The work is significant because the rate of global warming from 2000-2009 is lower than the 0.16C per decade trend seen since the late 1970s, a fact climate scientists have been keen to explain. Including the new sea surface temperatures, which push up global temperatures by 0.03C, the warming rate for the past 10 years is estimated at 0.08-0.16C. The new analysis of sea surface temperatures adjusts underestimates which arose from the change from predominantly ship-based temperature measurements before 2000 to mostly buoy-based measurements afterwards

It took a while, but once they realised the warming wasn't happening, they found a way to adjust the data so it looks otherwise - but still below predicted 0.16C
The article as usual is idealogically loaded with no mention of the real reason why 2010 has seen higher temperatures - other than implying it''s a symptom of CO2 induced global warming.

I still, after several years and so many examples, find it breathaking how people like you, four, can make such serious allegations of people you have never met and probably never will.

You'd never say such things of people to their face, you have zero evidence for what you alledge. Why do you keep doing it??? Presumably you listened to what Dr Pope had to say on R4 this morning rather than simply jeking your knee??? Where is the beef???

---

The work is significant because the rate of global warming from 2000-2009 is lower than the 0.16C per decade trend seen since the late 1970s, a fact climate scientists have been keen to explain. Including the new sea surface temperatures, which push up global temperatures by 0.03C, the warming rate for the past 10 years is estimated at 0.08-0.16C. The new analysis of sea surface temperatures adjusts underestimates which arose from the change from predominantly ship-based temperature measurements before 2000 to mostly buoy-based measurements afterwards

It took a while, but once they realised the warming wasn't happening, they found a way to adjust the data so it looks otherwise - but still below predicted 0.16C
The article as usual is idealogically loaded with no mention of the real reason why 2010 has seen higher temperatures - other than implying it''s a symptom of CO2 induced global warming.

It's completely unscientific, unsupported, prejudiced and ignorant posts like this that really irritate me.

You don't agree with the message so you find some flimsy excuse to be disparaging again.

Tedious but sadly predictable.

---

Was 2010 warmer due to C02 induced AGW?

---

 Presumably you listened to what Dr Pope had to say on R4 this morning rather than simply jeking your knee??? Where is the beef???

No I looked at the article on the AGW propaganda site

---

Was 2010 warmer due to C02 induced AGW?

Well, let's try to work it out from first principles...

• Low solar activity - in fact an extremely low and extended solar minimum, as I understand it


• La Nina conditions in the Pacific since April/May


• Levels of CO2 40% above the pre-industrial levels

So, we have two natural forcings that are working to reduce temperature and one that is acting to raise temperature.

Yet we have 2010 as the joint second warmest in the record.

 

So, in your expert opinion why isn't 2010 at most just an average year in terms of global temperatures?

---

I wonder why Four disappears when you ask a simple question?

---

I wonder why Four disappears when you ask a simple question?

He has probably disappeared under a deluge of snow right now ,judging from accounts in his area, wondering where all this global warming talk is comming from..

Just though I would lighten things up a bit. 

Hope we get some in Dublin later.

I know it's off topic and breaking thread boundaries Gandalf, But is there any chance of a view on the Dublin position as regards snow, on the analysis thread.Well done by the way,some good stuff there.

 

“The buoys measure sea temperatures as being slightly lower than ships, which were used more in the past, according to Matthew Palmer, an ocean scientist at the Met Office.

“We’ve effectively underestimated the rate of warming over the past decade,” Palmer said”



Er, no. They’ve effectively overestimated it before the past decade. They should be adjusting the earlier years downward not the later years up. The new methods are supposed to be more accurate than the old methods aren’t they ?

I've read around the 'Argo issues' over the past 5 years (since the data was leapt upon as soon as it was showing what some folk would 'like' to see) and so know that there is a lot of info to be read about the system. Apart from the 'faulty' systems on board some of the Buoys most (now properly calibrated) are proving as useful as envisaged.

It's not a matter of 'improving' ships data , it's a whole new system. Some info 'overlaps' the ship data but I'm lead to believe their remit is much larger than ship data was ever meant to be?

Sadly we've been receiving 'good data' from most of the buoys (now calibrated) for over 3 years now so I worry as to why folk wish to revisit this again?

If the folk bleating about 'missing heat' really want to find it (and not just an answer that suits) then be patient with Argo 'cause the ocean depths is my best guess for where it's at and it'd be handy to know that before it resurfaces at the 'upwelling points' and rapidly accelerates our current rate of warming.

Seeing as most deep ocean currents take less than 100yrs to do their 'round trip', and we've been altering the atmosphere to a warming one for 150yrs, we will run into our 'lost heat' soon enough (remember the 30/40's warming spurt?).

