First articles online at the new “Nature Climate Change”

Well, at least they established a standard early on…

Lest you think you have to drill down to find this, here’s the front page:

link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

About these ads

65 thoughts on “First articles online at the new “Nature Climate Change”

  1. Check out the youtube video where Mark Hertsgaard and friends try to ambush Sen. Inhofe of Oklahoma. Classic, Inhofe takes him to school. Then check out Hertsgaard’s highly edited video of the same interview. That’s everyting you’ll need to know about this clown Hertsgaard.

  2. I don’t see the problem at all. So there’s an article in a climate change journal saying that preparing for climate woes should be a priority. Is this newsworthy? “In an unrelated news, a dog bit a man!” Jk aside, either you didn’t read the article, and just saw the “graphic” and thought it was “alarmist”, or I just don’t understand your point.

    You should think more about this. This line of thought that we should “adapt” to climate change has really been taboo, and when people like Bjorn Lomborg said the same thing, he was booed. It’s really a good idea, since it envolves investment on the things that will protect us from climatic threats, like hurricanes, floods, droughts. This is good investment, *independently of climatic predictions of how the planet will warm up or not*, since “extremes” will always happen, as we can testify with the Katrina, and now with the Japan’s earthquake. The latter case is interesting, since japanese did prepare themselves extensively against earthquakes and have perhaps avoided the deaths of millions.

    So, what gives? What’s your point?

  3. The front page invokes 1 “suggests”, 3 “mays”, 2 “coulds” and 1 “will likely”.

    Issue 1, and Speculation already leads by Science by a touchdown. This could get ugly….

  4. Well we’re off to a cold start. The cold pool here over the Bay Area resulted in some twisters this AM. Confirmed F1 in Santa Rosa, waterspout off the Sunset District … and … a wall cloud and possible F0 where I was sitting a bit after 11AM …

    (Curly) aahhyaaaahaaaaaahaaaaaah!(/Curly)

    Just glad to be alive on this Friday afternoon.

    Nature bats last … using a Louisville Slugger born of the Stars.

  5. Thanks for pointing out this valuable resource, which consists of short articles on the subject of climate change, describing work that is behind a paywall.

    There is an interesting review of Mark Hertsgaard’s book on adapting to climate change.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1047.html

    The reviewer said that while there was a lot of valuable information on how people were actually adapting to climate change, Hertsgaard did not seem to recognize the uncertainty associated with the predictions of dire consequences that he quoted.

    There is also another article which summarizes a recent paper which points out that the Arctic Sea Ice is not going to collapse catastrophically.

    This online magazine seems well balanced, despite the sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site.

  6. What are “hayfever miserys”? One of life’s miseries is trying to understand what illiterates mean when they write.:-)

  7. Well, nothing surprised me in the article titles given the audience the magazine is going after. The CAGW crowd will be able to scare themselves silly…

  8. eadler says:
    March 18, 2011 at 5:37 pm
    This online magazine seems well balanced, despite the sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site.

    You better read the letter on agriculture. We’ve discussed this before. An averaged global temperature increase of one degree will not harm corn yields, since Gisstemp shows unequivocably it occurs in winter, at night.

    Thanks a lot for pointing this out, Leif. You have a an insidious sadistic streak.

  9. eadler says:
    March 18, 2011 at 5:37 pm
    This online magazine seems well balanced, despite the sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site.

    Check your green tinted goggles, dude. This magazine’s very existence is testament to the overwhelming, unhinged, natural world hating, bias of Nature Inc. (God, I hope they aren’t government funded)

    And if you think this is sarcasm, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

    That one article on Arctic sea ice is just the con man bowing to the fact that there are some natural phenomena so large (like for instance 100,000 square miles of two and a half meters thick multi year sea ice) that even Hansen and Jones can’t fudge numbers enough to cover it up.
    Too many satellites for them to ink stroke it back into line with the narrative.

  10. Spelling errors not withstanding, it sure is well constructed and purty.

    The best webzine corporate welfare money can buy. Nothing but the best for our con men.

  11. Luis Dias says:
    March 18, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    You should think more about this. This line of thought that we should “adapt” to climate change has really been taboo, and when people like Bjorn Lomborg said the same thing, he was booed. It’s really a good idea, since it envolves investment on the things that will protect us from climatic threats, like hurricanes, floods, droughts. This is good investment, *independently of climatic predictions of how the planet will warm up or not*, since “extremes” will always happen, as we can testify with the Katrina, and now with the Japan’s earthquake. The latter case is interesting, since japanese did prepare themselves extensively against earthquakes and have perhaps avoided the deaths of millions.

