'The forecast is for continued global warming largely driven by continued high levels of greenhouse gases. However, other changes in the climate system, including the largest El Niño since 1997 and longer term shifts in both the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), are also contributing. Near record temperatures are predicted for the coming five years, consistent with the Met Office annual global temperature forecast. However, the recent run of consecutive record years is likely to end in 2017 as El Niño declines. '

'Nevertheless, the recent slowdown in surface warming is still an active research topic and trends over a longer (15 year) period will take longer to respond. For further discussion on the surface warming slowdown see the Met Office reports on the recent pause in warming and on big changes underway in the climate system.'

So CO2 is still increasing but we are not expecting consecutive  record years.

Natural Variability?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/deca...

Is not phase change natural variation?

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:26pm:

Lol, you're a friggin joke!

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

Seems like you are mixing up your nomenclatures for the purposes of simplistic propaganda. 

I win the internet again, cheers 

Where are the theoretical and computer models that predict static or declining global temperatures as Carbon Dioxide levels rise in the earth's atmosphere?

Surely there is one model out there can be paid for and squeezed out by the Fossil fuel industry?

Of course we all know that even the fossil fuel industry accepts the science that underpins AGW.

We are only left with flat earthers, child haters and denialist lunatics - a small proportion of society, but nevertheless still swimming in their pathetic neurotic pit of putrid excrement - a sludge of their own making

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:


Don't need models hairy arse, observations have proven the theory you worship wrong.

Now apologize and self ban for 24 hours for spreading your lies.

lee wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:

BACK TO THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE FOR ANOTHER 50 BILLION PAGES: I LOVE CIRCLE WORK YUMMY YUMMY IN MY ******     

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 11:15am:



But the father of global warming, James Hansen, said natural variability couldn't explain the temperature increase in his address to Congress in 1988.

Now apparently, natural variability can explain the slowdown, or 'hiatus' per IPCC.

You want it both ways. It can't address rapidly increasing temperatures, but it can address a slowdown in rapidly increasing temperatures. CO2 is still going up, it hasn't paused.

You are prognosticating on the trend. What means are you using? Ouija board?

..people died for this 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 11:52am:

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:11pm:



Lee, I am curious.
One minute you are claiming that any warming is due to natural variation the next you reverse your position and claim that scientists are fudging figures to create warming that isnt there.

So what is your position?
- do you believe that the Earth is warming but it is due to natural variation? or
- do you believe that the Earth isn't warming and the scientists are merely fudging the  figures?

You can't have it both ways

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:42pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:


I am not claiming anything. The records show we have been warming since the last ice age. CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature. The problem is by how much. The IPCC says approximately half the warming in the 2nd half of the 20th century is due to CO2.

However, the models are showing too much warming. That means the models are wrong. That means the parametrisations are wrong.

And it is a fact that NASA/GISS/NOAA have adjusted the temperatures.

It is also a fact that BoM have adjusted temperatures.

That means it can be both natural and scientists fudging the figures. They are not mutually exclusive.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:


Do some research on the matter.

It has been over a decade that the large fossil fuel and mining corporations of the world made a joint statement to the effect "....the planet has been warming due to human activities, and urgent action is needed to mitigate the effects on the climate and other systems" (paraphrasing here, but you get the drift lee, dont you - or are scurrying away to consult with Dr Sircus?)

you must apologise

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:

oh looky: lee wants more precision presumably with some associated error value 

<snap, servant: we need some more precision and some of that error value thingy pronto !!>



<<mummys orders, I've told you before I won't be afraid to bring out the big guns and such...  >>

Lee,

-You are incapable of a simple arithmetic calculation. I gave you three chances to redeem yourself.

-You obviously don't understand the Earth's Carbon Balance

-You don't understand what the Southern Oscillation Index is, and you confuse what its predictive value is. 

-When faced with the basic technical details of radiative forcing, you abandon the thread only to start a new one

-The only technical material you can discuss is what you glean from denialist blogs. (without actually understanding it)

-You don't read original papers

-You fail to understand the difference between Significance Levels and Confidence Intervals


In short, you are really not in a position to demand precision data from anybody.

What do you understand to be the difference between precision and accuracy?

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:



Accuracy - Instrumental or Human error in reading?

Instrumental - has error bars. eg Dry bulb thermometer +/-0.5C, Thermistor +/-0.1ºC
Although there is some doubt on the accuracy of digital devices.

'One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ (my emphasis):

    For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average  a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.”

Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.'

http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/12/university-of-augsburg-44-year-veteran-meteor...

