Dang 13ball, he's actually right!!

So, what's going on with Arctic ice this year?

Arctic ice gap grows 60% in past year

you aren't even responding to what i said....namely that there is little if any ANTHROPOGENIC signal in the sea ice data

we have 34 years of sea ice data, a time period where AMO has flipped from deeply negative to positive: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...scillation.svg

plus when i said "aorn" i was referring to 2013 sea ice measurements, which is roughly analogous to the 1979-1983 time period.

what exactly is there to predict about ENSO that would shift in the long-term

its a naturally occurring oscillation. this oscillation is already baked in to climate models; you can see this when you look at the hindcasts of the 80s and 90s.

plus the idea that negative ENSO has suppressed temperature in the past decade presupposes that it wasn't positive ENSO that was instead enhancing temperature in the previous two decades. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif

climate scientists really tripping over themselves to chalk up the hiatus to everything but the simplest conclusion: that there were/are lolhorrible assumptions about climate sensitivity

Without (old) Yamal or Mann's bristlecone pines, there is no spike relative to the MWP.

Please feel free to post a proxy reconstruction that does not feature either one and goes back to the year 1000 with proper resolution to discern a MWP.

If there are "hundreds"(!!!), should be easy to locate.

gjge: http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....k_excerpt2.png

Sounds perfect!

I guess that exponential growth is just right around the corner. Any month now we're gonna start.

By what physical process would this occur on a "very, very bad" scale? You can't just mash together random words, make them sound scary, and expect to get it past readers who have a clue.

Who said anything about the long term? Correcting for short-term events like a volcanic eruption or the ENSO switching cycles has nothing to do with the long-term. The long-term trend here is the same with or without those corrections:



What? You can clearly see in the above graph that they corrected El Nino years downwards in the same way that they adjusted La Nina years upwards. There is plenty of warming there after you remove the El Nino influences of the past few decades.

There is no hiatus.

click on and examine this image that shows temperature data graphed against climate model predictions.

focus in on 2001 onward

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-c...rison_2020.png

there has been a 13 year hiatus by any objective measure

Additionally, the Met Office's newest climate model (a short-term 5 year model) projects temperature out to 2018 and forecasts that the "hiatus" will last until 2018 at least (the blue line in this graph): http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....mparison11.png

Why focus on 2001 onward? What makes 13 years a good period to measure?

I know why. Because it lets you start counting with El Nino inflated years and finish counting with La Nina depressed years. It's a textbook case of selective endpoints. Just look at your ENSO graph and model graphs on top of each other:

i love how you say i selectively picked endpoints but i picked a negative ENSO year for your benefit. i guess i could start with a positive enso year of 1998, but that would be misleading imho. can't win with you. every year i pick is going to be "selective" when the fact of the matter is that the 13 most recent years in temperature data have shown no trend whatsoever.

also gotta love just randomly pasting graphs (wrongly) onto other graphs. your years don't line up properly.

plus the temperature trends are 36 month smoothed to attempt to remove ENSO signals (1998 should've tipped you off to that, in addition to it being written in clear letters)

either way you slice it, the hiatus is real, significant, acknowledged, and demonstrates a clear problem for the accuracy of climate modeling going forward

come to terms with your science, math, and statistics denial/ignorance; it is unbecoming

you also can't forget the context of recent temperature observations

temperature is supposed to be increasing ----> ~~~EXPONENTIALLY~~~ <----- according to the climate models

It isn't random - there is clearly a correlation between the ENSO anomalies and the temperature observations and it is pretty much 100% relevant to our argument here.

Sure they do. I didn't just slap them on there. I welcome any sort of proof for this claim.

The graph says nothing about attempting to remove ENSO signals and clearly doesn't accomplish that - unless you think that the correlation shown is purely coincidental?

The "hiatus" is a short-term result from surface temperature measurements - just one part of the picture. It doesn't represent a "hiatus" or "pause" of global warming. Scientists have published papers using that exact data and come to the conclusion that the climate modeling is still accurate. No matter how you try to dress it up, this "hiatus" is a red herring that has no significant effect on long-term climate modeling. It is just fuel for "skeptic" blogs to keep their hits coming. You can find many ~10 year periods over the last century that show a "hiatus". It is meaningless.

A sure sign of a good argument is finishing it off with an ad hominem. Well done.

So with 2001 being an negative ENSO year, you would say that my choice of that was to "start counting with El Nino inflated years"? I mean you clearly are just talking out of your ass.

Secondly, 2012 in your graph is deep blue, but it was a slightly positive ENSO year. That's even just taking for granted that you are randomly pasting graphs with completely different Y-Axis measurements directly on top of one another.