    So, what gives? What’s your point?
    ====================================================

    Luis, I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but I consider it more of the same alarmist tripe with a different window dressing.

    As far as adapting to our ever changing environment, humanity doesn’t need an advocate for such a venture. Humanity has done this since the dawn of time. Moreover, while adapting is fine, it shouldn’t proactively attempted under false assumptions. For instance, what if in the year 2000, it would have been assumed the next decade would increase in temps. And that the same assumptions about crops and heat as posited by this site were considered and steps undertaken to mitigate the heat?

    The result, at best, would have been no effect on crop yields and a waste of time and valuable resources,……. such as money. If widely adopted, it would have created a further upward pressure on crop prices. ………. I think we can all see where that we leave us today.

    BTW, the most recent decadal temps trends?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend

    and in case we’re worried that one one data set is showing this,

    UAH will soon join the fray, leaving GISS (excuse the expression) out in the cold.

  12. I’ve registered. Under my real name even. That’s because I understand what’s going on here, which apparently the rest of you do not.

    Look, on the front page we’ve got a book called “Hot,” which accepts as a given that it’s getting hotter. Backing this up is a “Research Highlight” which informs us that this increase in heat will also “substantially decrease the duration and thickness of wintertime ice cover on many North American lakes.

    But in another “Research Highlight,” we are told, “The Arctic is unlikely to experience sudden loss of sea ice during the twenty-first century.”

    Very selective heat.

    Not surprising, however, since apparently plants are equally selective. A separate “Research Highlight” claims, “Large-scale farming of biofuel crops in the US could significantly cool the local climate.” This, according to the article, is because plants grown for biofuel are more cooling than plants grown for food.

    Don’t you get it? For crying out loud, guys! This is being done by The Onion! It was probably supposed to be launched on April 1, but someone got ahead of schedule.

    Like I said, I’m registered. I love The Onion. They’re brilliant.

  13. Adaption is the only effort in which we should engage. The fact that global warming is supposed to raise the winter nightly lows, with a diminishing affect as you move from the poles to the equator, means that adaption would be easy in that we simply have to wear lighter jackets early in the morning. Even slow sea level rises have been fought for hundreds of years. We already know how and when to adapt without having to read some journalist’s book. Adaption is overblown as an issue.

    The feature on how “large-scale farming of biofuel crops in the US could significantly cool the local climate” is ridiculous when we consider the insanity of burning food. Some suggest that burning a useful commodity like oil is insane, but burning food is not a better alternative.

    I am glad that they did include recent research on how the arctic is unlikely to see a sudden drop in sea ice levels, but it seems odd that they are finally getting around to what others have been saying all along. I can only hope that the other topics they cover will eventually get updated to more clear thinking like this sea ice issue. The fact that their sea ice story is balanced out with a silly lake ice story does not bode well for their insight and openness to real data. While I don’t know the time frame for the sea ice data, I wonder if they mention thickening ice over the next 20 to 30 years before it starts to thin again.

    What takes the cake for me is the mitigation junk. They continue to ignore that we are not the primary cause of the last 300 years of warming. Indeed, we have not been the primary cause of the last 30 years of ‘warming.’ Sadly, I don’t know how long it will take them to see the light. Until then, it will not be well balanced.

    John M Reynolds

  14. “While I don’t know the time frame for the sea ice data, … ” — should be lake ice date. Sorry. — John M Reynolds

  15. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/growth-of-thick-ice-since-2008/

    There is also another article which summarizes a recent paper which [doesn't] point out that the Arctic Sea Ice is not going to collapse catastrophically has already recovered despite the uncorrected fear mongering hype we have been deluged with the last five years. (fixed)

    This online magazine seems well is a testament to the un balanced nature of today’s climate science debate. The last thing we needed was another Treehugger. com clone.

    The sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site are well deserved.

  16. Climate changes??? When did this happen? Can I get insurance to cover my adaptation? Are my costs tax deductible? Or maybe I can get a grant? I obviously need this magazine to fill my void!

