« Previous | Main | Next »

Is the climate warming or cooling?

Post categories:

Shanta Barley | 12:57 UK time, Tuesday, 7 July 2009

You may have heard that the climate has been 'cooling' since 1998. And you would be right, according to new research published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

But you'd be wrong to think that the recent 'cold snap' is evidence that global warming is science fiction, say David Easterling and Michael Wehner, who are based at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, respectively.

'Claims that global warming is not occurring that are derived from a cooling observed over such short time periods ... are misleading', the researchers warn.

Why the defensiveness? Because there have been rather a lot of these 'cold snaps'. There was one in 1977-1985 and another one between 1981-1989. Oh yes and there'll probably be one in 2016-2031, if the study's models are correct.

Cold snaps are to be expected as the planet warms, Easterling and Wehner hasten to add: the climate system is naturally very variable, and volcanic explosions sporadically pump the atmosphere full of climate-cooling particles, which reflect sunlight back into space.

'It is reasonable to expect that the natural variability of the real climate system can and likely will produce multi-year periods of sustained "cooling" ... even in the presence of long-term anthropogenic forced warming', the researchers conclude.

So: expect chills interspersed with your 'hot flushes', Mother Nature. The doctor says they're perfectly natural.

Comments

  • 1. At 1:33pm on 07 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    according to the alarmists, man made CO2 is the driver of climate change that trumps all other drivers (even the sun?), so how come CO2 emissions continue to rise, but temps don't? Could it conceivably be that CO2 isn't the devil it's made out to be?

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 1:44pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Even in a "bull market" the stock exchange average of the top 500 companies goes down for a while.

    Yet such isn't decried as the "end of the bull market" until some time after it's continued to a statistically significant duration.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 1:57pm on 07 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and what has the market got to do with an all powerful climate driver?

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 3:05pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "and what has the market got to do with an all powerful climate driver?"

    Who apart from denialists ascribe "all powerful" to CO2?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 3:12pm on 07 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    alarmists

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 3:57pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    That'd be Jack, then with his "We'll all have to live in caves!!!!" scareup, then.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 4:03pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Figures may be out of date, but:

    CO2 warming effect: ~4W/m^2

    CO2 temperature rise: ~1C

    Solar radiation: ~400W/m^2

    Maximum change from sunspots: 0.1%.

    Sunspot minimum currently occurring: -0.4W/m^2

    If we assume that this is linear at such small changes, a drop of 0.1C.

    From Jack's figures, a drop of a little over 0.1C would explain the recent reduction.

    OR, to put it another way, for all those "It's the SUN!!!!" goofballs, whilst the sun is at its quietest, the temperature record STILL hasn't gotten back to where it was at the last minimum.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 5:18pm on 07 Jul 2009, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    Shanta, the paper by Easterling and Wehner is, basically, junk.
    The cooling period in the 80s was caused by the El Chichon volcano eruption in 1982. But there has been no such major eruption recently to explain the current cooling or lack of warming. See the article at Lucia's blackboard,
    "How to Obfuscate: Forget to mention volcanoes".
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/how-to-obfuscate-forget-to-mention-volcanoes/

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:22pm on 07 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    Warming did occur between 2001 and now.
    Global temperatures for 2000-2008 stand almost 0.2 degrees C warmer than the average for the decade 1990-1999.

    Here's some stats from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre Earth Sciences Directorate:

    2001, 14.57 degrees Celsius
    2002, 14.69 degrees Celsius (increase on 2001 & year prior)
    2003, 14.67 degrees Celsius (increase on 2001)
    2004, 14.60 degrees Celsius (increase on 2001)
    2005, 14.76 degrees Celsius (increase on 2001 & year prior)
    2006, 14.66 degrees Celsius (increase on 2001)
    2007, 14.73 degrees Celsius (increase on 2001 & year prior)

    It's not a uniform year on year increase, but trying to claim temperatures haven't increased this decade is hooey.

    The Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (who maintain the global climate record for the WMO) concluded 2008 is 'the tenth warmest year on a record that dates back to 1850'.
    This despite there having been La Ninas from Sept 2007 to May 2008, Sept 2008 to April 2009 and we're in the midst of a Solar Minimum. (However, the Minimum doesn't seem to having much effect on temperature, does it? So much for the cosmic ray hypothesis that excited sceptics a couple of years ago.)

    Should we be surprised that there are climate variability systems operating also e.g. ENSO, AMO, PDO etc. Youd need to be fairly ignorant of what climate variability is to be surprised by that.

    A period of a decade or so is going to be little use in determining a trend anyway; you really need decades to determine that.

    As Easterling and Wehner say: "We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer term warming."

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 5:35pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " But there has been no such major eruption recently to explain the current cooling or lack of warming. "

    There HAS however, been one of the longest periods without sunspots. And there HAS been one of the strongest El Nino's (making it warmer when your start period happened in 1998) and we're currently getting a La Nina (making it cooler now).

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 5:48pm on 07 Jul 2009, Shanta_Barley wrote:

    The main point the authors are trying to get across is that it is easy to cherry pick a period to reinforce a point of view. Say you want to proove that the Earth isnt warming up (ergo climate change is bunkum): you can simply cite the period between 1998-2008, when there is no real trend in warming according to the study. But if you want to demonstrate that the Earth is warming up, then all you have to do is talk about the period between 1975-2008, which shows a substantial overall warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 5:50pm on 07 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @yeah_whatever #6

    make up your mind!

    first you call Jack a denier, then an alarmist - what's next? A Nazi?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/07/gore-and-nazis/

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 6:03pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "first you call Jack a denier, then an alarmist"

    Yup.

    He denies that AGW is real, doesn't care how or why, just that it is wrong.

    Denialist.

    And he proclaims that if we do anything about it, we'll all be living in caves.

    Alarmist.

    "what's next? A Nazi?"

    Godwinned!

    B-U-S-T-E-D

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/06/forget_oil_were_running_out_of.html#P82033494

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 6:33pm on 07 Jul 2009, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    Shanta, you are quite right of course. And talking of cherry picking, it is amusing to note that shefftim does not give a figure for 2008. I wonder why not. Could it perhaps be because 2008 was "the coolest year since 2000" according to Goddard Institute. So Tim's claim of warming since 2001 is false.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 7:00pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    It could be left out because the data hasn't been QC'd. You know, that quality control that stops observing stations with sensors too close to other things to give a reliable accurate temperature measurement that Anthony Watts and his fluffers are so VERY concerned about.

    Then again, go from 1999.

    Oops.

    Try from 1996.

    Oops.

    If a one-year change makes SUCH a difference to the result, you're measuring temperature volatility, not trend.

    See also here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/wild_sheep_on_a_remote.html#P82555633

    for how 2008 doesn't help.

    With those figures in with your "coldest year" added in, the trend line is still upward.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 7:03pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    If you like, we can work back and see what number of years we need to get to reduce the error to less than the graph slope.

    Then see if the last 25% of that is warmer than the first 25%.

    Or, if you just like "this year's temperature", see if the last year's temperature (2008) is warmer or colder than average.

    Would that be proof enough?

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 7:08pm on 07 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    Dear Shanta - thank you for yet another insightful article. I would also agree with your post regarding "cherry picking".

    If this 10 year period of cooling is "too short". Might I ask what is really "long enough"? While some temperature records go back to 1850 (and before) - real accurate measurements of temperature began only 30 years ago - with satelites able to measure temperatures the globe over. Even today, there is much debate about "how" to accurately measure temperatures and "define" the global temperature - even with satellite measurements. Additionally, we have very little data on ocean temperature variations (except at the surface).

    So, where does that leave us? I for one don't really know. I certainly don't believe the religious dogma spouted by the "true believers" or "deniers" (in my view - they are all the same...) on either side of the debate. Does man have an effect on planet earth - certainly - but how signinficant is that effect and what will be the consequences? Is it all really about CO2 emissions? - I find that supposition difficult to swollow - given the current state of climate science.

    Perhaps we should affect positive changes to our environment and ecology through measures we know will work - like reforestation, protecting environments and ecologies, closing fisheries on a large scale and assisting in their recovery, continue to reduce pollution (and no, I do not consider CO2 a "pollutant") - before we spend all our resources and money on CO2 emissions.

    Particularly with many environmental issues, there are no "easy answers" - just difficult choices - each with their own positive and negative consequences.

