[jawagord]

According to NASA data 2018 temperature anomaly is cooler than 2017 which was cooler than 2016 the current apex for global temperature. 2018 is actually cooler than 2015 making is the lowest temperature in 4 years. What do the expert peak analysts think, has an inflection point been reached, are we on the downward slide? Does it really matter, the numbers are all made up, the earth has no single temperature?

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/

[Newfie]

Statistically insignificant. If you look at the chart you see similar deviations, plus and minus, along the entire line. So this is nothing new. It may well just reflect the level of accuracy of the measurement. The long term trend still continues. Now if this trend were to continue for a few more years, add 3 or more Dara points then it would be significant.

But keel watching and get back to us in as the data develops.

[KaiserJeep]

There are a bunch of nature deniers here at Peak Oil Dot Com. There have always been datasets that dispute the unproven theory of AGW. These folks would deny such exist, and then when such evidence is produced for examination and analysis, dispute it - purely because they decided that the theory was correct, and opposition to the theory must not be tolerated.

Of course, such behavior is anything but "scientific".

[Newfie]

KJ,

You make a post saying everyone will dispute you. But then say nothing about what you think. Pity party. Collecting injustices. Maybe people don’t agree with your position or you post bad data.

[KaiserJeep]

Newfie, I must have posted links to the Earth-facing satellite dataset at least a half dozen times. You know, the satellite data that John R, Christy and Roy Spencer are in charge of at Huntsville, believed to be the most accurate upper atmosphere temperature dataset we have, but which do not match any of the existing climate models. That in fact show a cooling trend where the models indicate a warming should exist.

Recently, bullets were fired at their offices by eco-terrorists, who were angry that actual climate scientists dispute AGW.

I happen to believe that nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - that any peak oil forum member posts about AGW, whether in dispute or support of the theory, is meaningful. Nor do most people ever get past "the greenhouse effect is real, so the AGW theory is correct" level of argument.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Remarks below are not meant to deny CC motion, which I think is a reasonable one but I found it a very worrying trend to call plenty of nonsense recently published in many serious journals to be "scientific facts".
It is a sad situation that quality of scientific investigation is falling down in last decade or two.
A lot of garbage is being published in areas as different as high energy physics where micro black holes and additional dimensions were considered as some expected entities about to be found in LHC experiments.
All that seemed an utter nonsense for me from the start.
Thousands of die hards are struggling to deliver "Theory of Everything" out of current versions of string theories, despite that something like 10^265000 of different Calabi Yau manifolds might be unfolded out of those 10 or 11 dimensions and each needs separate investigation to assess its viability in our Universe. Good luck with a task.
We are also observing "Muliverse religion" grounded in unfounded beliefs that something was inflated in the past in one of countless possible ways. That is simply not falsifiable, eg not a science.

Chemistry is not in a better shape at all. Substantial numbers of garbage is published for example in organic chemistry area where non reproductible procedures are frequently published as working.
Reasonably skilled in the art reader of such publications can easily point out obvious errors on experimenter side so it is not surprise to him at all that published procedure cannot work even in theory. Degradation of skill is evident here.

There is a plenty of evidence that we are replacing proper scientific investigation with wishful thinking, pressure to publish that something was discovered even if it wasn't and similar other fraudulent practices.
On the top of it there is a dramatic decay of skill of new waves of "scientists".
For example younger chemists are displaying abyssymal level of knowledge and lack of ability to work with relatively simple chemicals in safe and productive manner, what was unseen 20 or 30 years ago.

My observations are suggesting that our society is transforming from a reasonably educated one to something what resembles idiocracy.
"Science" operating in such society should always be taken with a grain of salt and treated with suspicion until proven otherwise.

[jawagord]

Statistically insignificant. If you look at the chart you see similar deviations, plus and minus, along the entire line. So this is nothing new. It may well just reflect the level of accuracy of the measurement. The long term trend still continues. Now if this trend were to continue for a few more years, add 3 or more Dara points then it would be significant.

But keel watching and get back to us in as the data develops.

You are in good company there Newf, skeptics have been saying for years the changes in temperature anomalies are statistically insignificant!

NOAA explains that a margin of error takes into account the “inherent level of uncertainty” that comes with “[e]valuating the temperature of the entire planet.”

The agency adds that the reported temperature anomaly — 0.94 C in the case of 2016 — “is not an exact measurement; instead it is the central — and most likely — value within a range of possible values.”

