@SBF
I'm talking about the temperature figures that have not risen as expected.
Link please - are you talking about deep or mid ocean temperatures, lower or upper atmospheric temperatures or land or sea surface temperatures?
IPCC Climate Change Report........
by cantleave 153 Replies latest social current
-
besty
-
slimboyfat
Surface temperature, like the graph you posted, partially at first.
-
bohm
SBF: I'm talking about the temperature figures that have not risen as expected.
"Im talking about the data which proove me right! That data! Can someone find it plz?"
SBF: Why does it annoy you so much that others don't find global warming totally convincing?
the #1 troll response...
-
slimboyfat
Is there a way in which a difference of opinion on this subject could be expressed that you would not find offensive?
-
besty
Surface temperature, like the graph you posted, partially at first.
Ok to me that graph shows a rising trendline. (for now lets ignore all other global warming metrics and empirical evidence and just focus on one metric..but thats ok - its best to look at evidence in isolation isnt it?)
So humour me and provide a link to your assertion that climate scientists inaccurately predicted hotter surface temperatures - a peer reviewed paper or named source at least would be great. Thanks in advance.
-
slimboyfat
It's not some obscure measure I'm picking on, it's the widely remarked upon failure of temperatures to rise as expected. It's what everyone's been talking about.
-
-
bohm
SBF:
The basic problem here is you are propagating a lie. Take your Spiegel article:
One cause of this shift, presumably, is the fact that global warming seems to be taking a break. The average global temperature hasn't risen in 15 years, a deviation from climatologists' computer-simulated predictions.
This is a difficult state of affairs for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which will release its next assessment report on global warming on Friday, Sept. 27.
To fact-check that against the actual AR5 report from IPCC which the article pretend to represent:
In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits
substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability,
trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in
general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15
years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is
smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5.So the temperature HAS risen, the degree it has risen just depend on the start dates for the linear regression and are affected on the short scale by cyclic effects like El-Nino. This is why climate scientist base projections over long-time trends.
Yet Das Spiegel contain the lie the temperature has not risen according to AR5, and you repeat the lie because it suit your bias.
-
bohm
I will strongly encourage anyone who are on the fence to at least skim through the AR5 report and take a glance at the figures at the end. The actual science is very clear, it is only when it is put through layers upon layers of lies and delibrate misrepresentation it come out as something mysterious.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
-
besty
@SBF
it's the widely remarked upon failure of temperatures to rise as expected.
Der Spiegel gets the title of their graphic wrong.
Global Temperature Changes
*Global Surface Temperature Changes - fixed that for you.
It's difficult to understand the Der Spiegel graphic - all the prediction lines seem to originate in 1990, except the 2007 prediction which seems to go back to 2000. All the prediction lines seem to end around 2016. Do all the IPCC predictions end in 2016?
Also they are using HadCRUT4 temperature data which was only released in April 2012. Do you know why they chose this dataset out of the 3 or 4 choices for global surface temperature datasets available? I am keen to know why you think you can compare 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 IPCC predictions with temperature data released in 2012.
Are you saying this graphic accurately represents the IPCC literature, and could withstand a cross-examination from climate scientists?
Nobody is denying there has been a pause in rising surface temperature acceleration in the time frame considered by Der Spiegel. This is the trouble with taking one metric in isolation and considering a cherry-picked timeframe. You ignore the bigger picture (deep ocean heat content and overall energy imbalance in the global system) and you ignore all empirical evidence (you know ...the Artic melting away, earlier springs in the Northern Hemisphere etc) and you ignore decadal timeframes infavour of focusing on a noisy signal. ("The Artic has recovered!" every other year, ignoring that its 60% down in the last decade)
If you want a prediction from me - the Der Spiegel article will come back from the grave around 2030 when it will be used as evidence that scientists were confused by the global cooling that was evidently taking place.
But go ahead - find a media source that mirrors your views and read away. You were right all along...