The Global Warming Thread

In other words, he's saying that the data only supports a range that is below that purported by the IPCC. QED.

Yet, it's a post by me, quoting the IPCC report itself, which is proven wrong by the data. You asked me for proof that the IPCC was wrong, not for a scientist. I don't need a scientist to tell me that. All I have to do is to look at the actual temperature data, data that is not controversial. So every scientist publishing this data, or using it in his own research is in effect stating that he believes the IPCC to be wrong. No matter which temperature record you use, be it the MetOffice or GISS or whatever, the warming rate of the last 15 years is WAY below the IPCC's lower boundary of 0.15°C per decade and it has been for 16 years now. And this isn't even the IPCC's "best estimate" which is much higher still.

Well, after debunking Dana's response to Judith Curry in which every single claim he made was a lie, I don't have much faith in him.
But be that as it may, this is what he writes:

Which is exactly what I predicted you'd present. QED. I guess I'm better at this predicting thingy than the IPCC.

As for Tamino, he doesn't even look at the latest numbers of the AR4 (the 4th assessment report, i.e. the 2007 IPCC report), instead, he only looks at the first three IPCC reports, so right off the bat his post is already irrelevant. And even then, it only goes right down the middle of the second report's prediction and even there only after he offset them by -0.1°C, which I admit makes kinda sense though. On the other hand, he justifies this by stating that 1990 was exceptional (which is true to a degree) but then the same could be said for the short cooling spell that followed, caused by the Mt Pinatubo eruption which is certainly more exceptional than anything happening in 1990 in terms of the climate. Since he doesn't present any reasons for why he chose to offset the predictions by -0.1°C and not any other number, like -0.03°C, his entire conclusion is dodgy at best.
And still, the first report is way off, albeit with massive margins of error while the third is somewhat better, but the observed numbers are still in the lower spectrum of its predicted range, below its "best estimate".

I didn't need to debunk anything as they didn't actually say anything that needed debunking, i.e. that contradicted anything I said. Tamino's entire post was a non sequitur while Dana even admitted that the IPCC projections are likely to be false in the very blogpost you provided as "evidence" for your claims, supporting what I've been saying all along.
As I said a million times, the actual data is not controversial, it's all about interpretation. Yet here you are, denying the data. I'm starting to think that the term "global warming denier" should be applied to both extremes of the spectrum...


Speaking of which, let's look at what the other side has to say:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/

Obviously, these folks are biased towards the opposite side as Dana & Co, that's why I tend not to post anything from that source on here. But in this article, all they do is to present the data of the various temperature records:

Now compare that to what the NOAA Climate Report of 2008 has to say, using the latest IPCC results:

See page 23 of the report:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf


Also, since we're talking about published scientists, here's a recent article published in the PNAS:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058

From the Abstract:

Again, more and more puzzle pieces fall into place.

As I said, I don't see any disagreement. Nuccitelli even literally said that the IPCC predictions are likely to be wrong. It's you who's in need of doing some debunking, not me.

BTW, I actually did do some stats, remember?

When he says that the actual development has been lower than the predictions, then I'd say it doesn't get any clearer than that.

His headline is merely rhetoric. It can mean anything, depending on what you compare it to, just like the headlines at Wattsupwiththat are rhetoric from the other side. I see both of them as ideologically motivated. Both try to make the data fit their world view, not the other way round.

All I'm saying is that we should take the actual observations seriously. And they've simply proven the IPCC wrong.

There is no discrepancy. Yes, the long term trend is still pointing upwards and I don't think that will change, however, the "short term trend" (if you want to call 15+ years short term) still proves the IPCC wrong. According to them, this should not be possible (see the link to the NOAA report in my previous post). This is because up until the 4th (and so far last) IPCC report, it was claimed that humanity was responsible for nearly all the warming that we've seen. This view is taking severe hits though, as the paper I linked to in my previous post shows.

The challenge is to create good long term predictions, but in order to do that, we need a grip on what causes the current warming hiatus. Depending on the cause, the gradient of curve describing the long term prediction may be very different which would influence our strategy going forward.