  17. The author of the “Nature Climate Change” article, Mason Inman, has commented on WUWT before. This was back in January of 2010 during the Himalayan glacier meltdown controversy. It all started with a comment that I made about the factual accuracy of Mr. Inman’s naive claims in his sci-fi/fantasy disaster blog “not in 2035″:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-purge-continues/#comment-298479

    That was apparently enough to illicit a direct counter-response from Mr. Inman in the comments of WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-purge-continues/#comment-299239

    To which I responded:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-purge-continues/#comment-300206

    Mr. Inman’s response:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-purge-continues/#comment-300575

    He also initiated a side argument with Roger Knight regarding the probability of 2010 being the warmest year on record. While Mr. Inman’s comments don’t appear to add anything useful to the evolving science of climate change, they certainly reveal a lot about Mr. Inman’s alleged expertise on the subject.

  18. Someone needs to get this fellow on record with his proposal to stop the climate from changing.
    He looks young enough that someday he will have to choke on his answer.

  19. James Sexton says:
    March 18, 2011 at 6:33 pm
    As far as adapting to our ever changing environment, humanity doesn’t need an advocate for such a venture. Humanity has done this since the dawn of time.
    ====================================================

    Last time I checked we’ve already had floods, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, snow, rain, ice, heat, cold…lightning

    …the Arctic has already been “ice free” even

    So what exactly are they talking about adapting?

    I think they are talking to a bunch of high school kids that haven’t been alive long enough to know we’ve already adapted. ;-)

  20. paulc says:
    March 18, 2011 at 6:58 pm
    I surely hope this “warming” comes soon. We in Minnesota could certainly use it.

    Don’t worry, it’s coming up from Texas. Probably be nice up your way in a month or so.

  21. Latitude says:
    March 18, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    James Sexton says:
    March 18, 2011 at 6:33 pm
    As far as adapting to our ever changing environment, humanity doesn’t need an advocate for such a venture. Humanity has done this since the dawn of time.
    ====================================================

    Last time I checked we’ve already had floods, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, snow, rain, ice, heat, cold…lightning

    …the Arctic has already been “ice free” even

    So what exactly are they talking about adapting?
    =========================================

    Yeh, but, those were nice “floods, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, snow, rain, ice, heat, cold…lightning”………its the CO2 hyperbole induced floods, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, snow, rain, ice, heat, cold…lightning that you’ve got to watch out for!

    And yes, teenagers and ones with the emotional capacity of teenagers.

  22. Adaptation is almost never harder than expected. People do it all of the time. We always have. With today’s technology, adaptation has never been easier. NEVER!

    What is difficult to do is foresee the decisions that billions of people will automatically make in order to adapt, giving the illusion that the adaptation itself will be difficult. In reality, it will likely be relatively painless, as individuals automatically move towards a better way. The adaptation required to live through the 20th century was unprecedented, but quality of life was almost always getting better during that time, unless governments got in the way.

    Adaptation is a prerequisite for all life, and humans are better at it than most other species. Bureaucracies, on the other hand, are really bad at adaptation. The nature of a bureaucracy is to resist change. In general, bureaucracies almost universally set up road blocks to rapid adaptation. The worst thing that humans can do is create bureaucracies to facilitate adaptation. It is oxymoronic.

    We don’t need people like Hertsgaard to tell us what we are up against. We (the billions of people on Earth) will figure it out as we go and we will do a much, much better job at it than he can, for we will have much, much more knowledge than he ever will.

    Secondly, he is wrong about the the way climate change will occur. Global cooling, at least over the land areas of the Northern Hemisphere, is imminent.

  23. I live in a mild coastal climate community. In the last 10 years it has gone
    down to -19C and up to 35C.

    Thats a 54C swing possible each year. I’ve adapted. I own a winter coat. I own shorts. I have a heater. I have a fan. I might even buy A/C this year.

    Do I need a whole magazine to tell me to buy new a winter coat if the old wears out?

    No.

    I mean the whole concept of the magazine is hysterically funny. And stupid. Really, really stupid.

  24. Linear extrapolations of complex dynamic systems are mathematically invalid, geophysically impossible, hence scientifically meaningless. Over decades, climate hysterics claiming otherwise have not projected one single major phenomenon in practice– as Railroad Bill Pachauri notoriously demonstrates, from Himalayan glaciers to rising sea-levels nothing his peculating Green Gang says bears scrutiny, nor has its self-serving propaganda any slightest grain of credibility.

    Now as Earth’s long summer aka the 12,250-year Holocene Interglacial Epoch fades, a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum presages the onset of resurgent Pleistocene Ice Time. Cargo cultists such as Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al., not to mention Luddite sociopaths like Paul Ehrlich, John (“seething maggots”) Holdren, bitter Thanatists like Keith Farnish, cloak themselves in communo-fascist mantles worthy of Savonarola.

