You're getting thoroughly confused. "They" in your first paragraph should refer to deniers who look at the pause and then assume that that disproves global warming. The climate researcher is not "they" but deniers who refer to a subset of the data. There's your wrong prognosis. There is no differentiation in the origin of temp values because both sides use the same data set. The problem is that deniers who refer to a pause to debunk claims regarding global warming are using only a portion of that data set. That's why this issue has nothing to do with linear regression. It has to do with the fact that deniers are using only one portion of the timeline (1998-2012) to claim that because there's a pause then there's no global warming. There's the source of that "bitter taste". And the article that you mentioned doesn't counter my argument at all. Take a look at Fig. 2. Whether it's old or new analyses there's still a warming trend.
Yes you are right it might be confusing the way I have posted.... With 'they' I really meant those authors from my linked site. And with failed badly I meant the hilatus (the time before 1998 they did not expect a plateau). The deniers isolated then the period 1998-2012 to justify their idea. 'They' from the article later then had access to more differentiated data and access to data of recent months/years. As said we are basically in agreement. There is global warming! There are two things. More recent data AND new analyses "bias-corrections" buoy- and ship-based data change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) advancements in the calculation of land surface air temperatures Summarized: How/what/where do I measure in a reasonable way and which period is suitable to make a reliable prognosis? I'm sure there will be always isolated cycles and periods where new pauses show up. To determine warming I always need a reference to compare...and to convince people science has to work with pictures and media, not with data and diagrams which have a big latitude for interpretations. Melting glaciers and their function as a water accumulator. Changing conditions at particular locations, shift of climate zones, water shortage, starvation. More 'energetic' weather conditions... Maybe in the end again why I post. I think the topic climate change and the way politics is arguing is not the best, that’s all. Finally it is all about dealing with nature and changing conditions AND human responsibility. It’s actually about the simple taking and giving back principle. We have the sun as biggest source of energy. Why do we destroy nature to gain energy? Why do we burn capacities from her even though we get energy from sun all day??? Why do we think there can be place in nature which is totally isolated from 'me' totally unaffected where I can dump all my waste???
The start date should not be chosen arbitrarily. Rather, it should be based at the point when CO2 emissions reached a certain level. Some select 350 ppm. That makes any fine-tuning of models irrelevant because we are now at 400. Next, include ocean heat content. That one has been rising significantly to the point that corrections are irrelevant. Finally, one notes the impact of rising warming. That means taking note of over fifty positive feedback loops, all of which makes fine-tuning models even more irrelevant.
Yes this can be a way to illustrate warming... But I think (as posted) there are other things which are more important. What is the intention of those who want to illustrate warming? And where begins responsibility for human actions? The actual topic is not warming yes or no.... It's clear we're in a warming cycle...and it's clear CO2 absorbs infra red radiation. It's clear burning fossile organic materials raises CO2 level. But it's also clear that there are natural events which have impact on climate and there are anthropogenic effects....that means that what we 'measure' is the absolute value of both. We cannot isolate one phenomenon and say CO2 is responsible for current warming. We can say it contributes to warming to an unknown amount. The same applies to a solar storm (emission/activity level). I personally think we are in a warming cycle which is accelerated by human behavior. But nobody could convince me so far that CO2 is the cause for current warming. ANYWAY I also think measures to reduce CO2 level are reasonable, but 'my' argument is renewability of energies not global warming!
Australia “Weather-Experts” Falsify Climate Change “Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.” http://www.activistpost.com/2017/08/australia-weather-experts-falsify-climate-change.html
If CO2 is not the cause of that acceleration in warming, then what aspect of human behavior is? If reducing CO2 levels is reasonable, then why do you need to be convinced that CO2 is the main cause of warming? If you can't resolve both questions, then why do you need further illustration of warming? And isn't renewable energy a response to the fact that CO2 is the main cause of accelerated warming?
That refers to AU temperature records, not climate change. To find out about assessments of the latter, consider NAS reports.
