Also, this is egregiously wrong. Feedback from increased water vapor is well-established observationally as is ice-albedo feedback. And estimates from past glaciations are not consistent without feedbacks.

All of the lines are modeled means. Just click on the link in the original post (or here), and read the first comment. Steve literally pasted the code to replicating his graph.

Regardless of your own lack of understanding, it is factually correct to state that the decadal modeling by UK's Met Office has decreased the forecast for January 2018 by .5C from their 2010 version of the model to the 2012 version of the model.

Further, if their most recent model is correct for January 2018, that'd be nearly two decades of a 0 trend in global climate.

No, it's not wrong. The models incorporate natural variability, and there hasn't been some unprecedented/unforeseen event in the past 10 years like a large volcanic eruption that would seriously depress temperature such that your argument makes any sense.

Let's be crystal clear about the bolded line.

I have pointed to observations of temperature which show virtually a 0 trend since 2001. This is an observable and undisputed fact, one that you can verify yourself by looking at the NOAA or Hadley CRU or UAH or RSS or GISS data sets.

You are in denial of reality/science/math/graphs/etc.

And if cloud cover is a negative feedback and swamps the other feedbacks?

Estimates of what?

This is deflection, though...because you're being obtuse about what defines short- and long-term. You offer up no differentiation.

Let's say temperature moves exactly like the Met Office predicts and we have roughly 17 years of stasis (or 20 years if you go back to 98's El Nino). Is 20 years still handwaved away via "short-term fluctuation"? At what point do you question the methodological underpinnings of the models?

If I could word it with a bit of editorializing: exactly how long are you going to cling to broken models?

To me you're just playing a shell game with time periods with this defense. What's not to say that 1985 to 1998 was the anomalous 13 years and the previous 13 years are the norm?

Which still would tell us nothing about long-term climate sensitivity, regardless of what you want it to tell us.

This is just false and is a great example of how important factors such as the ENSO cycle are. Temperatures peaked in 1997-1998 thanks in large part to a strong El Nino, which conveniently gives you an arbitrary endpoint to claim a "0 trend" in global climate. What is the trend if you measure from 1996? 1985? This is one of the most elementary tricks in the book.

The problems with using a simple chart of global surface temperatures to judge climate sensitivity have been repeated over and over.

- Short-range trends say little about long-range climate sensitivity
- Surface temperature is just a single point of measurement in climate change
- Forcing from things like ENSO, Solar Cycles, etc, DOES have a big impact on temperatures in the short-term
- It is possible to adjust for these things - you can't just hand-wave it away as "hypothetical" science

A chart with observed surface temperatures by itself says nothing about anthropogenic warming trends.

You have presented zero evidence against anthropogenic warming trends at all.

Fear not everyone, the cataclysmic warming is coming at some future, undetermined date even though the climate models have all been hilariously biased warm for the past decade+ so much so that they're pretty much falsified.

lol @ trying to straw man me with 1997/1998. You and Hector are co-captains of the SS Fallacy I guess.

I've used 2000/2001 as a comparison point since entering the thread, which is the opposite of a cherry picked endpoint. It's the starting point of the AR4 models. You see, we can compare what the models PREDICT versus what we actually OBSERVE. This is called PRACTICING SCIENCE and DOING MATH. I realize you have displayed a denial of these tenets, but not all of us can live in such ignorance.

The idea that we have such a firm grasp on climate sensitivity that we should be ignoring 13-14 year pauses in temperature rise is beyond stupid. Not least of which because the IPCC tells us that they do not have a firm grasp on climate sensitivity in the section on climate sensitivity.

That laundry list of events you keep rattling off (ENSO, solar, natural variability) is ALREADY FACTORED INTO THE MODELS. Look at the hindcasts! They replicate temperature! Then, through magic of some kind (surely its magic and not science!), when they start "predicting", suddenly everything goes haywire. Ah, it must be that damned natural variability getting in the way!!! The models are still highly accurate, of course.

We're arguing in circles here and, if I am being blunt, you are far out or your depth in terms of knowledge of this issue. Hence I am resorting to caps lock to try to communicate basic concepts.

Extremely unlikely.

Climate sensitivity. Even if you throw out models we have observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Estimates from the 20th century are slightly lower than estimates from past glaciations and the PETM, but these estimates are still worrisome.


Short term estimates require you to know the initial conditions. You don't need to know initial conditions to predict long term climate trends (say 30 year trends) because the internal (unforced) variability cancels out in the long run.

Such a flat trend over a lengthy time period might affect climate sensitivity estimates to a certain degree, but there is still a lot of other evidence that CS is higher than the no-feedback number. You can't throw that evidence away.

The most likely value for the norm would be given by looking at all 26 years. There's no reason to throw away data. Models may underestimate swings in unforced variability, or models may overestimate warming, but that doesn't mean they have no value or that warming won't continue to be a problem into the future.

First, 12 years is still a very short time period. If you don't believe me look at the differences between trends if you start from 2000 instead. Adding just one year of data still makes a large difference.

Second, those data-sets do not agree. In fact it looks like the highest and lowest disagree by about 0.10 degC/decade, which is only slightly smaller than the discrepancy between the models and the average of all observations over the same time period.

Straw-man me about the cataclysm and then blame me of the same.. touche I guess.

Yes! This is the most true thing you've said. A model could do the following:
- Accurately model the effect of the ENSO cycle on surface temperatures
- Accurately model the effect of volcanos on surface temperatures
- Accurately model the effect of CO2 on surface temperatures

And STILL not verify 5 years out. Why? Because they can't predict which volcano will erupt or what phase of the ENSO cycle we will be in very far out. If the model says we will be in a moderate El Nino in 5 years and it turns out we are in a strong La Nina - the temperatures will be vastly different. This doesn't say anything about the temperature modeling, just the ability to predict the ENSO cycle.

So you've failed to supply any real science to back up your assertions and resorted to ad hominem instead. Good show. It's going to take a lot more than caps lock to convince me that you can analyze these graphs better than the scientists who published them.

Scientific paper that produces the graph: The temperature models are good, results still support anthropogenic warming trends.
You: The models are hilariously biased and pretty much falsified.

I liked everything about that post except the mention of MSG, which was a scare caused by the media that lead to the nocebo effect on lots of people. I still had to make this image due to the lols.

Wow, someone on here can at least think for himself and have an open mind. All these other fools want to worship at the altar of AGW, no matter how many years of no warming in a row we have. In a few more years there will be young people playing at the WSOP who have had no global warming in their entire lives.

There are six major temperature data sets, RSS, UAH, Hadcrut3, Hadcrut 4, GISS and NOAA. Below is shown for how many years for each data set there has been zero statistically significant warming.

For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.122 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.139 +/- 0.165 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.107 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.105 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.086 +/- 0.103 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

So would any of you care to advise me as to why the ice in the antarctic is growing and has been for a long time? Antarctic sea ice is around 1 million sq km above the anomaly.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

I know there is less ice in the north, but it is very interesting to me that it has been gaining in the south.

Who signs your check, jonesy? How much does a gig like this pay?

I notice you never respond to any of the facts, huh? Why is that, are those troublesome facts to hard for you? If you don't agree, please point out how I am wrong. I have an open mind, I would love to see some substantive response from you. If you are capable of such.

Generate a post history that makes me think you are something other than a paid shill and I will engage you.

OK, I will totally ignore you from now on. Clown.

Putting aside the fact that temperatures alone don't say anything, let me use one of your examples to make a counter point.

For UAH: +0.49 C/decade over the last 13 years
For UAH: +0.375 C/decade over the last 16 years
For UAH: +0.375 C/decade over the last 20 years
For UAH: +1.10 C/decade over the last 5 years!



It's easy. You can find whatever trend you want!

I guess that is a joke the way you drew those lines. I certainly laughed.

But that is the exact way to produce a list of stats like the one you just posted. Just move around the starting time (1990, 1994, 1995, etc..) and you can make it say whatever you want.

You can't make it whatever you want. But certainly you can get different results. But you should also admit that the climate models have all predicted much higher temperatures, and many of the climatologists are now expressing much concern over this.

Further, 16 years and counting is starting to be very significant without warming.

Suzzer busted into ZZ's account.

****in' meter maids, amirite? Ask me about my trainer!

Seriously, it's known fact that shilling is a real thing and that there are 2+2ers who do it. Is jonesy one of them? idk, but... that post history...

But there isn't 16 years without warming. I just showed that there has been a ton of warming in the last 13 years.

The scientists producing the actual research in this field aren't expressing concern over the models.

Honestly I thought the shill thing was a myth.