    In my opinion, the greatest environmental threat we face today is in continuing to refuse development to the developing nations of the world. Bring prosperity to these people and birth rates will decline. They will have the opportunity to better protect and manage their natural resources. Strife will be reduced, ecology improved.

    Alas, but I am an "old school" environmentalist. Unfortunately, I fear, nearly the last of a dying breed...

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 7:44pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "If this 10 year period of cooling is "too short". Might I ask what is really "long enough"? "

    30 years.

    You DID ask.

    "(and no, I do not consider CO2 a "pollutant")"

    Then sit in your garage with the car engine running beside you and the doors and windows closed.

    "Alas, but I am an "old school" environmentalist"

    You are?

    Must be a new school neocon too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 8:38pm on 07 Jul 2009, Bishop Hill wrote:

    30 years? You mean all claims of rising temperatures so far have been discredited because we hadn't waited for a 30 year trend? Hansen was wrong in 1980? And again in 1998?

    Who knew?

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 9:29pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " 19. At 8:38pm on 07 Jul 2009, BishopHill wrote:

    30 years?"

    Yes, Larry asked what period you should use and the answer is 30 years.

    If he hadn't been answered it would be "See! they're making it up!!!".

    If it's answered, you complain. If it isn't answered, you complain. Is there any way you DON'T complain???

    There's another method, but it depends on knowing what you are meant to be fitting to. This doesn't work for you since you don't KNOW what you are fitting it to, so you have to take the much longer route, but you can correlate the results with your expectation, figuring the error rate and deviation from that expectation.

    When your error is less than 1/3 your deviation from the expectation, you can say "it is not meeting our expectations".

    That may take 15 years, it may take 30 years. If it takes more than 30 years, you are still meeting expectations.

    If you don't then you have to figure on curve fitting (lowess filter) and check the error margin in fitting to that line and create a big enough width to reduce your error from that fitting line to less than your determined acceptable error.

    That could be 10 years or it could be 40 years.

    But whatever it is

    a) There's plenty to explain why this isn't unexpected: El Nino/La Nina and sunspots
    b) If CO2 weren't playing the part assigned to it by the IPCC sensitivity calculations, the effects from (a) would be showing a bigger change than it does
    c) 8 years isn't enough in any case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 9:32pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Hansen was wrong in 1980? And again in 1998?"

    Who knew? Nobody.

    Because he wasn't.

    He PREDICTED a change in 1980. He made a newer prediction again in 1998.

    Fitting the trend line predicted against the measurements and you have an accord between prediction and measurement. When the date gets to 2010, there will be enough to categorically say whether the 1980 prediction was right or not.

    At the moment, it's still "Well, the line is following" but the variability is still high and how GOOD a fit his prediction was in 1980 is not yet set.

    PS based on just going "you need 30 years?", how many times have YOU been wrong, just on this blog?

    10? 20? more?

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 9:51pm on 07 Jul 2009, Bishop Hill wrote:

    "...the Earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements...the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect."

    James Hansen, testimony to the US Senate, June 23 1988.

    This is not a prediction. Clearly Hansen was making statements that were scientifically untenable.

    (I agree that 30 years is probably reasonable - you don't need to argue that point).

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 9:51pm on 07 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 24. At 10:05pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "This is not a prediction. Clearly Hansen was making statements that were scientifically untenable."

    Nope, because he was talking about the temperature over 1988.

    You can say "2008 is the coldest year since 2001".

    This is not wrong because of the 30 year problem, it's right because it's talking about the temperature in 2008.

    But saying "the climate is getting colder from 2003" is wrong because it DOES fall foul of the 30-year problem.

    Do you have a problem with "climate" and "the temperature this year"???

    I suppose I'd have to peg you as ~30-40 times wrong on this blog...

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 10:05pm on 07 Jul 2009, billyarber wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 26. At 10:15pm on 07 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    #14. Sorry Samuel, just got in, life's busy. (The list was complied in Jan. 2008 by NOAA, obviously it only covered previous years.)

    But since you asked about 2008?

    'The WMO said 2008 was the 10th warmest year on record. Its year-end report found 2008 was marked by the second-lowest level of Arctic ice cover. It said all of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the past 12 years.'
    http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-12/2008-12-16-voa51.cfm?CFID=248902376&CFTOKEN=82416509&jsessionid=84307ff8c0ea4ccd219457732c762a281e41

    June 2008 ranked eighth warmest for June since worldwide records began in 1880.'
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080720215335.htm

    'October 2008 was the second warmest since records began in 1880.'
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081121162107.htm


    HOW'S 2009 SHAPING UP?
    'February 2009 was the ninth warmest since records began in 1880.'
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315092035.htm

    'March 2009 tenth warmest on record for global temperatures.'
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418090255.htm

    'May 2009 ranked fourth warmest since worldwide records began in 1880.'
    http://www.abc15.com/content/weather/stories/story/2009-marks-4th-warmest-May-for-entire-planet/V-nXbLr5OE2o9k44SDX5iA.cspx

    'First half of 2009 second warmest on record for Western Australia.' (Disturbing of you know of Oz's ongoing drought and wildfire problems.)
    http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=152162

    Flatlined ~ or cooling? An unconvincing argument.

    Now food.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 10:27pm on 07 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And the "it is now large enough" also shows what's going on, if you bother COMPREHENDING rather than just leave it at the reading.

    It takes time to add up. It takes time for the signal to come from the noise. That time is about 30 years.

    There is plenty of time to see those 30 years in 2958-1988.

    Take a look at the GISS chart:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif


    Add the 30 years before 1988.

    Add the 30 years before 1958.

    Add the 30 years before 1928 (takes us to 1898, the graph doesn't go back to 1868).

    1988 total higher than 1958 total and higher than the 1928 total.

    1958 total higher than the 1928 total.

    So the period up to 1988 is highest since instrumental records began.

    This proves Hansen wrong HOW?

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 10:35pm on 07 Jul 2009, Shanta_Barley wrote:

    The graph on page 11 of the report might provide some insight to the argument. It illustrates that we've had some very hot years in the past decade (2005 looks like a scorcher, just as Sheffield Tim's stats suggest) but that there is no overall warming trend between 1998-2008 simply because of the 'hot flush' which took place in 1998.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 10:40pm on 07 Jul 2009, Bishop Hill wrote:

    You mean it's OK to talk about relative temperatures but not about rates of warming or cooling?

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 01:07am on 08 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever writes:

    "If this 10 year period of cooling is "too short". Might I ask what is really "long enough"? "

    30 years.

    You DID ask.

    "(and no, I do not consider CO2 a "pollutant")"

    Then sit in your garage with the car engine running beside you and the doors and windows closed.


    -------end of copy--------------------------------

    First, let me address your assertion that I sit in a car with the engine running in a garage - supposedly because I don't consider CO2 a "pollutant". (more insults, please do grow up)

    What exactly does one have to do with the other? If I were to sit in a (one would assume closed) garage in a car with the engine running, I think CO2 would be the least of my problems. In fact, I would surely die of Carbon-Monoxide poisoning. (That would be CO, not CO2) Carbon moxide

    With regards to your "30 year time frame" - ok, I'll bite. So that means that you have exactly 1 datapoint to look at. 30 years of satallite data. You have no real way to consider this datapoint with billions of years of climate change with any real accuracy. How much is "natural viability"? How much is "natural trend"? How much is "induced by man"? Of that which is "induced by man" - how much is CO2 emissions? How much is uncertainty or inconsistancy in data measurement? or even worse - proxies and all the uncertainties that come along with them...

    There are so many man made climate forcings, why is the focus directed solely at CO2 emissions? Not only is CO2s true role in the earth's climate system so poorly understood,but also there is great deal of research out there which would suggest that the most significant man made first order forcing for climate change is actually land use. Didn't say CO2 doesn't matter...just that it is not a "one issue" world.

    Consider for a moment, the destruction of 20 million acres of rainforest (i can point you to several places where you can see it). Prior to its destruction it was very thick, very green, lush and wet. Consider all the water from respiration of the trees, CO2 levels very low within the forest itself (as most CO2 is absorbed by the trees early in the day and used for photosynthesis). Also, a giant carbon sink.

