Why claims anthropogenic warming has stopped for the last 16 years are absolute tosh.

cods wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:42am:


So the carbon tax has nothing to do with this. Or is it that the carbon tax is really a non issue.

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:29am:


I note that you made zero comment about my post from the MET. While I expect little from dumb-bunny I do expect a rational response to my post. And BTW those weren simply figures picked out of the air. They came from the METs own information. The temperature over the next 4-5 years i predicted by the UK MET to be no hotter than current. Some of the graphs you use that show increase in temperature over the last 16 years use processed data ie moving averages of the last 30 years. So of course they show an increase because the graph isnt showing a particular YEAR's temperature but rather the sliding average. While it can be a useful lfigure it does howevr very conveniently hid the fact that temperatures are static.

You like to claim that 2010 and 2005 were the hottest. doesnt critical reasoning therefore ask 'what happened in 2006, 2007 2008 and 2009? they were COOLER. that same mindset would ask if those two years were nothing more that statistcially insignificant peaks in an overall trend of statis.

Just dont be so naive as to accept everything you find on the net as being accurate, unbiased or even what it claims to be.

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:27am:


you mean his response which dealth with ABSOLUTELY NONE of the facts I discussed? the fact that the MET is literally comparing temperatures to a 30 years 1971-2000 average which is 0,4 degrees below current temperatures?  While a useful measure for scientists and thos that haev a modicum of mathematical understanding it just as effectively HIDES the fact that they dont expect temperature to rise and have a 90% confidence that temperature will drop.

Come on MOTR... use that vaunted self-claimed critical reasoninng and tell me how the METs announcement isnt EXACTLY what I said - 4-5 years of no warming to come.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:


What they are predicting is a five year period that will average slightly more than the highest year they have on record. That's sustained heat not driven by a one off short term driver like the massive El Niño event we experienced in 1998. However, it's just a prediction, chances are it might be slightly cooler or even hotter.

The good news is that they are not predicting an acceleration in the rate of warming. Indeed they seem to be predicting a short term slowing in the rate of warming. Unfortunately, this means the foot on the accelerator is still going down, so we shouldn't be expecting a shift towards cooler temperatures. The bad news is that periods like this are to be expected, even when there is a clear and sustained underlying trend.

What it tells us is that the exceptionally hot year we experienced in 1998 has now becoming the norm. It's scary to think what our next massive El Niño will deliver.

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 9:20am:



I wonder if you actually see the silliness in the highlighted passage. the MET admits there will be NO increase and you see it as no change in the rate of warming - which is correct. Simple logic therefore is that if there is no change predicted for the future then the rate of change is zero. With your admission of no change in the rate of change then that implies that the current rate of change is also zero. That in simple terms means the temperatures are not currently increasing....

please try and debunk the logic above.

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:


congratulations on a complete absence of critical reasoning. I call your bluff and state that you never studid critical reasoning or that if you did, you failed. You simply repeat your mantra and then try and fit it into the facts that appear no matter how hard you try.

You should try an advanced course in statistics. the FIRST thing they teach you is how to read data impartially. They teach you that the raw data is the ONLY source of truth and that each step in processing it runs the risk of diminishing that truth. And if that processing isnt accompanied by an open mind and integrity you can end up with a hockey stick - a result debunked by almost every statistician yet supported by most climate scientists.

and that is how you get a totally accurate 30 year sliding average temperature graph demonstrating to the uninitiated or the blind that temperatures are rising when they are in fact not.

It is how when building a temperature reconstruction that you cherry pick the hottest temperatures rather than ALL the data. It is also why you use summer temperatures instead of annual temperatures.

and again, you have never yet explained the reason why so many very experienced respected prize-winning published scientist including climate scientists, say that ACC is garbage. Why is that?