---

“The buoys measure sea temperatures as being slightly lower than ships, which were used more in the past, according to Matthew Palmer, an ocean scientist at the Met Office.

“We’ve effectively underestimated the rate of warming over the past decade,” Palmer said”



Er, no. They’ve effectively overestimated it before the past decade. They should be adjusting the earlier years downward not the later years up. The new methods are supposed to be more accurate than the old methods aren’t they ?

C'mon, Stephen, think about it...

---

“The buoys measure sea temperatures as being slightly lower than ships, which were used more in the past, according to Matthew Palmer, an ocean scientist at the Met Office.

“We’ve effectively underestimated the rate of warming over the past decade,” Palmer said”



Er, no. They’ve effectively overestimated it before the past decade. They should be adjusting the earlier years downward not the later years up. The new methods are supposed to be more accurate than the old methods aren’t they ?

C'mon, Stephen, think about it...

He does, but only in his own terms and to suit his pre-determined agenda. 

It's bad enough that we have to endure poor science and politically-motivated denial but when the facts are challenged or ignored when they don't give the answer people want....

---

"C'mon, Stephen, think about it..."


Well I've tried but I can't see a good reason for adjusting either set. Each is what it is and should stand unaltered.

Why would it be right to adjust the Argo data upwards rather than the ship data downwards ?

Have I missed something ?

Precisely, it depends on if you have an agenda.
In which case everything can be made to fit it one way or the other.

---

Precisely, it depends on if you have an agenda.
In which case everything can be made to fit it one way or the other.

Well you would certainly know about personal agendas.

Now, any chance of answering my question in post #185 above or are you just programmed to deliver irrelevant one-liners?

---

The other nag is that we were told, mid noughties , to expect some flat lining/cooling up to 2015 before warming would 're-start' with a vengeance. Here we are, in the middle of that period, looking at a record warm year whilst reading reports about how we've underestimated the warming......

The Arctic sciences were taken by surprise by 07' (well it's timing) and now we seem to be looking at another group who seem to have under cooked their projections. How many other disciplines need we see surprised by the 'speed' of the changes before we accept that maybe we should not be looking for a slowdown in the rate of change (both within the Arctic system and within the atmosphere) but a 'step change in it?

Once we have enough ocean data will things be a lot clearer as to why we see this happening (Esp. with a low energy sun .Nina' and low solar) right now?

If the 'globally cooled period' was not something that troubled the oceans in the same way as it did the land then maybe we have 40years of 'warming' that we did not account for and is now making it's presence felt? Maybe the deep ocean currents are starting to show their hand? It certainly isn't the "Sun wot done it" now is it?

---

Gray Wolf,

Do you realise that a circuit of the Thermohaline Circulation is 1000 years or so ?

On that basis your fears have already been more than fully realised. We are now seeing the return of MWP warmth which is temporarily masking the effect of the less active sun.

Now, any chance of answering my question in post #185 above or are you just programmed to deliver irrelevant one-liners?

The Met office didn't say anything about the points you made, but implied the warmer 2010 is caused by increased CO2.
There's a continual agenda to portray CO2 as the major driver of climate, when evidence is mounting that it's a minor if not insignificant one.

I don't think anything is irrelevant in this thread, it's the catch-all hoax thread
How do you know I aren't getting £10,000 everytime I post a sceptic post here?
Maybe there's a bonus everytime Gandalf and Devonian fly into a strop (will  check later)

---

Now, any chance of answering my question in post #185 above or are you just programmed to deliver irrelevant one-liners?

The Met office didn't say anything about the points you made, but implied the warmer 2010 is caused by increased CO2.
There's a continual agenda to portray CO2 as the major driver of climate, when evidence is mounting that it's a minor if not insignificant one.

I don't think anything is irrelevant in this thread, it's the catch-all hoax thread
How do you know I aren't getting £10,000 everytime I post a sceptic post here?
Maybe there's a bonus everytime Gandalf and Devonian fly into a strop (will  check later)

So you decline to answer the question then?

In post #183 you said: Was 2010 warmer due to C02 induced AGW?

I asked you to suggest how else it might be warmer if the natural cycles are working to deliver cooling.

The fact that you won't engage suggests either you don't have a case or you don't have a clue. 

I wonder which one it might be?

 

---

There's a continual agenda to portray CO2 as the major driver of climate, when evidence is mounting that it's a minor if not insignificant one.

No there isn't.

Though this sentiment maybe explains the problem

Co2 is portrayed by science as the most significant factor in underlying warming occuring over and above any warming (or other climatic change) that may occur naturally.  At no time has anyone except deniers suggested it's currently a major driver of climate - though it may have been more significant a few hundred million years ago.

See the difference?

---

In another thread the idea of latent heat from the oceans is well covered.
The oceans are cooling now due to the cooling influences you mention, not at the start of the year.

---