To give an example:
Let's go back to the year 2000 and assume that 100% of the warming since 1950 has been due to CO2 emissions. based on that, we predict a temperature development. That is what the IPCC has done and has stuck to (although according to the leaks of AR5, they are slowly backing away from that position).

Now let's say that at that we assume that only 50% of the warming has been due to CO2 emissions and the rest was due to natural developments that will even out eventually. Then the predicted temperature development would only be rising half as fast, leading to increasing discrepancies the further you go into the future.

There's no doubt that human CO2 emissions warm the earth, but the longer this warming hiatus lasts, the more doubt it casts over the IPCC, while positions like the one in the paper I linked to saying that our contribution has been exaggerated by a factor of two become ever more likely.

First of all, once again I don't see a disagreement in the basics. Where we disagree is in the interpretation. So if anything, I'd have to do a statistics blog, not a climate blog. But then there are others who are already doing it and who have a lot more formal training on the matter than I do. Articles like the one published in the PNAS will do more than an obscure blog ever could.

Also, I simply enjoy debating, be it on BigSoccer or elsewhere. It makes me happy to be challenged and to think things through and to challenge others in return. Plus, there's always the chance of learning more.

Well as I said, I wouldn't trust them on their conclusions, but their data is accurate.
Goes to show what a difference the presentation of data can make.
Of course they pick data supporting their views, but then the other side is doing the same, so it can be healthy to have a look. If the post turns out to be a joke, then it should be easy to refute. If it's not, then you have something to ponder about.

What exactly was refuted?

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

Benztown has brought more information to this discussion than anyone in a long long time. Id trade your contributions for his in a nanosecond. But cool pic brah.

True, true... and not ALL of it has been wrong and/or incomplete.

Surely, that's an argument for starting all over again, isn't it? The circle of life, and all that.

While the site the blogpost was on isn't exactly objective, the post itself focused on the data which is objective. Sure, the tone was very one-sided, but I can see nothing wrong with the data presented. They quoted the IPCC report saying that the models rule out a 15 year streak of non-warming while showing that no matter which temperature record we take, we have long exceeded that time interval.

These are facts, crank site or not.

Now that does not mean that we should come to the same conclusion as the people hosting that blog, but it does mean that skepticism is in order when the same models that rule out a 15 year warming hiatus are used to scare us about massive future warming. These models obviously underestimated natural influences and it's not just cranks pointing that out. I provided numerous examples, from the Norwegian paper that got so much media attention to the PNAS paper which should have gotten some media attention.
I've quoted "alarmists" (for lack of a better word) who admit that the warming pause is real and that climate sensitivity goes down as a result. Even your go-to guy admitted that the real development has been below IPCC predictions. That he still finds these predictions exceptionally accurate is his opinion. He certainly isn't talking about "accuracy" in the scientific sense. In science, predictions are usually represented by Gauß-curves. High accuracy is achieved when the real measurements fall close to the middle of that Gauß-curve. In this case, real measurements have been completely outside the Gauß-curve, as they've been significantly below the lower boundary of the predictions. Scientifically, that's everything but accurate.
Therefore he must have spoken colloquially, in which case it's nothing more than an opinion and highly relative, depending on what you compare it to. Yes, it was highly accurate compared to predictions made by looking at bird entrails and certainly a lot more precise. But that doesn't change the fact that the models are proven wrong, so much so, that other scientists (real ones, not cranks) say that the IPCC models overestimated the human contribution by a factor of 2...that's 100% more than the real value if they turn out to be correct.

So please, try to debunk all that, so far, I haven't seen anything come close, only non-sequiturs like digging up an old prediction that turns out to be remarkably accurate once you subtract 0.1°C from its results, or arguments that try to explain the discrepancies as "merely" the result of natural variance which, while true, is the entire point, since according to the IPCC, natural variance shouldn't be able to have such a big effect.

I'm no scientist but all this talk of "predicting the curve" just sounds like measuring varying degrees of bad.

Benztown it sounds to me like you refuse to see the forest because of all the trees in the way

This.
Whichever way you look at it, there are negative impacts on the climate that are man made, and we need to be confronting them - not arguing over how deep we are in or simply burying our heads in the sand.