    Now consider the destruction of the forest. Much of it is burned - releasing massive amounts of particulate matter, aerosols as well as CO2. The forest is no longer a "carbon sink". Rainforest land is also typically not the best suited for reclamation as farm land, so it ends up barren wasteland. Local humidity is reduced. 20 million acres of trees put a lot of water into the atmosphere.

    Lets look at the environmental effects:

    The reduction in humidity (20 million acres of Rainforest puts a whole lot of water into the atmosphere...) So, the local environment will be much less humid. One could reasonbly expect fewer clouds and downwind - less rainfall. Without the effects of humidity, one could also expect (I think reasonbly) that nighttime temperatures would tend to be cooler (lower dewpoints). Daytime temperatures would probably increase both due to less humidity (less energy required to heat the air) and increased albedo (the barren land reflects more sunlight than the green trees).

    The increase in albedo should also be considered (we are talking about 20 million acres!). With increased albedo, more sunlight would be reflected back into the air - increasing daytime surface air temperatures. Additionally, the light absorbed by the ground would be converted to heat and stored (as opposed to sunlight absorbed by trees - the energy from which is used in photosynthesis) - and radiated at night (at least for the first several hours). Ultimately, one effect will be more energy reflected back into space (note, this is also interrelated with humidity - not only is there more energy reflected back upward toward space, there is less water vapor to absorb that energy, enhancing the effect - we shall consider GHG absorbtion at another point)

    The effect on CO2 emissions and concentrations is certainly worth consideration. Not only do we have massive emissions as the bulk of the forest is burned (as opposed to what is actually harvested). We also loose a very substation natural carbon "sink" (as well as "source" - but overall, a sink). So, we take the double-wammy - we dump all that CO2 into the atmosphere and eliminate a massive sink. The result, an increase in atmospheric CO2 as well as a decrease in the carbon-cycle's ability to regulate atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    Biodiversity should also be considered as an important consequence with significant impacts. Many species of both flora and fauna would be lost forever. Seemingly minor losses in biodiversity can cause ecological disaster over wide areas. While many species (including plants and animals which may hold the keys for cures to many ailments, amongst countless other applications) will be lost forever, those that can will migrate and invade other ecosystems - changing the balance there as well.

    Wind patterns would also probably be dramatically affected. In the humid rainforest, with all the water vapor in the atmosphere, much more energy is required to create wind (humid air is heavier and thus there is more inertia to overcome - requiring more energy), then consider that the albedo of the forest reflects less sunlight back into the atmosphere (less energy). One would expect much greater winds after the deforestation, at least locally. More uneven heating (and radiation) of the barren wasteland would also contribute - dust devils and the like...

    Rainfall patters would also likely be affected over a wide area. The dramtic decrease in humidity coupled with increased daytime temperatures and nighttime cooling would combine to not only reduce rainfall locally, but also over a wider area, particularly downwind from our former rainforest. The result: probable increases in droughts over a wider area, barring other factors. Although this affect may be counter-acted in downwind areas by increased particulate matter (from the barren earth) being injected by increased winds...

    Reclamation should also be considered. Once you raze a large area of rainforest, the nutrient contend of the surface layer declines dramatically, making reclamation extremely difficult. If grasses are planted straight way - it becomes easier, but it is still a very long slow process. Even with intensive efforts, it is a 50-100 year timeframe (minimum) - and thats with expensive, intensive efforts - and the loss of biodiversity can never be reclaimed. Needless to say, the reclamation costs are very high - both in terms of time and money.

    I have just named a few of the environmental effects of deforestation. In all honesty,they represent observed effects and logical conclusions. They are also all interrelated. Note, I did not attempt to assign any type of magnitudes - just lay out the effects. But clearly, the effects are far reaching.

    The whole point: why does everyone think its all "CO2 emissions" and "CACC"? Even if CO2 emissions are important, the reality is that we don't really have the means to effectively deal with the emissions side of the equation at this point in time - so why shouldn't we focus on (arguably the more urgent) other issues? The other side of the coin?

    I will certainly go along with the supposition that there has been an overall warming trend since 1850. I would also agree that during that time there have been periods of both warming and cooling, with a cooling period every 30-50 years. Atmospheric CO2 levels have also increased during that time - during both the warming and cooling periods. CO2 has played a role as a GHG has induced some warming; however, the feedbacks associated with CO2 as well as second and third order feebacks are very poorly (if at all) understood. Contrary to what some would have us believe, we really don't know what the net effect of doubling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will be (nor do we understand the effects of all the other things we are doing to the world's environments).

    So, how do we spend our money? On real problems that we can see and understand like deforestation and fisheries management? Or destory our economies to achieve unrealistic CO2 reductions whose net effect will be cancelled out by developing nations and deforestation anyway?

    Do we spend our money on things we can actually do? Or do we spend our money to "make a point"?

    My father (rest his sole) used to say: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face, boy". But isn't that exactly what we are doing with the "one issue" world ? - is it warming or is it cooling? Well (pardon my sarcasm) pick one and you have a 50% chance of being right. The temperature is pretty much ALWAYS either warming or cooling...

    What are really the "biggies" we should be focused on?

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 01:50am on 08 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever writes: (quoting me, my words in quotes)

    "Alas, but I am an "old school" environmentalist"

    You are?

    Must be a new school neocon too

    ----------end of yeah_whatever writes-------------------

    Excuse me, what what exactly is a neocon? If you could define it for me, perhaps I can let you know whether I am a "new school neocon" or not.

    Oh, and yes, I would consider myself and "old school environmentalist", you know, all the issues we had before CO2 emissions and CACC...many potentially devestating and still there...remember them?

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 02:31am on 08 Jul 2009, Boring_username wrote:

    Why is it that whenever climate alarmists pull out temperature numbers they use GISS and Hadley Centre?

    GISS is so full of adjustments that it is more of a political plaything than a temperature index and the Hadley Centre refuse to disclose their methods and raw data so could, for all external viewers know, be made up by monkeys typing randomly on a typewriter.

    However they both run "hotter" than the accurate satellites and so alarmists' confirmation bias pushes them towards those measures.

    What is the current temperature anomaly according to UAH (one of the accurate satellite measures)? 0.001 degree. So it is 0.001 degree hotter now than "average". Help save us from this global warming! (Info available here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures)

    The simple fact is that we are in an interglacial period of an ice age. We are also recovering from the "little ice age" and so it is expected that temperatures will warm up. Just as they will, in a matter of a blink of an eyelid in geological time, cool down allownig the ice to expand as we head towards the next glacial maximum.

    If climate changes are such a bad thing then the best thing for us to do is to work out how to adapt to them so that they aren't so terrible - that way the human race will be better adapted to making it through the next cold period of the current ice age.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 03:07am on 08 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Boring_username

    Quite correct. But I think you mistyped - your last sentance, I think it should read: "...better adapted to making it through the next cold period of the current interglacial period."

    Along the same lines, it is interesting to note, that in the recent past (last 10,000 years or so) warm periods have been much more benefical to both mankind as well as flora and fauna. The warmer temps of the MWP spawned the renissance, trade flourished as did harvests, the passages through the Alps were free of ice in summer - the LIA was devistating. Black Plague, low crop yields, starvation. Perhaps a little warming is beneficial - I like it better than the alternative...

    But you are quite right. Adaptation is the key. Regardless of what we do or don't do - the climate will change and we will adapt (or die) - better management of our resources and environments will provide us with much more capability to adapt - as will cheap energy (i.e. coal, natural gas...).

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 07:52am on 08 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    #28. 1998 was exceptional, but then there was an exceptional El Nino in the Pacific that year (the strongest El Nino of the 20th century) that amplified temperatures by releasing a lot of heat from the ocean. 1998 in fact blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (And that previous record went all the way back to 1997.)

    Climate is defined by averaging out variability over a longer-term period. Its looking at trends. Changes to climate are really about changes to the average over a period of 30 years or so. So you wont, by definition, see climate change from just one year to the next (Coming out of the last ice age due to Milankovitch cycles - temperatures only rose by 1 degree C per 1,000 yrs.) so were looking at the medium to long term up until the end of the century. But look at the change in the average over the long term, and the trend is undeniable: the planet is getting warmer. A graph here shows this clearly:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/#more-523

    #33. 'the LIA was devastating. Black Plague, low crop yields, starvation.'
    That was all in the 14th century, which is now is seen as a transition period between the conditions known as the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age, which really occurred later. Hubert Lamb described the 14th Century a "cold, or cooling stormy climate". (P 194. H. CHMW. Lamb. 1982.)