For example, that range, or margin of error, would be 0.79 C (1.42 F) to 1.09 C (1.96 F) for 2016. Scientists at NOAA are 95 percent certain the temperature anomaly for 2016, or for any given year, will fall within the margin of error.

As Inhofe notes, NOAA scientists found that the average temperature for 2015 was 0.04 C less than 2016’s at 0.90 C (1.62 F) above the 20th century norm. The margin of error for 2015 was plus-or-minus 0.08 C (0.14 F), which means the range for 2015 is between 0.82 C (1.48 F) and 0.98 C (1.76 F).

The difference between 2015 and 2014, however, was wider. The average temperature for 2014 was 0.74 C (1.33 F) above the 20th century mean, or 0.16 C (0.29 F) less than 2015. The range for 2014 is between 0.59 C (1.06 F) and 0.89 C (1.60 F).

So the margins of error for these three years do overlap.

[Newfie]

Remarks below are not meant to deny CC motion, which I think is a reasonable one but I found it a very worrying trend to call plenty of nonsense recently published in many serious journals to be "scientific facts".
It is a sad situation that quality of scientific investigation is falling down in last decade or two.
A lot of garbage is being published in areas as different as high energy physics where micro black holes and additional dimensions were considered as some expected entities about to be found in LHC experiments.
All that seemed an utter nonsense for me from the start.
Thousands of die hards are struggling to deliver "Theory of Everything" out of current versions of string theories, despite that something like 10^265000 of different Calabi Yau manifolds might be unfolded out of those 10 or 11 dimensions and each needs separate investigation to assess its viability in our Universe. Good luck with a task.
We are also observing "Muliverse religion" grounded in unfounded beliefs that something was inflated in the past in one of countless possible ways. That is simply not falsifiable, eg not a science.

Chemistry is not in a better shape at all. Substantial numbers of garbage is published for example in organic chemistry area where non reproductible procedures are frequently published as working.
Reasonably skilled in the art reader of such publications can easily point out obvious errors on experimenter side so it is not surprise to him at all that published procedure cannot work even in theory. Degradation of skill is evident here.

There is a plenty of evidence that we are replacing proper scientific investigation with wishful thinking, pressure to publish that something was discovered even if it wasn't and similar other fraudulent practices.
On the top of it there is a dramatic decay of skill of new waves of "scientists".
For example younger chemists are displaying abyssymal level of knowledge and lack of ability to work with relatively simple chemicals in safe and productive manner, what was unseen 20 or 30 years ago.

My observations are suggesting that our society is transforming from a reasonably educated one to something what resembles idiocracy.
"Science" operating in such society should always be taken with a grain of salt and treated with suspicion until proven otherwise.

EU,

I did a lot of design and construction work over the years. The observations you make in your field parallel the work I’ve seen in my arena. Maybe I’m just a crumudgen who came up through the tools and got his degree at night school and my PE at 49, but I’ve seen a whole lot of engineers, young and old, who were totally unprepared for job. Sadly the more I moved into larger and larger projects the worse the level of engineeering became. Just silly simple stuff that was utterly basic to the work.

My experience matches your observations.

[Newfie]

Jawagord,

None of that changes the long term trend which is distinctly upward and accelerating.

Just think about it a moment. What you are trying to pass off is that graph that shows the smooth acceleration of warming all of a sudden has a very steep peak and a sudden downward trend. These environment simply doesn’t work like that. What you would see would be a slower rated of warming giving over to a period that is relatively flat, and then a decreasing slope.

Even if we were hitting some max it would not show in the graph for a few years. Be patient and see what happens. In the meantime it proves nothing.

[Cog]

What I've learned is climate change gurus hate satellite data showing a cooling trend. That is what I've learned here.

[clif]

Jawagord, you are basically claiming any year that goes down for more than one year in a row it means Global Warming has ended.


When this year which will include an el Nino event (which increases the temp rise due to el Nino effects), what will you say next year after the temp rises this year????? You are tilting at windmills in the way you are trying to deny what is happening in a decade/century long time frame. Individual yearly measurements can rise or fall ,but the decades long trend and even century long trend goes against your baseless claims.

But do deny reality........

[yellowcanoe]

What I've learned is climate change gurus hate satellite data showing a cooling trend. That is what I've learned here.

Well duh, people don't live in the upper atmosphere! Temperatures at ground level where people live and grow the crops that are essential to life are of far more relevance than temperatures in the upper atmosphere.

[onlooker]

DecadesofWarming_900_506_s_c1_c_c.jpg

Cmon, Jaw, who are you trying to kidd? The warming trend has been steady and relentless now for decades

[Newfie]

Yeah, even his own chart shows that.

