Comments on: Warming On 11 Year Hiatus

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:48:11 +0000

Hmmm, smoothed flux at earth 9/2007- 67.1, 6/2008- 65.8. My, it really is a long minimum we’re having. Wonder what consequences might follow?

By: Ravalli County News » Blog Archive » Climate and Weather Notes

Ravalli County News » Blog Archive » Climate and Weather Notes — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:57:17 +0000

[...] 1. Warming On 11 Year Hiatus [...]

By: Warming on 11 Year Hiatus? Et al. | Atmoz

Warming on 11 Year Hiatus? Et al. | Atmoz — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:26:17 +0000

[...] die. That would mean it’s about finding a linear fit of a short, noisy time series, right? That’s what started it. Further blogging revealed that ignoring the temperature data from GISS and NCDC, which [...]

By: CtTaxed.com, Our Government Eats Too Much » Blog Archives » Put Oil Firm Chiefs On Trial

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:01:15 +0000

[...] For those of you who like to see the data, I submit this post How Not To Measure Temperature, Part 64 – Estimating biases and comparing to GISS Homogeneity Adjust… [...]

By: All American Blogger » Despite Lack of Warming Over 11 Years, Hansen Says It’s the Oil Companies That Are Propagandists

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:48:28 +0000

[...] is at 350 ppm, the level reached in 1988. Currently, the concentration of CO2 sits at 385 ppm, with no increase in temperatures in the last 11 years. In fact, parts of America were reached record low temperatures and were receiving snow as late as [...]

By: Climate “Scientist” Has No Credibility « Gabriel Malor

Climate “Scientist” Has No Credibility « Gabriel Malor — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:12:09 +0000

[...] data from every source except GISS shows no warming trend for the past 11 years. Funny [...]

By: kim

kim — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:05:44 +0000

Thanks, Leif, for telling me that twice. Maybe you won’t have to do it three times.
==================================

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:12:47 +0000

kim: please, you should know by now [from so many discussions on this] that the observed radio flux is not what the Sun puts out. The distance to the Sun varies 3.5% over the year causing the observed radio flux to vary by 7% [goes with the square of the distance], so the 64.8 is really 67.0 as it says in the ‘adjusted’ column. The observed flux is largest January 4th and smallest July 4th [or so] when we are farthest from the Sun. Back on Sept. 30, 2007, the flux was 65.1, so no new low.

By: Warming on 11 Year Hiatus? Not quite. | The Blackboard

Warming on 11 Year Hiatus? Not quite. | The Blackboard — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:03:35 +0000

[...] Is warming on 11 year hiatus? Well… I always think it’s best to ask yourself: Would I really think a particular method of looking at data is meaningful? Would I still believe this if the answers turned out “wrong” from my POV? Or, will I eventually find myself explaining my own method gives uncertainty bounds that are “too small”, when my gives “wrong” answers? [...]

By: kim

kim — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:59:50 +0000

64.8 from the sun; another new low.
=====================

By: All American Blogger » Global Warming? Not in the Last 11 Years

All American Blogger » Global Warming? Not in the Last 11 Years — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:55:20 +0000

[...] He had pretty graphs and stuff. Check it out here. [...]

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:45:51 +0000

Not only that, but according to GW theory, doesn’t one have to adjust lower troposphere temp. RATES (sic) of increase downward if one wants to bring them into alignment with surface temps?

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:43:41 +0000

The anomalies are matched by date, right? If so that would make the satellite measurements at or just a bit under 0.2ºC under HadCRU surface temps. Which means that GW from 1979 to 1998 has been exaggerated by about twofold (or do I misinterpret?).

This also seems to match in pretty well with John V’s results?

By: The Greenhousers–At Least They Have Pluck

The Greenhousers–At Least They Have Pluck — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:01:20 +0000

[...] CO2-Temperature correlation theory has been shattered by 11 years of flat temperatures and 8 years of global cooling despite steady increases in CO2 [...]

By: Paul Clark

Paul Clark — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:12:17 +0000

… to give an indication of how small an effect this is, here is the 1-5 year CO2 signal (red) compared with the same thing but with the annual variation left intact (green). It’s about a tenth of the annual variation.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60

Oh, and here’s the same comparison as before but done with Fourier, filtering out 2-5 year signals:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/detrend:70/fourier/high-pass:10/low-pass:25/inverse-fourier/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1958/fourier/high-pass:10/low-pass:25/inverse-fourier

By: Paul Clark

Paul Clark — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:58:35 +0000

Jerker,

I was playing around with this a while ago:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

This is CO2 and temperature with a 5-year running mean *subtracted*, removing the long-term increase, and then averaged on a 12 month running mean to remove the annual CO2 signal. What’s left are 1- to 5- year cycles in both. The CO2 is then scaled down by 5 to make it fit.

This shows a strong 6-12 month *lag* of CO2 from temperature, which indicates relatively short-term temperature changes are driving CO2 concentration – but not by very much; unscaled the peaks here are only 1ppm. I think this is evidence of a (small) positive feedback between temperature and CO2.

By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » No Warming For Last Eleven Years, co2 rising, tax collectors testy.

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:53:31 +0000

[...] Related Content Charts are included at Watts Up With That? that show no global warming for last eleven years, despite a continued increase in CO2 levels. [...]

By: Jerker Andersson

Jerker Andersson — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:25:56 +0000

“It seems that at least for the most recent 11 years, increasing CO2 is not !tracking with temperature.”

One misstake that is done when comparing temperature and CO2 is that Temperature is compared with actual CO2 level. Imo it is like comparing speed with distance (km/h and km).

What you should compare is the RATE which CO2 change each year. All of a sudden there is a very tight connection between CO2 change and temperature.
For some reason this is rarely brought up when comparing CO2 and temperature.
This diagram shows how close the CO2 change rate FOLLOWS the temperature.

To mee it looks like gobal temperature has a bigger impact on the rate which CO2 is added to our atmosphere than the anthropogen emissions for some reason.

REPLY: Hadn’t seen that before, thanks for pointing it out – Anthony

By: Pofarmer

Pofarmer — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:21:14 +0000

If you wanted to get the true picture of CO2, map it’s increase as a percentage of the total atmosphere. I think a lot of people would go “Huh?”

By: dearieme

dearieme — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:42:30 +0000

I’m grateful for the expression “homogenity adjustments”; I’d got bored with “fudge factors”.