• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Non-linearity of Global Temperature Changes

Jack Hays said:
[h=1]How Imminent is the RSS Pause? (Now Includes January and February Data)[/h]Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Extended Comments from Barry and Edited by Just The Facts UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) are two major satellite groups that provide monthly climate anomalies. From January 1998 to January 2016
Click to expand...


So you've just decided to pretend that the rest of 2016 - the third consecutive hottest year on record - does not exist? Yeah, that's gonna convince everyone :roll:

trend




It's been pointed out many times previously that the satellite records - measuring tropospheric rather than surface temperatures - tend respond a lot more to rapid ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges such as ENSO than the surface records do. Even given that fact, UAH v5.6 showed a higher 13-month peak after the 2009/10 El Nino than the larger 1997/98 El Nino. With the update to v6beta that has been corrected. But even after those updates, the 2015/16 El Nino (slightly smaller than the 1997/98 one) has exceeded all previous records even in the tropospheric temperatures and proven even more than had already been the case that the 'pause' was a temporary phenomenon at best.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
So you've just decided to pretend that the rest of 2016 - the third consecutive hottest year on record - does not exist? Yeah, that's gonna convince everyone :roll:

trend
Click to expand...

There has been no claim that temperatures did not rise. The linked articles speculate when a new Pause will begin.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not at all. SS offered the contrast as a straight-up "reality vs deniers" comparison. Too late now to say they didn't mean it.
Click to expand...

Once again I must inform you:

They meant what they said, you just don't understand what they said.
 
Jack Hays said:
There has been no claim that temperatures did not rise. The linked articles speculate when a new Pause will begin.
Click to expand...

They speculate on whether that same 'pause' from the early/mid 2000s or late 1990s depending on source selection - which is now ended, though your quoted snippets and particularly your selected graph attempt to obfuscate that fact - might ever return.

C'mon buddy, can't you even muster up enough enthusiasm for the stuff you parrot to at least glance over it? You're giving us a pretty clear indication of its value right there.
 
Mithrae said:
They speculate on whether that same 'pause' from the early/mid 2000s or late 1990s depending on source selection - which is now ended, though your quoted snippets and particularly your selected graph attempt to obfuscate that fact - might ever return.

C'mon buddy, can't you even muster up enough enthusiasm for the stuff you parrot to at least glance over it? You're giving us a pretty clear indication of its value right there.
Click to expand...

The posts say what they say. There is nothing in your presentation above that is inconsistent with either the posts or my comments.
 
Jack Hays said:
I do not believe that is a true or accurate statement.
Click to expand...

I already showed you the proof. Straight from the article that graphic appears in. They're telling you what they mean, and you are choosing to believe they meant something else.
 
Deuce said:
I already showed you the proof. Straight from the article that graphic appears in. They're telling you what they mean, and you are choosing to believe they meant something else.
Click to expand...

Because they meant something other than your claim.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because they meant something other than your claim.
Click to expand...

Post 19 is proof you are wrong. It's their own words. Are you denying their exact words?
 
Jack Hays said:
The posts say what they say. There is nothing in your presentation above that is inconsistent with either the posts or my comments.
Click to expand...

So you agree with my assertions A) that the 'pause' was a major talking point and B) that there no longer exists a 'pause' in the temperature records?

Your links explicitly confirm the latter and strongly suggest the former... just interested to see if you will confirm them too :)

Like I said to Threegoofs, I don't see this thread as mere trolling - rather an attempt to come to terms with this turn of events. It's unfortunate that Watts wanted to spin it as an attack on some other climate science website, or his dilemma might have received a more charitable response even from folk less fair-minded than I.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Post 19 is proof you are wrong. It's their own words. Are you denying their exact words?
Click to expand...

Post #19 is actually beside the point. That link, btw, also includes this: Global temperatures continue to rise steadily beneath the short-term noise.
 
Mithrae said:
So you agree with my assertions A) that the 'pause' was a major talking point and B) that there no longer exists a 'pause' in the temperature records?

Your links explicitly confirm the latter and strongly suggest the former... just interested to see if you will confirm them too :)

Like I said to Threegoofs, I don't see this thread as mere trolling - rather an attempt to come to terms with this turn of events. It's unfortunate that Watts wanted to spin it as an attack on some other climate science website, or his dilemma might have received a more charitable response even from folk less fair-minded than I.
Click to expand...

The Pause still exists in the temperature record. I did not understand you were trying to erase it.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Pause still exists in the temperature record. I did not understand you were trying to erase it.
Click to expand...

