And here's the post where I found it.
On any objective test of newsworthiness, the fact of 17 years 3 months with no global warming is surely of more than passing interest to audiences who have been terrified, over and over again, by the over-confident proclamations of the true-believers that catastrophic global warming was the surest of sure things.
This long-term temperature stability should make everyone less confident in the computer simulations that predict catastrophic global warming, but, as far as I can tell, this stability has had little effect on either side in the debate. (In my own case, the stability has moved me from mild skepticism about the usefulness of the models to moderate skepticism.)
There's a good general treatment on how far we can trust computer simulations generally, here. Key quote from statistician George Box: "all models are wrong, but some are useful". I am beginning to wonder whether any of these general climate models is useful, whether any of them make accurate enough climate predictions to guide our policy decisions.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(A couple of notes for those who don't read these charts regularly: These temperatures come from satellites, as processed by the Remote Sensing Systems company. As is now almost always the case with these temperature charts, the temperatures are shown as deviations from some long-term average, or some starting point.)Posted by Jim Miller at December 17, 2013 12:52 PM | Email This