first of all you admit temps lead co2.. then you later deny it. 2. when you cease repeatedly posting your warped perspective charts. I try and post new items to this thread.. however, when you post one post repeats... I have to give the facts to counter... the facts have not changed...so its the same charts.
New paper on ‘the pause’ says it is 19 years at surface and 16-26 years at the lower troposphere The paper: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050. Abstract The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over the past 15 years or so. Measuring the duration of the hiatus has implications for determining if the underlying trend has changed, and for evaluating climate models. Here, I propose a method for estimating the duration of the hiatus that is robust to unknown forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (HAC) in the temperature series and to cherry-picking of endpoints. For the specific case of global average temperatures I also add the requirement of spatial consistency between hemispheres. The method makes use of the Vogelsang-Franses (2005) HAC-robust trend variance estimator which is valid as long as the underlying series is trend stationary, which is the case for the data used herein. Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 – 20 years but is likely unreliable. … The IPCC does not estimate the duration of the hiatus, but it is typically regarded as having extended for 15 to 20 years. While the HadCRUT4 record clearly shows numerous pauses and dips amid the overall upward trend, the ending hiatus is of particular note because climate models project continuing warming over the period. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 354 ppm to just under 400 ppm, a 13% increase. [1] reported that of the 114 model simulations over the 15-year interval 1998 to 2012, 111 predicted warming. [5] showed a similar mismatch in comparisons over a twenty year time scale, with most models predicting 0.2˚C – 0.4˚C/decade warming. Hence there is a need to address two questions: 1) how should the duration of the hiatus be measured? 2) Is it long enough to indicate a potential inconsistency between observations and models? This paper focuses solely on the first question. … Conclusion I propose a robust definition for the length of the pause in the warming trend over the closing subsample of surface and lower tropospheric data sets. The length term MAX J is defined as the maximum duration J for which a valid (HAC-robust) trend confidence interval contains zero for every subsample beginning at J and ending at T −m where m is the shortest duration of interest. This definition was applied to surface and lower tropospheric temperature series, adding in the requirement that the southern and northern hemispheric data must yield an identical or larger value of MAX J . In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series. MAX J estimates based on an AR1 estimator are lower but likely incorrect since higher-order autocorrelation exists in the data. Overall this analysis confirms the point raised in the IPCC report [1] regarding the existence of the hiatus and adds more precision to the understanding of its length. Dr. McKittrick writes on his website: http://www.rossmckitrick.com/index.html
could you be more juvenile. your chart shows co2 trails temperature. so it is very unlikely to be the cause.
Three new studies demonstrate climate sensitivity to CO2 is very low As climate researcher Paul "Chip" Knappenberger pointed out in a tweet this week, two new studies provide a double-whammy to climate alarm because 1)man-made aerosols have been found to have minimal cooling effects and 2) at least 50% of recent global warming is not anthropogenic. Therefore, the possible role of CO2 in causing global warming has to be far less than previously assumed, and the "climate sensitivity" to doubled CO2 levels therefore very low. In addition, a third paper published this week demonstrates that radiative imbalance from large volcanic eruptions resolves within ~2 years, not 20+ years as claimed by James Hansen as his excuse for the 18 year "pause" in global warming. This means that volcanic aerosols have minimal long-term cooling effects and therefore, the warming effect of CO2 has to be much lower than assumed in Hansen's climate models and thus climate sensitivity estimates must be lowered even further. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/three-new-studies-demonstrate-climate.html
Here is the relevant research: little aerosol impacthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021308/abstract … ~50% recent warming non humanhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897.abstract … this was a tweet by chip knappenberger
there is no question co2 also causes cooling. so the question is what happens when you add more of it. answer... no one knows. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe. “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.” For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
But on balance it most definitely causes warming. There is no question about that . Climate science 101. Give it up, whacko.
we don't know if adding man made co2 causes warming... it may create more clouds which probably causes cooling. it may be whatever it does is insignificant compared to the sun and the currents. you have no science showing that man made co2 causes warming.. if you did you would link to it.