Temperature anomalies since 1900 until today ... just think if it continues similarly for the next 100+ years https://www.flickr.com/photos/150411108@N06/35471910724/ https://twitter.com/anttilip?ref_sr...ka-ilmasto-on-lammennyt-vuodesta-1900/6524534
@R29k: I hate to break it to you, but that "Idiot" just performed a brilliant piece of Social Engineering with that tweet. Because of that tweet, more people will become suspicious of the Climate Change agenda, and tend not to support it. Even if the theory and the data is100% right (which it's not). If Scientists can't agree on the cause of "Global Warming", how can anybody expect the average person to take them or it seriously? It is, in fact all about business and money. The more lax the regulations, the easier it is for me to make money, because I don't have to spend a fortune on upgraded "clean" technology, or more stringent testing. And my profit margin is higher, so I can "beat the competition". So that lends a little bit of plausibility to His statement. @MS_User: I know you were joking. Sometimes the best jokes are made from the truth.
I do not need to be convinced that CO2 is the cause for global warming. I am pro Paris, though. But politicians and some scientists try to convince people! I think like I’ve posted already that CO2 contributes to warming to an unknown amount. This is reasoned by the fact that it absorbs IR radiation to a greater amount than ‘air’. Humans are responsible for the increment of CO2 amount. And here ends the chain of causality. CO2 is on the ‘warming side’. If there would be a more important phenomenon on the ‘cooling side’ it would override it as measurable absolute value. Simply spoken I go there where people cannot argue differently. Humans do burn fossil fuels and fossil fuels are limited and they took energy from sun during many many years. It is stored (accumulated) sun energy. Anything is limited, but the most reasonable way is to ‘take’ from the most direct way and that is the sun. Responsibility comes with grown knowledge. When humankind has recognized that something is limited a shorter term and there is something available a longer term then it is reasonable to do a change. Besides of that the sun is the source of energy of all other intermediates. Renewable energy should be no response to global warming. It should be response from a grown maturity of humankind. Fossil fuels should be considered as temporary source of energy to gain time for evolution of mind. This time is over now. We know it better already. The truth is that everything there is still about money (might), yes. But what Trump says is pure BS. It’s even embarrassing and unbelievable that a person that is called US president is saying that. The ‘concept’ of global warming brings requirements / economical restrictions for those agreeing with a CO2 limitation. The only one who is capitalist and anti-social in this regard is Trump himself. He blames others for to get their own advantage over others by releasing a concept while he himself is doing exactly the same. He cares for the US (actually his ego only) and kicks all the rest (nature). This is a pure asshole behavior and a joke for somebody who bears the title US president. Nobody here takes him serious. With his 'politics' he'll ruin the US even more.
@Yen: The problem is, that there's a substantial group of Americans who do take him seriously. And these people do not care about the opinions of the rest of the world. Right or wrong, it still puts a negative slant on climate change. I'm sure you've heard it said that people are stupid and dangerous in large numbers. Now add business owners who want to maximize their profits. They don't really care about the average American or Climate Change. They see us as consumers. Do you think that they care whether or not his statement is accurate? They're going to follow him if there's a dollar to be made. In my 60 or so years, this is what I've witnessed. And that's the reality of things here in America. It's about the money, and individuals trying to compete for it. No honor, no integrity. I'll reiterate my position, just so every one knows. Regardless of whether or not Climate Change is real, we need to clean up after ourselves and find ways not to pollute the land and sea. We need to stop pissing in our own food pantry. The land and sea is our food source. We've all but destroyed it. America needs to implement the same reclamation technology that's been invented in other countries. We need to recycle garbage safely and somehow use it to generate energy. The City and State municipalities need to be forced to stop implementing laws that restrict people from using alternate energy. In New York City, it's illegal to put up a vertical wind turbine on the roof of an apartment house. Why? because our utilities do -NOT- want to share their profits. Basically, what they did was the same kind of social engineering that our president did; They approached animal activists and convinced them that vertical windmills would kill pigeons(!?!) America has all but closed itself off from the rest of the world. And I don't see that changing any time soon.
Maybe Trump (or people generally) should just make up his mind and notice that our future capital relies on renewable energies. It is known by everyone that the life of the fusion reactor called sun will deliver energy a much longer period of time. It’s plain stupid to think the way I get now what's here and do not care long-term. And exploring a branch called renewable energies also creates new jobs. I mean where is the difference? People involved in fossil fuels might consider a change of their jobs. If the US is hesitating others get the piece of the cake.
There all fixed. I am also suspicious of the clime change agenda, I don't think either side is 100% right or 100% wrong. For example, why the need to falsify climate data if the conclusion is a given ?! Also butchering the environment to get x resource can't be good in the long term no matter how you want to look at it, especially when the bottom line is the pockets of some already rich person!