By Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts (based on an email exchange)
This is interesting. NOAA is forecasting the months of August, September, and October of 2014 to have above normal Arctic Sea ice extent. As readers know, late September is typically the time of the Arctic Sea Ice minimum, and this year the NOAA forecast has it slightly above normal. Here is the NOAA forecast graph:
UPDATE: I no more than finished this post and NOAA had a new updated forecast for May 23rd, added below. (h/t Ric Werme)
For the last three May 12th forecasts, this year’s forecast for summer is the highest of them.
Source: http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
Notice how much higher this is than last years forecast at this time:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2_fcst_history/201305/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
And also higher than in 2012:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2_fcst_history/201205/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
The CFSV2 forecasting model was not on line before that, but if we then go to the Northern hemisphere sea ice plot from Cryosphere today we can see how significant this would be if summer came out with a positive anomaly.
![seaice.anomaly.arctic[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/seaice-anomaly-arctic1.png)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
It appears that all summers since about 1996 have not had any positive anomalies. (see magnified view below)
At the very least if we get it positive and the melt season is the lowest since the AMO went warm it will be something that goes right at the heart of the arguments that recent Arctic sea ice deviations are entirely human caused.
In addition, given the Southern Hemisphere continues with well above normal sea ice, if it continues, it gives us a shot at a record breaking global sea ice in the satellite era.
On the other hand, it is a model forecast, and may not come to be. It will be interesting to watch though.
As always, check the WUWT Sea Ice Page for the latest information.
Here is the background on CFS:
The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2)
The CFS version 2 was developed at the Environmental Modeling Center at NCEP. It is a fully coupled model representing the interaction between the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, land and seaice. It became operational at NCEP in March 2011.
Please reference the following article when using the CFS Reanalysis (CFSR) data.
Saha, Suranjana, and Coauthors, 2010: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 1015.1057. doi: 10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1
Please reference the following article when using the CFS version 2 Reforecast model or data
Saha, Suranjana and Coauthors, 2014: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 Journal of Climate J. Climate, 27, 2185–2208. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00823.1
@JusttheFacts
More details on the Ocean’s uptake of energy over the so-called ‘period of no warming’:
‘Because the oceans cover some 71% of the Earth’s surface and are capable of retaining heat around a thousand times that of the atmosphere, the oceans are where most of the energy from global warming is going – 93.4% over recent decades. So greenhouse gases emitted by human industrial activity not only cause more heat to become trapped in the atmosphere, they also cause more of the sun’s energy to accumulate in the oceans.
Long-term the oceans have been gaining heat at a rate equivalent to about 2 Hiroshima bombs per second, although this has increased over the last 16 or so years to around 4 per second. In 2013 ocean warming rapidly escalated, rising to a rate in excess of 12 Hiroshima bombs per second – over three times the recent trend. This doesn’t necessarily mean we are entering a period of greatly accelerated ocean warming, as there is substantial year-to-year variation in heat uptake by the oceans. It does, however, once again dispel the persistent myth of a pause in global warming, because the Earth has actually continued to warm faster in the last 16 years than it did in the preceding 16 years.’
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/oceanheat-NODC-endof2013.jpg
The Alarmist crowd will never give up, so above normal or even record high Arctic ice won’t persuade them.
1st – They will go to their old standby, “It’s weather not climate” and add on “it may be above normal but the longer term trends show a decline” or “The Ice is less than 5 years old”
2nd – If it continues to be above normal, then come the excuses. Like “The land around the Arctic is melting and the freshwater is lowering the salinity of the Arctic which is cause the freezing point to go up”* or “The heat is hiding at the bottom of the Arctic ocean” or something else unfathomably lame “but some day soon the heat is going to come back and you will be sorry”.
* They use this one today on the record Antarctic sea ice. But when questioned on why the same is not happening in the Arctic or why this didn’t happen from 2000 – 2007 when the sea ice was shrinking and the 2007 IPCC report predicted it would continue to shrink, they go silent.