    As a European I'll point out that Europe's highpoints happened in what many call the LIA: The Renaissance, Reformation, the age of Exploration (Columbus, De Gamma, Cook etc), agrarian revolution, the colonisation of America (the Americas suffered immense droughts during the MWP, its climate was distinguished by being much wetter during the centuries that followed up until the late 20th Century, this allowed European colonisation), the age of Empires, the Enlightenment, the scientific age, the industrial revolution etc are all post 1300.
    It didn't hold us back. ;-)

    The periods known as MWP was due to the Pacific being in persistent La Nina conditions and the (Atlantic) NAO being in a persistent positive mode, 1300 AD marked the transition point to a predominantly El Nino state and the Atlantic returning to oscillating between negative and positive states.
    I've written up some of the research here:
    http://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/

    What Lamb really said about the MWP here:
    http://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 09:51am on 08 Jul 2009, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    Oh dear, Tim is parading his false claims about the MWP again.
    Despite this being pointed out to him before.
    In fact the Pacific was warm in the MWP as described in a book
    "Climate, Environment and Society in the Pacific during the Last Millennium."
    by IPCC author Patrick Nunn. See
    http://globalwarmingquestions.googlepages.com/mwp

    And he still hasn't posted that 2008 temperature figure.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 09:52am on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "...better adapted to making it through the next cold period of the current interglacial period."

    And adaption being "changed physiognomy" in biology.

    You know as little about biology as you do about science, Laz.

    "Regardless of what we do or don't do - the climate will change and we will adapt (or die)"

    Then lets give us time to adapt. Lets stop pushing this train faster while we're trying to get off 'cos we don't like the ride.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 09:54am on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 38. At 09:55am on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Excuse me, what what exactly is a neocon? "

    Laz doesn't even know how to operate the internet.

    Google define neocon.

    I guess that all his linking and searching had to be because someone told him about the links.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 10:18am on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 40. At 10:19am on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "You mean it's OK to talk about relative temperatures but not about rates of warming or cooling?"

    You can't call a trend from too few data points.

    Basic O-level maths.

    You DID do school maths didn't you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 11:17am on 08 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    In other news (from the Times):

    Environment Agency sets up green stasi
    Decked out in green jackets, the enforcers will be able to demand access to company property, view power meters, call up electricity and gas bills...

    Ministers have long recognised the need to have new categories of taxes and criminal offences for CO2 emissions...

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 11:19am on 08 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    "Cold snaps are to be expected as the planet warms..."

    This is a new variant of "God moves in a mysterious way"

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 11:50am on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "This is a new variant of "God moves in a mysterious way""

    If you like.

    But if there were no variability, how would we get the phrase "a warm summer"? "A wet winter"? etc.

    Yet, despite all this variability, world atlases still have temperature and rainfall rates in their description of their contents.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 11:52am on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    re 41: so?

    The US INSISTED on inspectors for the chemical factories in Iraq.

    And when refused, didn't merely tax them, *invaded*.

    "Ministers have long recognised the need to have new categories of taxes and criminal offences for CO2 emissions..."

    Yup, because it costs to clean up. And those costs have not been reflected in the price of the fuel.

    Or do you want to pay for someone else's mess (like, say, sponging girls dropping kids so they can get more child support while on the dole)?

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 2:12pm on 08 Jul 2009, climateheretic wrote:

    The evidence mounts up that this has been the biggest scam since the Y2K bug.

    We have so called scientists trying to bend data and use computer models to make the facts fir their theories. Anyone who doesn't believe in their religion is a heretic.

    The level of debate sinks to a new low this week with "deniers" (i.e people who do not believe in the religion of climate apocalypse) being likened to Nazis.

    I am not a nazi, i am not a heretic , i am a scientist who has yet to be convinced of the theory.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 2:28pm on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "The evidence mounts up that this has been the biggest scam since the Y2K bug."

    Uh, there are systems that would have fallen over. You seem to be calling it a scam because people were paid to avoid the problem AND DID SO.

    Do you think your doctors operation was a scam because you paid him and after the operation, you didn't die or get ill and so this proves he didn't have to do anything?

    "The level of debate sinks to a new low this week with "deniers" (i.e people who do not believe in the religion of climate apocalypse)"

    But why do you deny there is a climate problem?

    You have no reason, just a denial that it could possibly ever be AGW.

    That's denialism.

    And why do you consider it a religion rather than what it is, a science? So that you can convince yourself that your mule-headed denial isn't anti-logical since you've convinced yourself that the proof of AGW is all illogical itself.

    Without proof, I might add.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 2:29pm on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "i am a scientist who has yet to be convinced of the theory."

    So what makes you unconvinced?

    What would convince you?

    If the answers are "nothing", then you're in denial.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 3:16pm on 08 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    The recent seabed core evidence shows the eastern Pacific cooled, the western Pacific warmed. (La Nina conditions.) I give my sources in both the text and in the sources page. (I have a lot more material, including Nunn, to add when I get time.)
    http://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/

    If you look at the graphs on page 232 of Nunn's book, the first clearly shows that SSTs were anomalous during the MWP; for example, there was dramatic COOLING of the ocean off the West African coast during the MWP, temperatures only rose again after 1300 AD. There is now evidence that in both tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans there were notable SST differences from one side to the other. (These anomalies changed during the 14th century. (Nunn's 1300 event.)
    As I`ve written before I see climate change due to transport of heat from one place to another and changes to ENSO/PDO/NAO etc over the centuries, not a `the whole planet warmed, then it cooled` scenario. And the most important effects of these changes were hydrological.

    There has been a lot of recent research in the USA on ocean SSTs and resulting changes to climate, not least due to concerns about severity and duration of drought in the American west.
    Similar SSTs are the most likely explanation for the mega droughts in the Americas during the MWP, as noted by Nunn and many others. (If they occurred then, then they could occur again in the future.)

    Everything is pointing to ENSO, the PDO and NAO acting to influence drought/precipitation cycles over the Americas. In particular cold sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the eastern tropical Pacific and warm SSTs in the western tropical Pacific and Indian oceans.
    e.g 'A perfect Ocean For Drought' by Hoerling & Kumar. 2003. (The paper is also available online as a PDF.)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5607/691
    Much of this will have been unknown to Nunn when he wrote his book.

    Nunn doesn't disagree that the climate changes of the past have been largely due to changes in ocean SSTs, in fact he argues these have been the main driver in past climate change in the vast Pacific region.
    All references below from: 'Climate, Environment And Society In The Pacific During The Last Millennium.' P. Nunn.

    Nunn notes several times the drought conditions in the Americas during the MWP and that drought severity and frequency only reduced after 1300 AD (p233).
    Nunn devotes sections (p64, p80 etc) to specific droughts in the Americas, (e.g. the fall of the Tiwanaku civilisation in Peru) and notes that climatic and environmental conditions were markedly different between eastern and western pacific regions.
    Nunn writes: "evidence for societal changes [often collapse] is conspicuous on the eastern pacific rim [Americas] but not along the western Pacific rim." (p81).
    Everything is pointing towards different climatic and SST conditions on opposite sides of the Pacific.

    The El Ninos did return during and after the 1300 event, something Nunn specifically notes in a section titled 'Climatic Effects of El Nino Frequency' (7.3.2, P173.)
    Nunn also notes (p69) that the Palmyra corals show little evidence for warming during the MWP and that the incidence of La Nina events may have increased resulting in increased drought on the eastern Pacific rim.
    (Even Sam's beloved CO2 science admits there was a general absence of El Ninos in the eastern Pacific; this indicates predominantly La Nina conditions prevailed.)

