Yes I'd have to agree with Mr. Goddard on this, there is Strong And Growing Evidence Of Stupidity And Dishonesty.Note: This post has been corrected as the original graphs did not show the last 15 years from the time Goddard made his statement, a point picked up by one of his commentators. Some the data sets did show a flat line when this was done. However I do believe that the point stands. Goddard never specified a data set to support his claim and to do so would simply have been cherry picking since his claim isn't supported by the majority of the data.
"Fifteen years of temperature records would be 1996 - 2011."
ReplyDeleteThis is also true for 1997-2012 in the Wood for Trees data. The papers in the UK carried the "no significant warming for 15 years" story based on HadCRUT3v data from 1/1/1997-12/31/2011. In order to include all of 2011 in the Woods for Trees data you have to enter 2012 for the end date. See the difference between using 2011 as your end date and 2012 as your end date here.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2012/trend
1997-2012 is pretty flat.
ReplyDeleteHowever, remember when Prof Jones said there was no significant warming since 1998 a couple of years ago? He was on talking about the CRU data - there was significance in other data sets - now even the CRU data shows significace as measured scientifically.
Yes indeed, I do remember Professor Jones' comment and I remember that when he made it, it was based on your 15 year chart which includes an El Nino event in 2010, when the HadCRUT3V annual anomaly was +.470, the last year in your chart. Unfortunately with the drop in temperature in 2011, to +.342, the trend once again becomes insignificant for the most recent 15 year period which includes the 2011 data that you didn't use.
ReplyDeleteBut in a few months time it will be significant again, as we are just coming out of a double-dip La Niña (the first of which was one of the strongest on record according to some measures). And either way, the fact that a trend isn't significant, doesn't mean it isn't there.
DeleteWord games...
I think it is also significant, and always over looked by 'skeptics', is that 2011 was the hottest La Nina year on record and it was a fairly strong La Nina.
DeleteSatellites and ocean buoys offer some new data which shows that emperical data for heat accumulation in the oceans is much lower than modeled heat accumulation used by Trenberth and Hansen which are showing a warming bias.
Delete"In an earlier study of ocean heat content (OHC) we showed that Earth’s empirically implied radiation imbalance has undergone abrupt changes. Other studies have identified additional such climate shifts since 1950. The shifts can be correlated with features in recently updated OHC data. The implied radiation imbalance may possibly alternate in sign at dates close to the climate shifts. The most recent shifts occurred during 2001–2002 and 2008–2009. The implied radiation imbalance between these dates, in the direction of ocean heat loss, was −0.03 ± 0.06 W/m2, with possible systematic error of [−0.00,+0.09] W/m2.”
"All of the OHC-derived (empirical) radiation imbalance values
are smaller than the model values quoted by Trenberth and Fasullo
and the new model-based value (0.59 W/m2) of Hansen et
al. [17]. Indeed, in our analysis the OHC component of the implied
imbalance is sufficiently small that the geothermal contribution is
significant and may determine its sign.
"Since 2002 the implied radiation imbalance is close to zero. The
“pause” or “hiatus” in OHC on which this is based has been recognized numerous times in the recent literature, but its implications for the concept of “missing energy” and the theoretical predictions of radiation imbalance have almost never been brought out. See the discussion by Knox and Douglass [11]."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112001600
The paper you link to is behind a fire wall so I can't really comment on your claim that accumulated heat is lower than other papers or if that even makes much of a difference.
ReplyDeleteWhat I did notice is that as well as the abstract there are figures, including Fig 1 showing the abrupt changes or climate shifts that this paper seeks to establish. With the exception of the first climate shift, none of the other 7 have shown any cooling. Climate shift after climate shift has piled upon each other to product the current warming trend.
The fact that there's still debate on whether significant warming is occurring (let alone that most of it is anthropogenic) casts into question the wisdom of the postulate that we must spend, virtually without limits, to attempt (likely vainly) to cool the planet. No?
ReplyDeleteMarty there isn't any serious debate between the scientist community. Significant warming is occurring due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases following the basic physics discovered well over a century ago. If you really believe otherwise I suggest you look critically at the sources, people and qualifications you got your information from.
Delete