3rd – Change their story/ revise history. “The high/record ice in the Arctic is because climate change is causing extremes just like we said it would”, “Very few scientist were predicting an ice free Arctic, the media was just hyping the few”
@KenMcMurtrie;
Yes, more research linking ice loss with AGW. What is the conflict you’re concerned about?
warrenlb says:
… disproving an established theory requires contradictory evidence to invalidate it….
There is no “established theory” of anthropogenic global warming. AGW is a conjecture, not a theory. Learn the difference.
To the extent that AGW might exist, its effect is minuscule. It is too small to measure. The log effect makes the curent addition of completely harmless CO2 unmeasurable regarding global temperatures. But the effect is not unmeasurable regarding agricultural production, which has risen due to CO2. The biosphere is benefitting, and greening the planet.
Finally, the alarmist contingent is wrong because they got their causality backward. CO2 does not measurably affect global T as they incorrectly believe. Rather, global T causes CO2 changes. That is the only measurable causation: ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no empirical data showing that CO2 causes T.
When you begin with an incorrect premise, your conclusion will be wrong. That is what happened, and that is why every prediction made by the climate alarmist clique has been wrong.
Global warming has stopped. What will it take for you to admit you have been wrong all along? Or, like a Jehovah’s Witness, are you incapable of admitting your error?
Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is proving skeptics right, and alarmists wrong. Sorry about your “theory”.
@Qam1:
Yes, you’re correct that the Science does explain why Antarctic sea ice has increased, while the oceans surrounding the Antarctic sea ice have warmed.
Your assertions on Arctic Sea ice are wrong. It’s not at all at a record high, rather Satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice extent reveal a rapid decline over the past 30 years, particularly at the end of each year’s annual melt season. The downward trend and the increasing difference between seasons are in keeping with predictions of the effects of global warming. For details, and graphs, showing the downward trend including a recent uptick reminiscent of past upticks followed by much larger decreases, go here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm
Also you didn’t mention that while there have been times in the distant past when Arctic sea ice extent was lower than today’s, the current sea ice extent is the lowest in the past several thousand years: http://www.skepticalscience.com/past-Arctic-sea-ice-extent.htm
And you didn’t mention the shrinking Antarctic land ice:
Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr).
Or losses from the Greenland ice sheet:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm
Or from Glaciers, of which 90% are in retreat around the world: http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm
The data shows ice on earth is in rapid decline.
WarrenLB: “Moreover per the head of the team that maintains the satellite dataset that shows warming – prominent global warming “skeptic” Roy Spencer – the satellite dataset that shows no warming may be biased against actual warming because it uses old satellites that are decaying in their orbits.
There are also multiple surface global temperature datasets, all of which show warming over that time period. ”
No , you’re wrong. Spencer’s data show a small but insignificant warming. You are wrong to infer his being a skeptic has anything to do with that other than that’s probably one of the main reasons he is skeptic of AGW failed hypothesis.
There is another dataset derived from the SAME data that _does_ show a slight cooling : RSS. Nothing to with Spencer and Christy.
@GregGoodman:
‘Small but insignificant’ is materially different than the word ‘None’? I don’t think so.
And the data indeed shows atmospheric warming since 1998:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
And combined with the data showing oceanic warming, previously posted, shows that the planetary system continued to absorb heat energy in the period.
DBStealey:
When 113 Nations signed on to the 2007 IPCC assessment, and all 200 of the top Scientific Academies and Professional Organizations of the World have published reports or statements concluding that the earth is warming, Man is the cause, and the net effects are very likely to be strongly negative, vs an assertion from you that AGW is not an established theory, I don’t think many will have trouble deciding whether AGW is established or not.
“To the extent that AGW might exist, its effect is minuscule. It is too small to measure” is fallacious. The logarthmic relationship between CO2 ppmv and greenhouse effect is well know in Science and fully accounted for in AGW Science and in all work of the IPCC, and by all Climate Scientists.
“Finally, the alarmist contingent is wrong because they got their causality backward. CO2 does not measurably affect global T as they incorrectly believe. Rather, global T causes CO2 changes. That is the only measurable causation: ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes T.”
