Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Revie

Not the same thing. When you are comparing the current hiatus to the CGAWers predictions, you are talking about a very short time span and the failure of the CGAWers computer models.

- - - Updated - - -

That is certainly not something proven or a sure thing. In fact the current hiatus has proved the models wrong and introduced more uncertainty and more focus on natural variability.

 

Wrong on both counts - that we have had a "hiatus" since 2013 is down as the seventh warmest year on record and the models were not wrong

 

Are you serious?

Climate in Northern Europe Reconstructed for the Past 2,000 Years: Cooling Trend Calculated Precisely for the First Time

July 9, 2012 — An international team that includes scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.


The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age. (Credit: Illustration/Copyright: Institute of Geography, JGU)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm

 

[h=1]Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time[/h] [h=3]Calculations prepared by Mainz scientists will also influence the way current climate change is perceived / Publication of results in Nature Climate Change[/h] Ill./©: Institute of Geography
The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

And a few thousand similar results can be found here:
https://www.google.es/search?q=2000...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=i3_jUv-YMIOQ7AbN3ICIAQ

 

Previous change isn't relevant?
The fastest climate change in geological history took 20,000 years for a massive release of methane to raise global temperature by 6º C.

Do you honestly believe that a few tonnes of CO2 could achieve the same result in less than a century?

 

Not even the IPCC buys that one, the hiatus is since 1998.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if the big boys agreed with each other on warmest years:

 

You are sure of that? Despite the fact that the IPCC does not do analysis like this - you are sure of that?

Tell you what - how about you tell me which page this grand statement is on
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UuQqZqUm44Y

 

Soooooooo - NOAA and NASA disagree by 0.02% Does this not mean that they are being honest? Could it not mean they are using different data sets?

 

Therein lies a problem, don't you think?

 

Nope! - Different data sets

 

"A better trend is a complete one instead of a cherry picked start date"-Hoosier8

 

So you still don't see a problem?

- - - Updated - - -

When discussing the hiatus in respect to the IPCC proposed computer forecast warming, the date the hiatus started is pertinent.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the error of measurement for temperature ground station readings is about 0.1C. Thus every one of those measurements above are statistically indistinguishable from one another.

I also believe that both NASA and NOAA use the same data source (there are only so many ground temperature stations), but apply different "adjustments".

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

 

hypocritical cherry picking...

 

They do it independently so will get slightly different results - this is so they cannot be accused of "group think"

 

Well, if that is what the IPCC is doing, then so be it.

 

Yep, they can't even agree on the order of warmest years.

 

I hope you don't get accused of "hypocritical cherry picking... " for posting that highly informative and important information.

 

Let me get back to basics to expose the cherry-picking of the pseudo-scientists:
Global warming is caused by the energy from the sun being unable to be radiated back to space because of the GHGs in the atmosphere. The extra energy causes the atmosphere to warm, the ground to warm, the water to warm and the ice to melt. By focusing on the decreased warming of the atmosphere, the pseudos are exhibiting a classic case of cherry-picking data; they are ignoring the energy being retained by the water and soil and the energy causing the melting of the ice. Simple analogy: Turn down the thermostat to a "perfectly insulated" house in the winter in NH. Maintain the air temperature at 5C until the furniture and water in the bathtub are all at 5C. Now turn the furnace on until the air temperature reaches 20C. Question: Will the temperature of the furniture be 20C at the time the air temperature reaches 20C? Of the water in the bathtub? If the furnace is kept off and no heat escapes, what will happen to the air temperature? Why?
If you can answer these questions and understand the concept of the conservation of energy, then you can join in in an informed discussion of the "lack of warming". If you cannot answer the questions correctly and still maintain that the "lack of warming" disproves AGW, you're just repeating the strawman built by the pseudo-scientific blogs.

 

That is the theory. Simple analogies work for simple systems not wicked systems like the climate. Now that the computer models have not predicted the hiatus in warming based on that theory more emphasis is being put on natural variability.

 

Sorry! Conservation of Energy always works.

 

Sorry, the current theory has not panned out as predicted and proven by the hiatus.

 

Having great intelligence or specialized knowledge isn’t assurance against a person remaining unbiased in their public opinions.

 

Actually, it was the global warmers who cherry picked the temperature of the atmosphere for their dire predictions. And the warmers who now want to distance themselves from what they themselves cherry picked, because their dire predictions as to the atmospheric temperature haven't occurred.