And how about the past 16 years with ZERO warming???

Europe had to of the 12 warmest years since 1880 in 2011/12. According to the DWD, 24 out of the 30 kast years have been to warm in Germany.

And the temperatureof the ocean is still increasing.



There are also a lot of other theories to explain the "stagnation" on of it is that we also blow a lot of fine particles in the air, which reflect the sun and counter to global warming to a degree.

And we are at 2p2, do i really have to explain the concept of variance to you?

So Germany is getting warmer? Really, ask Germans how their last 5 winters have been.
- 2008/2009: 1.0 °C cooler
- 2009/2010: 2.0 °C cooler
- 2010/2011: 1.3 °C cooler
- 2011/2012: 0.1 °C cooler
- 2012/2013 (so far): 0.4°C. cooler

With the current winter, we now have 5 winters in a row that have been colder than the long-term average! Crafty scientists at first explained that climate warming was just taking a timeout. Strangely, this timeout has now been going on for 5 years without interruption. Accordingly things have gotten very quiet in the climate warming debate.”
Yes indeed it has. Germany’s prestigious research institutes and leading climatologists, such as “internationally recognized” Prof. Dr. Mojib Latif, Head of both the Research Division Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics and the Research Unit Marine Meteorology of the IFM-GEOMAR of Kiel, Germany, and “renowned” Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf of the influential Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research (PIK), or Prof. Dr. Jochem Marotzke of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg are now stumped, baffled and confused by this unexpected development, which completely contradicts their earlier super-computer models. Indeed, most of the German warmist modellers have since gone back and revamped their models, and are now suddenly claiming that the colder winters are actually a sign of global warming! But for much of the remaining German science community, these once prestigious scientists are beginning to increasingly look like laughing stocks of the new century.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/17/m...ormal-winters/

Why is it that actual temperatures are lower than virtually all of the climate models from the so-called experts? Do I see NO Warming here since 1997???

lol cherrypickaments

Be more transparently dishonest, Mr. 9 posts in 5 years.

Hottest years on record:

2010
2005
2007
1998
2002
2003
2006
2009
2012
2011
2001
2004
2008
1997
1995

Nothing to worry about!

Nice response, I only put so many posts in so many years, huh? So I cherrypicked just German winters for 5 years? You know this is true for all of Europe, right? You probably do not. So lets look at a bigger data set, like the whole world for 16 years. Zero warming.

Why don't you try and actually respond to the facts. Like maybe respond to the fact there has been no warming in worldwide temperatures in 16 years. Or that there has been 0.8 degrees C warming since 1880. I know facts are hard to deal with for some. Do any of you want to challenge either of these 2 facts? Please try, I dare you.

We already did, you ignored quite a few arguments, so i rather do something usefull with my time.

Hmm, let me try to find the best way to approach this conflicting information.

On one hand, we have damn near unanimous scientific consensus that AGW is real and a problem.

On the other, we have random people on the internet making assertions backed up by terrible articles from really dubious websites.

Tough call!

Near unanimous? You haven't been paying much attention the last few years, huh? The tide has turned. Even some of the climatologists are admitting their models may be failing. Open your eyes people.

Notrickszone.com? Really?

I don't know, did you calculate a trend from the data?

Well, if you did, you'd see that the trend is positive in all data sets, so whoever has been telling you there's been no warming since 1997 is lying to you.

Your graph is misleading. The baseline looks sketchy to me. And it only uses satellite temperatures of the lower atmosphere, which are a bit iffy and NOT what the models produce in output.

I await your response.

Keep manufacturing dissent bro. You're doing god's work.

+1

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Steve McIntyre usually deals with paleo stuff, but he has a great post on UK Met's forecast (and Nature magazine's misleading coverage of said forecasts). One graphic in particular encapsulates the landscape of the climate models...the latest predictions from the UK Met now predict temperature will be .5C(!) less in 5 years than those submitted to IPCC AR5.

So what?

Climate Denial 101

1. Picking Your Graph
The Met's short-term forecast is comprised of an ensemble of 10 model runs. Which model should you use to make a case against global warming?

a) all of the models as a whole
b) the ensemble mean
c) the lowest model, ignoring the others



2. Analyze Your Graph
Now that you've chosen the best graph, how do you interpret the data?

a) read the publication in which the graph was published for guidance
b) read climate denial blogs for guidance
c) just look at which way the lines are pointing in the graph
d) either b) or c) is correct



3. Selection Bias

How do you explain forecasts or records of increased warming in the short-term?
a) Temperatures change naturally. They always have and always will.
b) Solar cycles
c) ENSO cycle
d) Measurements are unreliable
e) Models are unreliable
f) Any of the above

4. How do you explain forecasts or records of decreased warming in the short-term?
a) Temperatures change naturally. They always have and always will.
b) Solar cycles
c) ENSO cycle
d) Measurements are unreliable
e) Models are unreliable
e) None of the above

Funny that you label it climate denial, when you are the party that seems to be in denial of reality. What, precisely, am I denying in my postings?