    Like targeted assassinations, AGW catastrophism is worse than a crime– it is a mistake.

  25. I’m not the first to say, but I think all these global warming wackos were born yesterday. They have no perspective. They have no clue about history, human or natural.

    I blame the dumbing down of the American education system for this, at least in part. The rest is Bush’s fault, of course.

  26. Before some of our AGW friends here get their panties in too much of a wad lets take a brief trip down memory lane. As we speak of mitigation and adaptation and dire “predictions” we must remember that this all started back in the late ’80’s with the following:

    (There’s a ton of information here, the pertinent prediction(s) towards the bottom. It’s an interesting trip so don’t scan too fast!)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

    Sad, the book “Hot”…just sad. I’ve heard there’s only one way to get a pitbull to let go once it has taken a “death grip” on an adversary. Maybe that might just work with…ah, nevermind. ;^)

  27. Before some of our AGW friends (David70, eadler?) here get their panties in too much of a wad lets take a brief trip down memory lane. As we speak of mitigation and adaptation and dire “predictions” we must remember that this all started back in the late ’80’s with the following:

    (There’s a ton of information here, the pertinent prediction(s) towards the bottom. It’s an interesting trip so don’t scan too fast!)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

    Failed predictions are a fail, and it’s what they excel at. These guys are worse than Jehovah Witnesses, and that’s saying a ton.

    Sad, the book “Hot”…just sad (I really hope it was done by the Onion, otherwise, how pathetic). I’ve heard there’s only one way to get a pitbull to let go once it has taken a “death grip” on an adversary. Maybe that might just work with…ah, nevermind. ;^)

  28. Are they trying to say the the Arctic will not be Ice Free This Year.

    They promised, in 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and 2009 and 2010 that the Arctic would be Ice Free Before next year(2012) (2006 + Ice Free in five years).
    They promised us a death sprial, this year, not sometime next century.

    They promised…..
    I guess they lied.
    Again.

  29. Related climate change drivel on PBS. Defund it!
    The part on climate change starts at about minute 16. http://video.pbs.org/video/1818693167/
    Full of the usual stuff, like attributing flooding to rising oceans when the real cause is sinking land (which they gloss over but don’t really discuss). Real tearjerker. The interview with alarmist and obfuscator extraordinaire Hertsgaard, author of “HOT”, starts at about 29 min. He even claims that 99% of scientists believe in global warming based on what turned out to be a faulty and poorly (intentionally?) worded survey (if you believe CO2 causes the earth to warm you are a warmist). His more than cooperative interviewer ensures that none of his claims were questioned. Don’t watch if you have a weak stomach or high blood pressure. I suspect it was carefully edited by PBS to remove any hint that anything other than CO2 was the cause. And they call it journalism.

  30. I’ve found that firewood and red wine, especially Port, age nicely in a cool environment. Expecting cool, I’m stockpiling both along with a few other items. And if climate woes don’t happen, so what?

    Luis Dias said (@ 4:49) “. . .protect us from climatic threats, like hurricanes, floods, droughts.

    There have been about 33 posts since and no one has commented on the use of climatic threats. The regulars here must not have had enough sleep this week to have missed this.

  31. John F. Hultquist says:
    March 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Luis Dias said (@ 4:49) “. . .protect us from climatic threats, like hurricanes, floods, droughts.

    There have been about 33 posts since and no one has commented on the use of climatic threats. The regulars here must not have had enough sleep this week to have missed this.
    ===============================================
    lol, What? I don’t even get partial credit?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/18/first-articles-online-at-the-new-nature-climate-change/#comment-623748

    True, I thought that too easy a target, and instead went a different route, but at least partial?
    :-\ No love.

  32. John F. Hultquist says: March 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    “There have been about 33 posts since and no one has commented on the use of climatic threats. ”

    Actually once I saw the “…since “extremes” will always happen, as we can testify with the Katrina, and now with the Japan’s earthquake…”
    ???”Japan’s earthquake”???
    In the same sentance with “planet will warm up or not” I just gave up on the fool.

    No response was necessary, no correction would be appropriate, it was just somewhere between funny and sad, an awkward place.
    To that I can “testify”.

