow than Phoenix, etc.". Which is weather. Meanwhile, it's responded that "it's the same temp as 1995" as support for no climate change.

Neither are correct. Both are argumentative and cherry-picked facts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,380]

>Let’s say I have a child, I feed that child, that child grows, and grows every year.

Clearly the answer is to deny that he is growing - and if he's four feet tall at age ten, he will always be four feet tall.

If a doctor measures him and he's taller then the doctor is lying. He's an alarmist.

If his friends say he's taller then they are all part of the "tallist" conspiracy. You can prove with many facts and figures that he was four feet tall and he will always be four feet tall.

[kallend 1,620]

More willful ignorance on your part.

Do you really thank that you persuade anyone by making absurd claims like that? (Well, maybe you persuade rushmc).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

Clearly the answer is to deny that he is growing - and if he's four feet tall at age ten, he will always be four feet tall.

That is why I used 19 and not 10. And yes if he was still four feet tall at the age of 12 I could conclude that he had stopped growing.

Next!

[brenthutch 383]

NOAA "adjusted" global combined land and ocean.

[brenthutch 383]

"THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office,"

Kallend, is Pachauri, the UN's climate change chief, a climate scientist or an oil company hack?

[/url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

"THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office,"

Kallend, is Pachauri, the UN's climate change chief, a climate scientist or an oil company hack?

[/url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

LATEST:

www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/ipcc-head-pachauri-tackles-climate-change-issue-in-australia/1091880

Doesn't look like he's backpedaling to me.

I HAVE met him. Nice guy.

By the way, you snipped an important part of the quote (bad boy): but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

The fact that he acknowledges a 17 year pause in global temperature, invalidates ALL of the IPCC models. Or does it? Break it down for us Professor Big Brain. Tell me how the failure of IPCC climate models to anticipate the lack of warming, validates their efficacy.

Making popcorn, this should be good.

[billvon 2,380]

>The fact that he acknowledges a 17 year pause in global temperature

Warmest years on record:

Year Degrees above average
=== =====
2010 0.6590
2005 0.6523
1998 0.6325
2003 0.6219
2002 0.6130

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

>The fact that he acknowledges a 17 year pause in global temperature

Warmest years on record:

Year Degrees above average
=== =====
2010 0.6590
2005 0.6523
1998 0.6325
2003 0.6219
2002 0.6130

-----------------------------------------------

Yes yes, I know. But the problem was about global warmING, not global warmER. It was to be this, runaway, melt the south pole, hellscape of super hurricanes and F5 tornadoes, with marauding polar bears eating baby seals. As the professor can tell you, 25% is not a passing grade.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216238/Now-theres-ice-South-Pole-So-global-warming-thawing-Antarctica.html

http://www.real-science.com/quick-hurricane-facts

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/todays-tornado-outlook-high-risk-of-global-warming-hype/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/06/global-warming-wipes-out-all-polar-bears-except-the-increasing-number-of-them/

[kallend 1,620]

You made the same claim about the same data when it first came out and it was debunked then.

Now you misquote a newspaper article that itself is out of context and seem to think it validates your previous (bogus) claim.

Well, it doesn't.

The COMPLETE press release from the Met Office:

There has been media coverage today about our experimental decadal global temperature prediction, which is routinely updated in December each year.

The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.

However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years.

This means temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850.

Decadal predictions are specifically designed to predict fluctuations in the climate system through knowledge of the current climate state and multi-year variability of the oceans.

Small year to year fluctuations such as those that we are seeing in the shorter term five year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long term warming.

In this case, changes in ocean surface temperatures in some parts of the world over the past year are understood to have made a key contribution to the difference between the 2011 and 2012 forecasts, but other factors will also have played a role.

Century-scale projections are less sensitive to natural variability and updates to the 2012 decadal forecast do not necessarily tell us anything about projections of climate change for the coming century.

The 2012 prediction is the first to use the Met Office's latest experimental decadal prediction system, based on HadGEM3. This includes a comprehensive set of improvements based on the latest scientific understanding.

HadGEM3 has been thoroughly tested and has more accurately reproduced temperature variations over the past few decades, suggesting it shows greater skill than was available from previous decadal forecast systems.

The Met Office routinely shares its research and this is often placed on our website, encouraging openness and transparency with our scientific colleagues and the public alike.

More information about decadal foreasts can be found on our website.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

There has been media coverage today about our experimental decadal global temperature prediction,

The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.

However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years.


Decadal predictions are specifically designed to predict fluctuations in the climate system

Small year to year fluctuations such as those that we are seeing in the shorter term five year predictions....
Century-scale projections are less sensitive to natural variability and updates to the 2012 decadal forecast do not necessarily tell us anything about projections of climate change for the coming century.

The 2012 prediction is the first to use the Met Office's latest experimental decadal prediction system,

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

"It is difficult to make predictions, especialy about the future"

I provide facts, you respond with conjecture. Weak tea my friend weak tea.

[brenthutch 383]

Doesn't look like he's backpedaling to me.

I HAVE met him. Nice guy.

By the way, you snipped an important part of the quote (bad boy): but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

[kallend 1,620]

Also from the Met Office concerning the misleading claim:

The British Met Office (Britain's "NOAA") responded to the article Sunday, and continues to address with comments in the Met Office News Blog.

Again here's an excerpt. You can read the whole post from the link above.

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous - so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/assets_c/2012/10/130%20BMO-thumb-490x348.png

As was PREVIOUSLY pointed out to you several times, Mr. Shill, cherry picking a particular short period and then claiming that warming has stopped is not only silly because it's so easily spotted and debunked, it's also intellectual fraud.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,380]

>Yes yes, I know. But the problem was about global warmING, not global warmER.

Cool, semantics games! Taking lessons from Gravitymaster?

But in any case, fine. The planet is becoming warmer but it's not warming. If that's the only way it makes sense to you, then at least you're accepting the science.

> It was to be this, runaway, melt the south pole, hellscape of super hurricanes and F5
>tornadoes, with marauding polar bears eating baby seals.

You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

[brenthutch 383]

"in 2008 NOAA said that pauses of 15 years or more would not fit with climate simulations. James Hansen was caught in ClimateGate saying that ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ When the pause got a bit longer still, Ben Santer said in a paper, that really it was 17 years we needed to see. That was 2011.

Now in 2013, Pachauri says we’ll need 30 -40 years of the IPCC being wrong before we can say they’re wrong."

Moving the goal posts anyone?

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/pachauri-quietly-blows-goalposts-away-pretends-to-like-skeptics-its-all-pr-to-keep-the-gravy-train-running/

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

>Yes yes, I know. But the problem was about global warmING, not global warmER.

Cool, semantics games! Taking lessons from Gravitymaster?

But in any case, fine. The planet is becoming warmer but it's not warming. If that's the only way it makes sense to you, then at least you're accepting the science.

> It was to be this, runaway, melt the south pole, hellscape of super hurricanes and F5
>tornadoes, with marauding polar bears eating baby seals.

You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

-------------------------------------

An Inconvenient Truth?

[billvon 2,380]

>An Inconvenient Truth?

More like "The Day After Tomorrow."