Getting into the meat of your post, the blue line is not the "the lowest model, ignoring the others" as you incorrectly stated. It is linked right below the image where the data is from; it is here: http://www.climateaudit.info/data/mo...adley/fcst.dat

The graph where you have a red X and the graph where you have a green circle represent the same data. In the time it took you to create that ridiculousness, you probably could've punched that into Excel and seen that your hypothesis was in fact quite stupid. So nice job on wasting your time on that: you're 0/2 on graph analysis.

(2) is fruit of a rotten tree, with B just being laughably incorrect.

(3) and (4) is just pointless deflection, since we have over a decade of divergence, none of which can be explained away via natural variability, solar, ENSO, or any combination thereof.

Take this recent exchange, for instance:

James Lovelock joins the "denial" camp, by Benholio's definition.

I think the pre-req to being a climate "realist" (alarmist) is not being able to read a graph? Not sure. Benholio, keep me up to date on that. Stick to words, though; numbers are not a strong suit.

Climate science is a three-footed stool...you have paleoclimate reconstructions as the first foot (pre-1880s), human climate observations as the second foot (1880s-present), and climate models as the third foot (future predictions).

The entire purpose of radical first-world economic changes such as those begun with Kyoto is to address the future problems predicted by climate models. If the doubling of CO2 was only going to increase the Earth's climate by 1 degree C and raise sea levels by 3 cm every decade, nobody would be in much of a rush to do anything because that is absurdly slow given technological advancements.

Dire/alarmist climate models are the linchpin of the entire political movement. The success or failure of these climate models is incredibly vital information. I doubt your response would be a pithy "so what" if models had a cold bias instead of a warm bias.

edit: the idea that the transition from the red-line modeled predictions in 2010 to the green-line modeled predictions in 2011 to the blue-line modeled predictions in 2012 does not raise serious alarm bells about the quality/veracity of these models seems to me quite a foreign concept. don't see how anyone who is rational and has even a slight grasp on math can look at that and not have serious concerns about the science behind these things. and then on top of that be okay with Nature magazine completely ignoring the 2012 model in a news report because apparently it's not ~scarey~ enough for the story they are trying to write.

Um, no.

Climate models will continue to be wrong for a long time, and for good cause: they are the most complex endeavor ever attempted by man. So if you're argument is "climate models are wrong, therefore global warming isn't real," then that simply isn't clear thinking. The accuracy of climate models has nothing to do with the accuracy of the reality of global warming.

I guess my post was too oblique, I'll be more direct. I know the 2 graphs show the same thing, my entire point was that the first one would never be used to dispute warming because it doesn't have a big pretty blue line pointing down.

Saying that the "UK Met now predict temperature will be .5C(!) less in 5 years " is inaccurate - their forecast is an ensemble that includes 10 model runs. Furthermore, the forecast itself says nothing about long-term climate sensitivity - by their own words. So it is not relevant to make a case against climate sensitivity modeling.

What?

This is just wrong. Those factors play a huge part in year-to-year temperatures. They are also not that easy to predict, which is why a short-term forecast has a lot of variability.

How about give us some scientific papers instead of interviews for magazines or blogs or whatnot? So far, what you've posted to back up your claims that warming is slowing or absent:

- A graph from a leaked, incomplete report whose authors, in that same report, conclude that temperature modeling and our detection of anthropogenic changes are still accurate.
- A graph from a short-term forecast, ignoring 90% of the forecast, that doesn't say anything about long term climate sensitivity anyway.
- Interviews with random people.

I guess I was onto something here.

Models are science. They have error bands. They are testable hypotheses. They are fallible/falsifiable. If they aren't falsifiable, as you seem to be suggesting by arguing they are in a perpetual state of being wrong for some indefinite period, then they have ceased being science and are instead some totem pole of faith.

They are not "the most complex endeavor ever attempted by man" but I don't really see the point in arguing over this. I'll agree that they are extremely complex, but this simply further drives home the point that the accuracy of models should be monitored closely. And if the models are inaccurate and completely detached from observations -- as has been the case for many, many years now -- then that deficiency should be loudly acknowledged and debated.

Your final two sentences represents a straw man argument. Don't put words in my mouth. Doubling atmospheric CO2 increases the global temperature by 1 degree C (or less). Everything else beyond that represents hypothetical predictions by climate models in the form of climate feedbacks.

I touched on this earlier, but the graph you posted and the difference in the models shown in that graph has nothing to do with models that determine climate sensitivity. That's because these models are tuned to initials conditions, which is extremely hard to do.


Again, you are claiming that long term forecasts must be wrong because short term forecasts are wrong. But these are different skills requiring different sets of knowledge. We don't know how to predict short term fluctuations very well at all. There's much better confidence in the ability to predict long term trends because you don't need to pin down the initial conditions and you don't need to get complex short-term ocean circulations exactly right.