So you are contradicting your own source, which states that "the so called pause is gone." Wow :doh
 
Jack Hays said:
Post #19 is actually beside the point.
Click to expand...
Post #19 is absolutely not besides the point. You said this might be convincing if it wasn't an explanation after the fact. Post #19 proves this actually was always the message of that graphic. In their own words, from the original source in which that graphic appears. And it says exactly what I was suggesting, and not what you were suggesting.

But for some reason, you still think that graphic means something other than "skeptics cherry-pick short term datasets." They told you it was about just that.

That link, btw, also includes this: Global temperatures continue to rise steadily beneath the short-term noise.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. That was the point all along. That's what AGW proponents have always been saying. This isn't some new revelation, this isn't something we're trying to suppress. This has always been what we have been telling you. And folks on the "skeptic" side kept saying "but global warming stopped in 1995! No, wait, 1998!" And we kept telling them "this is short-term variation that doesn't disprove the overall trend. You can't just cherry-pick small timeframes because the short-term variation will hide the long-term trend."

But the skeptics never listened. Hence that graphic.

So, we're in agreement then. You can't say that global warming has stopped, because we don't have enough of a dataset to show that with any real statistical certainty. This could very well be just another "step" in the long-term climb.
 
Mithrae said:
So you are contradicting your own source, which states that "the so called pause is gone." Wow :doh
Click to expand...

Verb tenses are important. The Pause is gone for now. It's presence in the past temperature record remains.

UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) are two major satellite groups that provide monthly climate anomalies. From January 1998 to January 2016, the slope was slightly negative, a period which many have referred to as a “pause”, although some prefer other names. Since a huge anomaly spike in February 2016 due to a very strong El Nino, the so called pause is gone.
 
Deuce said:
Post #19 is absolutely not besides the point. You said this might be convincing if it wasn't an explanation after the fact. Post #19 proves this actually was always the message of that graphic. In their own words, from the original source in which that graphic appears. And it says exactly what I was suggesting, and not what you were suggesting.

But for some reason, you still think that graphic means something other than "skeptics cherry-pick short term datasets." They told you it was about just that.



Yes, exactly. That was the point all along. That's what AGW proponents have always been saying. This isn't some new revelation, this isn't something we're trying to suppress. This has always been what we have been telling you. And folks on the "skeptic" side kept saying "but global warming stopped in 1995! No, wait, 1998!" And we kept telling them "this is short-term variation that doesn't disprove the overall trend. You can't just cherry-pick small timeframes because the short-term variation will hide the long-term trend."

But the skeptics never listened. Hence that graphic.

So, we're in agreement then. You can't say that global warming has stopped, because we don't have enough of a dataset to show that with any real statistical certainty. This could very well be just another "step" in the long-term climb.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you've come over to my point.
 
Jack Hays said:
Verb tenses are important. The Pause is gone for now. It's presence in the past temperature record remains.

UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) are two major satellite groups that provide monthly climate anomalies. From January 1998 to January 2016, the slope was slightly negative, a period which many have referred to as a “pause”, although some prefer other names. Since a huge anomaly spike in February 2016 due to a very strong El Nino, the so called pause is gone.
Click to expand...

Well, sure. By this metric, there have been numerous "pauses" during the last 100 years or so.

That has never been in question. In fact, it's usually you guys attacking the temperature record. I'm glad you now think it's reliable.
 
Jack Hays said:
Verb tenses are important. The Pause is gone for now.
Click to expand...

Okay then, so your 'clever' misunderstanding aside, I take it that you do agree with my assertions A) that the 'pause' was a major talking point and B) that the 'pause' is gone?

Your links explicitly confirm the latter and strongly suggest the former... just interested to see if you will confirm them too :)



Edit: Although you've already gone a long way towards convincing me that 3G was right, and this is just a desperate trolling thread.
 
Deuce said:
Well, sure. By this metric, there have been numerous "pauses" during the last 100 years or so.

That has never been in question. In fact, it's usually you guys attacking the temperature record. I'm glad you now think it's reliable.
Click to expand...

I have never attacked the temperature record. Glad to see you've come over to my way of thinking.
 
Mithrae said:
Okay then, so your 'clever' misunderstanding aside, I take it that you do agree with my assertions A) that the 'pause' was a major talking point and B) that the 'pause' is gone?

Your links explicitly confirm the latter and strongly suggest the former... just interested to see if you will confirm them too :)
Click to expand...

No dispute.
 
Jack Hays said:
Glad to see you've come over to my point.
Click to expand...

Let's retrace our steps here to show you:

OP's central claim is that Skeptical Science was denying the existence of "steps" in the temperature record, and suggesting "direct linear warming" when they presented that "contrarian view" graphic.

I objected to that characterization, saying that the actual message of that graphic is about cherry-picking short term timeframes to hide the underlying trend.