I'd say that the graph does a fairly great job of removing ENSO signals. You may want to re-look at your own Frankenstein creation.

You can indeed forget them. The idea that temperature measurements on a yearly scale - much less a monthly scale - mean anything in the context of long-term climate modeling is flat out wrong. Using recent observations to counter those models is akin to sticking your head out of the window and sayings "its cold outside today, where's the warming?!"

It really warms the cockles of my heart that hiatus denial appears to be the new tenet of climate alarmism.

A cotton pickin shame that it would take multiple decades for climate bets to pay off, or I'd be unloading my entire roll, Presidential election style.

Lol. So how many years do you want to use? 10? 20? 30? 40?

Go hog wild: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-c...0Years_ar5.png

Every single starting point is way below the models, and many outside of the 95% confidence intervals (i.e. the MODELS REJECT!)

The dates line up at the midline of the ENSO graph. It is rotated, so the blue and red lines are obviously shooting out at an angle.

These nitpicks are missing the point, which was to show the clear correlation between the ENSO cycle and those observations. Is my 'frankenstein' really so confusing that it doesn't communicate that? Or are you saying that the correlation doesn't exist?

The fact that we just went through some of the strongest La Nina years that we've had in decades makes it really easy to peer back through the records and find x-years where the surface temperature hasn't risen. It just isn't the smoking gun that you're making it out to be.

A good video? We're not even a minute in, and a graph on the scale of hunderds of thousands of years is being disproved because of temperature developments of the last few decades and a cold winter in 2012. How do you take that seriously?

If you're interested in a good video, watch some Michael Crichton. The guy was directly on the money with respect to climate models, and I agree with him wholeheartedly comparing attitudes toward climate and attitudes toward poverty, which implies that "solutions" aren't motivated by altruism but rather by political ends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzTPPl05Wok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJJsDtSHjdE (and part 3 too)

Both videos are old, but excellent. He asks every pertinent question and makes every salient point. I love that he says he didn't want to take the stance because he was a Democrat and it would alienate a lot of his friends, but decided to do it because he felt like a coward. He took a lot of **** for it, but he is going to be proved correct in that 40 year span he referenced imho. Sadly not alive to see it.

In that same vein, that top picture should be printed out, laminated, and glued to the forehead of anyone claiming that the models are accurate.

This just isn't true. Show me a reconstruction that doesn't use those proxies.

There are hundreds of proxies, not hundreds of reconstructions.

First, Yamal was not used in the first and second Mann papers. If you notice, the Yamal chronology was not created until after those papers were released. If you want to know the full proxy list for something like Mann '08, read the paper and the SI.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The physical process is the same for any short term transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere--El Nino for example.

Normal variation? Sea ice is heavily affected by weather, so there are plenty of ups and downs from year to year. The long term trend is way down and seems to be accelerating.

The funny thing is that you saw tons of these articles a few years ago after a record setting ice loss. And then we went and set another record last year.

As for the "global warming hiatus" argument, that may be somewhat true if you only consider surface temperatures. However ocean warming is accelerating:

What?? Hahaha, there is a million square miles more ice now in the arctic than a year ago. The warmists won't give up no matter how long there is no global warming and no matter how much the ice recovers.

Ocean warming is accelerating but ice in the arctic and antarctic is growing. You warmists never give up. Please explain the increases in antarctic ice for many years.

I call bs,

There aren't any that strike me off the top of my head, which was the point I was making.

Here's McIntyre's crack at Mann 08 without bristlecones and without his upside down sediment proxy.http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....figure9_nh.gif

Not much of a hockey stick.

Gavin said that "Under either method (CPS or EIV) it is not possible to get a validated reconstruction to before 1500 without the use of tree rings, or the Tijlander sediments" which gives you your response from their perspective (that a reconstruction isn't possible to the MWP without either one).

Hundreds of proxies? Your keyboard is cashing checks that you aren't going to be able to back up. I will repeat again to you, there are two principal proxies for 1000+ year reconstructions: Yamal and bristlecone pines. Whether you believe me or not is your own deal. Feel free to do your own research. Or you can just look at the coauthors for the spaghetti graphs in AR4 and the soon to be published AR5 and put two and two together.

I'll repeat back your statement to you: "There are many possible explanations for why the models are currently biased warm. The oceans are taking up more heat. If they release that heat, the warming can still be very, very bad instead of just very bad."

The last sentence is invented bull**** that appears to have no basis in any fact other than it probably sounded good when you wrote it.