  33. Gaylon says:
    March 18, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Before some of our AGW friends here get their panties in too much of a wad lets take a brief trip down memory lane.
    ==============================================

    lol, now, I know you’re gonna find this hard to believe, so, please place your drink out of the proximity of your keyboard and ‘puter. But, after 10 years of silence from both Hansen and Reiss, and oddly enough after the expiration of the dire prediction, Hansen now says, (and apparently Reiss) that Reiss misremembered the conversation. Reiss says now, that he didn’t have his notes with him during the Salon interview, and that it really was in 40 years with the caveat of doubling CO2. Now, how a writer would pose such details in the way the questioned was quoted, ……well, you make the call. It was quite an interview to do in such detail without the aid of notes, apparently this being the one and only failing of his otherwise steel-trap like mind. I understand the 40/doubling is in Reiss’ book, but I’m not gonna read it.

    http://climateclash.com/2011/01/27/james-hansen-singing-in-the-rain/

  34. @Joel Shore (March 18, 2011 at 8:11 pm), more perspective:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1941/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1941/to:1961/trend

    And here is another recent decadal graph one though the Y scale values are vastly different:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001.17/offset:-370

    Oh, and John Blake (March 18, 2011 at 8:04 pm), I love your “Green Gang,” but my mind reversed that accidentally.

    John M Reynolds

  35. @Luis Dias says:
    March 18, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    “….You should think more about this. This line of thought that we should “adapt” to climate change has really been taboo, and when people like Bjorn Lomborg said the same thing, he was booed. It’s really a good idea, since it envolves investment on the things that will protect us from climatic threats, like hurricanes, floods, droughts. This is good investment, *independently of climatic predictions of how the planet will warm up or not*, since “extremes” will always happen, as we can testify with the Katrina, and now with the Japan’s earthquake. ..”

    Umm?

    We are already very well protected, thank you, from WEATHER threats which are predictable. Of course we are – anything predictable needs defending against.

    Warmists have predicted major increases in weather threats as a result of their belief that the world is heating rapidly. These threats have not materialised, and the world temperature trend has stopped rising. Why are you saying that we should ignore common sense and throw money at threats which do not exist?

  36. Looks like a bunch of computer modeling, combined with “could”, “may happen”, and a bunch of unscientific qualifiers.

  37. I thought I was going to get a freebie… then I submitted my professional email.

    Now, I am welcome to pay for anything I want…

  38. Tim Clark says:
    March 18, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    eadler says:
    March 18, 2011 at 5:37 pm
    “This online magazine seems well balanced, despite the sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site.”

    You better read the letter on agriculture. We’ve discussed this before. An averaged global temperature increase of one degree will not harm corn yields, since Gisstemp shows unequivocably it occurs in winter, at night.

    Thanks a lot for pointing this out, Leif. You have a an insidious sadistic streak.

    Well balanced doesn't mean that they don't print material that supports AGW is deleterious.

    In fact they have an article on work by the USDA, that shows that yields can be enhanced in a warmer climate by planting earlier. This is an argument that was pointed out by WUWT posters when the article on African climate versus corn yields was discussed.

    http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110307/food-security-wheat-agriculture-usda-science-climate-change-adaptation

  39. Hertsgaard is preparing for precisely the wrong scenario, built on computer projections, based on faulty initial conditions.

    The Sun operates in three Grand Episodic cycles (Duhau and de Jager, 2008). The last Grand Minimum was 1620 to 1724, during which the world experienced the Little Ice Age. The last Grand Regular Oscillation cycle was 1724 to 1924. The Grand Maximum, which began 1924 and has been responsible for the predominent warming trend up until now, drew to a close in 2009. This isn’t guess work, hopes, or speculation. This is a product of totally predictable planetary mechanics. Care to guess what cycle is next?

    The Grand Minimum that began in 2009 is now underway. This Landscheidt Grand Solar Minimum (as it will probably wind up being named) is grinding away to its nadir in 2030. For the next 20 years the world will be getting progressively colder, not warmer. At this moment we are also in the cold phase of the PDO, with the AMO turning into its cold phase, as increasing volcanic activity puts ever larger amounts of aerosols and SO2 into the atmosphere.

    If I were Hertgaard, I would not be trying to adapt to a myth of agw, climate change, climate catastrophe, or whatever nonsense they are calling it today. I would be preparing for famines caused by crop failures and millions of people freezing to death from energy shortages, brought about by more progressively brutal cold winters for the next 20 years.

    And meaningless, trivial, increasing CO2 levels will be powerless to even nudge this cryogenic inevitablility.

  40. andrew30,

    Actually once I saw the “…since “extremes” will always happen, as we can testify with the Katrina, and now with the Japan’s earthquake…”
    ???”Japan’s earthquake”???
    In the same sentance with “planet will warm up or not” I just gave up on the fool.