    Nunn also notes, p126, that in parts of the Pacific there is no clear evidence for the LIA and that that in places, e.g Southern Cook Islands, temperatures during the 18th & 19th centuries appear to have been as warm as the 20th century. Again it indicates differing SSTs within oceans and the transport of warmth influenced climate changes and there wasn't a uniform global cooling.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008?
    I`ve already said that the list (#9) was complied in Jan. 2008 by NOAA, obviously it only covered previous years.
    However if you want to try and explain how just one year (and still the 10th warmest year on record) is evidence of a cooling TREND since 2001 (when all other years since 2001 show an increase) please go ahead.
    http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-12/2008-12-16-voa51.cfm?CFID=248902376&CFTOKEN=82416509&jsessionid=84307ff8c0ea4ccd219457732c762a281e41

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 5:03pm on 08 Jul 2009, stillamused wrote:

    hmmm....seems to me Hanson himself stated that the truth will be found in the heat content of the oceans (the idea being that the atmosphere heats the water..bizarre but thats what the man said).
    So.......despite the Argo floats being waterboarded until they tell 'the truth' the resolutely refuse to squeal it seems. Even Josh Willis has a had a go at them a couple of times with a rubber chicken, but the SAS training the Argo's have had stood them in good stead, no pushover these guys.

    So......wheres the heat? Hanson said it would be there. Its not there. As Pielke points out, Hanson seems hoist with his own petard.

    Now really...THAT should be enough to make even the most ardent RC reader stop and think..."Ay up lad, trouble at mill..".

    Am afraid Hanson stated this as fact - see Pielkes website where he quotes him - and those facts Hanson stated are now working against him. AGW was a nice idea..but its dead in the water (d'yer like the way I finished that off with the ironic twist..heh heh!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 5:17pm on 08 Jul 2009, Madman2001 wrote:

    Yeah-Whatever wrote: "So what makes you unconvinced? What would convince you?"
    What makes me unconvinced is the fact that the "proof" of AGW comes from mathematical models, as well as the fact that global temperatures have remained steady over the last decade or so. What makes me suspicious is all the hype and the hyperbole coming from the pro-AGW folks, who seem to attribute any adversity or change to global warming. What scares me is that some of the pro-AGW people want to impose draconian taxes to reduce energy usage, taxes sure to hurt the Western poor and eliminate the chances of many in the undeveloped countries to live a better life.
    What would convince me in AGW is a rise in global temperatures over the next decade.
    Let me ask you the same question: what would convince you that we are not in the throes of AGW? What if global temperatures remained steady over the next decade? What if global temperatures dropped over the next decade? If not a decade, how long??
    Let me know,
    Craig

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 5:37pm on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "So......wheres the heat? Hanson said it would be there. Its not there. As Pielke points out, Hanson seems hoist with his own petard"

    Petard yourself.

    The El Nino brings cold water from the deeps (where it has been unable to be warmed by the recent changes: it takes centuries for the heat to get that deep by conduction) up to the surface, dragging the warmer surface water down where we don't measure it with surface measurements any more.

    THAT is where the heat went.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 5:44pm on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "What makes me unconvinced is the fact that the "proof" of AGW comes from mathematical models,"

    So you don't think there's a problem with speeding cars in a built up area because the "proof" of the danger of speeding is "1/2 mv^2", maths.

    ?

    "as well as the fact that global temperatures have remained steady over the last decade or so."

    Which isn't long enough to detect a trend.

    Given that we have a cooling ENSO, a spotless (and hence cooler) sun, and we STILL haven't gotten back to the 1900's temperature shows that it is still too hot for CO2 NOT to be a major player, you think that this "proves" AGW wrong???

    "What makes me suspicious is all the hype and the hyperbole coming from the pro-AGW folks"

    Ah, what about those anti-AGW folks saying that we'd have to live in caves?

    Or is that not hyperbole?

    "What would convince me in AGW is a rise in global temperatures over the next decade."

    Why did the decades of

    1980
    1990
    2000

    not work then?

    One single decade makes you think it isn't working (when actually this decade a) isn't over, b) is still warming) and three warming ones didn't make you think it was read, how do we know you're telling the truth?

    "What if global temperatures remained steady over the next decade? What if global temperatures dropped over the next decade? "

    It didn't convince you when the reverse happened.

    When was the last time we had a solar minimum?

    What was the global temperature average then?

    Is it higher now than then?

    If the answer is "yes", then what is the thing that HAS changed and not reduced?

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 5:53pm on 08 Jul 2009, Tenuuc wrote:

    Makes me smile the way that supporters of the AGW theory are defending the current loss of warming trend we've had since the start of the new millennium. They were very quick to exaggerate how rapidly temperatures were increasing during the 90's, and how the earth would fry once some mythical (model prediction) tipping point for CO2 was reached. They went completely over the top about the damage a few extra degrees would cause to the earth, all aimed at panicking the man in the street and, misguidedly, demanding global action for reducing use of fossil fuels. Kettle calling pot black I think.

    In fact, our climate is a non-linear chaotic system, and because of this it is easy to make the temperature trend go up or down to your hearts content, depending on the time period you choose.

    We need to look at the climate system using broad brush-strokes and ignore trends of less than 100 years, anything shorter is just looking at weather. History shows that the very strong temperature regulating systems exist which pull are climate back to one of two conditions. Pleasantly warm times as we've been having for the last 100 years or so or a cooler regimen as we had in the previous century. The cycle is not exact, but broad brush it goes as follows:-

    1410-1500 cold (Sporer minimum) - Low Solar Activity(LSA)
    1510-1600 warm - High Solar Activity(HSA)
    1610-1700 cold (Maunder minimum) - (LSA)
    1710-1800 warm - (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold (Dalton minimum) - (LSA)
    1910-2000 warm - (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) - (LSA???)

    As can be seen from the table, the sun seems have a strong effect on this cycle, as it is the only common forcing across the period. Total Solar Irradiance doesn't explain the whole story, but it does look like other factors, for example, magnetic field strength, the lower, solar wind or the 10% change in strong UV radiation, could be a hidden cause of climate change both on earth and our sister planets.

    Anthropomorphic CO2 can't have caused these historic changes in climate to happen as it has only been around for 10o years or so and during the above period the level was stable. So at best CO2 and other green house gases can only be a weak drivers of climate and we must look elsewhere to find the real cause(s) of change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 5:54pm on 08 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @yeah_whatver

    and your response to the second part of Madman2001's post

    here's a reminder:

    What would convince me in AGW is a rise in global temperatures over the next decade.
    Let me ask you the same question: what would convince you that we are not in the throes of AGW? What if global temperatures remained steady over the next decade? What if global temperatures dropped over the next decade? If not a decade, how long??

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 6:09pm on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "What would convince me in AGW is a rise in global temperatures over the next decade."

    OK.

    From the hadley data that Jack used to "prove" it was cooling, the anomaly average for the last 10 years is:

    .404

    The anomaly average for the 10 years previous to that is

    .238

    Therefore this decade is warmer than the previous decade.

    I take it you both will now be convinced of AGW.


    You can check the data here:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 6:13pm on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Anthropomorphic CO2 can't have caused these historic changes in climate to happen as it has only been around for 10o years or so and during the above period the level was stable."

    OK.

    But how does that mean that the CO2 isn't responsible for the current changes where CO2 ISN'T stable and the temperature is going up likewise?

    "So at best CO2 and other green house gases can only be a weak drivers of climate and we must look elsewhere to find the real cause(s) of change."

    You haven't managed to prove that.

    There's been no other change big enough to make the change in temperature apart from anthropogenic sources of CO2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 6:14pm on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    After all, the death of 1/3 of Europe by the Bubonic Plague isn't proof that gins and bombs didn't kill thousands in the Iraq war.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 9:43pm on 08 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    gins probably DID kill a few.

    Guns did more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 10:25pm on 08 Jul 2009, Boring_username wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 60. At 10:54pm on 08 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    #53. "The sun seems have a strong effect on this cycle, as it is the only common forcing across the period."

    The main problem for those that propose that the sun is 'getting warmer' in some way explains warming in the past few decades is that the evidence doesnt support this. We're in a solar minimum at present, doesn't seem to be having much effect does it? Particularly when past ones have been linked with periods such as the Little Ice Age.

    There have been a number of studies looking at whether solar activity is responsible for global warming, including two major recent solar studies.
    One by the National Centre for Atmospheric Research et al (Sept. 06): "Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with todays rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing."
    http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2004/wigley.shtml
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm

    The other is by Heliophysics & the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics (Sept. 2006) that concluded: "Sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present."
    http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2006-9b/hl2006-9b-en.html
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html

    It is worth thinking of the charge made by some sceptics that scientists produce the results that will increase their funding. In that case the solar observatories would find it in their interest to produce results that pointed towards the sun being the main agent of change, after all they need funding too. But this isnt the case; over and over again they are ruling it out. Honest science.