In this statement, you exhibit a complete lack of knowledge about the Greenhouse effect. No Scientists think what you say at all. They KNOW global temperature rise drives CO2 from the rest of the Earth’s system, mainly from the oceans. The evidence for this is that ice core and other proxy data shows that rising atmospheric temperature leads CO2 rise. What you’ve missed, and what all Scientists KNOW, is that increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect– the absorption of infrared thermal radiation trying to leave Earth’s system –thus causing the equilibrium temperature of Earth’s system to rise. This greenhouse effect amplified the original temperature rise in cycles of the past several hundred thousand years, and is the CAUSE of Earth’s temperature rise in the industrial age. And modern temperature and CO2 data show this — rising CO2 leads temperature rise, in reverse sequence from the Milankovitch cycles.
My responses to your incorrect assertion that warming has stopped appears in other posts on this page.
Finally, your argument that YOU know that temperature rise caused CO2 to increase, while Scientists do not — is ludicrous. If you have more arguments like this, I would not be posting them lest you cause intense fits of laughing.
warrenlb says: May 25, 2014 at 7:37 am
Nope.
There are two global temperature satellite datasets, only one of which indicates no warming over that time period.
Here’s the period of each record for which the slope that is at least very slightly negative:
For GISS, the slope is flat since November 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April)
For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since August 2000 or 13 years, 9 months. (goes to April) The latest spike caused the time to start after the 1998 El Nino.
For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 5 months. (goes to April)
For UAH, the slope is flat since September 2004 or 9 years, 8 months. (goes to April using version 5.5)
For RSS, the slope is flat since August 1996 or 17 years, 9 months (goes to April).
Per the Economist, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.’”
You can hand wave all you want about whether the Pause is 9 years and 8 months, 17 years and 9 months or somewhere in between, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is no observation evidence of the rapid warming claimed by AGW fanatics…
warrenlb says: May 25, 2014 at 7:54 am
Skeptical Science – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
More details on the Ocean’s uptake of energy over the so-called ‘period of no warming’:
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/oceanheat-NODC-endof2013.jpg
Yes, all of those imaginary kitten sneezes must be really adding up…
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
warrenlb says:
May 25, 2014 at 9:46 am
@Qam1:
—————————————
You have misinterpreted what Qam said. He does not claim that the Arctic sea ice is at record levels. Your preconceived thoughts are showing and they are clouding your reading comprehension.
@JusttheFacts. Here’s the full quotation from Hansen, May 17 2013:
“It is not true that the temperature has not changed in the two decades.”
Since 1998, when the Niño climate phenomenon caused global temperatures to soar, the rate of increase in warming has slowed, causing some sceptics to suggest climate change has stopped or that the effect of rising carbon dioxide levels on climate is not as great as previously thought.
Prof Hansen, speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, rejected both arguments. “In the last decade it has warmed only a tenth of a degree compared to two-tenths of a degree in the preceeding decade, but that’s just natural variability. There is no reason to be surprised by that at all,” he said. “If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn’t mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability.”
@Warrenlib
>>Yes, you’re correct that the Science does explain why Antarctic sea ice has increased, while >>the oceans surrounding the Antarctic sea ice have warmed.
And their excuse is just silly
If melting land ice causes record sea ice, then why isn’t the same thing happening in the Arctic? We always hear about how Greenland & Alaska are melting, so why isn’t there record ice around them?
I guess to the alarmist Physics work differently depending on what side of the earth you are on
How come they couldn’t predict this would happen beforehand? Where are the predictions that the Antarctic sea ice would hit record highs before Antarctica sea ice hit record highs?
In fact they predicted the opposite.
From 2000 – 2007 sea ice around Antarctica was declining. This prompted the IPCC in their 2007 report to predict that due to Global Warming, the sea ice around Antarctica will continue to decline and maybe soon accelerate and the penguins were going to die. Of course, almost on queue, the sea ice rebounded and since then the opposite happened.
So, if Global Warming is causing record sea ice now, it can’t explain decline from 2000 – 2007 (or the other previous declines seen in the satellite record). If Global Warming caused the decline then, it can’t explain the growth now (or the other previous growths seen in the satellite record).