    Nice insult. BTW, how the hell do you know that I’m linking climate with earthquakes? By making uncalled connections, that’s how. And I’m the fool? The hell…

    My point was simple and yet apparently went over the head of the very bright commentators that responded, which makes me question the very brightness of these people.

    The point is not the “climate”. The point is preparing the world for the hazardous environment we are living in, and if an article in a climatic journal makes the point that we should also adapt to climate woes, how can one find it stunning is beyond me. It clearly is what follows if you accept basic global warming, which is not something that outrageous. Just ask people like Pielke Jr., Judith Curry, etc.

    Dodgy Geezer,

    Umm?

    We are already very well protected, thank you, from WEATHER threats which are predictable. Of course we are – anything predictable needs defending against.

    Who’s “we”? Are we talking about New Orleans, here? Are we talking about Malaysia 2006? Are we speaking of the huge destruction that takes place every year somewhere around the world?

    I have trouble finding exactly this “we” who are so well protected against weather outliers…

  41. James Sexton says:

    Yes, let’s context it.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/scale:75/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/offset:-325/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/trend/offset:-325/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2001.8/trend/scale:75

    Hmm, another hiding of the decline?

    Here, I’ve added in the trend over the last 20 years…and some other 10-year trends so that we can see how global warming had stopped over the decade 1987-1997 and 1977-1987 too! (And, also can see how much difference just one year makes in a 10-year trend by comparing the current 10-year trend to the one from just one year ago.)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2001.8/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1987/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1977/to:1987/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000.3/to:2010.3/trend

    The point? One can often cherry-pick trends over short time periods in such data.

  42. From original post by James Sexton on March 18, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    BTW, the most recent decadal temps trends?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend

    From Joel Shore on March 18, 2011 at 8:11 pm:

    James Sexton says:

    BTW, the most recent decadal temps trends?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970

    Now with context: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970

    Wow, I had heard about those (C)AGW proponents trying to hide away and distort the evidence provided by skeptics, but to see it done so blatantly…

    Although I can be charitable, and assume the likely explanation was Joel Shore messing up a simple copy-and-paste, then not noticing he had changed the address and was attributing a different address to James Sexton than James had actually used (which calls for issuing a correction), and he also didn’t notice both addresses were identical

    It is always wonderful to see Climate Science™ living up to the standards that Climate Science™ has set for itself, as wonderfully displayed in this wonderful new magazine.

  43. Joel Shore says:
    March 19, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Back in 2010, the decadal slope did look like it was rising only slightly which indicated that the slope of the previous 30 years was no longer being maintained. As James Sexton pointed out, that has now changed. Your previous decadal slopes were fine for those times, but they are out of date now. We now have data beyond those periods. With extra data, we can then plot slopes for each section where the trend clearly changes, like beginning near 1975.

    The problem is with predicting the future. That is why we are so interested in the past 10 years which clearly shows that the slope has changed. Back in mid 80s and in 1991, there were large volcanic eruptions which caused the slopes of those two flat decadal trends that you highlighted. In the past 10 years, there were no volcanic eruptions to cause a couple years of cooling. That is what makes this current decadal trend interesting.

    John M Reynolds

  44. John,

    Basically, you are fooling yourself looking at “changes in slope” that are just as easily explainable as the normal behavior of a system with a slow inexorable roughly-linear upward trend + noise. You may wish that the slope has changed…but let’s check back a few years ago and see how that hypothesis is faring!

  45. I agree. That slow inexorable roughly linear upward trend + noise would put us between about 0.5 and 0.9 C by 2110 for the anomaly using HadCRUT data. Let’s not waste our time until we get a few more decades of good data. The data that we have suggests that we have been slowly warming for 300 years — since the last little ice age. The best data that goes back to the late 1800’s shows that there are cycles of about 60 years. We just crested the latest and are headed for a period of non-warming. After that we will likely warm again if the previous cycles continue. That should only need another 30 to sixty years to confirm. Waiting 120 years would give us better confidence in the theories.

    John M Reynolds

  46. Joel Shore says:
    March 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm
    “John,

    Basically, you are fooling yourself looking at “changes in slope” that are just as easily explainable as the normal behavior of a system with a slow inexorable roughly-linear upward trend + noise.”

    Or as simple brown noise without any added linearly rising function. Or to use your words: You are fooling yourself looking for a hidden linearly rising function in the noise without even considering it could be simple non-white noise.

Comments are closed.