    If you read books as well as blogs its worth looking up those below. Much more detailed information is available in books - often limited to academic audiences - than make it onto the web. (Try your library; there are also of course many more titles. I try and read as widely as possible.)

    a) Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach. W.J. Burroughs. (Chpt 8 is particularly good on past climate changes and causes.)
    b) Earth's Climate Past And Future. William F. Ruddiman.
    An account of known factors that have influenced climate change over earth's history.
    c) Ice, Mud and Blood by Chris Turney.
    A summary of key discoveries by scientists about past climate change going back deep in time and the implications for the present.
    d) Earth: The Power of the Planet by Iain Stewart & John Lynch.
    Book of the TV series. I include this as an accessible introduction to earth systems and Earth's history.
    f) An Ocean of Air: A Natural History of the Atmosphere by Gabrielle Walker.
    A history of some of the major discoveries about air, gasses and the atmosphere from Galileo to the present day together with explanation as to their importance for life on Earth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 02:52am on 09 Jul 2009, Boring_username wrote:

    Re: SheffTim

    And, on the pro-sun camp you have the recent paper by Jean-Louis Le Mouel et al entitled "Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe"

    The only link that I have is to a PDF so I can't link to it here - but try googling the paper for more info.

    And in further defence I would add that, if scientists had totally discounted the sunspot/cosmic ray theory by Svensmark then I doubt that Cern would be spending large amounts of its funding on the Cloud project.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 05:40am on 09 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever writes:

    "What would convince me in AGW is a rise in global temperatures over the next decade."

    OK.

    From the hadley data that Jack used to "prove" it was cooling, the anomaly average for the last 10 years is:

    .404

    The anomaly average for the 10 years previous to that is

    .238

    Therefore this decade is warmer than the previous decade.

    I take it you both will now be convinced of AGW.


    You can check the data here:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

    ----------end of yeah_whatever writes--------------------

    This is not the "raw data". Hadley refuses to release their actual temperature data. What this represents are "corrected values" for temperature - what corrections one might ask? Well - Hadley won't tell you how they "correct" their temperature data either....hmmmm

    Makes me somewhat skeptical of the "data".

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 09:25am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "This is not the "raw data". "

    It was good enough to say it was cooling when you used it.

    And since we don't have one giant thermometer covering the globe, it can't be raw.

    An if you say it is wrong and NOT a measure of global temperature (which makes people wonder why you use it to say "it's cooling!" then), prove it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 09:27am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " if scientists had totally discounted the sunspot/cosmic ray theory by Svensmark "

    Spending that money is a way to make CERTAIN that their conclusion is wrong.

    Svensmark doesn't check to see if his theory fits anything other than the data he has currently either. Whilst you accuse AGW to be merely curve fitting, why do you back a paper that is purely curve fitting for its proportionality constants?

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 10:04am on 09 Jul 2009, stillamused wrote:

    heh heh, I see that yeah-whatever has come up with the only defence to the missing heat content, which is what Hanson said when asked the same question ie "its in the pipeline". Ignoring the fact that physicists chuckled at that one, and the Argo's are not SSTs, lets expore the concept.
    Are we saying that the oceans can overturn the atmosphere heat store by acting as a regulator on huge timescales. 'Cos thats what it sounded like.
    And therefore, we are now talking about the oceans being the major player, with the ability to wipe out "30years of atmospheric induced re-radiation..."

    Isn't that what a lot of climate experts have said all along? Oceans rule, prob over long time spells from very very small sun variations, and act as a brake in either direction on sudden climate shifts.

    So anyway...it seems the 'heat is in the pipeline' now. Its not a failed theory. Its just hiding. Prob just be pinin' for the fjords...

    Wonder how long it will hide for?

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 10:32am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Seems like Larry doesn't like being contradicted and put my post to the moderators.

    Maybe he can say what he found objectionable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 10:33am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "First, let me address your assertion that I sit in a car with the engine running in a garage - supposedly because I don't consider CO2 a "pollutant"."

    Yes.

    If it isn't a pollutant, you should have no problem with it (note for Boring: watch Appolo 13. They weren't concerned about Carbon Monoxide poisoning...).

    If you DO have a problem, then it is a pollutant.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 10:33am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "So that means that you have exactly 1 datapoint to look at. 30 years of satallite data."

    To determine climate trend, yes.

    Why was "biting necessary"? Do you have a problem reading?

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 10:34am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "You have no real way to consider this datapoint with billions of years of climate change with any real accuracy. "

    Why billions of years? We weren't there for most of them and since civilisation began, we only have a few score thousand years to deal with.

    What is your point? will you ever get to it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 10:34am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "How much is "natural trend"?"

    Look at those natural forcings changes. Milankovich cycles, for one. Over the period of 100 years or so, nil. Sunlight changes: nil. PDO: nil over 100 years. Sunspot changes: 0.1% maximum 11 year cycle. You can get all these figures more accurately by comparing the change of temperature with the change in the element you consider creating a forcing.

    This is basic research verification. I thought you said you'd "done research" for 30 years?

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 10:35am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "How much is "induced by man"? "

    about 76%, maybe as much as 87%. Again you map the graph against the change in CO2 and see how well the variations in the temperature graph are replicated in the CO2 graph.

    Basic research methodology.

    I thought you said you'd "done research".

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 10:35am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "how much is CO2 emissions?"

    Ask the oil producers, gas production and coal production how much they dig up. Convert that to CO2 and you have your figure.

    Why did this seem to be necessarily hard to get for you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 10:35am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "There are so many man made climate forcings, why is the focus directed solely at CO2 emissions?"

    They are expressed in CO2 equivalents. But they ARE modelled separately. this would have been patently obvious if you'd read the papers on what was being done, rather than read the blogs that say it's all bunk.

    You know, the ***skeptical*** approach.

    And CO2 itself is the biggest one because it accumulates: methane decomposes to CO2, but CO2 has much longer residency times.

    Again, in any of the literature you would have found this out. Even the IPCC reports freely available would have done so.

    Your ignorance on this proves you have done no reading of at least one side of the discussion.

    Hardly a skeptical process...

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 10:36am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Didn't say CO2 doesn't matter...just that it is not a "one issue" world."

    It's the denialists who insist on a one-issue world. Or, at best, an "any issue but one" world.

    The research isn't. The IPCC report contains a chapter on attribution. If the IPCC was a one-issue believer, why attribute? It would just say "CO2 is the only cause".

    Then again, you didn't read it, did you. Just one side. The denialist one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 10:36am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "...20 million acres of forest...Also, a giant carbon sink."

    And this disproves AGW how?

    Are you trying "I'm looking at the ***big picture*** here" card?

    The IPCC reports and the climate models that show AGW is the biggest problem and CO2 production by man the biggest element from that do so too. You'd know if you'd read up on it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 10:37am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Rainfall patters would also likely be affected over a wide area."

    And would be too if there's a general warming of the world too.

    Still doesn't say AGW is wrong or even the lesser. And the IPCC and research papers are modelling this too, even for deforestation. Which you'd know if you'd read the works instead of the blogs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 10:37am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "The whole point: why does everyone think its all "CO2 emissions" and "CACC"?"

    Why do you think that everyone thinks that who is for action on AGW? Just so you can wibble about how the rainforests are being done up like a kipper?

    The effects of deforestation IS BEING MODELLED. And, unlike you, the climate scientists are doing the sums. And it's still human CO2 and the reduction of CO2 by reducing oil use is the biggest win.

    Have you done the sums, or just waved your hands about?

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 10:37am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Do we spend our money on things we can actually do? Or do we spend our money to "make a point"? "

    How about NOT spending money on oil? How about spending it on what we can do: move to renewables. They're cheaper than nuclear and close to oil/gas powered stations and coal has huge externalities that aren't being paid for, which would make them more expensive than nuclear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 10:38am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "But isn't that exactly what we are doing with the "one issue" world ?"

    We? Talk for yourself, kimosabe.

    The IPCC isn't running a one-issue-world. And their advice, if you ever read it, isn't a one-issue world advice. And the conclusion of that advice is that the easiest, cheapest and mose effective way of reducing the problems you say you are so concerned about can be addressed by cutting back on fossil fuel use and reducing per-capita CO2 production.

    But then again, you'd know that if you read anything other than the denialist creed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 10:39am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Boring writes
    "And, on the pro-sun camp you have the recent paper by Jean-Louis Le Mouel et al entitled "Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe""

    And did you know that the IPCC attribution chapter goes into how much of the increase in temperature is due to the Sun?

    They didn't ignore it. they've worked on it. They too see a signal.

    Yet you pronounce this paper as if it somehow undermines the IPCC work.

    Like Larry, you do not seem to have read the IPCC work.

    What is it you're skpetical OF, if you haven't read the work???

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 10:42am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    There we go, all the elements in the post that Larry disagreed to posted, but teased out so that we can narrow down on what Larry doesn't like.

    As far as I can see, the only ones with any *possible* complaint for is the use of "wibble" and Larry uses "rant" to dismiss my counters without thinking about them, which is just as objectionable, so if that's the problem, we'll be seeing a few of Larry's posts disappear too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 11:22am on 09 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    # 61 For what it's worth I do think the sun has some small influence on world climate, most probably by altering the amount of warmth received by the oceans. [The ocean/atmosphere interactions are one of the most important factor in short term climate variability. Milankovitch cycles are important on a longer timescale.] (However like most solar hypothesise that is speculative.)
    The problem is that though many hypothesis have been put forward over the centuries (not least over numbers of sun spots having x or y effect etc) no-one has convincingly demonstrated firm linkage and verifiable mechanisms discovered. Many such hypothesise have withered and died over the past few centuries. Often evidence appears to be found on an individual area level but is nowhere to be seen elsewhere, on a global scale or consistently through time.
    The solar observatories think only up to 30% of 20th century warming at most could be explained by solar radiation, and that's with generous leeway.

    The cosmic ray hypothesis I think over-rated. Sevenmark himself only claims up to a 3% change in cloud cover (at most) due to cosmic rays; that's going to make a tiny difference to climate. Other researchers have detected no such linkage.
    http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/04/sunset-on-cosmic-rays-theory.html

    Cern's interest is about interaction of cosmic rays with atomic particles (gas molecules and atoms) in the upper atmosphere so as to understand it better. One by product of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, for example, is the creation of C14, later used in radiometric dating.
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-141.htm

    PS Yeah Whatever. Rather than posting over and over as the next thought strikes you, chill a bit. Type, then have a cuppa and see if you want to add something before you post. You can respond to several points in one post.
    I copy and paste from a text editor, you don't have to type directly into the comments box.
    Multiple posts are less likely to be read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 11:41am on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "So anyway...it seems the 'heat is in the pipeline' now."

    No, it's in the ocean.

    Where did you think it went? To Disney Florida for a holiday?

    The heating in the pipeline is the heat that the sytem is out of balance for.

    When you turn the electric hob on, it warms. It doesn't get to operating temperature immediately. That thermal inertia means the system is out of balance. And so there is still some "settling of contents" to go.

    You seem to be amused all the time.

    Ever thought of being educated?

    Because your lack of grasp of physics is appalling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 12:40pm on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "What is the current temperature anomaly according to UAH (one of the accurate satellite measures)? 0.001 degree. So it is 0.001 degree hotter now than "average". Help save us from this global warming! (Info available here"

    Another uneducated statement from someone who doesn't understand statistics.

    What is the trend, boring?

    One number does not a trend make, just as one swallow does not make a summer.

    But you peddle your lies as you like. You'll just make a fool of yourself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 12:45pm on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Seems like the denialists have had to change their arguments.

    AGAIN.

    "Makes me smile the way that supporters of the AGW theory are defending the current loss of warming trend we've had since the start of the new millennium."

    Ah, so it's a loss of warming trend now, not "It's cooling!" of such recent fame here on the blog.

    But again, no statistical proof of the presumption.

    It's like throwing a dice and getting 3, throwing it again and getting 6 and then saying "this PROVES that the die is loaded!!!".

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 12:54pm on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And MagoChutney in #12 links to the partisan and unscientific wattsupwithtat site yet again.

    That site is run to disprove AGW by any means whatsoever. The authors post information that is not backed up, hide their raw data and are set up solely to create confusion and uncertainty and doubt on the science done by the IPCC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 12:56pm on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "PS Yeah Whatever. Rather than posting over and over as the next thought strikes you, chill a bit."

    I posted that all in one go.

    Someone didn't like something there, but the ENTIRE post got nuked.

    So I put the sections there separately therefore if Larry doesn't like "wibble" as the description, the other answers which don't use that word will remain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 12:58pm on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "# 61 For what it's worth I do think the sun has some small influence on world climate"

    The IPCC do so too.

    But at the BEST tweaking to make the sun a primary source gives it no more than about 30% of the effect needed.

    If the denialists read the IPCC WG4 report and the attribution chapter therein, they would have seen that the IPCC too think that the sun has an effect on the climate.

    The insistence on wording that makes out that the IPCC doesn't do this is known as building a strawman: make up an argument for the other side that is wrong and then prove it wrong. And hope like heck nobody notices that the other side never argued that...

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 2:52pm on 09 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    yeah_whatver: refering to Hadley data

    "It was good enough to say it was cooling when you used it."

    You have me confused with Jack or someone else - I did not site a link to Hadley.

    As to whether or not I am a "neocon" - and my request for your definition....

    First - It is Larry or Kealey or LarryKealey any of which will do, not Laz, not Lar, not kimosabe - which I personally find offensive.

    Using google, one can find a number of definitions for "neocon" - in fact it, is a registered trademark for a trade show. I must guess that you mean "Neoconserative" - for which there are a also number of definitions. As you refuse to provide a definition, I shall select one:

    The most widely accepted definition I could find was those intellectuals in the 70's who switched from liberalism to conservatism. If that is the definition you would use - then no, I am not a neocon. I was a conservative in the 70s (no conversion required). While my mother was more liberal in her views, we took a "political test" in 7th grade, which indicated me to be "conservative". I also do not support many of the supposed ideologies of neoconservatives (such as big government, etc). Also note, politically, I am an independent.

    I also find it interesting that you would consider me an intellectual - while most of the people I know, do consider me to be just that - based upon your rantings and ravings and insults, I would hardly expect that from you.

    Cheers.

    PS - argue with me all you want, but anymore "name calling", "racial slurs", "personal attacks" and the like will only result in my putting you on permanent ignore...period.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 3:44pm on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    ""It was good enough to say it was cooling when you used it."

    You have me confused with Jack or someone else - I did not site a link to Hadley."


    Jack said it proved cooling.

    You kept quiet even after he'd shown his data and his source. Which is accepting it.

    Now, have you ANY PROOF that the Hadley data is manipulated to fake a warming signal?

    ANYTHING?

    Or are you assuming that it is because it doesn't show a cooling, which you KNOW (without being able to say why) that there is no AGW and therefore the data must be wrong.

    You have no clue at all what is going on and your zealous insistence that if reality isn't agreeing with you, then it is REALITY which is wrong show just how little education you exhibit.

    The pine forests are being moved to colder areas.
    The ice caps are reducing in volume.
    The vast majority of glaciers are shrinking.
    The temperature records show warming.

    And you DENY ALL OF IT.

    "The pine forests are being moved for bad reasons".
    "The ice cap extent in winter isn't shrinking"
    "There are glaciers that are growing"
    "The data is falsified"

    No attempt to check if your preconception is right.

    Just blind obedience to your religious dogma that AGW isn't happening.

    Thousands of papers say it is happening.

    "There's a few papers that say it isn't".

    Denial, denial, denial.

    Do you have any data that shows you are right?

    Is it raw?

    Is it consistent?

    Does it even show what you say it does?

    So far all you have is "The data is wrong" when it doesn't show cooling. "Models don't work" with no proofs. "I don't understand climate therefore nobody else does" is your level of "proof".

    Credulous rhetoric. No science, no thought, no proof.

    But still you spout the same tired old lies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 4:00pm on 09 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    PS - argue with me all you want, but anymore "name calling", "racial slurs", "personal attacks" and the like will only result in my putting you on permanent ignore...period.

    So pray tell, larry, what you mean when you say of the hadley centre data that they say is an accurate figure for global temperatures:

    "What this represents are "corrected values" for temperature - what corrections one might ask? Well - Hadley won't tell you how they "correct" their temperature data either....hmmmm"

    What does the "hmmm" mean?

    Are you saying categorically that the hadley centre says is an accurate figure for the global temperature is deliberately manipulated to falsify a result?

    And this really makes no sense (which is quite common for you, Laz):


    "Hadley refuses to release their actual temperature data. "

    Uh, that IS their data.

    Look at the site.

    Hadley Centre.

    Contains data.

    Their data.

    Of temperatures.

    So how can it not be their temperature data?

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 4:19pm on 10 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    It looks like the "skeptical" position of AGW is dead.

    The "skeptic" said that they would accept AGW if the decade was warmer than last.

    This is the case, even though the last 10 years have been touted as "cooling".

    Despite this proof, being the proof asked to get them to drop their "skepticism", they still deny AGW.

    Therefore proof that they are not skeptical. They deny AGW.

    A denialist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 04:06am on 11 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever (forever now known as ewe) writes:

    "It looks like the "skeptical" position of AGW is dead."

    I find my self agreeing completely - as AGW is DEAD - there can "no longer" be a "skeptical" position.

    Cheers!

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 11:27am on 11 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I find my self agreeing completely - as AGW is DEAD - there can "no longer" be a "skeptical" position."

    And your proof of this is WHAT?

    And I notice though you had time to read the posts and make up your own irrelevant tosh, you didn't answer the question:

    Are you saying that the Hadley Centre data is falsified?

    If not, then you have no reason to discount it and the last 10 years instead of being "cooling" is showing a 0.17C increase per decade, as predicted by models in the 1990's.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 12:13pm on 11 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 96. At 10:05am on 12 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    hopefully this won't get removed.

    could the mods please explain which part of my previous post contained:

    likely to provoke, attack or offend others; are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable; are considered to have been posted with an intention to disrupt; contain swear words (including abbreviations or alternative spellings) or other language likely to offend

    as this is the reason the post was removed and it did not contain any of the above, i think an expanation is due

    thank you

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 10:39am on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Stop whinging Chutney.

    Try writing it again like I do and leave out the hysterics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 10:48am on 12 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    how do i rewrite something that does not contain any of the reasons listed above?

    please share your wisdom

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 10:57am on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    You managed just then and you've managed before. I've managed.

    Is your script-writer off sick today?

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 10:59am on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    As an example, I've stopped calling people individually "loon".

    Even though that nomenclature had been given with proof of it's validity, this caused the post to be removed.

    So I just put the reason why they are a loon and let the obviousness of this statement talk for itself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 11:25am on 12 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    if i have a post rejected because it contains the reasons list in #96, but the post doesn't contain any, how do i rewrite so it doesn't contain the offending words?

    on another note and back on topic:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701102900.htm

    tells us that sea ice levels are the lowest in 800 years. More proof that temperatures are not unprecedented in 1000 years. Perhaps alarmists should now concede the point, but i doubt they will.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 1:57pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    You did, else it wouldn't have been rejected.


    "tells us that sea ice levels are the lowest in 800 years"

    Uhm sea ice levels aren't temperature. It's no proof.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 2:14pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Lie, lie, lie, lie by omission. Hardly a new thing for the denialist, mind.

    " Sea Ice At Lowest Level In 800 Years Near Greenland"

    Global temperature != Ice levels near Greenland.

    Heck, Northern hemisphere temperature != Ice levels near Greenland.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 2:15pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And from the content itself

    "New research, which reconstructs the extent of ice in the sea between Greenland and Svalbard from the 13th century to the present indicates that there has never been so little sea ice as there is now."

    Yet Chutney wants to turn that into "Ice near Greenland HAS been less in the past!" and then ALSO hopes that you'll believe that global or northern hemisphere temperatures are the same as ice levels near Greenland...

    How incredibly pathetic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 2:18pm on 12 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Uhm sea ice levels aren't temperature. It's no proof.

    so why do alarmists bang on about sea ice if it proves nothing?

    there is no proof that will satisfy a dedicated alarmist such as yourself and yet you offer no proof other than correlation! ha!

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 2:33pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " yet you offer no proof other than correlation!"

    Incorrect.

    It STARTED with Arrhenius/Tyndal saying "CO2 seems to repress the transmission of heat radiation. Since this is a result of burning hydrocarbons, our burning of said hydrocarbons should result in some increase in global temperatures".

    It STARTED with the Physics.

    The measurements correlate with the physics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 2:35pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    PS where do I make any alarmist prediction?

    I call you a denialist but show where this assertion comes from.

    You bandy about alarmist but that fits just as well to your denialist friend Jack who says that mitigation will ruin our economy.

    THAT is an alarmist statement.

    Yet you are strangely immune to seeing it.

    Which is another point proving you are a denialist. You don't have a theory to explain things, you just deny one explanation for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 6:14pm on 12 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    nobody is questioning the physics, of course CO2 in the atmosphere causes some warming, thank goodness! Beyond that, you only have correlation, despite any warming that CO2 causes is less and less warming and the 800 year lag

    #107

    nobody said YOU made any predictions. Where did you read that or are you just mis-reading as usual?

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 7:00pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " the 800 year lag"

    I've explained that one many times.


    1. It doesn't stop CO2 causing temperature rises
    2. PETM shows that it will quite happily cause temperature rises all on its own
    3. The ocean's hold on CO2 dissolved reduces with temperature. But the temperature of the ocean is mostly unaffected by the atmosphere or the sun. Overturning of water through the thermohaline boundary is what's needed and that means that this extra CO2 which creates its own heat above and beyond that of the insolation changes do (and does so AFTER they have happened) takes something on the order of 800 years


    "nobody said YOU made any predictions."

    YOU did:
    "a dedicated alarmist such as yourself "

    Or is it that not even you read your own drivel?

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 7:08pm on 12 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and what is your definition of "significant"? answer properly and stop dodging the question

    ice cores suggest otherwise as you are aware or should be

    notice the paragraph between the 2 statements? as usual you show a correlation that simply isn't there. I question your comprehension skills

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 7:27pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    What was yours?

    Significant change in the concentration of CO2.

    Significant change in the optical depth of the medium.

    Significant change in the strength of absorption at lower strength bands (see the graph above, I thought you'd seen that sort of thing...?).

    Significant broadening of the absorption bands at the wings of the absorption.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 7:38pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    I've answered plenty of your questions.

    Answer some of mine, Dodger.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 7:50pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    It may be worth a recap of Chutney's mistakes going unmarked and forgotten by the owner of said remark.

    1) the 800 year lag
    2) Spencer's data proves no AGW even though it's from data that does support AGW
    3) "I never said you made predictions" though that's what "alarmist" means
    4) Ice near greenland == world temperatures
    5) an 800 year record maximum means that it was warmer before records started
    6) "you only offer correlation" when Arrhenius and Tyndal did the science first
    7) "nobody is questioning the physics," unless that physics is that the increase from 280ppm to 380ppm is significant...
    8) "as AGW is DEAD " but no proof of it (see #2 for one example)
    9) "I never read your posts" in response to a post from me who he never reads post of asking "why didn't you answer?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 8:30pm on 12 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    10)

    And Chutney in another thread: "You are implying climate audit receives financial support from energy companies. Clearly this is not the case. "

    Yet McIntyre who runs the site is a special adviser to an energy company...

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 04:40am on 14 Jul 2009, joelshore wrote:

    Shanta - Nice post but I think you have one small error. You say, "Oh yes and there'll probably be [a cold snap] in 2016-2031, if the study's models are correct." This is not a correct interpretation of what the paper says. They do find that for the particular realization of the particular model that they ran, the 2016 to 2031 period shows a negative trend. However, what this shows is how periods of this length that have a negative trend can occur in a warming climate, but these particular dates are not significant. If they had looked at a different realization of the model, then they would have likely found similar periods of negative trend but over different dates.

    In other words, the little up's and down's in the temperature trend represent climate "noise" that is very sensitive to the initial conditions that you start the model with...And with different starting points, you thus get different wiggles. But, the statistical properties of the wiggles...and not the particular wiggles themselves...is what is of interest.

    A good analogy would be if I flipped a coin 1000 times and found a run 9 heads in the 456th thru 464th flips. What we could conclude from that is that when one flips a coin 1000 times, such a long run of heads is not unlikely and thus if you flipped a coin 1000 times, you would expect to see a run of similar length. However, we would not predict specifically that this run would for the 456th thru 464th flips when you flipped the coin!

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.