Also, look at the where the record sea ice is round Antarctica. The western peninsula is where pretty much all of the melting of land ice is happening, so you would expect the sea ice around it to be the most, but the record sea ice area is spread all around Antarctica. Actually some area around the Western Peninsula are even slightly below averages.
So it’s pretty clear you/they are just lying and making S^# up as they go along.
@Warrenlib
>>Your assertions on Arctic Sea ice are wrong. It’s not at all at a record high,
I never made such an assertion.
My post was about predicting the excuses the alarmist are going make when the Arctic sea ice goes above normal as predicted.
And looking at their excuses for the pause in warming seen and the record sea ice no doubt what they come up will be a doozy.
warrenlb says: May 25, 2014 at 11:29 am
Here’s the full quotation from Hansen, May 17 2013:
“It is not true that the temperature has not changed in the two decades.”
January 15, 2013 Hansen et al. wrote;
“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.”
it can be found at the end of the first paragraph here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
warrenlib says:
The data shows ice on earth is in rapid decline. Wrong.
And:
When 113 Nations signed on to the 2007 IPCC assessment, and all 200…&etc. That is nothing but the old Appeal to Authority fallacy. Planet Earth is proving every one of them wrong.
“To the extent that AGW might exist, its effect is minuscule. It is too small to measure” is fallacious… Man is the cause, and the net effects are very likely to be strongly negative…
Man is the cause? Prove it. Post real world evidence that conclusively quantifies the amount of global warming you assert is caused by human activity, as opposed to natural global warming. Enough of your baseless assertions. Post verifiable, testable evidence. If you can.
And note that “evidence” consists of raw data. Pal reviewed papers and computer models are not scientific evidence. So far, you have posted no evidence at all.
I challenged you before to post measurable, testable scientifc evidence proving that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. Instead, you merely asserted your opinion. That amounts to one big FAIL here at the internet’s Best Science & Technology site. And there is a reason the traffic at WUWT swamps SkS: SkepticalScience is a propaganda blog that heavily censors contrary opinion. It is completely unreliable and dishonest. Nothing posted there can be relied upon as being accurate.
Finally, your argument that YOU know that temperature rise caused CO2 to increase, while Scientists do not — is ludicrous.
Nonsense. I have repeatedly posted empirical data showing that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. I challenge you to post empirical data showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. If you cannot do that, your entire argument fails. Just like your silly assertion that global warming hasn’t stopped. Of course it has, even NASA/GISS acknowledges that. Here is real world data.
warren says the heat is hiding in the oceans….
…can anyone explain why all of a sudden the oceans decided to do that?
@DBSTEALY:
Appeal to authority? That’s the oldest semantic trick in the book. I cited COMPETENCE — the world’s PhD Scientists– in response to YOUR claim that AGW is not established. By your criteria, NO Scientific theory could be called ‘established science’
In response to your implication that the world’s ice is not declining, I showed you comprehensive, sourced data that shows arctic sea ice, Antarctic land ice, glacial ice, and the greenland ice sheet all in decline, and all you can do is post an unattributed graph for sea ice only?
You now say “I have repeatedly posted empirical data showing that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. I challenge you to post empirical data showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. ”
So you argue that CO2 causes Temp rise, then challenge me to post data showing it? Really?
And then you argue that increasing CO2 has no measurable effect on atmospheric temperature. No doubt you’ve looked at the standard Science, and empirical data on the topic, such as here, but deny it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
The summary of our final exchange is you play semantic tricks, post unattributed graphs that don’t address the question, contradict yourself within the same paragraph, and claim Scientists are wrong to attribute atmospheric temperature rise to CO2 rise. There’s not much left for you to assert, except perhaps that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that Aliens populated it a million year go.
People require a common language of science to discuss. You don’t have it, so lets end the discussion here.
Some humour for those receptive to it:
AND THE WINNER OF THE 2010 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARD * bad science
First Place goes to the following set of B.S.: “There has been no warming since 1998” [or 2000, or…], “the earth is cooling,” “global warming is natural,” and “humans are too insignificant to affect the climate.” Such statements are all nonsense and important for the general public to understand properly.