You thought I was wrong, that this was a made up justification after the fact.

I showed you this was always the argument, in post #19. Straight from the original source, the original argument, in its original form. Exactly what I said it was.


Now, here's where you're still confused. You still think the "step model" is something SS disagreed with. However:

Ultimately arguments that global warming has magically stopped are based on a failure to differentiate between short-term noise and long-term global warming signal (Figure 4).
Click to expand...

They highlight several short-term "noise" lines, showing short-term flat trends. They're showing you the "steps." Nobody is denying they exist. However, they then use the long-term trend line to show you the reason steps exist in the first place: to climb. We only have these "steps" because there's a long-term climb happening.

Otherwise we'd have a table ;)

My central claim here is this: skeptical science was warning people against being tricked by claims about pauses that are based on small timeframes. They spell that out in plain English. You now believe in the "steps." Which means you must also now believe in the underlying trend. You now agree that these short term flat trends do not prove global warming has stopped.

Are you really suggesting this is me coming over to your side?

One last bit on "direct linear warming." A best-fit trend line doesn't suggest "direct linear warming." That's not the function of that statistical illustration. The actual temperature data is, quite plainly, not a straight line. A trend line's goal is to illustrate, well, a trend. The overall "average" change over that period, when you smooth out the noise. It's done because humans aren't really equipped to eyeball a trend accurately enough for scientific/mathematical work, nor to immediately identify the statistical significance of that trend. It's something that has to be calculated.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I have never attacked the temperature record. Glad to see you've come over to my way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Lets go to the wayback machine and see what threads you started on this....

There Really Is a Temperature Record Problem





A Fascinating Look at Temperature Data -- And Some Startling Conclusions

Does the Temperature Record Need Correction?


But wait. I know what you'll say. Its not YOU attacking the temperature record. It was merely you cutting and pasting from WUWT, who's guest denier that day was the one who was attacking the temperature record.

:roll:
 
Deuce said:
Let's retrace our steps here to show you:

OP's central claim is that Skeptical Science was denying the existence of "steps" in the temperature record, and suggesting "direct linear warming" when they presented that "contrarian view" graphic.

I objected to that characterization, saying that the actual message of that graphic is about cherry-picking short term timeframes to hide the underlying trend.

You thought I was wrong, that this was a made up justification after the fact.

I showed you this was always the argument, in post #19. Straight from the original source, the original argument, in its original form. Exactly what I said it was.


Now, here's where you're still confused. You still think the "step model" is something SS disagreed with. However:



They highlight several short-term "noise" lines, showing short-term flat trends. They're showing you the "steps." Nobody is denying they exist. However, they then use the long-term trend line to show you the reason steps exist in the first place: to climb. We only have these "steps" because there's a long-term climb happening.

Otherwise we'd have a table ;)

My central claim here is this: skeptical science was warning people against being tricked by claims about pauses that are based on small timeframes. They spell that out in plain English. You now believe in the "steps." Which means you must also now believe in the underlying trend. You now agree that these short term flat trends do not prove global warming has stopped.

Are you really suggesting this is me coming over to your side?

One last bit on "direct linear warming." A best-fit trend line doesn't suggest "direct linear warming." That's not the function of that statistical illustration. The actual temperature data is, quite plainly, not a straight line. A trend line's goal is to illustrate, well, a trend. The overall "average" change over that period, when you smooth out the noise. It's done because humans aren't really equipped to eyeball a trend accurately enough for scientific/mathematical work, nor to immediately identify the statistical significance of that trend. It's something that has to be calculated.
Click to expand...

The term "direct linear warming" never appears in the OP.
 
Threegoofs said:
Lets go to the wayback machine and see what threads you started on this....

There Really Is a Temperature Record Problem





A Fascinating Look at Temperature Data -- And Some Startling Conclusions

Does the Temperature Record Need Correction?


But wait. I know what you'll say. Its not YOU attacking the temperature record. It was merely you cutting and pasting from WUWT, who's guest denier that day was the one who was attacking the temperature record.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Not at all. Discussions of accuracy in the temperature record are not attacks on the temperature record. Such discussions are, in fact, the best way to ensure ongoing quality control. And FYI, your first link doesn't go anywhere.
 
Jack Hays said:
The term "direct linear warming" never appears in the OP.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. You pasted it.

I take it you didn't read the article you pasted. Which explains why you've gone on for pages defending such a bizarre and inaccurate perception of the SS graphic: you never actually knew what claim you were defending in the first place.

You either didn't read it, forgot, or you really are trolling as another poster here surmised. Can you tell me which one it is?

And still, Post #19 still proves I accurately presented the SS graph. You've yet to acknowledge that. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom