Global warming discussion III

Continued from here.

Posted By:LashL

Quote:

Originally Posted by r-j (Post 10105868) When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science. http://ift.tt/1rJCy9B

Nothing wrong with the paper it’s your understanding that is lacking.



In fact it says pretty much the opposite of what you seem to think it does. It’s arguing against there being any change in the long term trend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r-j (Post 10105868) It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie.

Curious statement, since the paper you base this on argues the warming is continuing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by r-j (Post 10105868) Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.

Again, the issue here is your lack of understanding. Nothing in that paper disagrees with what I posted or supports what you posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r-j (Post 10105868) http://ift.tt/1k0s0eC

Internet pundit spotted!



In any case note how the web page puts “hiatus” in quotes? They do this to indicate that it’s being called a hiatus by others but they are not willing to refer to it as such themselves. The reason is simple. There are known cyclical 10-15 year periods or global temperatures above or below the underlying trend. To arrive at a statistically significant trend you need to pick a long enough period that this doesn’t skew your trend calculation, which means 20-30 years. Less than that, as is the case with the “hiatus” and you are not working with enough data to say the trend has changed.



The paper in Nature you linked to also point the finger at these know natural variation above/below the underlying trend.

via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1xIYnGJ