The reality is that the Earth’s climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors. The reality of climatic change can no longer be disputed on scientific grounds – the U.S. National Academy of Sciences calls the human-induced warming of the Earth a “settled fact.” The evidence for a “warming” planet includes not just rising temperatures, but also rising sea levels, melting Arctic sea ice, disappearing glaciers, increasing intense rainfalls, and many other changes that matter to society and the environment. The recent and ongoing warming of the Earth is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause.
This winning set of B.S. appears almost daily in the conservative blogosphere, like here and here and here, consistently in the statements of climate change deniers, and far too often in real media outlets. Actual science and observations from around globe have long shown the opposite (for example, here and here are nice rebuttals with real science). The planet continues to warm rapidly largely due to human activities, and average global temperatures continue to rise. The most recent decade has been the warmest decade on record and 2010 will likely go down as either the warmest or second warmest year in recorded history.
Associated B.S. argues that the famous “hockey stick” graph has been disproved. This graph shows the extraordinarily rapid warming of the twentieth century compared to the previous 1000 years. The graph and analysis have been upheld by subsequent researchers and numerous scientific assessments, including one from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
To the winners: congratulations, it is long past time your B.S. is recognized for what it is – bad science.
And to the public and the media: be forewarned: all of these and similar bad arguments will certainly be repeated in 2011. It is long past time that this bad science is identified, challenged, and shown to be the B.S. that it is.
The 2010 Climate Bad Science (B.S.) Detection and Correction Team
Peter Gleick, Kevin Trenberth, Tenney Naumer, Michael Ashley, Lou Grinzo, Gareth Renowden, Paul Douglas, Jan W. Dash, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Brian Angliss, Joe Romm, Peter Sinclair, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, John Cook, plus several anonymous nominators, reviewers, and voters.
What theory? CAGW has not reached the stage of speculation let alone hypothesis. Established means TIME. 30 years of hysteria is not enough.
warrenlib says:
I cited COMPETENCE — the world’s PhD Scientists– in response to YOUR claim that AGW is not established.
More assertions based on an appeal to authority. Warren cannot comprehend the fact that the planet is falsifying those so-called authorities. Who ya gonna believe, them, or your lyin’ eyes?
Regarding global ice cover, I posted a chart showing that global ice is above its 30-year average [the red line]. *Sheesh*, it’s hard geting past the religious convictions of the True Believers in the catastrophic AGW nonsense. Next:
So you argue that CO2 causes Temp rise, then challenge me to post data showing it?
Wrong again. As goldminor says above: Your preconceived thoughts are showing and they are clouding your reading comprehension.
I never said that ‘CO2 causes Temp rise’. That is your position, and the position of every other climate alarmist. My position has always been that any global warming from CO2 is simply too minuscule to measure. I stated that there is ample empirical evidence showing that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. That is exactly the reverse of the alarmist claim.
Next, warrenlib’s SkS link is simply an assertion that CO2 is the cause of most global warming. But there is no testable, measured raw data quantifying the amount of warming due to human emissions. Please don’t rely on SkS. They are not credible. SkS is a propaganda bvlog, nothing more. WUWT is where you will find the real science.
Per the Scientific Method, skeptics have nothing to prove. AGW is a conjecture, which might turn out to be true. But if so, CO2 is a *very* minor, 3rd-order forcing. Further, there is no evidence of any global harm due to the rise in CO2. Therefore, for rational, honest readers, the default position must be that CO2 is “harmless” [no harm = harmless]. We know that the added CO2 is greening the planet, because there are direct measurements of agricultural output, which are in lockstep with the rise in beneficial CO2. Cause and effect, my friend. It’s there.
Finally, I play no ‘semantic tricks’, as you falsely allege. You have simply lost the debate. You are the one bringing up aliens, allusions to creationism, etc. Those ad hominem attacks against me are your last resort, since you are incapable of making a credible case. You incorrectly assert that:
…the Earth has actually continued to warm faster in the last 16 years than it did in the preceding 16 years.
Maybe on your planet. But here on Earth, global warming has stopped.
Finally, global T has been both higher and lower than now during the Holocene. Nothing happening now is unusual, or unprecedented. It has all happened before, and to a much greater degree.
Only in your fevered, religious-based Belief is a climate catastrophe happening. The rest of us know better. The natural fluctuations of a few tenths of a degree have been part of our ‘Goldilocks’ climate for the past century and a half. The alarmist cult is trying to scare the public. It isn’t working. Crying “Wolf!!” only works for so long. Then folks realize that they are being swindled. Only those who have repeatedly told the scare story remain convinced of their nonsense:
A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged and the less it is understood, the more tenaciously it is held.
~ Georg Cantor
Warren is exemplified by the great writer Leo Tolstoy:
Warren is that guy.
warrenlib needs to take a reality break. Leave your religion, open your eyes and ears and the truth shall enter you. Otherwise, I feel for you. The truth is a bitch.
I have seen something resembling that graph before. It really is time it was posted up on WUWT. It puts the 0.8C rise since the second half of the 19th century into perspective.
How alarming does this look? We must act now? How accurate were we at measuring temps between 1880 to 1950? Have we done the measurements properly? Has there actually been a 0.8C rise in rural areas?
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
warrenlib, here are some reading materials from the peer review.
Holocene climate extremes
Great storms of the Little Ice Age
US droughts and mega-droughts during the Holocene
I have lots more and there are more on the net.
warrenlb says: May 25, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Some humour for those receptive to it:
AND THE WINNER OF THE 2010 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARD * bad science
First Place goes to the following set of B.S.: “There has been no warming since 1998” [or 2000, or…], “the earth is cooling,” “global warming is natural,” and “humans are too insignificant to affect the climate.” Such statements are all nonsense and important for the general public to understand properly.
Sad, you cannot provide any facts, thus you are stuck trying to hand wave with rhetorical “humor”. Do you agree or disagree with Hansen et al., 2013, i.e. “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade”?
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
The 2010 Climate Bad Science (B.S.) Detection and Correction Team
Peter Gleick, Kevin Trenberth, Tenney Naumer, Michael Ashley, Lou Grinzo, Gareth Renowden, Paul Douglas, Jan W. Dash, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Brian Angliss, Joe Romm, Peter Sinclair, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, John Cook, plus several anonymous nominators, reviewers, and voters.
That’s funny stuff, it’s like the Climate Science Keystone Kops…
warrenlib says:
The reality is that the Earth’s climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors.
Warren, pay attention: there is a corollary to the Scientific Method called the Null Hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis of climate science is that climate is always changing in a log-log fractal manner due to normal chaotic-nonlinear oscillation. CAGW not only fails to falsify this hypothesis, its practitioners fail to even understand what a Null Hypothesis is.
The climate Null Hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. Thus, if past climate parameters exceed current parameters, then the effect of CO2 does not appear. It is simply too small to measure. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.
Despite your baseless assertions, the planet’s climate is not changing significantly, or changing fast, or changing due to human factors.
Deconstruction of your assertions by the numbers:
…the Earth’s climate is changing significantly…
The current global climate has remained within a few tenths of a degree for the past century and a half. Preceding the Holocene, global T varied by TENS of degrees, within a decade — and during times when CO2 was very low. Even during the present Holocene, global T has fluctuated much more than it has over the past 150 years. The current global climate is simply not changing significantly, so that false claim is debunked.
…changing fast…
You assert that the current climate is “changing fast”. According to all available data, that is simply not true. Where do you get that nonsense? From SkS? All current climate parameters, from global temperature, to extreme weather events, to relative humidity, and specific humidity, etc., are very moderate. They have all been more extreme in the past. So your claim is flat wrong.
…and changing due to human factors.
You assert that the climate is changing due to human factors. During this entire debate I have been challenging you to post testable, measurable, empirical evidence, quantifying the change in global T attributable specifically to human emissions. But you have religiously avoided that challenge, instead relying on numerous baseless and wrong assertions.
It is always that way with the climate alarmist crowd. When it is time to put up or shut up, you do neither. That’s why you lost the debate.