Original in German\-

http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/bayern/Meteorologe-findet-Diskussion-um-Klim...

Human error = who can tell?

When merging datasets we should use the wider error bars. We cannot adjust for human error.

Precision - Averaging temperatures to tighter error bars.e.g.  the two datasets in glass thermometers and digital and coming up with errors to 1/100's of a degree. e.g NOAA who seem to always confuse accuracy with precision.

An interesting article at Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:



You just proved you know nothing about accuracy or precision.

Your pistol shooting also needs work.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:57am:



If the instruments are faulty or they change sites it is better to have them as a new site. IF there is a change in instrument or site there may be a step change in temperature. IF there is a step change in temperature it may be feasible to adjust the temperature for that change, but it is not preferred. It would be a constant, it would be noted as to the size and for the reason for the adjustment. To homogenise data because there is no report, or because it is deemed one reading is inconsistent is not correct. Ad hoc adjustments are not correct.

'The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 best-correlated sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge.'

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf

So the "scientifically accepted practice" is to make adjustments that are not replicable?

I was taught if it is not replicable it is not science.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:57am:



Are all other things equal?

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:57am:



Did you read this?

'Mapping urban heat islands of arctic cities using combined data on field measurements and satellite images based on the example of the city of Apatity (Murmansk Oblast)'

' Calculations of the surface layer temperature have been made based on the surface temperature data obtained from satellite images. The experimental data on air temperature were obtained as a result of expeditionary meteorological observations, and the experimental data on surface temperature were obtained based on the data of the space hyperspectral Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) system, channels 31 and 32 (10.78–11.28 and 11.77–12.27 micrometers, respectively). As a result of the analysis of temperature fields, an intensive heat island (up to 3.2°C) has been identified that was estimated based on the underlying surface temperature, and its mean intensity over the observation period significantly exceeds the representative data for European cities in winter. '

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS000143381509011X#/page-1

UHI from heating the buildings escaping to the atmosphere. Now you know where GISS gets the red for the Arctic.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:


i could have left it as a direct quote lee - but I dont work like you and Jethro do. I try to be honest with my public posts in this temple of intellectual worship.

Your job is to find the PRECISE quote made by the international fossil fuel and mining corporate community with regards to the science of AGW and what should be done about it.

Surely you don't expect me to do all of your work?

You cant survive by merely viewing jethro's videos.

Now get a move on, and be very ACCURATE with your posts in future

Be accurate and precise lee

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 12:09pm:



No I expect you to do your own work.

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 11:49am:


hahahaha 

That old chestnut again. You really have been reading too many psuedo scientific AGW denial blogs.

Data can never be replicated (unless you have a time machine). It is the results  that have to be repeatable for it to be science.

So we can call that  "if it is not replicable it is not science." just another example of the dishonesty of the global warming deniers.

It is not the data which needs to be repeatable, it is the results that need to be.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:



Right. Now show how BoM can replicate adjustments (the results). Adjustments are not the data.

How can BoM repeat an adjustment, the expert judgment, the person's thought processes?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:40pm:



The argument was about replication.

The anthropogenic global warming train has greased many departments.

It's really sad to what lengths these departments go to, to keep their heads above water.



Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/the-bom-homogenizing-the-heck-out-of-australian...

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:


I mean the basics like precision and accuracy, which you have yet to master.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:08pm:



Yes, but accuracy includes error bars. And you showed in your picture that your grasp of accuracy and precision is limited to static targets.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:



I can;t help it your so dense.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 8:17pm:



You're right, Not well expressed. How can a thing that is accurate have error bars? You're right. Huang and Karl are just not accurate.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 8:28pm:



How much certainty do you want?

Hey hairy arse I've said it before and i'll say it again, I don't care for our government greasing the oil industry.

If the oil and gas companies don't like it, that is our governments stop giving them grants they can ferk off and our government can take over, same goes for mining.

The infrastructure is there so are the workers, all that is needed is a CEO and board of directors to run the show.

Of course non of these will earn more than our PM.

Its the wealth of this nation and therefore the peoples wealth, its not for sharing amongst a few greedy men at the expense of the Australian citizen.

Now you should apologise and self ban for 24 hours for wanting to financially enslave every Australian and their children and children's children for EVER paying taxes on the air we breath to the united nations all base on a false science that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:29pm:


The higgs particle was found in 2013, AGW is much older than that, the science was never based on the higgs particle.

So what is your point.......??????

Ajax wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 12:10pm:

bATMAN IS TALKING DOUBLE-DUTCH.... it aint a dying language for no reason I suppose 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 1:17am:



Except in CAGW