[ralfy]

It peaks every few years.

From The Escalator:

[jedrider]

The upward trend, since 2000, is CLEARLY out of the noise and does not appear to be slowing down. Look, the ice is melting everywhere but at Niagara Falls (but that's temporary). The ocean has a great effect on the warming (and local cooling) but it is warming, too. I think it would be apparent if the warming trend were to reverse, and would probably take some years to be unmistakable in the signal. But, we have absolutely no reason to believe this would happen and every reason to believe that the warming will accelerate. Most likely, the ocean is the cause in the instability of the climate record, because where else would the heat go?

[dissident]

There was never any hiatus in the warming trend over the last 30 years. We had a surge in the warming rate after Pinatubo that was accentuated by the 1998 ENSO anomaly. This surge petered out by the middle 2000s. To the naked eyeball, reflexively latching onto the outer envelope of the plotted temperature anomaly curve, it looked like a flattening out during the 2000s. Geophysical trends cannot be assume to be purely linear. Both surges and wanes of the warming do not change the fact that the global atmosphere-ocean-land system is accumulating heat energy.

Also, we have the fixation on only the atmospheric data. So the ENSO and other oscillations that arise from heat transfer between the oceans and the atmosphere are plotted like some sort of extra-system variability. They are intra-system variation associated with deterministic processes. CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not have variable physical properties. Removing intra-system energy redistribution leaves very little inter-annual variability, which is mostly due to cloud and ice albedo variations.

[Tanada]

Newfie, I must have posted links to the Earth-facing satellite dataset at least a half dozen times. You know, the satellite data that John R, Christy and Roy Spencer are in charge of at Huntsville, believed to be the most accurate upper atmosphere temperature dataset we have, but which do not match any of the existing climate models. That in fact show a cooling trend where the models indicate a warming should exist.

Recently, bullets were fired at their offices by eco-terrorists, who were angry that actual climate scientists dispute AGW.

I happen to believe that nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - that any peak oil forum member posts about AGW, whether in dispute or support of the theory, is meaningful. Nor do most people ever get past "the greenhouse effect is real, so the AGW theory is correct" level of argument.

Funny thing is, those are exactly the readings predicted for sun facing data. The global warming effect is most observed on the NIGHT facing side of the planet where low infra red radiation is reflected back to the surface. On the sun facing side this same effect is expressed as cooling in the upper atmosphere as heat is reflected back down to the surface in the lower atmosphere.

Saying that the upper atmosphere is cooling on the day side of the planet as if that disproves the greenhouse effect is like taking the temperature 100 feet above the shell of a glass greenhouse and ignoring the readings inside the same greenhouse completely.

[Newfie]

That bullets were fired by eco terrorists, as appalling as it is, says nothin about their science or the any science. It’s not relevant to the discussion.

Abortion So tors have been murdered by other nut jobs, it seems but jobs come in every political stripe.

[shortonoil]

The burning of fossil fuels produces enough heat to raise the temperature of the all the world's oceans 1° F every 32 years. The calculations are simple enough that anyone can do them, so it is not necessary to rely on IPCC, or any other politically financed, or connected source. So, of course, the world should be warning up.

If the world heats up anymore, we here in Virginia, are all going to freeze to death next winter. The winters are cold and wet. The farmers are going to go broke because it never stops raining. Their winter wheat is drowning in the fields, and most of those fields have now become big, gigantic mud holes. The hardwoods are budding so late that the deer are pulling the grass up in my lawn by the roots.

We will start reducing fossil fuel consumption about now as reserves deplete out, and the global economy continues to contract. Whether or not we will again be partying in the sun is still unknown. We could ask IPCC; as they insist that they have all the answers. Considering the amount of funding they receive; they should.


Figure 1:  IPCC FAR Figure 7.1c - Schematic diagram of global temperature variations for the last thousand years. The dotted line represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century.


Figure 2:  The black curve and the x- and y-axes are a redrawn version of IPCC FAR Figure 7.1c.  The red curve is from Lamb (1982). The amplitude of this curve has been scaled to correspond to that of the black curve. The Lamb (1982) time series does have an explicit temperature scale, and the best-fit scaling between this curve and the IPCC curve indicates that one tick-mark interval on the IPCC figure corresponds almost exactly with 1°C.  The blue curve is a smoothed version of the annual instrumental Central England Temperature record from Manley (1974, updated) including the last complete year of 2007. This has been smoothed with a 50-yr Gaussian weighted filter with padding.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-M ... Period.htm