See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4657540

Zero content or analysis in the article. Hacker News is not the place for your pseudo science climate change denialism.

It is pseudo science because the post contains no scientific analysis of the statistic(s). Just because I use data from the large hadron collider in some mixed up argument for a geocentric universe doesn't make my argument scientific.

You can find all sorts of things if you cherry pick time intervals, especially with such noisy data as global temperature.

>Unfortunately the actual data hasn't aligned with the predicted output of the models for many years. This dataset is yet another example.

No it isn't. You are practicing pseudo science again. You have made no comparison between the temperature data and the models, and no argument as to why a system as complex as global climate should be stable enough for direct correlations with models over relatively short time spans.

The catastrophic global warming crowd seems to have no problem at all predicting a grim future based on temperature increases over a short period of time.

I tend to agree with you that planetary climate trends are not visible within the span of available global temperature data. But that argument works against the catastrophic global warming theory also.

Here is one discussion of the models vs. reality: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-...

>I tend to agree with you that planetary climate trends are not visible within the span of available global temperature data

Uh, we have temperature data available for far longer than 17 years, and it does show a clear warming trend. That is why you had to cherry pick the 17 year interval remember?

WUWT is not a credible source of scientific information or analysis so I'm not going to waste my time reading it. A model from 1988 is hardly relevant: climate science has advanced hugely since then. If scientists though the 1988 models were good enough why have they spent the last 24 years making better models?

I was a little unclear. What I meant is that the instrumentation record (thermometers and satelites) is quite short (geologically speaking) vs. the proxy record (ice cores, tree rings, etc).

And maybe I can make another clarification. I accept that there is a warming trend visible in the geological record. I don't think that trend is the source of the 'debate' with regarding to catastrophic global warming.

The debate arises when climate modelers predict a catastrophic rise in temperatures that is a distinctly different signal layered on top of the accepted climactic trend and which is triggered by human activities. This comes not from direct increases in CO2 but via postulated positive feedbacks in the system triggered by increases in CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

A 17-year pause in the background climactic trend (i.e. what the planet would be doing without human activities) is not at all surprising nor does it conflict with long term climactic trends.

A 17-year pause in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming predicted by the models is a completely different story. When that is coupled to the continuing increase in CO2 concentrations you now have a way to evaluate the magnitude of the postulated CO2 feedback. The pause, despite the increased C02 would seem to indicate that the models have overestimated the positive feedback.

Without the positive feedback the dire consequences predicted by the models is much less likely and so the massively expensive and disruptive policy choices are that much harder to justify -- especially in the short-term.

TL;DR A 17 year pause in warming is a strong indication that anthropogenic climate models are woefully incomplete and shouldn't be the basis for massive policy disruptions in the energy sector.

Siberia is melting (melted) : 40,000 year warming. Arctic ice melted. Antarctic shelf gone (another 100,000 year warming). How's that for data?

It's silly to argue models when the real world is undeniably in the warmest phase seen in centuries of centuries.

You are confusing long-term climate with 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.

The data record in the original article is about recent temperature trends and not about climate trends on a geological time-frame.

No one doubts that the earth has been both warmer and colder in the past (i.e. hundreds of thousands or millions of years).

Not confusing it at all. This last year, we've broken records for warmth, as witnessed by millennial ice formations melting. This is as fast as you can get. Blame anyone you like, but its useless denying we're in a shockingly abrupt warm period.

You can't point to a change in one area of the earth and conclude something about the entire earth.

I assume you were commenting on decrease in Arctic ice but why is that more important than the record amount of Antarctic ice? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic...)

Because the volume of arctic sea ice lost is much larger than the volume of antarctic sea ice gained. Also, an increase in antarctic sea ice was something predicted by even some of the earliest global warming climate models, so it is not in anyway contrary to what climate scientists think is happening/going to happen to the climate.

Which leads us back to HadCRUT 4, a global temperature record, which seems to show that the actual climate isn't matching the climate model predictions.

So, if the models can't provide effective predictions it would seem as though the 'science' based on those models isn't exactly 'settled'.

I'll see your one chart, and raise you 10: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4657540